Leak at Sellafield nuclear power plant

[032Devil]

A nuclear reprocessing plant at Sellafield (northern England), has closed after a radioactive leak today.

The Thorp reprocessing plant - one of two plants on the Cumbrian site - was forced to shut after a split pipe leaked enough contaminated liquid to fill a large swimming pool.

The spill of a highly dangerous mix of nuclear fuel dissolved in concentrated nitric acid into a huge stainless steel chamber is not a danger to the public.

Last week PM Blair annouced a major building plans of several new power stations. With some of the older one's due to close the British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL), want atleast 10 more built.

The point is this time we in Britain, have been lucky. It seems that governments are not affraid of nuclear power and continue to live in denial of it's potential dangers and damage.

How long before another Chernobyl happens?

And why are Western governments not persuing save energy?

 

[nickm]

Thorp is not a power station, it is a recycling plant. It is sent spent fuel and other radioactive gubbins from around the world, and turns that into fuel that can be put back into reactors. Since it is not a reactor itself, there was no danger of a Chernobyl style meltdown event there.

I used to be against nuclear power until I realised it is the only practical way of generating the volume of energy we'll need if we are to reduce fossil fuel use.

I think we are going to have to build new stations.

 

[AhmedDimwitson]

.

I used to be against nuclear power until I realised it is the only practical way of generating the volume of energy we'll need if we are to reduce fossil fuel use.

I think we are going to have to build new stations.

I agree with this. The use of fossil fuel isn't good, and when they bend up rivers and build power plants or wind mills you do a lot of harm and you get a fraction of the power you get from a nuclear plant. Solar power is inefficient as well, so there aren't any good alternatives.

 

[Kristjan]

Sellafield should be closed, the sooner the better

 

[mathiaslg]

I used to be against nuclear power until I realised it is the only practical way of generating the volume of energy we'll need if we are to reduce fossil fuel use.

I think we are going to have to build new stations.

Quite right, or at least we will need it until other forms of energy production prove to be more efficient.

 

[nickm]

Sellafield should be closed, the sooner the better

The profits from Sellafield is what is paying for the clean-up of all those old, decommissioned nuke stations.

 

[nickm]

Quite right, or at least we will need it until other forms of energy production prove to be more efficient.

There are some new, modern designs that seem to be intrinsically safer than earlier generation nuke technology.

But I just cannot see how energy efficiency, solar and wind power is going to meet increased demand in a future oil-less world. I am sure they'll be part of the mix though.

Until someone cracks fusion, we're stuck with what we have.

 

[Plechazunga]

So there's a nuclear leak?

Fecking bonzer...

 

[Looking Busy]

A nuclear reprocessing plant at Sellafield (northern England), has closed after a radioactive leak today.

The Thorp reprocessing plant - one of two plants on the Cumbrian site - was forced to shut after a split pipe leaked enough contaminated liquid to fill a large swimming pool.

The spill of a highly dangerous mix of nuclear fuel dissolved in concentrated nitric acid into a huge stainless steel chamber is not a danger to the public.

Last week PM Blair annouced a major building plans of several new power stations. With some of the older one's due to close the British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL), want atleast 10 more built.

The point is this time we in Britain, have been lucky. It seems that governments are not affraid of nuclear power and continue to live in denial of it's potential dangers and damage.

How long before another Chernobyl happens?

And why are Western governments not persuing save energy?

Okay, here's what actually happened rather than what the papers say.

The leak happened due to a split in a pipe, it leaked into the steal container that surrounds the pipe. It didn't leak enough to fill a swimming pool far from it. and no one was at anytime in danger. In fact BNFL actually did a calculation and they proved there was no risk and safety experts actually thought their calculations were conservative.

 

[mathiaslg]

There are some new, modern designs that seem to be intrinsically safer than earlier generation nuke technology.

But I just cannot see how energy efficiency, solar and wind power is going to meet increased demand in a future oil-less world. I am sure they'll be part of the mix though.

At the present, solar and wind sources just don't generate enough energy for our growing needs. As such, I also prefer a shift to more nuclear power plants as a substitute for fossil fuels. You should also be happy to know that the neo-cons are in agreement with both of us

 

[032Devil]

Okay, here's what actually happened rather than what the papers say.

The leak happened due to a split in a pipe, it leaked into the steal container that surrounds the pipe. It didn't leak enough to fill a swimming pool far from it. and no one was at anytime in danger. In fact BNFL actually did a calculation and they proved there was no risk and safety experts actually thought their calculations were conservative.

My 'facts' were taken from the Guardian. Whether the amount leaked is half a swimming pool's worth or more is irrelevant.

The question is not one of degree. Just because this inccident was small it doesn't mean future one will not be bigger, more catastrophic.

I remember reading at the time of Chernobyl that experts calculated that accidents/leakages/radioactive contamination of the environment would only happen about once every million years or so. This is clearily not true.

The truth is nuclear incidents are in fact quite frequent. To ask 'how long before another Chernobyl or worse' will happen are question well worth confronting.

Nuclear technology has improved. It now clearer and safer than ever before. But a major accident would still have catastrophic affect.

The fact that government find nuclear technology as the cheap solution to immediate power supply demands is ignoring the real issue: we need to develop/exploit alternative energies which are safe both for the environment and it's inhabitatants.

 

[nickm]

The fact that government find nuclear technology as the cheap solution to immediate power supply demands is ignoring the real issue: we need to develop/exploit alternative energies which are safe both for the environment and it's inhabitatants.

The problem is, there are *no current alternatives* that do the things you want and can supply projected energy demand.

I'm no particular enthusiast of all things nuclear, but wind power and tidal just won't generate us enough power. Fusion is 50 years away (and has been for over 50 years), and won't be cheap. Solar's fine if you live in Australia, hopeless for us in Blighty. Geothermal - ditto if you're Icelandic.

Tell me, just *what* is your alternative? Nuclear is the only method at least in principle able to replace oil, gas and coal.

 

[nickm]

The truth is nuclear incidents are in fact quite frequent. To ask 'how long before another Chernobyl or worse' will happen are question well worth confronting.

There are reactor designs that cannot melt-down at all, the pebble-bed reactor being one. They have other risks associated with them, but meltdown isn't one of them.

 

[Kristjan]

The profits from Sellafield is what is paying for the clean-up of all those old, decommissioned nuke stations.

and if/when an accident happens and radioactive material goes into the sea?
Even if the contamination would be small and to a limited area the reputation of the fisheries in the northern Atlantic would be doomed and our economy would be in shambles

 

[nickm]

and if/when an accident happens and radioactive material goes into the sea?
Even if the contamination would be small and to a limited area the reputation of the fisheries in the northern Atlantic would be doomed and our economy would be in shambles

What happens if/when use of fossil fuels causes the gulf stream to switch off (http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/05/10/gulfstream/index.html) and Britain's climate becomes siberian? You think our economy won't be in a shambles then eh?

You have to trade your risks, and I think the risk of an occasional nuclear accident is an OK trade next to the certainty of global ecological devestation.

 

[Kristjan]

What happens if/when use of fossil fuels causes the gulf stream to switch off (http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/05/10/gulfstream/index.html) and Britain's climate becomes siberian? You think our economy won't be in a shambles then eh?

You have to trade your risks, and I think the risk of an occasional nuclear accident is an OK trade next to the certainty of global ecological devestation.

I'm not English so your nuclear projects don't have direct benefits for me but your disasters in it might do. And having a nuclear recycling plant near the sea just isn't a good idea

 

[Stamford Bridge]

The question is not one of degree. Just because this inccident was small it doesn't mean future one will not be bigger, more catastrophic.

Well, feck me, what kind of warped reasoning is that?

Lets just ban cars, because you never know, you might be run over by one one day.

It was precisely because the leak was detected and dealt with that the incident was small.

 

[Re_Deus]

and if/when an accident happens and radioactive material goes into the sea?
Even if the contamination would be small and to a limited area the reputation of the fisheries in the northern Atlantic would be doomed and our economy would be in shambles

Don't expect us to shed any tears for your fish theiving fishermen.

As it goes, Sellafield is as safe as it possibly can be and there is aboslutely no chance of a Chernobyl type disaster.

 

[AhmedDimwitson]

Don't expect us to shed any tears for your fish theiving fishermen.

.

 

[Diego Forlans Headband]

As an Irish man (currently living away), i think the British government are being wholly irresponsible with Sellafield power plant. Its helped made the Irish sea the most radioactive in the world and add to this the fact that should any accident happen at the plant (god forbid), it would not only damage british people (who actually use the its power output) but Irish people as well! Personally i think its a disgrace!

 

[nickm]

As an Irish man (currently living away), i think the British government are being wholly irresponsible with Sellafield power plant. Its helped made the Irish sea the most radioactive in the world and add to this the fact that should any accident happen at the plant (god forbid), it would not only damage british people (who actually use the its power output) but Irish people as well! Personally i think its a disgrace!

'No health risk' from radioactive waste

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/595021.stm

 

[nav113]

Look, if you piled all the radioactive waste thats created from British power plants into heap, it'd be pretty inconspicuous. Dont know the exactities. Yes, Chenobyl was bad, but so too was the Valdez disaster. Fact is Nucleur power is the cleanest most efficient way of creating power in this country and if that means accepting some risk, so be it. Pumping x-amount of CO2 into the air is far more damaging to us in the longer term. People who fight the cause for groups like Greenpeace exaggerate the bad and brush over the good. Agreeing with them is a denial of the lifestyle you or I live.