questionmark Posted October 4, 2012 #1 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Europe's nuclear reactors need investments of between €10 billion and €25bn to bring them up to optimal safety standards, a final report on nuclear sites in Europe to be published by the European Commission today (4 October) is expected to conclude. The ‘stress tests' of Europe's nuclear facilities were carried out in response to the nuclear accident in Fukushima, Japan 18 months ago. They were meant to test whether Europe's facilities could cope with natural and man-made disasters. The latest draft of the report does not say that any nuclear reactor in Europe is too unsafe to operate. But it identifies concerns across Europe, including a lack of seismic measuring instruments, insufficient safety and rescue equipment, and inadequate emergency plans. The largest number of concerns was found in France. Read more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 4, 2012 #2 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Now theres a surprise. To cheap to meter Br Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted October 4, 2012 #3 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Ah, more material for the Luddites. heavens, nothing at all can be absolutely guaranteed to be absolutely 100% safe against any conceivable eventuality, and it'd be a very foolish person who did claim that anything was. Classic piece of scaremongering. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professor Buzzkill Posted October 4, 2012 #4 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Ah, more material for the Luddites. heavens, nothing at all can be absolutely guaranteed to be absolutely 100% safe against any conceivable eventuality, and it'd be a very foolish person who did claim that anything was. Classic piece of scaremongering. But the difference between conventional power plants failing (like hydro/thermal or coal fired) and a nuclear power plant meltdown is a couple of thousand years of clean up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 4, 2012 #5 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Ah, more material for the Luddites. heavens, nothing at all can be absolutely guaranteed to be absolutely 100% safe against any conceivable eventuality, and it'd be a very foolish person who did claim that anything was. Classic piece of scaremongering. Risk consists of two elements; -the likelihood of an event -the consequences of an event No matter how small the first is, it cannot outweight the consequences of it happening. Remember that the number of serious accidents which have occurred within the Nuclear industry are in line with the statistical predictions made at the start of the Nuclear age. Thats right an event like Fukishima was inevitable from the start. I would ask you to go to Japan and actually ask some of the millions of people who will be effected - whether they consider those odds worth it. Br Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted October 4, 2012 Author #6 Share Posted October 4, 2012 what makes me wonder about this is that German media has been reporting this since yesterday, sometimes even with very detailed reports, the rest of Europe is strangely silent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithisco Posted October 4, 2012 #7 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Risk Evaluation, and corresponding Safety Management Systems should be sufficient to determine that building a Nuclear Reactor for the provision of electrical energy, should not be entertained in known areas of Seismic disturbance... There is no inherent danger from building Nuclear Reactor Generators in seismically stable areas (assuming the Codes are adhered to) to consider them to be dangerous. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithisco Posted October 4, 2012 #8 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Risk consists of two elements; -the likelihood of an event -the consequences of an event No matter how small the first is, it cannot outweight the consequences of it happening. Remember that the number of serious accidents which have occurred within the Nuclear industry are in line with the statistical predictions made at the start of the Nuclear age. Thats right an event like Fukishima was inevitable from the start. I would ask you to go to Japan and actually ask some of the millions of people who will be effected - whether they consider those odds worth it. Br Cornelius Whilst correct at a basic level, when the analysis is done you then have to attribute Barriers and Mitigation. Barriers to prevent the Hazard, and mitigation to prevent the hazard becoming an Outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 4, 2012 #9 Share Posted October 4, 2012 (edited) Whilst correct at a basic level, when the analysis is done you then have to attribute Barriers and Mitigation. Barriers to prevent the Hazard, and mitigation to prevent the hazard becoming an Outcome. The nature of risk is such that there is always an inherent uncertainty to any system. Fuskishima did not fail because of failures of its systems - it failed because they failed to anticipate an event such a tidal wave of such magnitude. At a certain level mitigation's are never enough. The Nuclear industry is intrinsically one of the safest industries possible - but the predictions of accidents are based upon this unknown or unanticipated risk. As such the events which have happened over the last 50yrs or so, are predicted by the initial risk assessments and their assumptions of what can and cannot be known in advance. Br Cornelius Edited October 4, 2012 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithisco Posted October 5, 2012 #10 Share Posted October 5, 2012 I agree... there is always residual risk no matter how good the Safety Case and System in place. However, there was clearly one or more risks unaddressed in the Catastrophic category that someone had determined to be as low as reasonably practicable. (ALARP) erroneously. It is probable that the Authorities assessed the barriers to be so robust as to reduce the Risk to Extremely Remote or Extremely Improbable, which in a seismically active region simply cannot be achieved in the field of Nuclear Energy Production with Fusion Reactors. Someone took their eye -off - the - ball, in this incident the same with 3 Mile Island, and Chernobyl. It is likely that Political pressure was applied in Fukishima because Japan was desperate for Energy. It remains inexcusable for anyone , or any commercial / political entity to put pressure on the compilers of a Safety Case to "massage" the results of a Functional Failure Analysis to meet external aims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevewinn Posted October 5, 2012 #11 Share Posted October 5, 2012 what makes me wonder about this is that German media has been reporting this since yesterday, sometimes even with very detailed reports, the rest of Europe is strangely silent. you know very well why the rest are silent and the germans are reporting it. the fact that wouldn't have escaped your mind but wanted someone else to write it, - so i will, German is to close all their nuclear power stations by 2020. where the rest of europe are to continue with nuclear power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now