Post by Ex_Nuke_Troop on Apr 13, 2014 21:41:55 GMT
New Scientist : Fukushima's dirty inheritance
09 March 2012
Magazine issue 2855. Subscribe and save
For similar stories, visit the Editorials Topic Guide
A YEAR on, the world is still feeling the effects of the earthquake and tsunami that devastated eastern Japan. The dual catastrophe is estimated to have killed almost 20,000 people. Yet it is the consequences of the subsequent partial meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, which has so far killed no one, that have reached furthest.
Of most immediate relevance are the lessons we have learned - or rather, had reiterated - about how to make nuclear plants safer. Fukushima Daiichi was plunged into crisis because its design included a "single point of failure" - in this case, an inadequate sea wall that allowed the tsunami to knock out multiple critical systems (see "Fukushima's fate inspires nuclear safety rethink" and "Can diverse power backups boost nuclear plant safety?"). More attention will have to be paid to such local risk factors when designing future plants or upgrading existing ones.
A broader concern is Germany's decision to order the phased closure of its reactor network, which it took in answer to rising public concern after Fukushima. It is also looking increasingly likely that most of Japan's reactors will not resume production.
These shutdowns will add to a problem that has been growing, largely ignored, for years: the decommissioning of unwanted or obsolete reactors. The world's 400-plus power reactors are now 27 years old, on average. Dozens are reaching the end of their lives, and at some point they must be dismantled and their contents made safe.
This is expensive, time-consuming work that involves the disposal of vast amounts of radioactive concrete, steel and much else. Although these materials are not as "hot" as the spent fuel, which must also be disposed of, the sheer quantities involved are daunting.
There is a growing backlog of defunct reactors waiting to be decommissioned. But even the world's biggest nuclear powers, such as the US, do not yet have the trained staff or institutional skills needed to manage the Herculean task of cleaning up all these stations (see "Resilient reactors: Nuclear built to last centuries").
One pragmatic response is to postpone decommissioning, perhaps for decades, on the basis that radioactive decay will eventually reduce the scale of the task. The UK alone has more than 20 nuclear hulks in what is euphemistically termed "care and maintenance". That may be sensible: cleaner waste means less risk for the clean-up crew. But we have no right to simply foist this problem on future generations, who will be ill-equipped to address it if we do not start amassing the necessary expertise and infrastructure now.
A forum recently established by the International Atomic Energy Agency should encourage the sharing of knowledge about decommissioning. To be truly effective, this must include the kind of nitty-gritty information that contractors might otherwise regard as commercially confidential. And it is essential that it includes the most taboo subject of all - what happens when things go wrong.
If the industry does not demonstrate its willingness to clean up its past messes, public concern may force more countries to rethink their stances on nuclear power, which has big implications for climate change (see "Japan's refusenik farmers tackle nuclear waste"). That is why decommissioning has to be done now - and done right.
www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328552.100-fukushimas-dirty-inheritance.html
09 March 2012
Magazine issue 2855. Subscribe and save
For similar stories, visit the Editorials Topic Guide
A YEAR on, the world is still feeling the effects of the earthquake and tsunami that devastated eastern Japan. The dual catastrophe is estimated to have killed almost 20,000 people. Yet it is the consequences of the subsequent partial meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, which has so far killed no one, that have reached furthest.
Of most immediate relevance are the lessons we have learned - or rather, had reiterated - about how to make nuclear plants safer. Fukushima Daiichi was plunged into crisis because its design included a "single point of failure" - in this case, an inadequate sea wall that allowed the tsunami to knock out multiple critical systems (see "Fukushima's fate inspires nuclear safety rethink" and "Can diverse power backups boost nuclear plant safety?"). More attention will have to be paid to such local risk factors when designing future plants or upgrading existing ones.
A broader concern is Germany's decision to order the phased closure of its reactor network, which it took in answer to rising public concern after Fukushima. It is also looking increasingly likely that most of Japan's reactors will not resume production.
These shutdowns will add to a problem that has been growing, largely ignored, for years: the decommissioning of unwanted or obsolete reactors. The world's 400-plus power reactors are now 27 years old, on average. Dozens are reaching the end of their lives, and at some point they must be dismantled and their contents made safe.
This is expensive, time-consuming work that involves the disposal of vast amounts of radioactive concrete, steel and much else. Although these materials are not as "hot" as the spent fuel, which must also be disposed of, the sheer quantities involved are daunting.
There is a growing backlog of defunct reactors waiting to be decommissioned. But even the world's biggest nuclear powers, such as the US, do not yet have the trained staff or institutional skills needed to manage the Herculean task of cleaning up all these stations (see "Resilient reactors: Nuclear built to last centuries").
One pragmatic response is to postpone decommissioning, perhaps for decades, on the basis that radioactive decay will eventually reduce the scale of the task. The UK alone has more than 20 nuclear hulks in what is euphemistically termed "care and maintenance". That may be sensible: cleaner waste means less risk for the clean-up crew. But we have no right to simply foist this problem on future generations, who will be ill-equipped to address it if we do not start amassing the necessary expertise and infrastructure now.
A forum recently established by the International Atomic Energy Agency should encourage the sharing of knowledge about decommissioning. To be truly effective, this must include the kind of nitty-gritty information that contractors might otherwise regard as commercially confidential. And it is essential that it includes the most taboo subject of all - what happens when things go wrong.
If the industry does not demonstrate its willingness to clean up its past messes, public concern may force more countries to rethink their stances on nuclear power, which has big implications for climate change (see "Japan's refusenik farmers tackle nuclear waste"). That is why decommissioning has to be done now - and done right.
www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328552.100-fukushimas-dirty-inheritance.html
so whats happening in the Solomons, is haarp missing its mark?