Readers letters
I have become alarmed by the gradual move towards supporting new nuclear build, often at the expense of the existing and emerging technologies.
The whole subject of equating available power to need is complex, and regularly debated by those who have genuine concern as well as those with vested interests. Many issues are raised in such debate and many are not easy to answer, much depends on the standpoint taken and the society we want to create for the future.
Arguably, fission could produce sustainable, low carbon power but there remain some significant drawbacks which are in need of a more balanced and careful assessment based on honest judgement and not short term gain. It might be prudent to reconsider some of the less desirable features of the fissile ‘nuclear’ solution.
1. Safety
As professionals we do our best to ensure that the standards and regulations are appropriate and are complied with accordingly but no design or safety strategy is 100% and even statistical evaluations can be flawed due to inadequate analysis techniques or insufficient quality data. Whilst such oversight might cause injury or death to 100s of people around a conventional power plant, serious failures in nuclear plant affect orders of magnitude more especially due to the effects of exposure over the longer term. (Caution should be exercised with regard to official figures released in such events e.g. Fukushima, it is worthwhile to consult independent sources in addition)
2. Cost
Actual costs accounting for build, fuel sourcing/processing, operational/security, reprocessing, waste treatment/disposal/storage and decommissioning are most often not clearly made public. Indications are that such considerations may even be difficult to make even assuming that there is a will to do it. (Reference Dounreay article PE November)
3. Centralisation
Often not even given a mention is the fact that the nuclear route moves towards reduced community control over our energy supplies. This might be convenient to the State and the Suppliers but will weaken the involvement and influence of the customer. Also it provides a reason to reduce accountability and transparency of operational issues based on security considerations, the threat of terrorist activity etc. with all the attendant consequences.
4. Waste
The dangers of transporting, reprocessing, storing and containing the various levels of nuclear waste produced are substantial. Assuming that safe, reliable and cost effective reprocessing methods become available (supposition at the moment), the storage in a form which precludes environmental contamination posses a significant gamble. I recall a site in the NW UK being selected some years ago on which to build a Waste Repository due to the geological stability of the rock strata only to find that during the following 6 months there was a substantial earthquake (no quakes had previously been recorded).
In all of the above ramblings it is not my intention to present an expert view, but just to express my real concern that many of the important issues are not being properly addressed in the panic to avoid the ‘Lights dimming down’. There are many other methods and strategies available to us, we do not have to select one with so many potentially damaging long term effects but we do need to be honest and open with the information we share and use and avoid undue pressure from powerful vested interests.
A story tells of a Chinese boy who had a dragon whom he lead around on a piece of string.
The dragon would bow and perform tricks to entertain the people of his village. They were amazed at how this small boy could keep that large dragon under control merely by holding it on the end of such a thin string. Then one day, the dragon uttered a terrible roar causing the villagers to flee for their lives, it snapped the string and ate the boy. The boy’s uncle, a wise old man looked amazed, ‘Perhaps we overlooked something in our systems failure analysis’ he proclaimed.
Let's not suffer the same fate!
Next letter: Clean carbon potential