Nuclear Reactor Defects
A Nuclear Future
Windscale: 50th Anniversary
The French agency having responsibility for nuclear safety in France (ASN) has uncovered defects in the construction of the European Pressure Reactor (EPR) reactor that will become the design template for the next generation of nuclear power stations due to be built in Britain. In the steel liner, a quarter of the welds are not up to welding norms and cracks have been found in the concrete base essential for containing radioactivity. The only other reactor of its type being built in the world is on the Finnish island of Olkiluoto in the Gulf of Bothnia. An earlier report by the Finnish safety authority (STUK) was instrumental in putting the reactor two years behind schedule, three years after construction had begun and is believed to have been responsible for increasing the cost by 50%. If similar overruns happened in the UK schedule, the building programme could even be abandoned. Certainly, in theory and sensibly. Any flaws in construction are always unacceptable and especially now that these doubts are known before construction has begun, it must stop plans in its tracks until the reasons for the defects are fully understood.
Nuclear Power Goes Ahead
"The technical and organisational preconditions for the safe operation of a nuclear power plant are created during the construction phase of the project".
Faults have been found in the formulation and pouring of the concrete and there appears to be an "insufficient" course of action in preparing for concreting and "insufficiency of technical control".- The French (EPR) reactor is being constructed by Électricité de France (EDF) at Flamanville in Normandy, France and expects to build four more of them in Britain for £10bn
- EDF cites reports in technical journals saying that the French nuclear authorities believe the construction of the reactors is satisfactory and that progress is being made on the issues raised. This comment makes it clear that a belief in satisfactory (ie an implied minimum) construction standards is acceptable and that progress implies that these satisfactory standards need to be raised. The extreme dangers involved with nuclear power demand a minimum of the highest standards, but such standards do not mean safe standards or safety. There is only an implication of safety.
- Dr. James Gordon Brown graduated from Edinburgh with First Class Honours MA in 1972 and stayed on to complete his PhD (which he gained in 1982), titled The Labour Party and Political Change in Scotland 1918-29. This disappearing doctorate is like a flag of convenience.
- Similar to Dr Steven Ladyman (PhD research was in natural isotopic abundances of elements). Dr Ladyman entered government in 2003, with the position of junior minister at the Department for Health and the salutation Dr could create a connection with medical matters. There isn't one. Interestingly, when Tony Blair resigned as prime minister, Dr Ladyman left government.
Such safety issues that illustrate (dangerously) defective products do not bode well for either a way of 'creating' money or ensuring safety.
The only safe standards are to abandon nuclear issues completely and face the scenario of alternative energy sources. The effects will be major of that there is no doubt, but the alternative is the ultimate meltdown and destruction of the global population. The Earth will recover in a few million years.
<< Home