Revolution and Change in 2011

2011 would appear to be the year in which the world turned and changed. Well that is what I hoped, but now I am not so sure. It started with the Arab revolution in Tunisia. The thought that a peaceful revolution in Tunisia would lead to a domino effect throughout the Middle East was a heady thought indeed. We should remember that there is no Middle East Islamic country that has ever been a democracy at any time since history began. To be a democracy takes time. We took well over 400 years in Europe and had numerous wars as well as two World Wars in our process of evolution to a peaceful democracy. In the USA they had a very bloody civil war. The birth pangs of such evolution in Arabia is clearly evident now in Libya, Yemen, and Bahrain.  Egypt has gone to the polls to decide on changes to the constitution. I fear this may be too soon. I would prefer it for Egypt to wait before having full democratic party elections. They need time to establish proper political parties with full political programmes, or else there is no choice between the Muslim Brotherhood and yet another despot. In Libya it seems to me they are spiralling into a civil war the outcome of which is uncertain, despite the UN's rather late intervention and establishment of a no fly zone. Libya is different from Tunisia and Egypt in that their society is not a Facebook and Twitter society. Few in the country have access to the Internet so they have no real means of getting unbiased news. They are subject to  Gaddafi, propaganda, hence the pictures of pro Gaddafi demonstrations. I watch what now develops with baited breath.

The earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disaster in Japan was the other occasion when I thought the world would now change. Changes may come about, but as I listen to the various debates on the BBC I am not encouraged by it. If you have been following my rambling thoughts over these last few days you will be aware that I am becoming an anti nuclear energy supporter. However, I note with horror that Germany is building a nuclear reactor in an earthquake zone in Brazil and is heavily involved in  a controversial huge nuclear reactor, in Finland. 

The arguments used by the pro lobby is that Europe does not lie on a tectonic plate and the last tsunami to hit Britain was in the 17th century. Nuclear power is a safe and cheap way of producing large amounts of electricty. They need now only say, "it couldn't happen here!" 

For me these arguments are not the point any more. It is the human element in the nuclear reactor I fear most. Chernobyl was caused by human error. In Fukushima, I raise my hat to the men doing what they can and sacrificing  there own health to stop a melt down, but I worry about whether or not human error has not caused much of what we are now witnessing. These errors will occur again and then as we have seen they cannot be erased, or plastered over, they have repercussions. These repercussion last for thousands of years and reach  well beyond the pale.

I pray that in Europe at least we have a new peaceful anti nuclear revolution and that the common man is heard above the wealthy nuclear power lobby.

Nuclear MADness

In the light of the tragedy in the Fukushima nuclear power plant the European nations at least, are reconsidering the safety of their own nuclear reactors. I don't just think it is a "shutting the stable door" reaction, but rather they have all woken up to the fact that "Sod's Law" does exist, as I mentioned earlier and is relevant to safety planning. This can only be a good thing for all of us. 

Germany was going to be the first nation to get out  of nuclear power production, then they extended the life of their plants and now in the light of the catastrophe in Japan are shutting down 7 plants immediately and considering the position of all their other plants. It will be interesting to see at the end of the four months moratorium what the German government decides to do. Last night in my English conversation class I used Japan and nuclear power production as a main topic of conversation, but was surprised at how little they knew about the subject. Few could list the pro and cons of nuclear power yet generally they were against it all. I am gradually becoming  an anti nuclear energy person myself, but I have at least some knowledge of the subject. 

In the 60's when I was secretary of a student's union I took part in "Ban the Bomb" marches and still have my pin. Later I joined the army and was trained as a Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Warfare Officer! Now I knew more than most and learnt that NATO had a MAD strategy. MAD being Mutually Assured Destruction! What ever your views on the Bomb, and as crazy as it sounded, the strategy worked. Recently I read a novel by Nelson Demille, called "Wild Fire", which was about a similar MAD strategy, but this time directed at Islamic terrorists. The book said that the USA would set off nuclear bombs in many Muslim nations if any Islamic terrorist exploded a nuclear devise in the USA! A horrendous thought and thankfully it was a novel which ended happily. And yet...... it makes one think, just maybe that is why they have not done so yet, despite the fact that a number of nuclear devises have gone missing from the former Soviet Union.

Back to nuclear energy. What ever your own thoughts on the subject, I believe nations decide what level of risk they are prepared to take. We do this with the motor car for example. Last year in Germany 3,657 people died in traffic accidents. In the USA it was 33,808. We accept that deaths will occur on the roads. Just as we accept, or rather our governments do, that accidents and deaths may occur in nuclear reactors. Statisticians work out the risk factors and if they are low enough we accept them since the advantages can be greater.

 Japan has shown us all that my Sod's Law is at work and destroys all concept of statistically low risk factors.  Nothing in life is safe, but a nuclear accident is not like a traffic accident which can get cleared up in a day. A nuclear accident pollutes our planet for thousands of years to come. The time has come, "the walrus said" to stop this nuclear madness.

Spring is coming

Saving the Planet

Never say never! For most of my life in the army and later at sea sailing around around the world I lived by Sod's Law which says, "what can go wrong, will go wrong!" and planned accordingly. Why is it then that other planners around the world do not follow this rule. The Fukushima power station as far as I have found out was built to withstand an earthquake of 7 on the Richter scale. Actually they use a different scale called the PGA or Peak Ground Acceleration, but let's not get too technical. They did this on the basis that no earthquake of greater magnitude had yet occurred in the area. My Sod's Law says just wait it will. The actual earthquake measured almost 9 on the Richter scale.  I believe that the reactor has not itself been damaged by the quake, but rather that the earthquake brought about failures in other parts of the system. How come that there are not duplicate and triplicate redundant systems in power stations as in aircraft. If one system fails there is a back up. Someone will tell me I am sure, "but there are". So how come the backups failed too? We are back to Sod's Law for it also takes into consideration human error in planning and in operation. 

If you have read my "About Me" you will know I live in Germany. Here the Germans decided to give up their nuclear power stations by 2020. The first country to do so. Recently they discovered that their building of renewable resource power stations was not keeping up with the aim and that consequently they would need to prolong the use of the current atomic stations until 2032. This was not a popular move and now the problems in Japan have led the government to rethink the whole thing. Today Chancellor Merkel announced a moratorium of 3-4 months on the decision to prolong the use of nuclear power and that all nuclear power stations were to undergo a security review where there are to be no "taboos".

To help them with this review they might like to consider that Fukushima nuclear power station, which is one of the worlds 25 largest, was built in 1967, came into service in 1971 and was due to be taken out of service in early 2011. However, the Japanese authorities granted an extension of 10 years to this old power station. Now they are having problems! Is this because the systems are old? We can keep old cars running, but only as long as we still have original parts for it. When they run out the problems start to occur. Nuclear reactors cannot be very different. As the years go by old systems wear out and the new technology is not always compatible with the old. Yes it can be fudged and got round, but should we allow fudging with nuclear reactors?

The Germans have 17 nuclear reactors two of which were originally due to be taken out of service this year, notably Biblis A and Biblis B! I wonder if after this latest investigation they will not be taken out of service. I believe now they should be. The lessons of Japan teach us that if nothing else.

Open cast mining to feed the hungry power stations

Fukushima Nuclear Power Station

The news coming out of Japan is not good and my heart goes out to the Japanese. I admire the Japanese for their discipline, their industriousness and their intelligence, but I am concerned about the reports now coming out of Japan. As I watched the reported hydrogen gas explosion at the Fukushima nuclear plant, I thought I was seeing a controlled HE explosion. I know the Japanese build their structures to be earthquake proof and that the steel girders they use are all bolted together and not welded. This may explain why the steel structure of the nuclear reactor building stayed intact, but how come the walls that remained looked as if they had been cleanly sawn off and not exploded?  Why was the steel skeleton of the building not deformed if the explosion was from the inside out? Why were there no black burn marks on the structure? Hydrogen burns and will ignite all flammable material, as well as melt steel. Hydrogen flames can hardly be seen with the naked eye, but they would ascend rapidly as hydrogen is lighter than air. Why then did the ash cloud not also rise rapidly into the air in the wake of the flames, assuming there were some? The cloud spread out and remained close to the ground rather than rising into the air. Compare the view of the building after the explosion with that of Chernobyl. I know that involved a melt down explosion which we have not had here (yet)! But that building was destroyed by an uncontrolled explosion from inside out. The Fukushima plant looks too clean and bears no resemblance to an exploded building I have ever seen. Why? These are all questions that I would like answers to.

I rather think that there was a build up of pressure in the building, that the core was heating up and that they deliberately blew away the walls and roof to release the pressure and help to cool the core. But then, what do I know about such things!