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

SPACESHIP EARTH

The earthquake and tsunami that occurred in the Indian Ocean in 2004 was so powerful it shifted our spaceship earth on its axis so that our days have become shorter. Admittedly nano seconds shorter, but my point is the earth moved. The earthquake that has hit Japan was even more powerful and shifted the island of Japan 2 meters from where it was before. So what has been the effect on our axis?  New Zealand recently suffered an earthquake and is on the Pacific tectonic plate line which also runs through Japan. A couple of years ago Chile suffered an earthquake on the other side of the Pacific. It seems to me that the earthquakes here are going round the Pacific in a clockwise direction. So who is next? Let's hope no one. We have enough to do now to help Japan get over its catastrophe before the next problem. 

Wars between various factions of the crew of spaceship earth are a distraction from our main mission which must be to save our planet from harm and keep it sailing on through space. We are all in the same boat, though I sometimes wonder if some people fully appreciate this.

We must do all we can to repair and keep our spaceship on its course, for we do not have enough lifeboats for all of us, should the captain call to abandon ship! 

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!

Tsunami

Bad weather in the Pacific

As we watch the  compelling and fascinating videos and pictures of the horrendous disaster striking Japan from the comfort of our armchairs, we can consider ourselves lucky that we are not involved. Yet again I witness how people who have no concept of this power place themselves in danger. The last time such an event happened  in 2004, many sightseers in India were swept into the ocean. Even the TV videos have an awesome fascination and one can hardly understand why one cannot out run the apparent slow moving mass of water. 

It is different in a storm. The wind noise alone is frightening and that is just the problem here, there is no howling wind. When a tsunami strikes there need not be high winds and rain. It was a bright sunny day when it struck the Indian Ocean in 2004 and now again in Japan.

I have been alone in a small boat in a storm at sea, the one that broke the Prestige oil tanker in November 2002 in the bay of Biscay. The noise alone is frightening. There is a build up to a storm, but a tsunami can strike miles away from the epicentre of the earthquake and so can arrive without warning on a bright sunny day. I am sure that when it arrives there is noise aplenty from the rushing water and the breaking up of houses and structures it just sweeps away. And when it has gone, in the wake of the devastation it leaves behind, there must be an awful silence.