(i) to provide a stable regulatory and permitting framework
to take care of waste management
to insure against catastrophic damage
While I am not sure about this, I'd guess that the reason that states have to help insuring nuclear power plants is that a single disaster, no matter how unlikely, would completely overload the global insurance business. I mean, what company sits on a trillion euros?
And the state doesn't complain as it knows that the probability that it'll ever have to honor the commitment is zero as there won't be any severe accidents.
Any thoughts on this? Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
I think we are talking about pretty much the same probabilities. How much would it cost anyway? One accident in 100.000 reactor years, and only one in a hundred of those penetrating the containment. That's one penetrating accident in 10.000.000 reactor years. Even if the accident creates 1 trillion euros of damages that's a yearly cost of 100.000 euros, nothing really.
According to Lennart Hammar, former number two at the Swedish nuclear power inspectorate and chief of the reactor safety department, the IAEA demands are that current reactors must reach a level of safety of one accident (meltdown) in 10.000 reactor years, while new reactors must reach one in 100.000 (all Swedish reactors at least reach the 100.000 level). At least 9 out of 10 accidents must not mean a discharge of any nuclear materials. On top of this all Swedish reactors have an extra filter, essentially a tower filled with crushed stone. This means that in the event of a discharge of radioactive gas, 99,9 % of the radionuclides will be trapped in the tower, never reaching the atmosphere.
According to Areva (page 47)
With the EPR, the probability of an accident leading to core melt, already extremely small with the previous-generation reactors, becomes infinitesimal: smaller than 1/100,000 (10-5) per reactor/year, for all types of failure and hazard, which fully meets the objective set for the new nuclear power plants by the International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group (INSAG) with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) - INSAG 3 report, smaller than 1/1,000,000 (10-6) per reactor/year for the events generated inside the plant, making a reduction by a factor 10 compared with the most modern reactors currently in operation, smaller than 1/10,000,000 (10-7) per reactor/year for the sequences associated with early loss of the radioactive containment function.
Hey, maybe one could make t-shirts with that logo on? Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
But when the Ignalina RBMK plant was evaluated by Swedish experts in the mid nineties it had a risk of core damage of about 1 in 3000 reactor years. The subsequent improvements raised it to 1 in 10.000. But it will always lack a containment, and what really counts is not the number of accidents but the damage on the environment. Without a containment it becomes Chernobyl-esque. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Too many to count, at one single installation of three light-water power reactors in Connecticut USA, alone. The Fates are kind.
Dozens and dozens.
Believe me. Believe them. Or believe the Industry. Your choice. The Fates are kind.
One reason tritium may be "safe" to release is that the Earth's gravity cannot retain tritium in the atmosphere. However, I don't know how long it takes for tritium to escape the atmosphere after it's released. tens of millions of people stand to see their lives ruined because the bureaucrats at the ECB don't understand introductory economics -- Dean Baker
(in older days, clock industry workers were applying phosphorescent paint on numbers, that was tritium-enhanced, with a paint brush they used to lick to keep the hair straight, and they had terrible cancers... may be the clock bloggers could dig more detailed stories)
Nothing easier: Just sustitute tritium for hydrogen in whatever compound you are making the paint out of.
Suppose THAT persists in the body. Then the tritium persists right along with it for maximal radiological effect. The Fates are kind.
The reactor is on the Hudson River and the idea is to prevent the contaminated water from reaching the river. (Not that this amount of contamination would cause any real problems).
In addition the emergency alarm system continues fail tests and the evacuation plan has not be certified as practical. (Moving about one million people away from the plant over four or five highways is not realistic.)
Finally they have filled up their spent fuel rod storage tanks and are looking to dry storage on site to allow for even more radioactive waste. Policies not Politics ---- Daily Landscape
Did that not happen in YOUR universe?
I am so happy for you. The Fates are kind.
By the way, with only 12,000 reactor-years of civilian use and a similar amount of military use you can't justify a figure of one accident per 100,000 reactor years. I should calculate proper confidence intervals for this. tens of millions of people stand to see their lives ruined because the bureaucrats at the ECB don't understand introductory economics -- Dean Baker
One thing is clear: only the government can bear that risk. with the above uncertainty, that means that government should also keep the upside from that technology; i.e. be the owner and do what it cares to with the available cheap electricity. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
