Nuclear, globalization; the lessons of Fukushima?

[Christophe]

Everything is in the title, this subject aims to synthesize, if it is possible at present, the main ideas and lessons to be drawn from the nuclear disaster of Fukushima without entering please, in the "primary anti-nuke militancy" because I believe that there is no longer any need to campaign to be anti-nuclear! Today, to defend nuclear power, we have to work on it!

Reminders of topics related to the disaster:
- Follow-up of the facts: https://www.econologie.com/forums/accident-n ... 10579.html
- Maps and Infographics:
https://www.econologie.com/forums/japon-cart ... 10601.html
- Synthetic news with many links (written 5 days after the earthquake):
https://www.econologie.com/catastrophe-n ... -4340.html

Videos to see:
- Nuclear RAS: https://www.econologie.com/forums/edf-et-la- ... t7513.html
- The Battle of Chernobyl:
https://www.econologie.com/forums/la-bataill ... 10595.html

Consequences and debates:
- Economic impacts: https://www.econologie.com/forums/japon-et-i ... 10587.html
- Change our consumption habits: https://www.econologie.com/forums/sortir-du- ... 10610.html
- 2009 debate on for or against nuclear: https://www.econologie.com/forums/le-nucleai ... t7065.html

The express has a dossier "from disaster to controversy" to read here: http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/enviro ... 72799.html

1ere lesson (pi?) Policy:

An audit on French nuclear power plants

Prime Minister François Fillon has asked the Nuclear Safety Authority to make initial conclusions by the end of the year.

François Fillon instructed the Nuclear Safety Authority to audit French nuclear power plants following the Fukushima accident in Japan. The institution must provide "first conclusions" by the end of 2011, according to a letter published Thursday by Matignon.

The decision is made public while EDF and the Greens were opposed earlier this week on the vision of nuclear power by the French.

In accordance with the law "of 13 June 2006 on transparency and security in nuclear matters, I ask you to carry out a study of the safety of nuclear installations, in priority nuclear power plants, in view of the current accident in the Fukushima power plant", writes the Prime Minister in this letter addressed to the president of the ASN, André-Claude Lacoste.

A concrete answer to his statements

Deeming "essential" for the French "to have reliable transparent information available as soon as possible on the consequences" of the disaster in Japan, he asked ASN "to draw up specifications within a month and a timetable "for carrying out this study.

The head of government said on March 15 to the National Assembly, four days after the earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan, that "the safety demonstrations of each plant in France" would "be" monitored in the light of the lessons learned by the disaster "of Fukushima. "We will not evade any of the questions posed by this disaster," he stressed.
France has the 2e nuclear fleet of the world, it represents 75% of our energy resources.

This audit, if it is not "pipoté", risks being catastrophic: see nuclear RAS https://www.econologie.com/forums/edf-et-la- ... t7513.html and serial incidents including Fessenheim ...

And after this audit? Will EdF have the means to "update"?

[dedeleco]

We must first change the current method of "experience feedback" which corrects only when the very serious accident has occurred, whereas before this accident was systematically denied, refused, declared impossible, with a probability of one billionth, etc. .. despite warnings from specialists with common sense arguments.

Now geologists, scientists, free specialists, without conflict of interest, can evaluate the probabilities of these accidents considered impossible with their consequences, but we must stop despising them and disregard their common sense arguments that we all we can understand.

Any activity presents a risk that must be consciously assumed.
The consciousness of the risk is not the case of the nuclear power, which can prohibit a forbidden region for tens of years, centuries, even millennia given the immense range of the lifetimes of the radioactivity, going up to the thousands of years, even billion years.
A tsunami kills but the survivors can come back, rebuild, live.
Not nuclear, it continues to kill over the life of radioelements like plutonium, on 30000ans!

A particle of plutonium of a few tens of micrograms in the lungs is enough to induce a cancer much later on 30000 years !!

It is a risk also for our little children totally unacceptable!
In addition to its huge long-term danger, nuclear is a totally non-renewable fossil energy, fossil of 5 billions of years.
We must therefore get out of the nuclear industry by finding all sustainable and non-polluting energy solutions.

Thus, using too much summer heat (with cheap simple solar collectors) stored underground to warm up the winter is already functional; it is perfectible, and allows to replace all the nuclear power stations used for electric heating in winter as well as the consumption of oil, coal and gas, full of CO2:
http://www.dlsc.ca/DLSC_Brochure_f.pdf
http://www.dlsc.ca

It can be used even more easily for greenhouses, with no energy expenditure!

Really it is possible to develop this for a price of complementary studies very much lower than that of an EPR !!
But it should be that the spirits finally understand it instead of rejecting it without thinking at all!

We can also use the storage of the summer sun underground large (or other storage) to make electrical energy when you want (200 ° C or 400 ° C in some rocks or so well thought for soils. volumes large enough).

Otherwise, given the quantity of plants and woods thrown or lying around, a lot of energy can be recovered, if we develop cheap boilers and stoves burning all plants and even cogeneration.

I am frightened by the quantity of plants that I see thrown everywhere, burned in the open air (enormous pollution), including by myself, by absurdities.

The solar thermal with mirrors can give a lot of energy, its heat is storable, (and not only the photovoltaic) and charge electric cars.

All of this is already working and does not pose any fundamental scientific problems.

[Gaston]

Bravo, dedeleco I am at 90% agree with you (and it is not always the case)

In relation to the title of the subject, Christophe has rightly introduced the word globalization.

I think that the nuclear and its procession of catastrophes are ultimately a consequence of globalization, or more precisely of the global financial dictatorship that seeks only short-term profits and growth ...

[Obamot]

Yes, but let's be pragmatic! It seems that in view of what is repeated, there would be some obvious lessons to be learned, knowing that there is a major disaster every 25 years:

Nuclear, globalization; the lessons of Fukushima?

Experience feedback, as Dedelco says, but not without a framework that is currently sorely lacking:
- introduce the notion of "Crime against the environment, the animal world and humanity".
- create an independent body to put this legal tool in place, which would also have the specialized responsibility of supervising the operation of plant safety, the creation of stress tests (as in finance) and monitoring compliance with procedures throughout of their operation => as well as the management of their security, crisis situations in order to develop early prevention! By this I also mean an approach from the angle of "psychology" in personnel management, in order to avoid the denial syndrome - but above all to help personnel overcome the weight of responsibilities and especially that of fear - which freezes action and prevents a rapid and appropriate response! What Dedelco calls "Risk awareness"but who should be a real "Early prevention culture" (which already exists but which is inevitably to be reviewed ... since it has failed so far in a critical situation!)
It is better, for example, to be able to flood / cool the core of a reactor preventively in the event of an incident - even if this is done automatically - than not to be able to do so subsequently. So create a sort of IAEA for nuclear safety, with security as a sine qua non for operation => and independent of the current sector to avoid conflicts of interest (which is therefore by definition no longer secure! ) and integrate it into the WHO. Thus there would be a relationship of direct responsibility and the promulgation of a policy and incentive prevention measures, which is also currently lacking, because every time we look for those responsible ... there is often "more no one"...
- after the carrot, the stick: create a police and a nuclear tribunal, to flush out and punish those who have underestimated the risks in order to save money on safety. And also those who have failed to create / design reliable systems. The whole thing returned to the previous organization;
- development of a safety concept based on the automatic regulation of the temperature by acting on systems based on the laws of physics (gravity, evaporation, communicating vase etc ...)
- Revision and adaptation of the plants to this concept, by transforming the power plants and moving the pumps so as to make them independent both in their power supply and their location, to make them easily accessible and therefore replaceable, even in case of reactor fusion.
- provide hoppers to concrete the reactors in the event of a meltdown and so that the core is accessible even in the event of a containment explosion => since we now know that this happens every time. And that the misleading term “degassing” in the “nuclear vocabulary” is in fact only the consequence of a crisis situation which is spiraling out of control!
- [Edit: provide a degassing safety valve system on the roof (articulated or something ....), to avoid the irreparable: the explosion that projects debris damaging electrical circuit, pumps and cooling system to the passage ..]
- total moratorium on nuclear power;
- no investment in this area except in improving security;
- repayment of all the amortizations accumulated and to come for the renewal of the power stations, in the sustainable energies;
- calculation of a “green” kw / h, including a quota for the cost of phasing out nuclear power and the payment of compensation for accident victims;
Here are some tracks ....

[dedeleco]

An interesting parallel between the assessment of financial risks and those of nuclear power written well before the tsunami!
Parallels of Radiation and Financial Risk Management on Public Acceptance
http://sti.srs.gov/fulltext/SRNS-STI-2009-00820.pdf
Risk assessment by the public, under-assessment of risk by operators and managers destroys trust.
The regulations and laws not demanding enough, interconnections between different markets or different techniques, the search for profit in competition pushes to excessive risks undervalued, even more with innovations to circumvent the binding regulations by ignoring the risks, with in plus a sense of misleading invulnerability, which leads to pitfalls in seemingly common-sense decisions, but neglecting low risks with dramatic consequences.
Secrecy pushes at risk and destroys public trust.

[Obamot]

Yes indeed, that's another real problem as an approach!

[Did67]

- calculation of a “green” kw / h, including a quota for the cost of phasing out nuclear power and the payment of compensation for accident victims;
Here are some tracks ....

Finally, I imagine you mean "calculation of the" nuclear "kWh taking into account all these costs ..."

Chernobyl, communism, we have never heard of the bill.

But in a state of law, in principle TEPCO is civilly responsible. How will they pay? Will they put that on the count of a natural disaster so everyone pays?

If EdF is serious, they make sure with Lloyd's. It will cost them a few billion, which they will pass on to the consumer ...

[Christophe]

Chernobyl, communism, we have never heard of the bill.

If you talk about the cost of the Chernobyl disaster, it was estimated 500 and 1000 billion $we talked about it here (with sources): https://www.econologie.com/forums/accident-n ... 9-160.html

Estimation of the cost of the Chernobyl disaster

[Did67]

No, I say no one paid for it!

[dedeleco]

But if the Russians have paid dearly, this bill, collapse of their country, the system, galloping inflation Ruble (1 / 10), unemployment, industries sold off, aggravated alcoholism, shortening of their life, etc.
They continue to pay in Ukraine and Belarus !!

The Japanese will also pay dearly, at least 1000 billion, 3 300 times, currently estimated for the earthquake-tsunami, much stronger than that of Kobe (100), forgetting the nuclear empire that worsens!

I had evaluated at the beginning between 10000 and 100000 dead and one is at least 30000 dead, figure which increases still, Kobe 6000 dead.
Given the report we will arrive at 1000 billion and the bill will be paid in Japan and around the world, inflation, unemployment, financial crash, etc.