Nuclear, globalization; the lessons of Fukushima?

Oil, gas, coal, nuclear (PWR, EPR, hot fusion, ITER), gas and coal thermal power plants, cogeneration, tri-generation. Peakoil, depletion, economics, technologies and geopolitical strategies. Prices, pollution, economic and social costs ...
the middle
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4075
Registration: 12/01/07, 08:18
x 4




by the middle » 27/08/14, 19:03

Half of nuclear energy less

Doel 4 has a maximum capacity of 1039 MW out of a total of 2911 MW in Doel, and around 6000 MW with the Tihange plants. Last March, two other reactors of this park, Doel 3 and Tihange 2, had been shut down. They should remain so probably until the end of the year, with the key, a reduction in the overall capacity of electricity production in Belgium
. These two plants together had a capacity of 2000 MW.
It's three stops
http://www.rtbf.be/info/societe/detail_ ... id=8333310
0 x
Man is by nature a political animal (Aristotle)
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79374
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 11064




by Christophe » 27/08/14, 19:09

They should remain so probably until the end of the year


So it's not a permanent closure? Rather a prolonged slice stop no?
0 x
the middle
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4075
Registration: 12/01/07, 08:18
x 4




by the middle » 28/08/14, 06:28

Christophe wrote:
They should remain so probably until the end of the year


So it's not a permanent closure? Rather a prolonged slice stop no?

I don't know where or when, the "journalists" were talking about irreparable cracks.
But hey, I'm surprised that the French reactors do not have this kind of problems ...
0 x
Man is by nature a political animal (Aristotle)
the middle
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4075
Registration: 12/01/07, 08:18
x 4




by the middle » 28/08/14, 06:43

lejustemilieu wrote:
Christophe wrote:
They should remain so probably until the end of the year


So it's not a permanent closure? Rather a prolonged slice stop no?

I don't know where or when, the "journalists" were talking about irreparable cracks.
But hey, I'm surprised that the French reactors do not have this kind of problems ...

What worries me too is the sabotage of doel 4.
For me, there are three possible reasons:
An employee angry ... unlikely,
Terrorism. Not likely to me too
A responsible employee, who has balls; that seems logical to me, and nobody talks about it. (He sabotages his power plant because he finds it too dangerous.)
0 x
Man is by nature a political animal (Aristotle)
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79374
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 11064




by Christophe » 28/08/14, 16:49

I was not aware of this "sabotage"!

The article you gave http://www.rtbf.be/info/societe/detail_ ... id=8333310 actually talks about sabotage ...

But a nuclear power station is so secure (especially the BR) that it will not be too difficult to get hold of this saboteur ...

After that, it is easier for the operator to accuse a "virtual" sabotage than to admit a lack of maintenance ...

Otherwise I think all this is very good: strongly massive blackout this winter! This will show our nuclear dependence and open the eyes of some ... maybe? Starting with the policies ...
0 x
User avatar
Gaston
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1910
Registration: 04/10/10, 11:37
x 88




by Gaston » 28/08/14, 16:55

0 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 28/08/14, 18:15

lejustemilieu wrote:What is the state of nuclear power plants in France?
They are perfect ?, or there is cheating too ...


The state, I do not know ...

But there are also some who are taken in turn for "heavy revisions" - heavy revisions take I don't know how long.

The reactors are often stopped in summer, for maintenances ...
0 x
the middle
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4075
Registration: 12/01/07, 08:18
x 4




by the middle » 29/08/14, 07:58

A little text that is cold in the back:
The reactor has been shut down since the incident that affected the steam turbine in the non-nuclear portion of the plant. 65 000 liters of turbine oil flowed to an underground tank intended to recover this oil in case of fire. Lacking lubricant after this maneuver, the turbine overheated and automatically stopped following the prescribed procedures.

Electrabel refers to "significant damage to the high pressure turbine". The company is unable to give a date for the restart.

The act of sabotage was very quickly considered.

Last Friday, the Federal Agency for Nuclear Control (FANC) and the floor of Dendermonde each opened an investigation into the unexpected shutdown of the plant. The FANC quickly concluded to a deliberate maneuver.

65000 liters of oil sank in an underground tank:
This means that there is no level sensor in this tank, or in the one that contained the oil. It is also possible that the alarms were bypassed (this is often done in industry)
This does not preclude the fragility of such a system, and nothing can prevent a catastrophe.
As for the error, it is possible: in 35 years of work in industry, I have known several important valves opened by mistake.
For example, a valve was opened due to heavy rain, the operator ran to protect himself, and hung in his stroke, a 1 / 4 turn valve, result, 2000 liters of asphalt on the ground. ..

But if doel valve 4 is not a 1 / 4 turn valve, then, one may wonder, because open up an industrial steering wheel valve, take time, and a big effort.
http://www.rtbf.be/info/societe/detail_ ... id=8333310
0 x
Man is by nature a political animal (Aristotle)
User avatar
Gaston
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1910
Registration: 04/10/10, 11:37
x 88




by Gaston » 29/08/14, 10:10

lejustemilieu wrote:But if doel valve 4 is not a 1 / 4 turn valve, then, one may wonder, because open up an industrial steering wheel valve, take time, and a big effort.
Anyway, we have to ask ourselves some questions.
As for the error, an operator could also be mistaken for a valve.
0 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 30/08/14, 14:57

In the newspaper Le Monde today:

Fukushima disaster more expensive than expected
The Monde.fr | 30.08.2014 to 10h57 • Updated 30.08.2014 to 11h38 |
By Philippe Mesmer (Tokyo, correspondence)


How much will have cost the Fukushima nuclear disaster? Twice as expected, according to Kenichi Oshima of Ritsumeikan University (Kyoto) and Masafumi Yokemoto of Osaka University. According to the calculations unveiled August 27 by these specialists in the economy and environmental policies, the bill of this drama started in March 2011 and whose resolution must officially take forty years will exceed the 11 000 billion yen (81 billion euros ). The official estimate of the government made in December 2011 is 5 800 billion yen (42 billion euros).
Professor Oshima - a former member of the government's Renewable Energy and Energy Advisory Committee - and his colleague do not question official calculations. They take them back by adding indirect costs, estimated according to data from different administrations and the Tokyo Electricity Company (TEPCO, responsible for the damaged plant).

DECONTAMINATION AND REMEDIES

According to them, the work needed to adapt the reactors to the new safety standards, set in July 2013 inspired by the Fukushima disaster, should cost nearly 2 200 billion yen (15 billion euros). The decontamination of 2 400 km² - almost the size of Luxembourg - from polluted areas to radioactive substances would amount to 2 480 billion yen (18 billion euros). A sum supplemented by 1 060 billion yen (7,7 billion euros) for the temporary storage of waste generated by this decontamination.

To this could be added 2 170 billion yen (15,8 billion euros) to dismantle the stricken power plant, as well as 4 910 billion yen (35,7 billion euros) to compensate the victims and people who lost their jobs in cause of the disaster ,.

Professor Oshima also emphasizes that his estimate is a minimum because the costs should increase further. The increase would be due to the treatment of the radioactive elements produced by the dismantling of the damaged reactors and to the evolution of the compensations. On this last point, no financial limit has been set.

For these offsets, Tepco uses the money from a special fund created in September 2011, powered by the government and other power companies and will remain in place after the resolution of the Fukushima disaster. This fund saw its ceiling of available credits raised in December 2013 5 000 to 9 000 billion yen (36,4 to 65,6 billion). Tepco must repay the money used, granted in the form of interest-free loans.

NUCLEAR RELIEF

The company did not want to comment on Professor Oshima's study. The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, which deals in particular with the promotion of nuclear power but has officially lost control of safety after the Fukushima disaster, sees only a "study among others ".

The Japanese press has remained surprisingly silent on the announcements of the two researchers. Their work is unveiled as the government of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, backed by the main employers' federation, Keidanren, seeks to revive the nuclear reactors at a standstill. In April, the Abe administration made nuclear a "major building block of electricity generation". In 2015, the authorities will announce the share of the atom in the energy policy of Japan.

In July, the Nuclear Regulatory Authority (NRA) validated the Kyushu Electricity Company's safety criteria for the two reactors at its Sendai plant in the southwestern Kagoshima department. A first step that could result in a revival in the autumn, at the earliest and provided that the local authorities agree.

At the same time, the prospect of a sharp rise in exit costs from the disaster represents a new potential burden on the Japanese public finances. The archipelago's debt already exceeds 200% of GDP. But, as Professor Oshima recalls, "the costs of the accident will be borne by the population, by taxes or by paying electricity bills".
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Go back to "Fossil energies: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 192 guests