Fire at a German nuclear power plant today

probe

Two nuclear power plants had to be shut today in Northern Germany.

One of them went on fire. Anyone who has been at the scene of a building on fire from the start knows how fast the entire thing can get out of control.

A fire getting out of control at a nuclear power station is too horrific to contemplate.

Ireland has probably the worst fire prevention engineering in buildings in Europe - together with GB.

I've often come across underground car parks in apartments and hotels in Ireland with just wooden doors between the car park and the residential portion of the building. If one car went on fire and it got to the fuel tank, the explosion would be likely to pass the fire to the next car and and so on forming an explosive chain reaction in short time.

In apartment buildings in most continental countries there are several doors each lined with steel on the way out of the car park - and every apartment door in the building I live in has a big steel lining, about 1.5 cm steel thickness, so if my apartment goes on fire, it won't spread to my neighbours very quickly.

Nuclear power in Ireland is unthinkable - Irish engineering, architectural and fire prevention standards are so appallingly low.

.probe


http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2649562,00.html

lemansky

probe wrote:

Nuclear power in Ireland is unthinkable - Irish engineering, architectural and fire prevention standards are so appallingly low.

Well they'd be built to international standards. We'd get other experts in to do it as we don't have that much experience of building the plants in the country. I wouldn't let this put me off nuclear power in Ireland. Its inevitable and necessary.

mike65

Cars crashe so ban cars?. We dont dispite the thousasnds who die each and every year. Why? Cos the economy and society would grind to a halt. One day the same will be true regarding power supply.

Mike.

SeanW

probe wrote:

Nuclear power in Ireland is unthinkable - Irish engineering, architectural and fire prevention standards are so appallingly low.

Because we'd all build our nuclear plants in the same way we build apartment buildings? Noone in their right mind would build a nuclear plant the standards of which were not comparable to best international standards (except the Soviet Union of course) hence I find your comment is very insulting to all of Ireland.

lemansky

SeanW wrote:

Because we'd all build our nuclear plants in the same way we build apartment buildings? Noone in their right mind would build a nuclear plant the standards of which were not comparable to best international standards (except the Soviet Union of course) hence I find your comment is very insulting to all of Ireland.

QFT

Chernobyl is an oft-quoted example that idiots use as to why nuclear power is evil and dangerous and shouldn't be there. Its irrelevant. We in Ireland wouldn't build a soviet reactor and maintain it to soviet standards. I mean, if I hear of a soviet era plane crashing (that was maintained to soviet standards) I'm not surprised. I find myself thinking that it was held together by chewing gum anyway.

The fact is that we would have a really safe reactor in Ireland. After the German fire there was no nuclear holocaust, which shows how safe plants can be when built and maintained properly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident

^^people forget about this accident when discussing the 'dangers' of nuclear power. Read the first two lines. It was a partial core meltdown, yet that was the result.

Capt'n Midnight

lemansky wrote:

Chernobyl is an oft-quoted example that idiots use as to why nuclear power is evil and dangerous and shouldn't be there. Its irrelevant. We in Ireland wouldn't build a soviet reactor and maintain it to soviet standards.[/url]

Maybe we should build them to UK standards instead ? :rolleyes:

Look at the fuss over mobile phones where there isn't any scientific evidence of harm. Now compare that to radiation. As early as 1947 the Brits, Canucs and Yanks agreed that there wasn't a safe level of radiation, that any increase in radioactivity would lead to an increase in cancer risk.

If anyone one has heard of a breakthrough in the last 60 years that renders us immune to incresed levels of background radiation I'm all ears, until then, mining , disposal and other environmental releases all constitiute an increased risk to us all.

Lennoxschips

"idiots"? great level of debate here

i think it is perfectly reasonable to point out that a badly designed nuclear plant like chernobyl rendered thousands of square kilometres uninhabitable and poisoned thousands of people.

layke

Here's more info on it.

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/europe/news/article_1323676.php/Fire_put_out_in_German_nuclear-power_plant__Roundup_

Hamburg - A fire broke out in an ancillary area of a German nuclear power station on Thursday, sending thick black smoke billowing into the sky east of Hamburg, police said.

More than 100 firefighters used foam to extinguish the blaze in the cooling fluid of a huge transformer unit at the Kruemmel Power Station, a fire brigade spokesman in the town of Geesthaacht said.

The nuclear reactor itself did not catch fire, police in the nearby town of Ratzeburg said. Nobody was injured.

'It looked more dramatic than it really was,' the fire spokesman added.

Ivo Banek, a spokesman for plant owner Vattenfall Europe, said, 'The nuclear reactor shut down automatically as soon as it was disconnected from the power grid.'

The state of Schleswig-Holstein's nuclear regulatory agency disclosed that a second Vattenfall nuclear site had been shut down about 100 minutes earlier. The other plant, at Brunsbuettel, west of Hamburg, had to be idled because of an overload.

Banek said this was caused by a short-circuit in a switching unit.

How the Kruemmel transformer caught fire was not known, nor was it clear how long the site would remain disabled. The share price of Vattenfall Europe, which owns both plants, remained steady on the Frankfurt stock market.

Police did not say what the burning fluid was, but surplus heat from electrical transformers is usually conducted away with oil.

The transformer complex alters the power voltage so it can be fed into the national power grid.

Both plants use the water of the Elbe river as a coolant and are controlled by Swedish state-owned utility Vattenfall.

However neither is a sister plant to Vattenfall's Forsmark plant, 140 kilometres north of Stockholm, where there have been coolant leaks in the past year.

Kruemmel, the world's biggest boiling-water reactor, was built in 1984 by Hamburg's municipal power company, which was later taken over by Vattenfall. It produces 10.5 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity annually.

lemansky

Lennoxschips wrote:

i think it is perfectly reasonable to point out that a badly designed nuclear plant like chernobyl rendered thousands of square kilometres uninhabitable and poisoned thousands of people.

You know EXACTLY what I meant.

I never said that Chernobyl wasn't a disaster. It showed the dangers of nuclear power and when this is being discussed it is perfectly reasonable to point Chernobyl out. What I did say was that it is always used by people (idiots because they use it in an argument in which the accident has no relevance) to argue as to why nuclear power shouldn't be used. It is only a valid argument to use when demonstrating the potential dangers of having nuclear power, however when arguing as to whether or not we should have nuclear power it is irrelevant, as frankly we won't be building another Chernobyl, as we would in all fairness do a better job...

lemansky

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Maybe we should build them to UK standards instead ? :rolleyes:

Look at the fuss over mobile phones where there isn't any scientific evidence of harm. Now compare that to radiation. As early as 1947 the Brits, Canucs and Yanks agreed that there wasn't a safe level of radiation, that any increase in radioactivity would lead to an increase in cancer risk.

If anyone one has heard of a breakthrough in the last 60 years that renders us immune to incresed levels of background radiation I'm all ears, until then, mining , disposal and other environmental releases all constitiute an increased risk to us all.

Well even the UK ones are getting old. I'm thinking more modern ones, even build them to US standards which are actually very good.
Agreed background radiation isn't so good, but tbh there wouldn't be a problem with this from nuclear power stations (confirmed by somebody who knows what they're talking about)...unless an accident like Chernobyl occured...which wouldn't.

Give me a realistic alternative to nuclear power and I'll take it, but what are the alternatives. Look at the size of windfarms, then look at the amount of energy they supply. The same problem exists with solar power.

Nuclear power has its risks, but my point is that we'll need it at some stage, maybe not in our lifetime, but it will come to this country. As I always say, Chernobyl is NOT a reason for us not to consider nuclear power.

bonkey

probe wrote:

Ireland has probably the worst fire prevention engineering in buildings in Europe - together with GB.

Not when it comes to power-generation.

Moneypoint is coal-powered. Due to the nature of coal, fires are virtually a constant reality in the coal stacks - its simply unpreventable. What is preventable, however, is uncontrolled coal fires.

I would suggest that if you want to establish how well power-stations in Ireland are able to manage fire-risks , you should look at how power-stations in Ireland manage fire-risks, rather than how hotels, domestic houses, or anything else completely unrelated manages it.

If one car went on fire and it got to the fuel tank, the explosion would be likely to pass the fire to the next car and and so on forming an explosive chain reaction in short time.

Fuel-tanks typically don't explode. Its a tv-and-movie plot. Thats not to say that there wouldn't be a risk of fire spreading, but seriously.....a movie-plot scenario in a car-garage isn't relevant to the risk you're trying to compare to.

Nuclear power in Ireland is unthinkable - Irish engineering, architectural and fire prevention standards are so appallingly low.

Engineering, architectural and fire-prevention standards in Irish power stations are AAA-standard. They're as good as it gets for their type, each judged by when it was built.

That is the standard by which Irish power stations should be judged. Its the only standard by which they can be meaningfully judged. Their safety records are by-and-large exemplary.

Grudaire

Well while I think that nucleur power is viable, remember that if one accident or attack happened we'd all be f*cked, even the nordies too. our country is pretty tiny

bonkey

Cliste wrote:

Well while I think that nucleur power is viable, remember that if one accident or attack happened we'd all be f*cked, even the nordies too. our country is pretty tiny

You're just about as incorrect as its possible to be.

If we had a badly-designed, badly-built system and we left large amounts of radtioactive material sitting around where we should know better and we have a specific type of accident...then we'd all be f*cked.

Remove any of those conditions, and no, an accident will not f*ck us.

As for an attack...this isn't a movie-plot. Its pretty damned hard to do anything majorly nasty to a reactor with an attack. In fact, impossible is a more appropriate description. About the only way you could do anything serious would be to detonate a nuke inside the protective housing. Course, if you had a nuke, then its unlikely you'd be targetting a power station in the first place.

And yes...most existing reactor dome designs would stand up to being hit by large aircraft, so there's no excuse for even thinking that a repeat of 911 only targetting nuclear power plants in Ireland would be somehow different.

lemansky

bonkey wrote:

You're just about as incorrect as its possible to be.

If we had a badly-designed, badly-built system and we left large amounts of radtioactive material sitting around where we should know better and we have a specific type of accident...then we'd all be f*cked.

Remove any of those conditions, and no, an accident will not f*ck us.

As for an attack...this isn't a movie-plot. Its pretty damned hard to do anything majorly nasty to a reactor with an attack. In fact, impossible is a more appropriate description. About the only way you could do anything serious would be to detonate a nuke inside the protective housing. Course, if you had a nuke, then its unlikely you'd be targetting a power station in the first place.

And yes...most existing reactor dome designs would stand up to being hit by large aircraft, so there's no excuse for even thinking that a repeat of 911 only targetting nuclear power plants in Ireland would be somehow different.

Thank you.
Another person who sees that Chernobyl is not a reason not to have nuclear power, or why a terrorist attack is not a good reason either. The fact is, that with responsible management and the appropriate resources (all of which we can provide), nuclear power is the best source of power, safety taken into consideration when saying that.

bonkey

lemansky wrote:

The fact is, that with responsible management and the appropriate resources (all of which we can provide), nuclear power is the best source of power, safety taken into consideration when saying that.

I'm not sure I agree with this. However, it may be a necessary source of power and the least-worst-option to fill certain needs.

lemansky

bonkey wrote:

I'm not sure I agree with this. However, it may be a necessary source of power and the least-worst-option to fill certain needs.

Sorry I should've been clearer. I didn't mean that it was safer than the others. When it goes wrong it goes wrong big time. What I meant though was that the chances of it blowing it's top are so slim that even when you factor safety into the equation it's still viable as a source of power, and a better option than the others in terms of other effects it could have, environment, sustainability, availability of fuel etc. What I meant was that the balance of risk VS rewards is good, and so overall its better than other sources.

Hope that clears it up,
Lem

jhegarty

So if its not fossil fuel (running out) , Nuclear (radiation is bad) , Wind ( ruins the skyline ) , river and solar (don't provide enough power) then what is your solution ?

lemansky

Radiation can be controlled. It doesn't leak out unless you're careless-from a reactor, form cooling ponds, or from reprocessing plants. Sellafield is a joke, however most other similar premises in other countries haven't that problem. As I say, when managed properly, nuclear power is the way forward. IN years to come we will also have fusion reactors, which will be even better. Apparently they are on the verge of a breakthrough on that front.

humanji

jhegarty wrote:

So if its not fossil fuel (running out) , Nuclear (radiation is bad) , Wind ( ruins the skyline ) , river and solar (don't provide enough power) then what is your solution ?

Wave power. I was listening to an article on the radio a while ago. Apparently turbines placed along the western coastline could generate enough power, not only for Ireland, but for some of Europe too. Granted, the guy talking about it was trying to get funding for it (which Bertie, in his ultimate wisdom felt we're grand the way we are and refused), so he could be embelishing a little, but if it all went a head, Our electricity bills will only be a fraction of what they are now, and the country would make a fortune selling the excess to the mainland.

I'll have to look into it and see if I can get any links.

mike65

Wave power was discussed as part of a wider chat on Today With Derek Davis on RTE, less than one-third was the estimate for wave power, so forget about exporting the stuff. Its going to take a judicious mix and that will include nuclear one way or another, the only real issure is do we import it or built it and that will depend on "balls" and whether security of supply is considered of utmost importance.

Mike.

bonkey

jhegarty wrote:

So if its not fossil fuel (running out) , Nuclear (radiation is bad) , Wind ( ruins the skyline ) , river and solar (don't provide enough power) then what is your solution ?

Unsurprisingly, my solution is to use a combination of technologies.

Whether we like it or not, we have to accept that hydrocarbon is going to remain a player for at least the next 20 years.

Hydro-electric is currently at or close-to its maximum potential in Ireland, so there's not much more coming from there.

Wind - **** your skyline, to be honest. I'd rather that they disturb people's skyline then we find what relatively remote, unspoiled corners of the country are left and put them there.

Solar, possibly wave...can also play a role.

And the real winners....increase efficiency, reduce waste, and change our lifestyle*.

If at the end of all of that, we still need nuclear, then we go with nuclear. However, nuclear is only going to be considered (whether its supporters like it or not) to replace the existing oil/coal stations, if there is no other option. So that means it ain't gonna happen for 10-20 years, which additionally means that the entire energy landscape may have moved on, obviating the need for nuclear.

IN years to come we will also have fusion reactors, which will be even better.

I doubt we'll see a viable fusion-generation system within our lifetimes, personally. I'd love to be wrong on that, but I certainly won't be holding out hope for it as the "saving technology" for mankind.

* The third of these seems counter-intuitive. Most people see the problem to be solved in terms of "how can we continue our current lifestyle with the least changes". I don't believe we can. We're energy-junkies. We're long past the point where our usage is healthy, let alone sustainable. As much as we need to clean up our act, we need to change it too. Only when we realise this will we have a chance.

lemansky

bonkey wrote:

I doubt we'll see a viable fusion-generation system within our lifetimes, personally. I'd love to be wrong on that, but I certainly won't be holding out hope for it as the "saving technology" for mankind.

They're close to coming up with a reactor....but to produce one of the scale necesary, well we won't see that in our lifetime. Thinking ahead though, as a source of energy for the FUTURE it is realistic. We can't just plan for the next few decades. Long term planning in terms of energy demands means very long term. But maybe if we find a way to preserve ourselves we'll see the day:)

probe

Many people seem to be missing the point. Let’s assume that Ireland’s poor engineering standards aren’t tolerated in an Irish nuclear plant, but it goes on fire or for another reason has to be taken offline for an extended period. You then have a country with an average 4,000 MW of electricity demand with say 800 MW of nuclear capacity offline, in one blip, as a result of a single plant failure – on top of all the “normal” outages in the national generating capacity (about 25% of Ireland’s generating capacity is not working at the moment – add the failed nuclear plant and you are running without 45% of your generating capacity) http://www.eirgrid.com/EirGridPortal/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=SO%20-%20Generation%20System%20Availability&TreeLinkModID=1451&TreeLinkItemID=12

This implies that if Ireland was to install nuclear power, it would need 2 or 3 plants to provide redundancy. In separate locations to provide security of supply and fit into the grid network. Three NIMBY wars on the planning front.

Bottom line: nuclear isn’t a practical proposition in a small market.

Alternatively, build one plant and install two 800 MW connectors to another country (eg France) with a large installed base of nuclear generating capacity.

It would be better to install the equivalent or more of REAL renewable energy (wind, wave, tidal, and solar) and back that capacity up with connectivity to nuclear plants in a large country that has the system redundancy and infrastructure to manage waste etc in place. Sell the surplus green energy back down the line to the Continent so that it is fully utilised.

Conventional nuclear power is not a renewable energy source like wind or wave. The supply of uranium will reach a point in 30 or 40 years (maybe a lot sooner) where the energy used in extracting and processing the poor quality uranium left in the ground exceeds the energy delivered.

.probe

probe

SeanW wrote:

hence I find your comment is very insulting to all of Ireland.

I make no apologies for insulting Irish (or British) engineering standards – they are truly appalling by European standards.

Dysfunctional planning (leading to high house prices, long commutes, energy waste and an ugly half baked finished product that is totally at variance with traditional designs).

Plumbing and the crappy plumbing supplies used

Domestic and commercial wiring, including the clumpy prone to overheating 3 pin socket system

Public transport infrastructure (aside from the Luas trams which are made in France), including inter-city and suburban rail, and the mental block about integrated travel networks and ticketing

Road design, construction and traffic management systems, absence of motorway service areas etc

Airport design with long walks and overcrowding and poor quality of service

Irish architectural design in general (with a few exceptions)

The state of the national telecommunications infrastructure

The quality of the water supply and waste water treatment

Etc etc

The people responsible deserve to be insulted, until such time as they wake up and deliver!

.probe

lemansky

When Sean W's comment is taken in context, he was referring to the implicaton that we in Ireland couldn't build a nuclear power plant that wouldn't have a meltdown. He wasn't disputing the fact that standards elsewhere in the economy aren't great, as his comment only referred to nuclear power.

probe

lemansky wrote:

When Sean W's comment is taken in context, he was referring to the implicaton that we in Ireland couldn't build a nuclear power plant that wouldn't have a meltdown. He wasn't disputing the fact that standards elsewhere in the economy aren't great, as his comment only referred to nuclear power.

Fine. But if people can't be trusted in "little" things, why trust them with big projects which could have catastrophic implications for large numbers of people, in a worst case scenario?

.probe

lemansky

probe wrote:

Fine. But if people can't be trusted in "little" things, why trust them with big projects which could have catastrophic implications for large numbers of people, in a worst case scenario?

.probe

The people who build and design roads probably won't design and build nuclear power plants purely on their own.......I mean a nuclear power plant will be built to international standards, its not really in the interests of the people not to build this properly. Besides we have no previous experience of building nuclear plants so we would get in people from countries who have a good record to advise us, to design the place,and to oversee its construction and maintenance. They won't let standards slip.
Honestly, you can't begin to compare making apartment blocks etc to building nuclear power plants. I think that the conutry as a whole might just pay a little more attention to the standards of a power plant.

Capt'n Midnight

lemansky wrote:

Radiation can be controlled. It doesn't leak out unless you're careless-from a reactor, form cooling ponds, or from reprocessing plants. Sellafield is a joke, however most other similar premises in other countries haven't that problem. As I say, when managed properly, nuclear power is the way forward. IN years to come we will also have fusion reactors, which will be even better. Apparently they are on the verge of a breakthrough on that front.

ALL nuclear power stations release low level radiation in to the environment. It's not risk free. What is deemed an acceptable risk today becomes an environmental disaster with massive clean up cost tomorrow - has happened to most major industries already, the difference with the nuclear industry is that it's well nigh impossible to clean up totally. The NPL in the UK had to use steel from sunken German battleships because all modern steel is contaminated by the increase in background radiation released since then.

Fusion is the technology of the future, has been for the last 50 years and probably will be for the next 50.

Wave power / tidal turbines, willow coppicing, passive heating, better public transport, 0 vat/vrt on Indian compressed air cars (tata?) , telecommuting etc. should all be looked at too

lemansky

Low level radiation does not necessarily equal a disaster in years to come.

SeanW

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

The NPL in the UK had to use steel from sunken German battleships because all modern steel is contaminated by the increase in background radiation released since then.

Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Atmospheric weapons tests, Chernobyl - the reasons for this go on and on - and this is not an issue for modern, peaceful use of nuclear power. In addition:

Source.

This is because of all the toxic crap that coal contains. What's your position on - for example - Moneypoint?

I make no apologies for insulting Irish (or British) engineering standards – they are truly appalling by European standards.

I'm not contesting any of what you posted in your response following this but I am questioning your assertion that Ireland is incapable of developing a safe nuclear system.

Particularly given the scope available for contracting out components such as processing and reprocessing services, indeed you can buy a reactor pre-assembled and fully loaded as they're proposing to do in Galena, Alaska with the Toshiba 4S 10MW "Micro Nuke"

Also Irish authorities have been very safety concious - you can't buy a tram or a train, maybe even a bus these days without it conforming to a whole bunch of safety regulations, test run it for thousands of kilometres and demonstrate it to run reliably, safely and sustainably at 110% of its eventual speed limit. Chernobyl 4-on the other hand was rushed into service well before any kind of safety assurance was completed. It's little exaggeration to say that Ireland does a more thorough job inspecting and overseeing individual taxis than the Soviet Union did for its nuclear power plants.

So for you to claim that Ireland could not possibly have a safe nuclear programme - with an apartment complex as evidence - is little more than an anti-Irish insult. If what you said were to be true, Ireland would be unique among 1st world democracies in this regard.

MooseJam

bonkey wrote:

And yes...most existing reactor dome designs would stand up to being hit by large aircraft, so there's no excuse for even thinking that a repeat of 911 only targetting nuclear power plants in Ireland would be somehow different.

If I was a terrorist I'd harden the nose of my aircraft with tungsten or the like and load the body up with lead followed by a few tonnes of explosives, I reckon I could take out a reactor dome

breadmonkey

Hi probe. I think if you gave specific, detailed analysis of Ireland's p1ss poor engineering I think your uninformed rant might be a bit more credible.

bonkey

probe wrote:

Many people seem to be missing the point. Let’s assume that Ireland’s poor engineering standards aren’t tolerated in an Irish nuclear plant, but it goes on fire or for another reason has to be taken offline for an extended period. You then have a country with an average 4,000 MW of electricity demand with say 800 MW of nuclear capacity offline, in one blip, as a result of a single plant failure

So a plant like, say, Moneypoint, which generates just in excess of 1GW, would - by the same reasoning - be an absolute no-go.

Strange that, considering they not only built it, but that after 20 years of successful operation they concluded that it was worth the necessary refit.

Bottom line: nuclear isn’t a practical proposition in a small market.

Actually, the bottom line of your argument is that single-site, large-percentage-of-overall-capacity generation isn't a practical proposition, regardless of whether its nuclear or not.

As I've pointed out, the reality of the generating infrastructure in Ireland shows that this is simply not true.

The supply of uranium will reach a point in 30 or 40 years (maybe a lot sooner) where the energy used in extracting and processing the poor quality uranium left in the ground exceeds the energy delivered.

Only if fuel reprocessing isn't persued.

McSandwich

probe wrote:

The supply of uranium will reach a point in 30 or 40 years (maybe a lot sooner) where the energy used in extracting and processing the poor quality uranium left in the ground exceeds the energy delivered.

Very true. Current research is on Thorium as a fuel source. It is a very common metal which is present in most soils.

Originally, it's use for power generation was abandoned in favour of Uranium as its waste products cannot be used to produce weapons grade plutonium.

Thorium fission produces a fraction of the waste volume of Uranium (waste is easier to recycle or burned as fuel). Waste products are less radioactive and have a shorter half life. Also, there is a much lower risk of meltdown.

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/348