UK looking at Newry for potential nuclear waste site

4068ac1elhodqr · 06-02-2019 3:39pm

Jade Colossal Page wrote: »

Even using the term "dumped" is just a loaded way to put it and immediately get peoples backs up on it. You would swear the spent fuel was just being thrown into an open pit in the ground, nuclear waste storage couldn't be more the opposite of this.

So never any incidents of cracked concrete, seaguls bathing and overgrown weeds from storage dumping ponds full of 'hot rods' in Sellafield?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/29/sellafield-nuclear-radioactive-risk-storage-ponds-fears

^ Described as ‘disgracefully degraded’, by the executive director of the Institute for Resource and Security Studies.

One expert (in the article) remarked of the (many) ponds:

“The concrete is in dreadful condition, degraded and fractured, and if the ponds drain, the Magnox fuel will ignite and that would lead to a massive release of radioactive material...

...It’s not for me to make comparisons with Chernobyl or Fukushima, but it could certainly cause serious contamination over a wide area and for a very long time.,”

Anyway all this irrelevant, as there was unanimous cross-party from the N&MDC which was in the way off "f away off" to any proposals of using the area, (or anywhere in the North for that matter) for any type of storage.

06-02-2019 3:48pm

Roselyn Muscular Pickax wrote: »

So never any incidents of cracked concrete, seaguls bathing and overgrown weeds from storage dumping ponds full of 'hot rods' in Sellafield?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/29/sellafield-nuclear-radioactive-risk-storage-ponds-fears

^ Described as ‘disgracefully degraded’, by the executive director of the Institute for Resource and Security Studies.

One expert (in the article) remarked of the (many) ponds:

Anyway all this irrelevant, as there was unanimous cross-party from the N&MDC which was in the way off "f away off" to any proposals of using the area, (or anywhere in the North for that matter) for any type of storage.

Again a storage facility build in the 50's, hardly a good example of what a modern day strange plant would look like.

EdgeCase · 06-02-2019 3:52pm

cgcsb wrote: »

The German example: they have domestic coal they want to burn, Fukushima is the berfect excuse to switch from nuclear to coal. There are climate change targets they'll miss as a result, but Germany will simply change the rules on those targets so they'll be fine.

That's not the reason why. Much like in Ireland, the Germans have a fairly responsive democratic system using PR voting and there's a significant public concern about nuclear power and always has been, at least since Chernobyl. When Fukushima happened, there was very serious pressure put on to move very rapidly towards non-nuclear renewables.

There's a very sizeable green lobby in Germany and going nuclear-free would be a fairly significant factor both for the official greens and just for those concerned about ecological issues who may vote for other parties.

You can argue that it was irrational because German nuclear energy was safer - no seismic risks, different equipment (mostly Siemens or ABB) and so on, but that's what happened. Siemens even disposed of its nuclear energy business.

The French Government on the other-hand doesn't work like that and tends to drive big issues through, not paying much attention to stuff like that. It's a much more executive-heavy, non-listening other than when there's an election and of governance. It's also probably why France tends to have protests more (particularly when you consider France used too have 7 year executive presidential terms!)

Burning coal has been the consequence of what was probably not a very well thought-through plan. From a purely environmental point of view, a longer phase out would have made more sense.

4068ac1elhodqr · 06-02-2019 4:00pm

Jade Colossal Page wrote: »

Again a storage facility build in the 50's, hardly a good example of what a modern day strange plant would look like.

This photo was from circa 2014, guess there was technology available back then just to pick up a few weeds, nevermind any effort to try to keep the place tidy. Lovely 21st century example for sure:

EdgeCase · 06-02-2019 4:08pm

Jade Colossal Page wrote: »

Again a storage facility build in the 50's, hardly a good example of what a modern day strange plant would look like.

Sellafield's a mess, largely because it was operated under sort of military secrecy for years as opposed to having been a normally managed facility.

There was also a rather weird problem with the original UK Magnox reactors. They made a very strange choice of material, using a Magnesium Oxide cladding/housing on the fuel rods. This was chosen because it made sense from a nuclear physics point of view and allowed them to avoid having to do complex enrichment process.

The downside is that it reacts with water! So, basically the long-term storage of old British fuel rods under water is impossible as they literally rust. This meant that they had to be reprocessed quite quickly after use, which is why Sellafield was so significant.

During the miners strikes / winter of discontent era, the UK's conventional coal fired plants were off line and the nuclear fleet was run at maximum capacity to keep the lights on. Sellafield couldn't keep up, so large amounts of spent fuel was stored in pretty ludicrously bad ways. Hence the huge problem with the massively expensive clean up.

This problem does not occur with ay of the current generation of UK plants which are an evolution of those Magnox designs called AGR (Advanced Gas Cooled Reactor) which is unique to the UK and never managed to achieve any export sales. The design was pretty different - using a gas coolant (mostly CO2) but they were very complex and expensive to build compared to competing designs, so they were really a dead end technology. There was a similar French technology which was also never developed beyond generation one for similar reasons.

Zorya · 06-02-2019 4:13pm

Jade Colossal Page wrote: »

It's sad that misinformation, irrational fears and politicians willing to pander to this are resulting in a reduction in the best way the planet has for generating clean electricity (short if Fusion). As a Physicist who has always been strong advocate for nuclear power and absolutely adore the beauty of fission, its power and efficiency I really do sometimes wish I was alive in the days where it was being developed and gung-ho experiments were the norm.

.

You mightn't believe this but I can also understand the point of view that sees a certain kind of beauty in nuclear power - but I just cannot go there with the human record on carelessness, cost-cutting, political instability, war-mongering, greediness and so on.

Your story brings to my mind Galen Winsor who was

[QUOTEa nuclear physicist of renown who worked at, and helped design, nuclear power plants in Hanford, WA; Oak Ridge, TN; Morris, IL, San Jose, CA; Wimington, NJ. Among his positions of expertise he was in charge of measuring and controlling the nuclear fuel inventory and storage.

Galen Winsor has traveled and lectured all over America, spoken on national talk radio, and made several videos exposing the misunderstood issues of nuclear radiation. He shows that fear of radiation has been exaggerated to scare people … so a few powerful people can maintain total control of the world’s most valuable power resource.][/QUOTE]

(I have taken this from a random site to summarise his background - nobody to jump on me if it is where the crazies live!)

Galen used to swim in a pool of reactor water, eat uranium, and handled it for decades without taking precautions. I admired him for his quirky character and undeniable balls of steel, but I still am not on board the nuclear train.

Nope, no siree.

EdgeCase · 06-02-2019 4:20pm

Well, when you look at sources of radionuclide pollution in the atmosphere nuclear power isn't actually the biggest source by a long shot. The majority of them came from atmospheric nuclear bomb testing in the 1950s, 60s and into the 70s. There were an incredible number of nuclear bombs tested, and we probably are paying for that in terms of health implications.

There are also large amounts of radionuclides released by burning coal and heavy oils. There are none or almost none released by a properly operating nuclear power plant.

I mean, it's odd that people are panicked by nuclear power, which for the most part is extremely safe, yet will happily huddle around a coal fire which is billowing out all sorts of horrible and nasty particulates and gunk, including plenty of carcinogens and quite possibly some radioactive particles.

That being said, I would still rather see us move towards as much green energy as humanly possible.

If you want to talk about radioactive pollutants though have a chat with the people who authorised this insanity:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9lquok4Pdk

And we've just had Trump begin to undo nuclear weapons test ban treaties

Capt'n Midnight · 06-02-2019 10:47pm

cgcsb wrote: »

Costs of nuclear are large, no doubt. Nothing else delivers the same result is the problem. Cost of solar and wind is dropping but you can't base load with either, there are promises of better storage to allow for a renewable base load but this remains theoretical and uncosted.

Whether you invest in Nuclear or Renewables you'll need some way of being able to ramp up output during the deep demand or when wind dies down.

Nuclear doesn't displace gas turbines, it absolutely depends on them to support it.

06-02-2019 11:34pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Whether you invest in Nuclear or Renewables you'll need some way of being able to ramp up output during the deep demand or when wind dies down.

Nuclear doesn't displace gas turbines, it absolutely depends on them to support it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station

Dakotabigone · 06-02-2019 11:37pm

Can we parcel motel the stuff?

Amalgam · 06-02-2019 11:47pm

Quite a few people in Ireland, die each year from exposure to Radon gas, particulalrly older homes with timber over earth type foundations. Far more than from the global fatalities tied explicitly to the nuclear power generating grid.

I think nuclear power does still have a place, you're led to believe that batteries are a solution, but they're just, 'pollution displacement', pollution still takes place, just somewhere else.. not near you!

Dakotabigone · 06-02-2019 11:49pm

Amalgam wrote: »

Quite a few people in Ireland, die each year from exposure to Radon gas, particulalrly older homes with timber over earth type foundations. Far more than from the global fatalities tied explicitly to the nuclear power generating grid.

I think nuclear power does still have a place, you're led to believe that batteries are a solution, but they're just, 'pollution displacement', pollution still takes place, just somewhere else.. not near you!

Have you a link to the radon gas exposure?

Amalgam · 06-02-2019 11:55pm

Dakotabigone wrote: »

Have you a link to the radon gas exposure?

Irish Times: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/radon-gas-causes-up-to-200-lung-cancer-deaths-a-year-1.497900

The most dry and credible links are from the EPA, here in Ireland.

Environmental Protection Agency: http://epa.ie/

If you go to their site and search for 'Radon'.

Some of their links are Acrobat .pdf files.

https://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/radiation/RPII_NCRI_Radon_Health_Risks_2005.pdf

---

Depending on the site you visit, things get a bit tabloid in nature..

http://www.telecare.ie/2017/01/26/radon-gas-kills-250-yearly/

It is enough of a problem that the government has been doing a rolling campaign of information on TV and print for as long as I can remember.

07-02-2019 1:00am

Dakotabigone wrote: »

Have you a link to the radon gas exposure?

It’s the second biggest cause of lung cancer after smoking in many parts of the world.

07-02-2019 6:17am

This is a good xkcd for people who talk about nuclear radiation slewing out of Fukushima into the ocean, or for people who post pictures of the pools containing spent fuel.

https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/

Isn't it amazing that with all this risk, we've had two events, one from incredible incompetence, and another from an Earthquake and some bad luck, yet so relatively few people have died?

People talk of Fukushima like it was a disaster. If that's what a modern nuclear disaster looks like, sign me up. We don't even have geological risks like that so it would never happen.

I'd have no problem with this waste being stored in Newry apart from the chance of a UI in the next few decades. We don't have the expertise to manage it I assume.

Zorya · 07-02-2019 8:24am

Amalgam wrote: »

Quite a few people in Ireland, die each year from exposure to Radon gas, particulalrly older homes with timber over earth type foundations. Far more than from the global fatalities tied explicitly to the nuclear power generating grid.
!

Don't understand this kind of argument. There must be a name for it, but I don't know it. Just because people die of one thing we should not mind them dying of the other thing? Don't mind polio because, look it, loads die from typhus? Nuclear radioactivity causes disease, death, genetic deformities, suffering. But sure, never mind, so does beer.

07-02-2019 8:38am

Zorya wrote: »

Don't understand this kind of argument. There must be a name for it, but I don't know it. Just because people die of one thing we should not mind them dying of the other thing? Don't mind polio because, look it, loads die from typhus? Nuclear radioactivity causes disease, death, genetic deformities, suffering. But sure, never mind, so does beer.

whataboutery

dermo888 · 07-02-2019 1:01pm

Could'nt we lease ..... no rather.....SELL Tyrellstown to them as a storage facility. It could only improve the genetics of the Skangers in the place.

07-02-2019 1:04pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd have no problem with this waste being stored in Newry apart from the chance of a UI in the next few decades. We don't have the expertise to manage it I assume.

Which is why Newry won't get selected.

07-02-2019 3:15pm

Zorya wrote: »

Don't understand this kind of argument. There must be a name for it, but I don't know it. Just because people die of one thing we should not mind them dying of the other thing? Don't mind polio because, look it, loads die from typhus? Nuclear radioactivity causes disease, death, genetic deformities, suffering. But sure, never mind, so does beer.

Yes radioactivity causes these things but there is a very long list of radioactive sources to worry about before taking about nuclear energy.

People would be far better served educating themselves about radioactivity where they might learn that they need to look a lot closer to home when worrying about the dangers of radioactivity rater than losing the head about one of the safest industries there has ever been on the planet.

Even with the one major nuclear the planet has had (chernoybl) and include the most pessimistic cancer death numbers predicted because of it nuclear power is still miles safer than other forms of electricity generation and many other unrelated industries that we don't bat an eye lid at also.

4068ac1elhodqr · 07-02-2019 3:21pm

The council there, unanimously said 'clear off' to those suggesting it as a suitable location.

Therefore, looks like they'll have to look for locations in Britian instead.

From one of the local papers:
Party politics were left at the door on Monday night as Newry, Mourne and Down District (NMDDC) councillors unanimously backed a cross-party motion to oppose any possibility of the district being used as a dumping ground for radioactive waste.

The emergency Notice of Motion - brought forward by the SDLP, Sinn Féin, the UUP and the DUP - at Monday’s full Council meeting called on the Council to make clear that it ‘does not consent and never will consent to hosting a geological waste disposal facility in our Council area’.

Ah well that's that then.
Case closed.

07-02-2019 3:23pm

Roselyn Muscular Pickax wrote: »

The council there, unanimously said 'clear off' to those suggesting it as a suitable location.

Therefore, looks like they'll have to look for locations in Britian instead.

From one of the local papers:
Party politics were left at the door on Monday night as Newry, Mourne and Down District (NMDDC) councillors unanimously backed a cross-party motion to oppose any possibility of the district being used as a dumping ground for radioactive waste.

The emergency Notice of Motion - brought forward by the SDLP, Sinn F, the UUP and the DUP - at Monday’s full Council meeting called on the Council to make clear that it ‘does not consent and never will consent to hosting a geological waste disposal facility in our Council area’.

Ah well that's that then.
Case closed.

The Newry situation is only a sideshow as far as I'm concerned the thread has evolved past that. As frustrating as it is debating with people who are ignorant of so much on the topic it is still something I think is worth while as it might encourage some to do some more reading into it.

07-02-2019 3:28pm

Roselyn Muscular Pickax wrote: »

The council there, unanimously said 'clear off' to those suggesting it as a suitable location.

Therefore, looks like they'll have to look for locations in Britian instead.

From one of the local papers:
Party politics were left at the door on Monday night as Newry, Mourne and Down District (NMDDC) councillors unanimously backed a cross-party motion to oppose any possibility of the district being used as a dumping ground for radioactive waste.

The emergency Notice of Motion - brought forward by the SDLP, Sinn Féin, the UUP and the DUP - at Monday’s full Council meeting called on the Council to make clear that it ‘does not consent and never will consent to hosting a geological waste disposal facility in our Council area’.

Ah well that's that then.
Case closed.

cgcsb · 07-02-2019 3:33pm

Zorya wrote: »

Don't understand this kind of argument. There must be a name for it, but I don't know it. Just because people die of one thing we should not mind them dying of the other thing? Don't mind polio because, look it, loads die from typhus? Nuclear radioactivity causes disease, death, genetic deformities, suffering. But sure, never mind, so does beer.

The point is, you can have leathal coal or oil or safer nuclear.

4068ac1elhodqr · 07-02-2019 3:34pm

Well Newry, Mourne and Down District Council have said no anyway.

Of course the more 'orange' places such as Banbridge, Portadown and some parts of Belfast,
source much of their tap water from Spelga Dam in the middle of the Mournes, they will 99.9% likely say no also if asked.

Case closed, except of course for those with an agenda to promote the nuclear waste industry.

Zorya · 07-02-2019 3:40pm

Roselyn Muscular Pickax wrote: »

Well Newry, Mourne and Down District Council have said no anyway.

Of course the more 'orange' places such as Banbridge, Portadown and some parts of Belfast,
source much of their tap water from Spelga Dam in the middle of the Mournes, they will 99.9% likely say no also if asked.

Case closed, except of course for those with an agenda to promote the nuclear waste industry.

The Northern Ireland Executive being awol for 2 years with no return in sight also probably doesn't help with the logistics of organising the ''hotsing'' of a nuclear waste store/dump.

fancy pigeon · 07-02-2019 3:43pm

Auguste Comte wrote: »

Is this a DUP plan to turn everyone in the North orange,

And effing stupid.

It'll just turn everyone fluorescent green when the waste escapes

The One Doctor · 07-02-2019 4:11pm

Oh no. Not now. The UK has one of the EU's biggest piles of radioactive waste, as transporting it to Newry would be... problematic.

Building B30 at Sellafield is a horrible mess and very, very dangerous. Chunks of radioactive machines and debris were just dumped - particularly after the Windscale fire. Selecting Newry would be a really, really bad idea for us... but a good idea for the UK, as it gets the waste off the mainland.

Capt'n Midnight · 07-02-2019 10:33pm

Aegir wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station

They started building it in 1974, took ten years. Nowadays there'd be protesters and environmental impact studies too.

Ffestiniog 1963 and Cruachan 1959 are even older.
Which should give you some indication of how much they cost given they haven't added much capacity since.

Though the Silvermines one in a disused mine is an interesting idea.

The peak price that pumped storage could get any day of the week is now only available on calm overcast days. In Germany renewables and interconnectors have undermined pumped storage because there just isn't the regular demand even though operating and maintenance costs still have to be paid.

One of the reasons Nuclear is insanely expensive is that you have to provide so much backup for it. And construction times and decomission times are so long that the cost of financing the money is a huge chunk of the overall cost.

Capt'n Midnight · 07-02-2019 10:53pm

Deleted User wrote: »

People talk of Fukushima like it was a disaster. If that's what a modern nuclear disaster looks like, sign me up. We don't even have geological risks like that so it would never happen.

I'd have no problem with this waste being stored in Newry apart from the chance of a UI in the next few decades. We don't have the expertise to manage it I assume.

Map Newry and see how much of the Republic would be affected by the exclusion zones from Fukushima or Chernobyl or the East Ural Nature Reserve.

Now work out the cost of all the assets, all the houses and land and personal goods that the govt would have to pay out insurance on.

We don't even have geological risks like that so it would never happen.
Bristol Channel Flood of 1607.
2 meter tsunami in Galway in 1755.

BTW we have jellyfish and transformer fires are another week point of power plants , though nukes seem more susceptible. The French plan was to house two reactors per site and use the other one for backup power , which is why they are spending lots of money adding backup. The UK are spending lots too building sea walls because of the HISTORICAL floods mentioned above.

Retrofitting safety is another insane cost of nuclear.

And cost is important because if the aren't profitable then the will be the temptation to cut corners ever further during operation and for waste storage. As always the taxpayer would have to pick up the tab.

Investing in nuclear is betting the pensions of an entire nation that the nuclear industry that has consistently been late and over budget will magically change despite 75 years of evidence to the contrary.

Infini · 07-02-2019 10:57pm

Pff if the English want to bury their Nuclear Waste they can bury it on their own island thank you very much!

Only Nuclear Facilicies that will ever get built here is when they finally invent a working Fusion Reactor!

EdgeCase · 07-02-2019 11:05pm

Just explain to the DUP that it will cause Northern Ireland to glow green.

UK looking at Newry for potential nuclear waste site

Comments