Update on Chernobyl

A few weeks ago I did a focus section on Nuclear Power, recently there have been some developments in Chernobyl which I feel are important to include so this is just a quick break in the discussion about oil.

At the beginning of November, work began on the Chernobyl site to remove the ventilation stacks which are 75m tall and weight around 220 tonnes (World Nuclear News, 5th November). The aim of this is to allow the construction of a shield over the site to contain any future radation links. The first ventilation stack has been successfully removed and the construction of the shield has begun. The 110m high shield is also enough to hide a football pitch and will be a oppressive feature on the landscape (BBC News, 27th November).

The arch so far

First part of construction of the arch - BBC News

This is one of the most ambitious engineering projects in history and is aiming to finish in 2015. The challenges in construction have been enormous, before you even start considering the radiation levels and risk to workers. The reactor (which exploded in 1986) is still far to reactive for people to work there for significant periods of time so the arch is constructed at another site and then transported on rails to the site (VINCI Construction).

A model of the final structure - aiming to be complete in 2015

The final construction - Novarka

Once completed the shield should contain any future leaks and protect the surrounding area: finally allowing the population to move on more from the disaster. It does raise the question of what is a reasonable level of risk to take and is Nuclear Power a step too far. There is still so much we don't fully understand about the effects of disasters such as Chernobyl and Fukushima that the response to them is limited.

Nuclear Power - Final Thoughts

To conclude my section on Nuclear Power I wanted to do a brief summary of the threats and opportunities it presents. More detail and references to relevant information on each aspect can be found in previous posts, this is just a quick conclusion!

Opportunities

• Reliable and continuous form of energy
• Ongoing research to improve the safety and efficiency of the process
• Offers energy security and independence for many countries
• Low carbon technology compared  to fossil fuels
• Public perception

Threats

• Very expensive technology and decommissioning costs
• Safe disposal of radioactive waste
• Risk of fallout after accidents or natural hazards
• Taking focus from renewable energy
• Public perception

I have deliberately put public perception in both opportunities and threats. A wealth of research suggests that a lot of the general public are very opposed to nuclear power, largely for concerns over safety. After disasters such as Fukushima and Chernobyl this isn't overly surprising (Macilwain, Nature, 2011). However, the ultimate challenge nuclear power has to overcome is the cost. A study by MIT in 2003 and again in 2009 showed that the cost of building a nuclear power plant had doubled in just five years from $2000/kW to $4000/kW (Du and Parsons, CEEPR, 2009). These units represent the price per kilowatt hour to build a new rector. The price of oil and gas power plants has also increased though not as rapidly. 

The increasing cost of nuclear reactors is set to increase due to material costs, safety improvements and uranium costs. Ultimately this increasing cost will eventually make nuclear power unprofitable as a energy source over the next 50-100 years (European Parliament Conference). 

My final thought, living in a country that never experiences devastating earthquakes it is difficult to imagine the reaction to the Fukushima Nuclear Power plant disaster. This week the UCL Institute for Risk and Disaster Reduction commemorated its work with Japan by hosting a symposium on the disaster with representatives from UCL and Tohoku University. Attending the symposium helped me understand this a little more and I wanted to finish with a map of the world showing nuclear power plants and seismic activity. The devastation after Fukushima really makes you question if nuclear power is worth it.

Worldwide nuclear power plants and earthquake zones - courtesy of MAPTD 2013

Blue dots - The location of 248 atomic energy plants, including numbers of reactors
Heatmap - Every earthquake after 1973 with a magnitude over 4.5. Around 173,000 in total

A Good Day to Die Hard

You can't go wrong with a classic action plot line, although I have to say that Die Hard Five (hilariously named "A Good Day to Die Hard") pushes the limits slightly.

The final seen sees Bruce Willis and his son (who conveniently is undercover for the CIA) destroy a house containing a large amount of uranium weapons: the same technology used in commercial nuclear reactors. What caught my eye in this scene was the iPad app that Brucey was using which told him the radiation levels in the house: informing him they were in a perilous situation. I wanted to see if there was much science behind this or whether Hollywood was just having a laugh. 

During the Japan Earthquake and Tsuanami in 2011, radio and TV were recorded as being the most useful media for distributing information. However mobile devices which can connect to wifi are becoming increasingly significant, alongside this is a the development of apps for emergency situations. 

Earthquake Warning App - using data from the Japan Meteorological Agency, users get an early warning about an earthquake. This only gives a few minutes warning but allows people to go into emergency procedures such as turning off gas supplies and getting to a safer location. 

Defibrillator App - this app shows the users proximity to automated defibrillators which can be used by anyone to restart someone's heart. This is one example of many useful apps which relate to emergency services and healthcare in the area. 

Safe Area Checker - this app was created after the disaster at the Fukushima power plant so that users can check their proximity to the area which is deemed unsafe to enter. This app has been incredibly popular. 

I couldn't find any 'die hard' style radiation apps yet but there are certainly some really helpful products being created. The ones focused on getting information or support to people during or after the event seem great, providing they are kept up to date. I'm a little more sceptical about ones that aim to 'predict' events or show augmented realities of what different hazards would do. To me this seems unnecessary scaremongering and I'm not sure what 'evidence' some of the apps are based on. 

Information sourced from Emergency Journalism website 

Nuclear Power in the UK

In 1934, Nuclear fission was achieved by scientist Enrico Fermi. After the World War Two the UK government began to heavily invest in research into the commercial potential of nuclear power. At this time, it was one of the leading companies in nuclear research for energy and weaponry potential.

1956 and the world's first commercial nuclear reactor, Calder Hall 1, was opened by Queen Elizabeth in Sellafield (The Guardian 2013). A fire in one of the reactors two years later destroyed part of the plant although no one was harmed in the incident. There were concerns over impacts of radioactive leakage from the plant, exacerbated by lack of communication from the company. Details about the event were not released for thirty years.

Over the next few decades many more nuclear reactors were built including Chapelcross, Hinkley Point and Dungeness. The government gave full support to nuclear power, despite the growth of many opposition groups. A successful campaign from opposition groups did stop the dumping of nuclear waste into the Atlantic. With hindsight it seems incredible that unregulated dumping of material was allowed to go on for thirty years! (Greenpeace Nuclear Waste Campaigns)

Nuclear power continued to grow as an industry in the UK, despite increasing environmental regulation and opposition groups. At its peak in the mid 1990s, it contributed around 25% of the UK's energy needs.

In 2000 the nuclear industry was brought under fire over a scandal relating to faked safety records. Over the next five years many reactors were shut down:

• 2000 - Hinkley Point A1 and A2 shut down
• 2002 - Bradwell 1 and 2 shut down
• 2003 - Calder Hall 1, 2, 3 and 4 shut down
• 2005 - Chapelcross 1, 2, 3 and 4 shut down
• 2006 - Dungeness A1 and A2, Sizewell A1 and A2 shut down

The UK government are caught between industry and anti nuclear groups. They continue to support the industry and the highlight the benefits for the economy and consumers. At the same time, very serious issues are raised over safety and the general public's opinion of nuclear power goes down. Now the government don't just need to worry about campaign groups but also general voters. This is occasionally tangled up with Nuclear weapons such as Trident, making it even more challenging for the government to get the support of the general public.

Most recent developments include the 2010 government funding package for Sheffield Forgemasters who make nuclear reactors and in 2013 a 40 year subsidy was agreed with energy companies who agree to building new nuclear power stations. In October of this year the new power plant, Hinkley Point C, got the go ahead from government. All of this suggests that government is still fully behind nuclear power. Dare I suggest that fracking is providing a nice distraction and allowing nuclear power to be the 'lesser of two evils'.

Nuclear Power in the UK. Source (BBC News) based on data from the Department of
Energy and Climate Change