Severe Nuclear Reactor Accidents Likely Every 10 to 20 Years, European Study Suggests

Severe Nuclear Reactor Accidents Likely Every 10 to 20 Years, European Study Suggests

www.sciencedaily.com

Catastrophic nuclear accidents such as the core meltdowns in Chernobyl and Fukushima are more likely to happen than previously assumed. Based on the operating hours of all civil nuclear reactors and the number of nuclear meltdowns that have occurred, scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz have calculated that such events may occur once every 10 to 20 years (based on the current number of reactors) -- some 200 times more often than estimated in the past.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.csmonitor.com
www.bionomicfuel.com
www.world-nuclear.org

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Explosion at the nuclear plant in France ..
Is This the Beginning of the End of Nuclear Power in the U.S.?

Reading this makes me think that Germany have done the good choice to exit from their nuclear power program. Nonetheless, there still are European countries that still refused to do a decisive step toward the end of this madness.
France, especially (and in spite of the decisions of the new French president that decided to close the oldest French power plant) still continue to promote and to support the idea that the only good way to produce energy is to use it ad vitam eternam

"Currently, there are 440 nuclear reactors in operation, and 60 more are planned." around the world, and let's not forget China and India that actually see their power needs literally explode... and without a good alternative, there's no doubt that they will continue this way:
Mainland China has 14 nuclear power reactors in operation, more than 25 under construction, and more about to start construction soon....
India had 16 nuclear power reactors in operation generating 4,560 MW while 4 other are under construction...

When this madness will stop??

www.sciencedaily.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Yes, agree - nuclear is not the option. However it makes me wonder, how is Germany going to get enough electricity to run "business as usual" ? Hopefully not by importing nuclear energy from France haha.

reply to post by elevenaugust


Seriously..how much does it cost for them to come to that conclusion?
Loads of think tanking and budget spending fun.

Many folks could tell them that for free,and guess what,the 10 to 20 will soon be 5 to 10 years as we neglect older nuclear plants because the economy is screwed,and buy new nuclear power plants from the lowest bidder China...

Hooray,the future is really looking great is it not???

A few years ago the airline industry was looking at a major aircraft accident every day - killing up to hundreds of people every time - that future has gone away by dint of technology and hard work.

If you want a "western" lifestyle, with the associated energy use, you'd better hope that a similar effort improves the safety performance of nuclear power - because nothing else comes close to being able to provide it.

the figures were also obviously using current standards - with reactors mostly now 30+ years old what else would you actually expect?

However even with all that old technology how many people actually get killed by these nuclear disasters, as opposed to every year in coal mines and oil fields, and from pollution induced cancers and other forms of life shortening??

Like airliners, modern technology offers a great deal in the way of safety improvements.

Personally I'm in favour of not having to try to live with a 3rd world energy level.

I feel as though nuclear energy is safe but many governments lack common sense.

Placing them near earthquake fault zones and/or tsunami zones are accidents waiting to happen.

There NEEDS to be better methods of neutralising and/or containing spent fuel rods which are many times more dangerous than new fuel rods.

Any reactor that is past the safe operating stage should be decommisioned.

Some times the simplest, but most overlooked things, make all the difference!

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


You are right, nuclear energy itself is not to blame. Human irresponsibility is the cause of the accidents, not nuclear energy.

reply to post by QQXXw


What scares me the most is all the nuclear power plants located on the new madrid fault line in the states.

If god forbid a major earthquake happened there I am not sure humanity or nature would ever recover.

Did american officials really not know about it?

One of the main problems is that they keep extending the service lives of these reactors.

If it was designed to last 30 years it should be shut down after 30 years.

Seems like their calculation is really trivial. They just divided the number of total operating hours by the number of meltdowns, thats all. Is that really enough for a scientific article? They neglected the fact that all the meltdowns were of old reactor types, newer ones are supposed to be much safer, and many other factors.

Bottom line is, we do not have enough data points to statistically determine dangers of nuclear with any reliability.

I also wonder what is the number of deaths per GWh of energy produced assuming their conclusion is true? Because I am sure it will be well below fossil fuels, thus making nuclear still the least evil option.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


I would not say earthquakes in themselves pose a problem for modern nuclear power plants. They are built with earthquakes in mind.

What caused the meltdown at Fukushima was not the earthquake (the power plants survived it without problems), but resulting tsunami which destroyed the power lines and flooded the backup generators.

Power stations in Germany are not threatened by tsunamis (or earthquakes for that matter), so phasing them out due to Fukushima was irrational knee-jerk reaction, which already resulted in increased CO2 emissions.

But for the future, we should move to safer nuclear designs, like thorium reactors or IV. generation designs.

Originally posted by Maslo
Seems like their calculation is really trivial. They just divided the number of total operating hours by the number of meltdowns, thats all. Is that really enough for a scientific article? They neglected the fact that all the meltdowns were of old reactor types, newer ones are supposed to be much safer, and many other factors.

Bottom line is, we do not have enough data points to statistically determine dangers of nuclear with any reliability.

I also wonder what is the number of deaths per GWh of energy produced assuming their conclusion is true? Because I am sure it will be well below fossil fuels, thus making nuclear still the least evil option.

edit on 23/5/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

There are SOOOO many alternatives to nuclear energy i'm actually baffled we still use it at all.

Our planet's surface is 75% water, of which the open water (oceans and rivers) are ALWAYS in motion. This kinetic energy could easily be converted into electrical energy, same goes for wind and solar power.

But since this requires investments and a new infrastructure, i think it'll be at least 2 or 3 generations until we start using these energy potentials on a big scale (if humanity will even last this long).

Nuclear power, imo, should be replaced as a whole.

reply to post by Maslo


I thought a crack on the pool bed developed as a direct result of the earthquake opening up the ground

Maybe it was a combination of factors such as the ones you already mentioned: backup generators got flooded and short circut themselves out.

Are the reactors fitted with those ball-bearing(horizontal movement) and shock absorbers for vertical motion?
If not then they should be. Also I have the feeling that there is some kind of conspiracy involved with dealing with the spent fuel rods.