You are at netAirspace : Forum : The Combustion Chamber - Off-Topics : General Off-Topics

Today, around lunchtime, I was in the supermarket, when suddenly the lights went out.

Later today, I was in Hamburg city, wondering why most of the traffic lights didn't work.

Now I know.

We have a nuclear plant near Hamburg - AKW Krümmel in Geesthacht. After a series of significant accidents and incidents, leading to serious doubt if the owner, Swedish Vattenfall group, really had things under control, authorities closed it down some 2 years ago.

Last week, it was fired up again. After Vattenfall reassured authorities to completely have reworked the reactor, and after promising that their information policy was significantly improved (they mostly tried to keep silence over the incidents in the past, and just repeatedly told the public that everything was under control), they had received their operation license back.

Since then, there were 3 major incidents leaving to emergency shutdowns again. One led to a temporary underpowering of our local power network today. This caused thousands of computers, traffic lights and other electrical and electronical equipment to malfunction.

And Vattenfall? Keeps silence over the incident, except for reassuring the public that everything is under control...

I don't wanna be a NIMBY, and I know that there is no alternative to nuclear power, at least not in short term. But I'd be lying if I said that I was comfortable living a mere 15 km away from this sad joke of a nuclear power plant...

Does the government have the power to confiscate it and sell it off to someone more competent?

Yes and no. The state (Schleswig-Holstein) could revoke Vattenfall's license to operate nuclear power plants in our state. As a consequence, the plant would either have to be closed for good, or sold to another operator, in case he would obtain a proper license from the state.

But I don't think the state could confiscate it.

That'd do - as long as it ends up not being run by the current bunch of clowns.

A nuclear reactor is a bit more complex than flat-pack furniture.

Zak wrote:there is no alternative to nuclear power

Why not? How did people in that area get electrical power before there was a nuclear plant? Is there no natural gas in that area? Is there no coal?

ShanwickOceanic wrote:A nuclear reactor is a bit more complex than flat-pack furniture.

Which would, as far as I am concerned, ask for operations staff that is a tad more competent than furniture packers. Doesn't seem like it, though.

There's new details leaking through (no pun intended) today, and now I'm fucking pissed.

So pissed that I spontaneously drove to Krümmel this afternoon, to join the (surprisingly small) crowd of protesters.

The incident that happened yesterday was pretty much exactly the same shit that happened 2 years ago, which lead to the closure of the plant. A transformer short-circuited, causing a fire, shutdown procedures didn't work as required, leading to an unhealthy level of radiation inside the reactor, which then finally led to an emergency shutdown. And even that didn't work without problems.

Yesterday, a valve proved to be faulty, leading to radioactive oil leaking into the earth below it.

And here's the sweetest thing: no emergency was declared by the operators. Which would be required by law. Instead, the emergency was reported by policemen who were stationed outside the plant (due to daily protests going on there), and who were alarmed by firefighter and security staff movement inside the plant premises. Their report, plus the hundreds of calls by citizens who were temporarily out of power, or reported switched-off traffic lights, led to a formal inquiry by authorities. And only then, Vattenfall admitted that they had a problem in the plant.

Who do these fucking clowns think they are???

I sure do hope that our elected representatives take appropriate action tomorrow.

Btw, Messrs. Vattenfall are the same folks that brought us the 2006 Forsmark incident, the most severe accident since the Chernobyl disaster. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forsmark_N ... 6_incident

Strip these clowns of their license to operate nuclear plants and make them pack furniture instead, before things will get worse. Feel free to call me a NIMBY, but I have no desire living in Chernobyl II.

Jesus...

Get some competent people in there. C'mon, there are plenty of successful plants in Europe, someone should be able to do a better job.

To be fair, Krümmel was a questionable nuclear plant even before Vattenfall took over.

Oh well, as long as E.ON keeps control of Brokdorf there will be at least one working nuclear power plant with Stade closed and both Brunsbüttel and Krümmel being under the (lack of) control of Vattenfall.

We're only getting BBC World in our room, which sucks. They mentioned something about riots in Hamburg. Any connection?

CO777ER wrote:We're only getting BBC World in our room, which sucks. They mentioned something about riots in Hamburg. Any connection?

Nah, that was the usual BS around the "Schanzenfest". The "Schanze" (short for "Sternschanze") is a quarter where many students and / or ultra-left-wing nutjobs live. Great bars, clubs and cafes, but also regular riots that will result in shop and bank windows being smashed, and cars being set on fire.

Unfortunately, people in my country seem too fed up to start protests about the few things that would really be worth it.

But at least, the respective state agency has announced that they will again check Vattenfall's capability to run nuclear plants. And Krümmel will remain shut down until further notice.

So, there is new details from Vattenfall.

The cause that led to the transformer failure was apparently exactly the same that led to the incident 2 years ago.
A security system Vattenfall was ordered to install by authorities (and that they confirmed to have installed) was in fact not installed.
Another mandatory security system (and automated voice and data recorder, somewhat similar to the ones used in airliners) was switched off.
The transformer failure led, among other collateral damages, also to several nuclear fuel rods being damaged.

In other news, Vattenfall is in trouble now in their home country Sweden as well. Around the 2006 Forsmark incident (see above), inspectors found several grievances in Vattenfall's Ringhals nuclear plant as well. Since beginning of this year, there have been no less than 60 incidents, 2 of them of the highest category.

Some of the grievances that led to the incidents had been ordered to be removed by authorities in 2005 already. However, Vattenfall apparently did not respond to these orders.

For that reason, Vattenfall is now ordered to report daily to Swedish authorities. Licenses for the (currently shut down) reactors at Ringhals and Forsmark remain revoked until further notice. Plus, Sweden has ordered special investigators to monitor Vattenfall's reactors more regularly.

In Germany, politicians still discuss about what to do. Schleswig-Holstein's PM, Peter-Harry Carstensen (CDU) said he was "mad as hell", but apparently wants to give Vattenfall "one last chance" to get their stuff in order. Which would be fine, if that was not what had been said after the disaster 2 years ago already. How many "last chances" are there, by his standards?

With the big political parties, a heated debate sparked over the incident (nb: elections in September!). While the SPD, together with other left-wing parties, uses the recent incident to emphasize their demand to shut down all nuclear plants, CDU and their possible future coalition partner FDP say that all German plants (including the old ones like Krümmel) are safe, regardless of the incidents.

They were, however, forced to confirm upon parliamentary request by the Green Party, that the old reactors do not meet today's technical standards.

As it looks like CDU and FDP will be able to form a government coalition after the September elections, this will probably mean that the old reactors will remain active for at least another 8-10 years. And most probably, Vattenfall will be allowed to continue operating theirs. None of our parties seem to support the idea of closing down the older plants, but keeping the newer ones.

That is one genie you don't want to let out of the bottle. If the governing authority wants to give them another chance, it would be after a detailed audit by the equivallent of our NRC(Nuclear Regulatory Commission), the equivalent of the FAA. After they pass that, they would have to operate for a certain period of time (90 days?) with direct observation by competent regulatory officials.

I am all for nuclear energy, but it has to be done safely. Short cuts should bring swift and sever penalties for those that violate the regulations. There is no room here for anything but safe operating procedures.

Whatever happens, nuclear energy will probably become the second-most important factor in the elections (right after anything tax-related), and no doubt the tree-huggers (and probably also the ex-GDR commie bastards) will go on a complete anti-nuclear power trip. Heck, I expect the SPD to also become anti-NP in hopes of winning the elections.

Just hope we don't end up with a coalition that gets rid of nuclear power just because of Vattenfall being a bunch of *this comment has been edited for content*.

What good is Germany not having any nuclear power plants when we're literally surrounded by them, including some in CZ near Bavaria that have safety standards that make Krümmel look like a well-run facility. Not to mention not having any suitable alternatives. Coal? Yay for increased CO2 emission. Wind energy? According to a recent article we'd need 80.000 additional "overhyped windmills", which obviously aren't exactly cheap to acquire, let alone finding a place to actually put all of them.

Oh well, whatever happens, no doubt in the end most normal people will be screwed.

miamiair wrote:That is one genie you don't want to let out of the bottle. If the governing authority wants to give them another chance, it would be after a detailed audit by the equivallent of our NRC(Nuclear Regulatory Commission), the equivalent of the FAA. After they pass that, they would have to operate for a certain period of time (90 days?) with direct observation by competent regulatory officials.

There's our problem. The PICs here are politicians, or at least have to report to them. 'nuff said, I guess.

miamiair wrote:I am all for nuclear energy, but it has to be done safely.

So am I, at least for the moment. I do not see a viable short-term alternative to nuclear energy. Regenerative energies like solar or wind power do offer more sustainability, and I am definitely in favor of putting more research efforts into these. But as a matter of fact, we cannot just switch off our nuclear plants right now.

However, nuclear energy has 2 big disadvantages: one is the security aspect. And call me a sceptic, but as long as humans are involved, lack of safety will always be a factor to consider. Plants are run by companies who aim to maximize their profits. Maximizing security is counteracting that aim.

I read an interesting article a good year ago, though, about miniature nuclear reactors that would deliver enough power for 1 to a few households. These could be installed to a house's basement. The researchers' goal was to make them last about 30 years, with little to no maintenance being required, making them an interesting alternative for house owners.

The biggest advantage would be that the risk of a nuclear accident would be widespread. Even if such a mini-reactor would blow up, the radioactive fallout would be more or less limited to one house's basement, and could be removed with reasonable effort. If, however, one of our current nuclear plants blows up... well, we all know what happens then. And the damage is irreparable.

The second problem with nuclear energy is that there is no sustainable concept about what to do with the atomic waste. All current depot concepts - at least those I know - are of temporary character, hoping that a better solution will be found one day. This is a bit like taking off with an airplane for which there is no suitable airport for landing, hoping that it will be built once the plane runs out of fuel.

That is why I am in favor of researching less risky and more sustainable alternatives for future energy supply. But until then, we will need nuclear energy. And I have no problem to have a nuclear plant in my backyard. I just have a problem with said plant being run by a bunch of clowns who hardly miss a chance to prove their lack of competence.

DAL764 wrote:Whatever happens, nuclear energy will probably become the second-most important factor in the elections (right after anything tax-related), and no doubt the tree-huggers (and probably also the ex-GDR commie bastards) will go on a complete anti-nuclear power trip. Heck, I expect the SPD to also become anti-NP in hopes of winning the elections.

I do think the SPD will follow that strategy, but I doubt that it will be successful. The whole Krümmel discussion will be in the news for another few days, then it will die and people will forget about it. By election day, there will be other things people worry about.

DAL764 wrote:Just hope we don't end up with a coalition that gets rid of nuclear power just because of Vattenfall being a bunch of *this comment has been edited for content*.

I agree, but then, the alternative - a coalition that lets Vattenfall get away with their stunts (and I have little doubt that this will happen under a CDU/FDP government) - is not that much better, either.

DAL764 wrote:What good is Germany not having any nuclear power plants when we're literally surrounded by them, including some in CZ near Bavaria that have safety standards that make Krümmel look like a well-run facility.

Indeed, the problems and risks that come along with nuclear energy are not a national issue. Radiation does not stop at a border. And if switching off our plants means that, on a European level, plants like Temelin or Kosloduj become more important, then we certainly have not gained anything.

DAL764 wrote:Oh well, whatever happens, no doubt in the end most normal people will be screwed.

Indeed. But see it from the bright side - isn't that a form of reliability as well? To know that, regardless how the elections will turn out, we will be screwed anyway?

Not exactly in my back yard, but close enough...



If it cannot be done safely, then it needs to be shut down until it can be made safe.

Nuclear waste is the biggest issue next to safe operation. Do you really want to ship this stuff out to space on a rocket that can:

Isn't that why the Europeans use Guiana Space Centre?

miamiair wrote:Nuclear waste is the biggest issue next to safe operation. Do you really want to ship this stuff out to space

Send it to West Texas, we'll take it!

http://www.wcstexas.com/

The TCEQ issued WCS a license to dispose of radioactive byproduct material at its facility in Andrews County, Texas.
....
WCS offers innovative and cost effective solutions for the proper and safe management of radioactive waste, hazardous waste, and mixed waste.

The "funny" thing with Vattenfall is/was that translated it means Waterfall.

In the past they tried to use that Waterfall-image to promote a "green environmental touch" using a huge marketing campaign in many countries.