EDF nuclear reactor carries 'Chernobyl-size' explosion risk

[bananas]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/07/edf-nuclear-reactor-chernobyl-risk

EDF nuclear reactor carries 'Chernobyl-size' explosion risk

Protest network Sortir du Nucléaire says leaked EDF documents show reactor's defects could cause massive nuclear accident

* Kim Willsher in Paris
* guardian.co.uk, Sunday 7 March 2010 19.50 GMT

French anti-nuclear campaigners claim a new power plant being built in Normandy carries an accident risk of "Chernobyl proportions".

Sortir du Nucléaire, a protest network, says leaked confidential documents show that tests on the third-generation pressurised water reactor present a potentially catastrophic scenario.

The network has eight internal papers showing the results of tests on the European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) that, it claims, reveal defects in the mechanism that controls the nuclear reaction. These defects, it says, could cause an explosion sending a massive cloud of radiation into the atmosphere.

The documents, leaked by an insider at the French electricity firm EDF, which will run the new Flamanville 3 power station, date from between 2004 and 2009. "They show the main arguments in favour of the EPR ... are false," a spokesperson for Sortir du Nucléaire said.

<snip>

:nuke:

[kristopher]

1. Areva bribing provincial Chinese officials to build nuclear...

...Construction on a $10.2bn (£6.2bn) nuclear plant started in December in Yangjiang city, located on Guangdong's south coast. It will house six pressurised water reactors, each with a capacity of 1GW. The first reactor is expected to be operational by 2013, with the other five to be completed by 2017.

However, the credibility of the country's nuclear initiative received a blow last week when reports emerged that Kang Rixin, the head of China's nuclear power plant construction program, has been arrested on suspicion of accepting $256m in bribes from French engineering giant Areva. The Chongqing Times newspaper reported that the alleged bribes were related to the award of a project in Guangdong to the nuclear power giant.

In 2007, Areva signed an €8bn (£6.8bn) deal with state-owned company China Guangdong Nuclear Power Group for the construction of two reactors in Guangdong's Taishan city.

In addition to the bribery allegations, Kang is purported to have bought stocks using public funds earmarked for the construction of three nuclear power plants. The alleged stock trades resulted in huge losses after the market crashed last year, the Chongqing Times reported.

http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2247714/chinese-province-plans-six-fold

[bananas]

4. ack

It's going to take over 2 hours to download the documents in the OP, it's a 100 MB zip file downloading at 10 K/s.
edit to add: the zip file is on a free download server (free.fr), they also have the documents as 8 seperate pdf's on their own server which is much faster.

[Statistical]

2. Personally I would be wouldn't mind to see the EPR scrapped.

IMHO the system is far too complex relative to other designs. The goal of GenIII+ was to increase safety while reducing complexity. Other designs rely on passive safety. The AP1000 can conduct emergency cooling without any power. The ESBWR has a coolant tank that can cool reactor for 72 hours before needing power restored.

Granted I don't have any detailed knowledge but compared to any of the other GenIII+ designs (AP1000, ESBWR, APWR) it seems overly complex. It also is far behind schedule in France & Finland while other GenIII+ designs are on-time & on-schedule in Japan & China.

If the EPR and a couple other minor designs without enough bids to remain competitive (ACR-1000, APR-1400 and mPower) were cut the nuclear industry would still be fine.

Still anyone who thinks a nuclear-protest group claims are 100% bias free is living in a fantasy land.

[kristopher]

3. All of the systems are far too complex.

And anyone that thinks the claims made by the nuclear INDUSTRY are legitimate is living in fantasy land. Your derision of independent assessment of nuclear power as "biased" is the same as those who accuse climate researchers of bias because they get grants, while ignoring the fact that the vast wealth of the fossil fuel industry has a dedicated misinformation network working to to deceive people.

[TheWraith]

5. So says someone who has no expertise in engineering.

You might as well ask a creationist whether evolution is too complex.

[kristopher]

6. So says someone

who used to work in command and control of nuclear weapons...

[bananas]

7. This had 7 recs, it's now down to 5

Gee, who would want to suppress this information?

[bananas]

8. Down to 4.

Off the Greatest Page.

[kristopher]

9. K&R

[bananas]

13. Down to 3 - they hate whistleblowers

[bananas]

16. Down to 2. nt

[kristopher]

25. Kicked for Friday night reading...

[LaserSpot]

10. I don't read French

Could someone tell what's in this thing that "could cause an explosion sending a massive cloud of radiation into the atmosphere."?

How could the explosion get through more than eight feet of reinforced concrete?

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

[Statistical]

11. Magic! n/t

[bananas]

12. Some information here

http://www.pej.org/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=8106&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

<snip>

Some operating modes could cause the EPR reactor to explode because of a control rod cluster ejection accident (these control rod clusters moderate the nuclear reaction). These operating modes are mainly related to an objective of economic efficiency, requiring the power of the reactor to adapt to electricity demand. Thus, in order to find a hypothetical economic justification for the EPR, its designers chose to take the very real risk of a major nuclear accident. Moreover, most of the arguments given in favour of the EPR (power, efficiency, waste reduction and safety) have been proved to be false.

EDF and Areva (the leader of the French nuclear industry) have tried to find a solution to the problems related to the operating mode of the reactor: these efforts have failed preventing those kinds of accidents. The French Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) has apparently been kept in the dark about these issues.

So the EPR reactor design seems to increase the risk of a Chernobyl-type accident, which would lead to the destruction of the confinement and mass dispersion of radionuclides in the atmosphere.

On March 8th and 9th, Paris hosts an international meeting to encourage 65 countries to acquire nuclear technology. This meeting will be opened by the French President Nicolas Sarkozy and chaired by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Yukiya Amano. It is outrageous that France keeps on promoting nuclear power in general and the EPR reactor in particular, as the danger of this reactor has now been demonstrated. The construction of the EPR in Finland, France and China must be stopped immediately, and the planned project in Penly (France) cancelled. The best way to prevent nuclear accidents is indeed to phase out nuclear power and go for renewable energies.


The accident scenario in detail:

According to calculations by EDF and Areva, the reactor’s RIP (Instant Return to Power) control mode and the control rod cluster configuration can induce a rod ejection accident during low-power operation, and lead to the rupture of the control rod drive casing (i). This rupture would cause the coolant to leak outside the nuclear reactor vessel. Such a loss of coolant accident (LOCA - a very serious type of nuclear accident) would damage a large number of fuel rods by heating fuel pellets and claddings (ii), and thus cause the release of highly radioactive steam into the containment. So there is a great risk of a criticality accident resulting in an explosion (iii), the reactor power being increased in an extremely brutal way. Following the ejection of control rod clusters during low-power operation, the reactor emergency shutdown may fail (iv). Whatever the configuration of the control rod clusters, a rod ejection accident induces a high rate of broken fuel rods and therefore a high risk of a criticality accident (v).

<snip>

[LaserSpot]

14. Good find; sounds more like Three Mile Island

This could hurt someone working inside the containment vessel, but it's not something that would lead to loss of containment.

[bananas]

15. "destruction of the confinement and mass dispersion of radionuclides in the atmosphere"

Like Chernobyl.

[Merchant Marine]

17. And yet that phrase is only used in the opening post article.

The official report you posted has no mention of the possibility of a containment breach. Release of radioactive material into the containment vessel yes, breach of containment no.

Chernobyl had no containment, so when the steam explosion occurred there was nothing to contain it. Burden of proof is on you guys to prove there's a chance that this reactor could cause a steam explosion capable of breaching 8 feet of concrete and steel.

[joshcryer]

18. Don't worry, disinformation is enough.

[Nihil]

19. Huh ...

... didn't even get a *REAL* explosion this time ...

At least the other moronic panic-mongering thread talked about
a REAL transformer EXPLOSION near a NUCLEAR REACTOR, you know
one that falls in the same generic generation category as CHERNOBYL!!!

[Statistical]

20. Yeah I just love the "like chernobyl" link to anything nuclear related.

Saying this reactor could destroy containment and release radiation LIKE CHERNOBYL is just a cheap shot.

99.9% of Americans have no idea the Soviets built Chernobyl (and all their reactors) without a containment building to save money.

So by connecting Chernobyl to the article the hope is people will go an explosion like Chernobyl and link that event with their home town. The reality is a steam explosion (which has never occurred) in a Western reactor would cause a massive amount of damage, and release of radiation, INSIDE the containment building. The cleanup cost would be massive (in billions) and it would require years. The plant would never go operation again. Still the damage would be localized inside the containment building.

Linking any reactor with containment to Chernobyl is so false it is pathetic.


The anti-nukkers are so sad, the only thing they have to rely on is emotional appeal (like those people trying to ban guns).

[joshcryer]

22. Basic anti-environmentalism FUD.

Most of the hardcore environmentalists here put nuclear in a positive category.

[kristopher]

23. Nuclear supporters have the same values profile as coal supporters and the drill baby drill crowd

Their primary concern is selfish and the exact opposite of the values that underpin environmental concern. Just because shills for the nuclear industry are using the problem of CO2 to falsely promote their product as being needed for climate change doesn't make either the argument true nor them an "environmentalist".

Associated Press/Stanford University Poll conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media. Nov. 17-29, 2009. N=1,005 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

"In general, would you favor or oppose building more nuclear power plants at this time?"
Favor 49 Oppose 48 Unsure 3

***********************************************************************

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 16-18, 2009. N=1,038 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

“To address the country’s energy needs, would you support or oppose action by the federal government to ?” (Half Sample)

"Increase coal mining"
Support 52, Oppose 45, Unsure 3

"Build more nuclear power plants"
Support 52, Oppose 46, Unsure 2

"Develop more solar and wind power"
Support 91, Oppose 8, Unsure 1

"Increase oil and gas drilling"
Support 64, Oppose 33, Unsure 3

"Develop electric car technology"
Support 82, Oppose 17, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by businesses and industries"
Support 78, Oppose 20, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by consumers like yourself"
Support 73, Oppose 25, Unsure 3

"Require car manufacturers to improve the fuel-efficiency of vehicles sold in this country"
Support 85, Oppose 14, Unsure 1

Asked of those who support building more nuclear power plants:
"Would you favor or oppose building a nuclear power plant within 50 miles of your home?"
Favor 66, Oppose 33

[joshcryer]

26. The vast majority of people on this forum who support nuclear are environmentalists.

They appreciate every energy source that can reduce emissions.

[kristopher]

27. Nuclear supporters have the same values profile as coal supporters and the drill baby drill crowd

The primary concern of the value set that characterizes nuclear support is selfish and the exact opposite of the values that underpin environmental concern. Just because shills for the nuclear industry are using the problem of CO2 to falsely promote their product as being needed for climate change doesn't make either the argument true nor them an "environmentalist".

Associated Press/Stanford University Poll conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media. Nov. 17-29, 2009. N=1,005 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

"In general, would you favor or oppose building more nuclear power plants at this time?"
Favor 49 Oppose 48 Unsure 3


***********************************************************************

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 16-18, 2009. N=1,038 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

“To address the country’s energy needs, would you support or oppose action by the federal government to ?” (Half Sample)

"Increase coal mining"
Support 52, Oppose 45, Unsure 3

"Build more nuclear power plants"
Support 52, Oppose 46, Unsure 2

"Develop more solar and wind power"
Support 91, Oppose 8, Unsure 1

"Increase oil and gas drilling"
Support 64, Oppose 33, Unsure 3

"Develop electric car technology"
Support 82, Oppose 17, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by businesses and industries"
Support 78, Oppose 20, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by consumers like yourself"
Support 73, Oppose 25, Unsure 3

"Require car manufacturers to improve the fuel-efficiency of vehicles sold in this country"
Support 85, Oppose 14, Unsure 1



Asked of those who support building more nuclear power plants:
"Would you favor or oppose building a nuclear power plant within 50 miles of your home?"
Favor 66, Oppose 33


Claiming you are "an environmentalist" when you want to vastly increase the production of nuclear waste at the cost of reducing the pace of responding to climate change just rings a bit hollow. It's like saying you care about clean water when you are standing there pissing in the well.

[joshcryer]

28. So, basically everyone but you and bananas are not environmentalists?

What a bullshit thing to say.

[kristopher]

24. Did you read the entire report, a 100MB zip file?

[kristopher]

21. Kick