Fire breaks out at Sizewell B

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 03 Jul 2010, 15:45

BBC News - 03/07/10

A fire at the nuclear power station Sizewell B on the Suffolk coast was made safe by firefighters after six-and-a-half hours.

The fire broke out just before 2100 BST in the building housing a charcoal absorber which is used to filter out gases.

It was brought under control by 0330 BST after the charcoal absorber was flooded.

Eight fire crews attended the blaze at the power station near Leiston.

Article continues ...

SunnyJim · Post by **SunnyJim** » 06 Jul 2010, 09:21

Nuclear really is a terrible idea. Someone put a link on here to a talk by a woman from Automatic Earth (transition town talk). She studied the breakdown of Russian communism, and made the observation that nuclear power requires a complex, well functioning, rich society to maintain it. When a society starts to hit bumpy times, expect corners to be cut, safety issues, and worse.

Accidents like this are happening now, at the top of the curve. The peak of peaks, the pinnacle of achievement. Imagine when unemployment is at 50%, it's become obvious that there is a long term negative growth trend (!), the banks have all been nationalised, and there's not enough food to go around..... can a society like that really maintain and be expected to safely decommission nuclear power stations?

Post by **clv101** » 06 Jul 2010, 10:49

SunnyJim wrote:...can a society like that really maintain and be expected to safely decommission nuclear power stations?

Well, what have Russia and the former Soviet states done over the last 20 years with their nuclear power stations?

Blue Peter · Post by **Blue Peter** » 06 Jul 2010, 10:55

clv101 wrote:
SunnyJim wrote:...can a society like that really maintain and be expected to safely decommission nuclear power stations?
Well, what have Russia and the former Soviet states done over the last 20 years with their nuclear power stations?

Wasn't the situation initially rather dire, but presumably it has improved as the Russian economy has recovered? What would have happened if the Russian economy had not receovered?

Peter.

Post by **clv101** » 06 Jul 2010, 12:29

The Russian economy, and certainly not many of the Soviet states hasn't recovered. They are still well depressed from the late 80s highs.

SunnyJim · Post by **SunnyJim** » 06 Jul 2010, 13:26

They haven't collapsed. They have oil and gas, strong structures, strong government, food and they have a currency. They did face collapse for a while, but I don't think you could honesty say Russia has collapsed.

Post by **clv101** » 06 Jul 2010, 13:51

SunnyJim wrote:They haven't collapsed. They have oil and gas, strong structures, strong government, food and they have a currency. They did face collapse for a while, but I don't think you could honesty say Russia has collapsed.

I didn't say 'collapse' but okay, it all depends what one means by collapse. By some definition, the many of the former Soviet states did collapse and haven't recovered. Here's their CO2 output (a good proxy for economic activity):

Russia still down by a third, some down by a half or more.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 06 Jul 2010, 14:48

clv101 wrote:
SunnyJim wrote:...can a society like that really maintain and be expected to safely decommission nuclear power stations?
Well, what have Russia and the former Soviet states done over the last 20 years with their nuclear power stations?

Believe me, you don't want to know

SunnyJim · Post by **SunnyJim** » 06 Jul 2010, 14:59

What's your point Chris?

Post by **clv101** » 06 Jul 2010, 15:19

SunnyJim wrote:What's your point Chris?

My point is that we don't need to speculate...

SunnyJim wrote:...can a society like that really maintain and be expected to safely decommission nuclear power stations?

We have the data/example from the Soviet collapse of what happens when a highly nuclear society collapses. Reactors are left to rot, naked spend fuel rods dumped in fjords... they aren't what we would call "safely decommissioned".