
Pictures show cracks in Ayrshire nuclear reactor - mimixco
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-47485321
======
oneplane
Funny how the article doesn't say what the cracks mean, but it does end with a
bunch of reasons why a safety rule has to be waived:

\- jobs

\- energy supply

why is it that when a safety limit has been established and later on reached,
that (seemingly) uninformed people start walling by screaming 'but the jobs'
and 'but the power'. None of those should be more important than a reactor
problem you'd think.

On the other hand, if there is inside information describing the impact of
such cracks as irrelevant to safety and operation, then it would be fine (but
then you wouldn't have to cry for jobs and energy).

Jobs should not be a reason to not take into account safety or evolution. As
soon as you do that, everything stagnates.

~~~
module0000
If graphite cracked/crumbled to prevent the control rods from being re-
inserted, that's some scary stuff. The article ending with a request for the
safety limit for number-of-cracks to be increased was really surprising for
me. The whole "risk VS reward" test comes to mind... the reward is power for
1.8 million homes, but the risk is total catastrophic destruction of the
environment for (tens of) thousands of years. The odds may look good, but
geez...just a huge gamble to take with other peoples homes/property/lives.

~~~
eecc
How fitting in this case is the airing of the HBO Miniseries Chernobyl?

The timing sometimes is just so perfect

~~~
new4thaccount
There is some series on nuclear disasters going on all the time. PBS just did
a big one on Fukishima last year and Command and Control has been put out
again recently. Maybe it's a slight surge, but people have always been
interested in these subjects. If you haven't seen either I would highly
recommend. Command and Control is particularly frightening as many don't know
about it.

~~~
dTal
Chernobyl is particularly relevant though due to the similarity of the
potential failure modes (control rod thermal failure preventing full insertion
leading to meltdown).

------
arendtio
> The operational limit for the latest period of operation was 350 cracks but
> an inspection found that allowance had been exceeded. > > EDF plans to ask
> the regulator for permission to restart with a new operational limit of up
> to 700 cracks.

Yeah, next time you exceed the speed limit, just ask the police officer for
permission to double the fun...

No seriously, what the article is missing, is why there was a limit of 350.
Was it just made up at some point to correlate with the expected lifetime?
What real, increased risk is involved when operating up to 700 cracks?

Just telling they would have to get the power elsewhere and jobs would be at
risk, is obvious and just one side of the medal. If there is no additional
risk involved, there is no reason to condemn asking to raise the limit.

~~~
mbell
> Yeah, next time you exceed the speed limit, just ask the police officer for
> permission to double the fun...

This is a rather weak analogy - I don't know where you live, but where I live
driving the speed limit is not the norm and ironically driving against the
common speed of traffic is more dangerous. i.e. You are safer exceeding the
speed limit if that is with the flow of traffic than you are driving the speed
limit when the flow is faster.

> No seriously, what the article is missing, is why there was a limit of 350.
> Was it just made up at some point to correlate with the expected lifetime?
> What real, increased risk is involved when operating up to 700 cracks?

To keep with the same analogy - what you are missing is that speed limits tend
to be set assuming the _worst case_ driver, someone that really should not be
on the road in the first place. i.e. the limit is not designed for the average
driver/car but for the worst. i.e. they are _extremely_ conservative.

> Just telling they would have to get the power elsewhere and jobs would be at
> risk, is obvious and just one side of the medal. If there is no additional
> risk involved, there is no reason to condemn asking to raise the limit.

I think the challenge here is to quantify the 'risk' in full, which has to
include where the power would come from as an alternative. The present
situation is that the capacity is mostly replaced with natural gas, a net CO2
emission loss.

~~~
blub
"To keep with the same analogy - what you are missing is that speed limits
tend to be set assuming the _worst case_ driver, someone that really should
not be on the road in the first place. i.e. the limit is not designed for the
average driver/car but for the worst. i.e. they are _extremely_ conservative."

This is usually not the case in Europe. If someone doesn't belong on the road,
they normally don't pass the exam, but:

* some countries have problems with bribes, I've heard of some egregious cases.

* some countries have a reckless driving culture, for instance traffic in Italy is quite crazy, they don't seem to care at all about the rules.

Sometimes the road does allow one to go faster, but speed limits are enforced
through fines and I think in most EU countries you lose your license if you go
30 kmph over the speed limit.

~~~
mbell
I'm not familiar with EU laws on this but I highly doubt it. You don't define
speed limits assuming a capable driver in an M3, you define them for a
questionable driver in a Renault Clio.

> I think in most EU countries you lose your license if you go 30 kmph over
> the speed limit

It's also a significant penalty in the US, this has no impact on the reality
of the speeds that exist in reality, nor the safety.

~~~
mijamo
It really depends. In Sweden speed limits are low and nobody respect them. In
France they are higher and slightly more respected. In the mountains /hills
they are actually way too high and nearly unreachable. Most roads are
technically still limited to 80/90km/h but doing more than 70 requires some
serious sport driving style.

------
sunkenvicar
40+ years of generating clean CO2-free energy.

Designed with slide rules and drafting tables.

An unbelievable accomplishment!

~~~
einpoklum
1\. And nuclear waste is nothing to you? Not everything is about CO_2 you
know. 2\. It is indeed a significant accomplishment. Let's keep it that way by
ceasing operation on time and not risk tarring the accomplishment with a
reactor failure.

~~~
ZanyProgrammer
Literally everything _is_ about CO2. It'll destroy civilization much faster
than nuclear waste.

~~~
montalbano
What about methane?

 _[Its] impact is 34 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period_

[https://unfccc.int/news/new-methane-signs-underline-
urgency-...](https://unfccc.int/news/new-methane-signs-underline-urgency-to-
reverse-emissions)

~~~
llao
That's another thing destroying civilization much faster than nuclear waste.
Not sure why you mention it in this thread on nuclear waste.

~~~
montalbano
I was responding to the previous comment which said that "Literally everything
is about CO2."

------
Waterluvian
It seems to me that one of the most critical safety components of a nuclear
reactor is the successful isolation of its operation from political or
financial pressures.

How do atomic energy organizations succeed in doing this?

~~~
Zealotux
>How do atomic energy organizations succeed in doing this?

From my knowledge: they mostly don't. For example, in France, we have the
Autorité de sûreté nucléaire (Nuclear Safety Authority, ASN) which is supposed
to be an independent and transparent authority on nuclear safety and
information.

However: it has been criticized many times since its inception in 2006
regarding conflicts of interest[1][2], and lacks in terms of safety issues
reporting[3].

I'm glad my country invested so much into nuclear energies, I still believe
it's our best chance at tackling the upcoming crisis, but we should not let
nuclear in the hands of private interests. Governments _have_ to apply a zero-
tolerance policy when it comes to safety, regulation, and transparency,
regardless of how expensive and inconvenient it is.

We're not doing enough, in France[4], when it comes to safety, from within or
without. On top of that: it's giving fuel to anti-nuclear militantism.

[1] [http://www.observatoire-du-
nucleaire.org/spip.php?article281](http://www.observatoire-du-
nucleaire.org/spip.php?article281) [2] [https://www.cairn.info/revue-revue-
juridique-de-l-environnem...](https://www.cairn.info/revue-revue-juridique-de-
l-environnement-2013-1-page-7.htm#) [3]
[http://mai68.org/spip2/spip.php?article1347](http://mai68.org/spip2/spip.php?article1347)
[4]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STjGOGkMz4k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STjGOGkMz4k)

~~~
odiroot
How come France is so reasonable and pragmatic with this where most other
western EU (especially Germany) are going the Luddite way?

~~~
Zealotux
The anti-nuclear sentiment is pretty strong in France as well[1], but if we
compare to Germany for example:

\- in 2016, 72% of the energy generation in France was nuclear, Germany never
came close to that percentage[2], therefore making it easier to transition
away from it.

\- France invested a lot into nuclear energy and no government since then
would dare to throw such a huge industry (2500 companies, 222 000 jobs) into
the trash. I don't think it was the case with other European countries.

There's a lot of pride surrounding our history of nuclear research (since
Pierre and Marie Curie), and politicians are often accused by militants of
falling for the sunken-cost fallacy or to have a misplaced pride into the
industry ("En France on n'a pas de pétrole mais on a des idées" \- "In France,
we don't have oil, but we sure have ideas").

Ultimately: the percentage of nuclear-based energy in France should go down to
50% by 2025, I just hope we'll manage to reduce our carbon monoxide emissions
as well, Germany gave up on nuclear and they're failing at that so far.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-
nuclear_movement_in_Franc...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-
nuclear_movement_in_France) [2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany#/medi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany#/media/File:Electricity_production_in_Germany.PNG)

~~~
pgeorgi
> France invested a lot into nuclear energy and no government since then would
> dare to throw such a huge industry (2500 companies, 222 000 jobs) into the
> trash. I don't think it was the case with other European countries.

Germany all but killed off an industry of 80000 jobs (at the time) in the
blink of an eye: photovoltaics.

One other main difference is that having your own nuclear industry is also
important for countries aiming for (or having) nuclear deterrence power, like
France (and unlike Germany which merely hosts US nukes).

~~~
Faark
Could you elaborate on how Germany did kill of the photovoltaics industry?
Since this seems different than I remember.

Solar panel production in Germany mostly died because it couldn't be price
competitive with those from China.

Installations went down due to reduced subsidies, apparently as an reaction to
more than expected solar being installed [0]. I have a hard time calling that
"killing of an industry".

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Renewable_Energy_Source...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Renewable_Energy_Sources_Act)

~~~
pgeorgi
> Installations went down due to reduced subsidies, apparently as an reaction
> to more than expected solar being installed [0]. I have a hard time calling
> that "killing of an industry".

"So we kickstarted an industry that created 80000 jobs by subsidizing it, and
now we noticed that subsidies actually cost money, so let's turn off the
faucet" is what I call a killing.

One of the issues in German politics is that politicians are easily scared of
their own courage, instead of doubling down on it (and, in this case, help
drive costs down for Germany-made PV through more industrialized and scaled-up
production, thereby solving the subsidy problem while propping up an industry
instead of leaving it for dead).

It's especially annoying to me because one of the "arguments" in favor of
keeping coal alive is that there are 20000 jobs to protect in that industry
(and for much more money than it would cost to give those 20000 folks their
wage + social security/insurance, no questions asked, until their retirement
age, which makes me think that's all just a ruse).

------
NikolaeVarius
I really hate that even the BBC is going down the route of making alarmist-ish
sounding article titles which completely butcher the context of the article
for the sake of getting clicks.

~~~
joezydeco
This link has shown up three times in the last 24 hours, the headline less
baitclicky each time. Guess this one took.

------
jpindar
The reactor near me (Seabrook Station) has cracks and deformation in the
concrete. The structures affected are described as "operable but degraded and
nonconforming."

This situation has been developing slowly for last decade though, and the
reactor just got re-licensed.

[https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-
experience/concre...](https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-
experience/concrete-degradation.html)

------
jacquesm
That's a perfect example of the kind of issue that that pilot related to:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19770562](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19770562)

'normalization of deviance'.

That was one of the best posts in a long time.

------
ohazi
> They cannot be fixed and will ultimately close down the station

Why can't they be fixed or replaced?

~~~
haggy
I'm no expert but I believe it would be because the graphite is so highly
radioactive

------
Zenst
When I see pictures or video of anything nuclear, I tend to now focus upon the
noise as radiation will cause more noise, hence the better the picture
quality, the happier I feel.

Though for this case, factoring in the lighting, I'd not panic, but equally
mindful that cracks are part and parcel in the world of reinforced concrete,
I'm not so sure about the material in use here. It's not what you want to be
seeing in such use. Equally to combat cracks in any material, you drill small
holes either end of the crack to stop it growing.

So for me, why is that not being done? After all, hairline crack today,
receding hairline tomorrow possibilities.

After all, would they let an aircraft take off with a known hairline crack?
That's one way to put some perspective upon this.

~~~
schoen
> When I see pictures or video of anything nuclear, I tend to now focus upon
> the noise as radiation will cause more noise, hence the better the picture
> quality, the happier I feel.

It doesn't seem to me that that many prospective nuclear safety concerns
involve a radiation leak ahead of time. Your heuristic seems better calibrated
to detecting leaks that exist now, rather than flaws or limitations in systems
that are meant to prevent future leaks.

~~~
Zenst
As I said "Though for this case, factoring in the lighting, I'd not panic".

Thing is about cracks, they tend to grow, hence questioning how they are
handled as currently it seems a case of make a note, move along, nothing to
see here approach strikes again.

------
Zigurd
Millimeters != hairline. You can fit a lot of hair in a millimeter.

------
dang
Related:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20132860](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20132860)

------
lruor
That's weird, since I seem to remember nuclear is very safe.

~~~
cpach
If today we would stop all nuclear reactors in the world, we would then start
burning even more coal to compensate. Is that alternative better?

~~~
sebazzz
And coal is quite radioactive.

------
jstewartmobile
These things are a crazy gamble that civilization is not going to backslide
for thousands of years, and we have hundreds of them!

------
semerda
Hold on, isn’t this another Chernobyl in the making? Ie. Using graphite
(positive void effect). The very reason why nuclear reactors explode up during
a meltdown throwing soot into the air vs melting down quietly.

------
ZeroGravitas
I look forward to the HBO drama. These dry conversations about safety margins
and protecting jobs will make for lots of dramatic irony when we know, but the
characters don't, that the reactor blows up shortly afterwards.

Regarding the bit at the end about the alternative being gas or coal, they
could just build more wind, it's cheaper than any of the other options if
building new and competitive with the cost of fuel alone for existing fossil
plants.

~~~
cpach
Wind and solar power is good. But you can’t turn them on by demand though,
which is why nuclear and coal is still widely used.

 _[Slightly edited.]_

~~~
7952
Well coal and nuclear tend to take a long time to turn on. Responding to
demand is more the role of gas.

~~~
cpach
Not sure what you mean here. Where I live (Sweden) I don’t believe we rely on
gas for our energy needs.

~~~
mdorazio
Nuclear power is almost always used only to provide baseload power to the
grid. In Sweden's case, it looks like you're using biofuel power plants [1]
for demand following uses when solar + wind can't keep up.

[1] [https://sweden.se/society/energy-use-in-
sweden/](https://sweden.se/society/energy-use-in-sweden/)

------
lifeisstillgood
From a software / devils point of view Nuclear power is the Mainframe - and
solar or wind are the nice new micro services.

If we have a crack in our solar panels, it ain't going to make the BBC news
site.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> From a software / devils point of view Nuclear power is the Mainframe - and
> solar or wind are the nice new micro services.

The difference is that micro services don't all stop working at the same time
when the sun goes down and the air is calm.

Solar is great for running air conditioners. It generates when the demand is
highest. But you still need something reliable to generate baseload. They're
complementary, not replacements for each other.

> If we have a crack in our solar panels, it ain't going to make the BBC news
> site.

It won't, but maybe it should. Solar panels are full of toxic substances. As
long as they're covered in glass and isolated from the environment that's no
big deal, but break the glass and ignore it and you're leeching heavy metals
and toxic chemicals into the environment.

Things done competently are good, things done incompetently are bad. Nuclear
is not different, solar is not different.

~~~
einpoklum
Excess solar-based energy could be used to store energy that is later used in
off-peak hours. Now, storage is a huge challenge (at least if you want it to
be environmentally-friendly; otherwise - Tesla already makes a 300 MW-hour Li-
Ion battery) - but it's coming along I think.

About cracks in solar panels - those are:

1\. Mostly localized (i.e. not a dust storm and such)

2\. Doesn't produce a chain reaction - if a few panels are beginning to crack,
you would isolate them and inspect the rest. Even if they've completely
cracked it's not that bad.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> Excess solar-based energy could be used to store energy that is later used
> in off-peak hours. Now, storage is a huge challenge (at least if you want it
> to be environmentally-friendly; otherwise - Tesla already makes a 300 MW-
> hour Li-Ion battery) - but it's coming along I think.

"Excess solar energy" isn't really a thing. Due to the economics, there is no
reason to even look at widespread storage until we already have enough solar
capacity to satisfy the differential between daytime and nighttime demand. But
just doing that is going to consume 100% of the available panel manufacturing
capacity for at least a decade.

To cover baseload as well isn't just a question of storage. First you would
need to _more than triple_ that amount of solar generating capacity. You'd
need enough to satisfy not just the differential between the baseload and peak
but the entire peak demand -- while charging the energy storage for nighttime
use on top of that, including the conversion losses in both directions.

Only then do you add the cost of storage, which currently isn't economical. It
may become so in the future, or it may not, but that's ten or twenty years in
any event before we can even start constructing it, much less finish. And
there is a non-trivial chance that economical storage technology never
materializes.

> About cracks in solar panels - those are:

> 1\. Mostly localized (i.e. not a dust storm and such)

Not really. In many cases it _is_ a dust storm, or hail, or a tornado or
hurricane or some other weather event.

In other cases it's just time. You have a million panels and every year some
percentage of them get cracked by wildlife or tree branches or weather or
rogue humans. The damage accumulates.

This is actually a significant issue for solar farms when they reach end of
life. What happens then? Just abandoning them in situ would be a serious
environmental problem, but the incentive to file for bankruptcy and do exactly
that would exist once enough of them are damaged that the cleanup cost exceeds
the value of the remaining panels.

> 2\. Doesn't produce a chain reaction - if a few panels are beginning to
> crack, you would isolate them and inspect the rest. Even if they've
> completely cracked it's not that bad.

It's potentially worse than that, because solar installations tend to be more
distributed and have less oversight, so instead of one big problem you have a
million cumulative little problems. Which is actually harder to solve because
a million little leaks are harder to plug than one big one, and you're adding
coordination and distribution problems on top of the engineering problems.

