
Cracks in nuclear reactor could lead to the evacuation of Edinburgh and Glasgow - inflatableDodo
https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/cracks-found-nuclear-reactor-could-15944122
======
laydn
You build a reactor and specify its lifetime, then push the reactor past its
design lifetime, then you find way too many cracks in your reactor and you
want to run it for 4 more years by asking for an increase in the
$number_of_allowed_cracks?

What could possibly go wrong?

~~~
anilakar
You increase the limit and notice it works just as well as before. Then you'll
increase the limit again, and again, and again...

This is called "normalization of deviance", and it's what caused the
destruction of the space shuttle Challenger. There is a large number of great
articles about the phenomenon.

~~~
stmfreak
Exploration of the failure envelope is a human instinct.

------
rishabhsagar
The title seems to imply an active disaster is underway. I was relieved to
find out out that the reactor is currently switched off and to be
decommissioned in 2023. A case is being made to switch it back on as some
people (with a stake in the matter) believe that the risk is too low to
justify a switch off. WTF are these people even thinking. Smallest risk with
such disastrous outcome is scary as shit.

~~~
curiousgal
If the safety margin is 10mm-19mm and the crack is 2.9mm wide, I'd say the
risk is non-existent.

~~~
OnlyOneCannolo
That's not risk. That's likelihood. The article admits that the likelihood is
low, but the severity could be high. Risk is a combination of severity and
likelihood. The nuclear industry has an entire discipline (PRA) dedicated
specifically to risk assessment [1].

[1] [https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/risk-
informed/pra.h...](https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/risk-
informed/pra.html)

------
javagram
The authorities quoted in the article are an “independent consultant on
radioactivity in the environment,” and a “Reader in Energy Policy”.

While I am sure they are experts in their respective fields, is either
actually an expert on nuclear engineering qualified to judge whether these
cracks actually are dangerous?

BTW if the reactor is truly dangerous it should be shut down, but we need to
keep in mind every reactor being shut down means more fossil fuels being
burned and destroying our entire planet’s environment.

~~~
oldjokes
One does not follow from the other. Many countries are vastly reducing carbon
while not investing in nuclear at all. We're already at the point where the
carbon impact of energy production is negligible in many areas, there are much
bigger fish to fry if you're truly concerned about carbon.

~~~
javagram
> Many countries are vastly reducing carbon while not investing in nuclear at
> all

In this case we are talking about shutting down a plant that could potentially
run for 4-5 more years without decommissioning. I suspect the difference will
be made up by coal/gas.

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/davekeating/2019/02/01/germany-...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/davekeating/2019/02/01/germany-
struggling-to-reduce-emissions-will-phase-out-coal-within-20-years/) “Coal,
the most emissions-intensive fossil fuel, now provides more than 42% of
Germany’s power according to the International Energy Agency – a proportion
that has been growing since the nuclear decision. The result is that Germany’s
carbon emissions have been growing, while their neighbors’ has been
declining.”

~~~
inflatableDodo
>I suspect the difference will be made up by coal/gas.

Well, it doesn't seem that it is being offset by coal, given that while it has
been offline, the UK has also had the longest run of not burning coal for
power since industrialisation.

Hunterston is a 1 GW power station and while it has been offline the UK has
installed 2 GW in new capacity of offshore wind, if you are looking for what
is making up the difference, perhaps start there.

~~~
javagram
Was the offshore wind only installed because the nuclear plant was taken
offline? I’d assume the wind generation capability would have been installed
anyway...

According to [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-
interactive/2019/...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-
interactive/2019/may/25/the-power-switch-tracking-britains-record-coal-free-
run)

“Although a significant share of coal-powered energy has been replaced by
renewable sources such as solar and wind power, the largest power source in
Britain remains natural gas, a carbon-emitting fossil fuel.”

------
perfunctory
> The reactors have been closed since October 2018 as a result, but owners EDF
> Energy are currently making a case for turning them back on, with help from
> trade union GMB.

I find it tragic that workers (the members of the union) have to weigh between
safety on the one hand and their livelihoods (lost income) on the other. These
things should be independent from each other.

------
philshem
> The two reactors at Hunterston B nuclear power plant near Ardrossan are 43
> years old - the oldest in Europe.

AFAIK, Beznau 1 in Switzerland is the oldest operating.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors)

------
mannykannot
This is a somewhat scaremongering article, as it lacks a plausible scenario in
which a meltdown would both occur and breach the containment.

There is, apparently, a valid concern over control rods jamming, but there are
two independent backup safety mechanisms: nitrogen injection and the release
of boron beads into the core (both absorb neutrons.)[1] The plan, apparently,
is to install 'super-articulated' control rods to mitigate the jamming risk.

[1]
[http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph241/barry2/docs/nks...](http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph241/barry2/docs/nks-
rak2-96-tr-c2.pdf) p.21

~~~
Analemma_
Do you drive recklessly and avoid getting your brake pads replaced because
"it's OK, I've got two independent backup safety mechanisms: seatbelts and
airbags"? Backup safety mechanisms are not intended to allow you to operate
the primary mechanism in a known unsafe state, they have a calculated
reduction in failure likelihood based on the primary mechanism being in a
_working_ state, and those calculations go out the window if the primary
mechanism is faulty.

~~~
javagram
But if they are planning to install a different type of control rod that won’t
be jammed, isn’t that more like taking your car to the mechanic and getting
the brake pads replaced and then feeling safe to drive it again?

------
JoeAltmaier
Linkbait? This is a theoretical possibility, not a current event.

~~~
inflatableDodo
The cracks are a current event as is the pressure to restart the reactor by
allowing changes to the original design's safety parameters.

As for the potential scenario referred to in the headline, I think that is
labelled clearly as a theoretical possibility by the use of the words 'could
lead'.

The original headline _' Cracks found in nuclear reactor that could lead to
the full evacuation of Edinburgh and Glasgow'_ is better, but too long for HN,
so I edited as best I could. Was not meaning to make it more linkbatey, but is
very hard when deleting words from a headline to make it fit.

------
perlgeek
> The reactors have been closed since October 2018 as a result, but owners EDF
> Energy are currently making a case for turning them back on, with help from
> trade union GMB.

So, there is a chance for disaster _if the reactors are activated again_ , not
from continued non-operation.

------
bwghughes-fth
Oh look. Industry asking for a half of the safety measure in order to continue
to make money. Accurate or not - we’ve seen this pattern of behaviour and it’s
results time and time again. 737-Max anyone?

------
richardhod
Unreliable source. This is one of those stupid articles which takes a very
very unlikely worst case scenario and paints it as news. The earth could get
hit by an asteroid tomorrow, Shock! Horror!. You should know better than this

