[ 2012-06 -30 20:03 ]
[ 2012-06 -28 21:50 ]
[ 2012-06 -28 21:00 ]
[ 2012-06 -28 20:51 ]
[ 2012-06 -28 20:26 ]
[ 2012-06 -28 20:02 ]
[ 2012-06 -28 19:47 ]
[ 2012-06 -27 18:07 ]
[ 2012-06 -27 17:39 ]
[ 2012-06 -27 16:09 ]
[ 2012-06 -26 22:32 ]
[ 2012-06 -26 21:36 ]
[ 2012-06 -26 21:08 ]
[ 2012-06 -26 18:29 ]
[ 2012-06 -26 08:33 ]
[ 2012-06 -25 08:45 ]
[ 2012-06 -19 22:33 ]
[ 2012-06 -19 21:52 ]
[ 2012-06 -19 20:36 ]
[ 2012-06 -19 20:08 ]
[ 2012-06 -19 18:58 ]
[ 2012-06 -19 18:33 ]
[ 2012-06 -19 01:16 ]
[ 2012-06 -19 00:46 ]
[ 2012-06 -18 02:02 ]
[ 2012-06 -18 01:47 ]
[ 2012-06 -18 01:39 ]
[ 2012-06 -18 01:25 ]
[ 2012-06 -17 20:53 ]
[ 2012-06 -17 20:20 ]
[ 2012-06 -14 08:15 ]
[ 2012-06 -12 23:08 ]
[ 2012-06 -12 22:59 ]
[ 2012-06 -12 22:38 ]
[ 2012-06 -12 22:18 ]
[ 2012-06 -12 21:58 ]
[ 2012-06 -12 19:36 ]
[ 2012-06 -12 19:31 ]
[ 2012-06 -12 19:09 ]
[ 2012-06 -12 18:46 ]
[ 2012-06 -12 18:22 ]
[ 2012-06 -08 18:43 ]
[ 2012-06 -05 14:58 ]
[ 2012-06 -05 14:30 ]
[ 2012-06 -05 13:59 ]
[ 2012-06 -05 03:04 ]
[ 2012-06 -05 01:56 ]
2012年 06月 30日
We should remember this incident in 2006
What really happened in Sweden. Forsmark nuclear plant.
Without earthquake, the accident may happen.So let`s review again.
How Close Did Sweden Come to Disaster?
By Philip Bethge and Sebastian Knauer
The incident at Sweden's Forsmark plant underscores the vulnerability inherent in the process of producing nuclear energy. Experts say the accident won't be the last of its kind.
Vattenfall / Hans Blomberg
The Forsmark reactor: "The flaw in nuclear power plants is their complexity."
The culprit was as simple as it was troubling: a short-circuit. But that short-circuit caused an electricity failure that nearly led to catastrophe at Sweden's Forsmark 1 nuclear reactor.
Nearly two weeks ago, around noon on July 25, a power outage occured at Forsmark, throwing the plant's control room into a state of chaos. As the power failed, so did two of the plant's four emergency backup generators. The numbers on the controls started to go berserk, and it took a full 23 minutes before the workers, who for a time had no idea what was happening inside the reactor, were able to bring Forsmark 1 back under control.
Describing the mishap, the environmental organization Greenpeace wrote that the events at Forsmark were comparable to a "ghost ship," with nobody at the rudder. And the Swedish Environment Ministry described the event as a "serious" safety incident. Swedish nuclear expert Lars-Olov Högland, who served as chief of construction for Vattenfall until 1986, put it far more dramatically. "It was pure luck that there was not a meltdown," he said. "It was the worst incident since Chernobyl and Harrisburg," a reference to the 1979 meltdown at Three-Mile Island in Pennsylvania.
But what really happened at Forsmark? The incident was a serious one -- but also less dramatic than many headlines that appeared during the past week would lead one to believe. Like many nuclear power plants, Forsmark has four independent backup generators to provide emergency power. Although two of the diesel generators actually did fail, the remaining two functioned normally.
The plant's emergency shutdown system also funtioned. The system automatically lowered the control rods into the reactor's core, stopping the hell-fire.
"At no point in time was there a danger of an accident," asserted Anders Markgren of the plant's operater, Forsmarks Kraftgrupp. Nevetheless, Markgren said he was relieved that Forsmark has been taken off the grid. The failure of the two diesel generators has been headache enough for experts. "If the other two subs had been knocked out as well this would have led to a total loss of power," stated a report issued by the Swedish government's nuclear regulatory agency, Statens Kärnkraftinspektion (SKI).
Sweden's nuclear power stations.
Even the battery secured so-called Uninterrupted Power Supply wouldn't have helped in such a case, experts fear. The system is the final safety net of any nuclear power plant. And because a complete power failure would also cause a plant's critical cooling system to stop working, it could quickly lead to the type of core meltdown that happened at Chernobyl.
For critics, the incident shows yet again how vulnerable nuclear power plants are to a failure in electricity systems. "Nuclear power plants can quickly spin out of control and lead to meltdowns if short circuits or even power surges occur," warned Henrik Paulitz, of the German chapter of the group International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. Paulitz also took the opportunity to point out that Germany's nuclear plants haven't been immune to problems either. They included a power failure at Germany's Biblis B nuclear reactor on Feb. 8, 2004. "And that was just because the weather was bad and there was a short in the power line," he recalled. Less than a decade earlier, in 1986, lightning disrupted operations at the plant. And in 1992, at a plant in Philippsburg, Germany, a defective electrical component caused an incident that had similarities with the July 25 incident in Sweden.
Should these incidents have served as a forewarning to Sweden? Experts at SKI believe that inverters affected by the short circuit thwarted the startup of the diesel generators. According to SKI, the components were provided by German manufacturer AEG. The experts believe that the same components have been used at Forsmark's second plant as well as two further nuclear power plants in the southern Swedish city of Oskarshamm. Swedish authorities have taken all of the suspected plants offline as a precaution.
By the end of last week, the question of whether those plants use the same components had not yet been clarified. And in Germany, the Federal Environment Ministry last week ordered a technical investigation of plants here to ensure that none are vulnerable to the same problems experienced at Forsmark. Geography (Sweden is located just a few hundred kilometers north of Germany) wasn't the only factor that concered people here: Forsmark 1 is operated by Swedish utility giant Vattenfall, which also operates similar facilities in Germany and other European countries. But Vattenfall spokesman Ivo Banek, whose company operates two nuclear power plants in Germany, sought to assuage any fears. "We have no reason to doubt the security of our facilities," he said. The German Atomic Forum, a Berlin-based, pro-nuclear power lobby also sought to give the all-clear sign. "There are absolutely no indications that this incident could happen here," the group stated, adding that German plants have different safety setups.
Still, the unease over the fact that a plant came close to a meltdown because of something as simple as a defective electrical component remains. Although the Forsmark plant has a number of backup electricity supplies, that wasn't enough to shield it from serious problems. "The flaw in nuclear power plants is their complexity," said Michael Sailer, a nuclear energy expert at the Institute for Applied Ecology in Darmstadt near Frankfurt. "Based on its principle alone it is impossible to test all the contingencies with nuclear power."
"Someday, when we experience our next major accident, it will likely happen because of a disruption like this one," Sailer said. He's not alone in his thinking. A report
After this was written 6 years later , Fukushima in Japan ..we experience our next major accident.meltdown in my respectable country.
2012年 06月 28日
Script of the video:
Have you heard that EDF are planning to build a new generation of nuclear power stations in the UK. Will you join the boycott of EDf? And show them that you don't want new nuclear power stations?
But I thought nuclear power was great? I thought nuclear power was safe.
Haven't you heard of Chernobyl? Or Three Mile Island?*@2012 version-Fukushima
But didn't those happen a long time ago? The technology must have improved since then. Surely nuclear power is much safer now?(*This video was made before fukushima)
They were in the seventies and eighties, but in the last 10 years there have been near-disasters at reactors in Sweden, the Netherlands, Japan and France.
But what about Britain? Surely we do it better here?
No, not really. Bradwell nuclear power station was leaking liquid radioactive waste for 14 years until the leak was discovered in 2004.
Surely that was just an isolated incident?
No, not really. Earlier this year five bin bags of radioactive waste were discovered in a landfill site. The nuclear industry in Britain is struggling to deal with more than 500,000 cubic metres of nuclear waste. There is no approved method of long term storage. New nuclear power stations will only make more waste.
But if they are building more power stations they must have found a solution for the waste?
No, not really. They are trying to find a site for a high level nuclear waste dump, but they haven't found one yet. Not many people want to have that in their town!
But wouldn't new nuclear create lots of new jobs?
Renewable energy development would create even more jobs. And renewables have none of the dangers associated with nuclear energy.
But wouldn't nuclear power be cheaper?
No, not at all! The current decommissioning and clean-up costs for Britain's existing nuclear industry is equivalent to a bill of over £1,600 for every person in Britain. No nuclear power station has been built in Britain without public subsidies to manage nuclear waste, insure against accidents and provide protection against terrorism.
But David Cameron says new reactors will be built without public subsidy.
Don't believe everything politicians say! No reactor has ever been built in Britain without public subsidy. It's likely that the government will have to step in at some point to pay for clean-up and the massive building costs. You can't cut corners with nuclear power, so if the industry makes a mistake, the government will end up footing the bill to fix it.
But I heard that if we don't build more nuclear power stations they will have to switch the lights off!
The problem is that new nuclear power stations won't be ready in time. The current coal and nuclear power stations are ageing and many will have to close. But new nuclear power stations won't be ready to fill that energy gap.
That's terrible! What can we do?
Renewable technologies can be built much more quickly than nuclear power stations. There are more than enough renewable sources to meet our energy needs. We can also reduce our consumption and improve efficiency by insulating and using combined heat and power stations. It is really important to act now!
What can I do?
You can show EDF that you don't want nuclear power by switching electricity supplier. Choose a supplier that produces electricity from renewables and you will be supporting the move towards clean, green and safe energy for the future.
How can I do that?
Switching energy provider online is easy. Go to www.boycotted.org.uk where there is a list of green energy suppliers.
What was that website again?
www.boycottedf. org.uk Tell nuclear power to EDF-off. So, do you want nuclear power?
Leonardo: Well, Albert, it's a fine technology this nuclear fission.
Albert: The ingenuity of the human mind can be quite incredible, Leonardo. But the stupidity of the human being can be even more incredible, ya?
Leonardo: What makes you say that, Albert, old fellow?
Albert: Oh Leonardo! You have not heard of the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl? Or the meltdown at Three Mile Island in the U.S.? Or the fire at Windscale in England? Or come to mention it, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States?
Leonardo: Well, OK, Albert. Humans will always make mistakes. But we are intelligent enough to prevent such things happening again, don't you think?
Albert: Leo, I wish I had your faith in humanity! The nuclear industry doesn't exactly have such a great track record when it comes to learning from its mistakes.
Leonardo: Well, the safety record of nuclear power has been pretty good since Chernobyl, hasn't it?
Albert: OK, we haven't had any more reactor meltdowns to date, but there have been some pretty scary near misses...
Leonardo: Such as?
Albert: In the past ten years there have been near disasters in Sweden, the Netherlands and Japan. Then there is the problem of cancers, leukaemias and birth defects from routine radioactive discharges into the environment from nuclear power plants and from uranium mining. Then there's the waste problem...
Leonardo: Ah yes, the waste! But underground burial will solve that problem, right?
Albert: I wouldn't be so sure about that, Leo! Even after sixty years the best scientific minds have not been able to show a way of preventing the waste from leaking radioactivity, and it will still be deadly many thousands of years from now.
Leonardo: Well, in that case I suppose it would be pretty irresponsible to build any new nuclear reactors before we know what to do with the waste. We can't just leave it for our children and grandchildren to clear up our mess.
Albert: Right! And on top of that, nuclear power is a way for countries to develop materials for nuclear weapons. By spreading nuclear power technology around the world, we increase the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation and nuclear war. The war after that will be fought with sticks and stones.
Leonardo: Ha ha ha! And we'll be rubbing sticks together to keep warm. In spite of the risks, though, we surely need nuclear power to keep the lights on, and to prevent climate change, don't we?
Albert: Actually, new nuclear reactors take too long to build to make much of a difference in terms of maintaining energy supplies or cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Renewable energy technologies can be up and running much more quickly with very low carbon emissions and no nuclear waste.
Leonardo: Perhaps you're right, Albert. Maybe we should be putting our human ingenuity to use developing renewable technologies to their full potential instead of pouring billions into nuclear.
Albert: Absolutely, Leo. And if we really want to prevent catastrophic climate change, perhaps we'd better think about cutting down on our meat consumption, and flying and driving less.
Leonardo: Well, I'm off on my bike then to get a pizza Margherita!
Albert: Ha ha! See you later, Leo. And give Lisa my regards.
Leonardo: Thanks, Albert. And you'll have to explain that relativity business to me again sometime. E equals M C squared and all that.
Albert: Oh Leo! Not again!
2012年 06月 28日
Proposed New Nuclear Power Station, Hinkley Point C
The National Policy Statements on energy have identified that Hinkley Point in West Somerset is a potentially suitable site for a new nuclear power station. EDF Energy is proposing to build two new nuclear reactors, known collectively as Hinkley Point C, at the site.
Hinkley Point power station blockaded by anti-nuclear protesters
Activists from Stop New Nuclear alliance objecting to EDF Energy's plans to install two new reactors at the Somerset site
guardian.co.uk, Monday 3 October 2011 12.10 BST
Members of several anti-nuclear groups that are part of the Stop New Nuclear alliance say they are barring access to Hinkley Point power station near Bridgwater, Somerset, in protest at EDF Energy's plans to renew the site with two new reactors.
The new reactors at Hinkley would be the first of eight new nuclear power stations to be built in the UK.
Stop New Nuclear spokesman Andreas Speck said: "This is the start of a new movement. We intend this day to be a celebration of resistance against the government and EDF Energy's plans to spearhead the construction of eight new nuclear power plants around the UK.
"This blockade shows that people who understand the true dangers of nuclear power are prepared to use civil disobedience to get their voice heard.
"The government has hoodwinked the public into believing that we need nuclear power to keep the lights on. But this is totally untrue."
The protesters said they began their blockade at about 7am, with a theatrical troupe who "enacted a nuclear disaster scenario similar to Fukushima", the power plant that was badly damaged during the earthquake that struck Japan on 11 March this year.
Most are local people but demonstrators have also come from Belgium and Germany, a spokesman said.
A protester at Hinkley Point. Photograph: Matt Cardy/Getty Images
Hinkley was one of eight sites the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) confirmed in June as suitable for new nuclear power stations to be built.
The others are Bradwell, Essex; Hartlepool; Heysham, Lancashire; Oldbury, Gloucestershire; Sellafield, Cumbria; Sizewell, Suffolk; and Wylfa, Anglesey.
A spokesman for EDF Energy said the number of protesters was closer to 100 and they had not chained themselves to any structures at the entrance to the site.
Mike Harrison, station director of Hinkley Point B, the current power station, said the company respected the right to peaceful protest but that nuclear power was a vital part of the UK's future energy production.
"We believe strongly that low-carbon nuclear has a vital role in maintaining UK electricity supplies in the future," he said. "As the government has said, the UK continues to need new nuclear power.
"We also appreciate greatly the support of the large majority of local residents, who recognise the contribution we make to the area and the benefits that a new power station would bring to Somerset.
"The UK's chief nuclear inspector's interim report concluded that the UK nuclear power industry had reacted 'responsibly and appropriately' to events in Japan, 'displaying a leadership for safety and a strong safety culture'.
Protesters plan to launch 206 helium balloons – to represent the number of days since trouble began at Fukushima – from Hinkley at noon.
The balloons' journey will be tracked "to show which areas of the west country will be worst affected should a major disaster happen at Hinkley Point".
Fukushima accident influence all over the world. What we learn from this worst accident, if only we can receive the message from the rule of the world, voice of the God, we will be saved.
2012年 06月 28日
2012年 06月 28日
2012年 06月 27日
2012年 06月 27日