So... we know the situation in Japan. Nuclear reactors are failing after one of the largest earthquakes on record, followed by a Tsunami. The earthquake disrupted power transfer to the reactor pumps, and they went offline permanently. Emergency generators kicked in to keep the pump going, and those failed. Auxiliary power in the form of batteries was brought in, and those only lasted so long.
The longer you keep the core heated up, the harder it is to cool it down, it seems. The situation is grim in Japan- the heat is becoming so intense in the reactors that any water pumped in immediately turns into steam. Hydrogen explosions are occurring at the affected plants, and sensors inside the reactors are failing, likely because they are melting.
Nuclear meltdowns can have a catastrophic affect. Nuclear material is leaked from the reactor to the outside atmosphere, where it can be absorbed by plants, creatures and people. The result is usually cancer. Only a few meltdowns have occurred in recent history, citing Chenobyl (spelling?) and Three Mile Island.
My Assumptions
______________________________________________________________________
If naitivity and ignorance are thrown out the window, we can make a few basic assumptions.
1) Beaureacracy across the globe is corrupt in one way or another.
2) Nuclear reactor designs are not reviewed by watchdog groups or verified by government officials.
3) Nuclear energy is a somewhat regulated industry that provides a large fraction of America’s electricity.
4) Engineers and Scientists are often ignored when their input contradicts cost savings.
______________________________________________________________________
I have my assumptions, but first, let’s look at cold hard facts and data. The New York Times published an article on March 15, 2011 (today) that discusses how reactor designs in Japan have been questioned. I recommend reading this article here.
Background
Since the 1970s, there have been various warnings regarding General Electric’s Mark I reactor. Since that time, GE has stated that the reactor is safe and that it has never experienced a documented meltdown. Until now, of course.
The containment unit (CU) in the Mark I design has been described as “weaker” than alternative designs. “Cheap and Easy” was the name of the game in the 1970s. I’m not only describing nuclear reactors- this applied to homes and automobiles as well. In this day and age, the general public puts priority on safety. Marketing divisions of multiple automobile companies have acknowledged this and milk their product’s safety features.
Regulators have had problems with this reactor design early on. Through testing, they indicated that if problems were to arise in the Mark I, that it would be very easy for the situation “to go south and postal”. Regulators cited “unacceptable safety risks” to Congress in the 1970s. Like the Congress of today, their ears were probably full of gunk.
According to regulators and designers, a larger CU was necessary to prevent a rupture due to hydrogen buildup. A stronger CU would help to prevent a catastrophic meltdown, but at potentially higher costs. Regulators found no safety of operational benefits to the Mark I reactor versus competing designs other than the fact that money is being saved from the cheap purchase price.
Responsibility falls on the Industry; Engineers
Because of tradition and industry norms, the nuclear industry (and General Electric) ignored calls to design stronger CU. They argued that doing so would be the end of nuclear power. I believe this statement holds no water (no pun intended).
Now that the general public is concerned with safety in the design of basically everything, the nuclear industry is more concerned with the safe design of reactors. Still, dozens of Mark I reactors remain online in the United States. Our situation is quite different than Japans- we are not in an earthquake prone area. The current director at the Union of Concerned Scientists now says that “not banning them will mean the end of nuclear power”. How ironic.
Congress, and the nuclear industry, need to get their heads out of the sand. Engineers have been ignored on warnings ranging from the Ford Bronco disaster all the way the Challenger disaster. “We need to make these safety changes, but we are being ordered to start production because we can’t afford the time or the money to do so”. Many examples can be attributed to engineers and scientists who were complacent and not careful, but countless situations can be blamed on a lack of industry standards putting ultimate priorities on safety.
The Solution?
The immediate answer is to put restrictions on industry designs, but I have seen no evidence of the government moving to accomplish this. Until that time, it will be the responsibility of the engineers designing future plants to follow through on their ethical and moral concerns. Do the right thing, and object to shoddy design that can put people’s lives in danger.
Japanese Culture
Unfortunately, the culture in Japan is slightly different. Instead of blaming the manufacturer, the plant operators will be blamed for the disaster instead. They (the Japanese) need to not only analyze that potential source, but the fact that the designs may have been shoddy in the first place.
Citations
Zeller, Tom. "Reactor Design in Japan Has Long Been Questioned." Editorial. The New York Times. 15 Mar. 2011. Web. 15 Mar. 2011.
No comments:
Post a Comment