Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

Showing Original Post only (View all)

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
Wed Dec 4, 2013, 05:35 PM Dec 2013

Chinese nuclear disaster 'highly probable' by 2030 [View all]

The headline is sensationalistic, but the argument behind it is completely valid and it shows that risk assessment methods used by the nuclear industry have been demonstrated to be inadequate.

Chinese nuclear disaster 'highly probable' by 2030
He Zuoxiu

25th October 2013

As the UK prepares to build a fleet of new nuclear power stations with Chinese capital and expertise, a former state nuclear expert warns: China itself is heading for nuclear catastrophe.

To reduce costs, Chinese designs often cut back on safety.
Some members of the nuclear power industry rely too much on theoretical calculations, when only experience can provide real accuracy.

The lifetime of nuclear reactors is calculated in "reactor-years". One reactor year means one reactor operating for one year. The world's 443 nuclear power plants have been running for a total of 14,767 reactor-years, during which time there have been 23 accidents involving a reactor core melting. That’s one major accident every 642 reactor years.

But according to the design requirements, an accident of that scale should only happen once every 20,000 reactor years. The actual incidence is 32 times higher than the theory allows.


Some argue this criticism is unfair....

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2133281/chinese_nuclear_disaster_highly_probable_by_2030.html
29 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
K&R cprise Dec 2013 #1
That's your notion of a "completely valid" argument? FBaggins Dec 2013 #2
Yes, it is. kristopher Dec 2013 #3
I guess I shouldn't be surprised. FBaggins Dec 2013 #4
Some background for those that don't have time to look them up. FBaggins Dec 2013 #5
Schrader-Frechette is DISHONEST PamW Dec 2013 #6
"claim to be a "Professor of Ethics" and then LIE as much as Shrader-Frechette" kristopher Dec 2013 #14
True, there's no surprise that you are defending the indefensible kristopher Dec 2013 #7
Once again... FBaggins Dec 2013 #8
I don't need to. kristopher Dec 2013 #10
Of course you do. FBaggins Dec 2013 #11
I'm not saying it, an ethicist is saying it. kristopher Dec 2013 #12
She didn't write the OP. FBaggins Dec 2013 #13
Nonsense? kristopher Dec 2013 #15
Yep FBaggins Dec 2013 #16
No I believe that your use of that criteria is fraudulent. kristopher Dec 2013 #17
It's "specifically mentioned" FBaggins Dec 2013 #18
She isn't "immunizing" anything. kristopher Dec 2013 #19
Misuse???? PamW Dec 2013 #9
Yeah... kristopher Dec 2013 #20
NOT IMPRESSED in the SLIGHTEST!!! PamW Dec 2013 #22
The details about how the Nuclear Industry is misleading kristopher Dec 2013 #21
kick for reference kristopher Dec 2013 #23
kick for reference kristopher Dec 2013 #24
Unscientific SIMPLISTIC analysis.. PamW Dec 2013 #25
Classical probability (i), relative-frequency probability (ii), subjective probability (iii) kristopher Dec 2013 #26
Common ERROR in calculating probabilities PamW Dec 2013 #27
"MIT assessors were guilty of a massive ‘overconfidence’ bias toward nuclear safety" kristopher Dec 2013 #28
Repeat: "MIT assessors were guilty of a massive ‘overconfidence’ bias toward nuclear safety" kristopher Feb 2014 #29
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Chinese nuclear disaster ...»Reply #0