Nuclear Plants Kill Billions Of Fish, Says Scientist

[nickelplates]

[URL="http/maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=e...233459&z=12"]http/maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=e...233459&z=12[/URL]

That looks like the west coast to me. It should be the Irish who are worried, not the Norwegians!

If you doubt that nuclear materials that escape into the environment can turn up a long way away remember that a few years ago the sheep that graze around Sellafield were unfit for human consumtion for years because of contamination from Chernobyl in the Ukraine. Of course that came on the winds but I would think the Gulf stream would carry water from the Irish Sea North of Britain and close to Scandinavia. The materials we are talking about are damaging in tiny amounts and like so many things are concentrated up the food chain.

 

[darknirvana217]

Its not just the location, the currents carry heat and radioactive material. And yes Chernobyl is a good case becuase air acts simiair to water in the way that particles are transported in the currents. If you want to talk about terrorism, Sellafield was originally a weapons facility that was creating weapons grade plutonium to be used in thermonuclear warheads, only recently has it been converted into a civillain power facility. We could all be like the Danish and start using wind power facilities and forget about nuclear power or oil, that will help save the fishes. NIMBYism is fine, if that thing goes like Chernobyl or Three mile Island, well you and your neighbors will have to worry about more than just decreasing fish populations.

 

[BBrain]

Kewskills, thanks for posting that article. I wasn't aware of this serious problem.

 

[andywg]

Its not just the location, the currents carry heat and radioactive material. And yes Chernobyl is a good case becuase air acts simiair to water in the way that particles are transported in the currents. If you want to talk about terrorism, Sellafield was originally a weapons facility that was creating weapons grade plutonium to be used in thermonuclear warheads, only recently has it been converted into a civillain power facility. We could all be like the Danish and start using wind power facilities and forget about nuclear power or oil, that will help save the fishes. NIMBYism is fine, if that thing goes like Chernobyl or Three mile Island, well you and your neighbors will have to worry about more than just decreasing fish populations.

Chernobyl was a case of bad practices being carried out on a badly designed nuclear reactor. I somehow can't see that happening at Sellafield, what with there not being a badly designed reactor in operation in there at the moment.

As to wind saving us, that is laughable and anyone who actually understand the electricity requirements knows that a combination of a number of different styles of energy consumption (including nuclear in the short to middle term) is required.

My maths be off here, but the sources are linked for others to check. In 2006 the average load factor of UK wind farms was 27.1% (from here). So for every 1MW turbine they put in, on average you will only get 271kW out of it.

From wiki the UK had consumption of 348,100,000,000 kWh for 2005. If that generation were to be spread out evenly across a year (8,760 hours) then it would require a constant production of 39,737,442.9kW, or 146,632.631 1MW rated wind turbines (not accounting for the ebb and flow of power demand). That is a lot of very large turbines to be built.


A report from Denmark noted that their wind power network was without power for 54 days during 2002. As Denmark now produces 20% of its power from wind, it would need to have spare production abilities to cover the wind power in the event of the wind power not being available.

Don't get me wrong, wind power is part of the wider solution, but pinning your hopes on it is just not wise. Also, Denmark generates a fifth of its power from wind (when they are working), where do you think the rest comes from, and where is the extra capacity for when the turbines don't cut it, or there is a spike of demand?

 

[darknirvana217]

I hardly find a new energy source that is still in its infancy to be laughable. Give it time, and this environmentally friendly energy source may replace conventional sources like natural gas and nuclear fuel. Granted it cannot replace the current facilities, but with more research and funding I'm sure we will find a safe alternative, whether it be wind or something else, to fossil fuels and nuclear power. Besides how do you explain three mile island, do you think we were poorly managing it like the Soviets did Chernobyl. Things happen, people make mistakes, and it could happen at Sellafield or any other nuclear plant. Besides there is new evidence that shows terrorist organizations have plans to attack nuclear plants. The effects would be similiar to a meltdown or a dirty bomb. So even if technicians didn't make an error, then there is always a possibility a group may use teh facility as a weapon. What I was mainly stressing was the fact that any heat produced by this plant could effect the local environment and fish populations and radioactive particles could easily be transported by the oceanic currents in the same way that radioactive particles were carried by the wind in the atmosphere all over the world after the Chernobyl meltdown. Regardless of whether you believe nuclear power is the supreme fuel source, its effect are here and they almost irreversible. fish populations are on the decrease in the North Sea and surrounding bodies of water because of poor management and placement of fuel sources, just like the hydroelectric dams in the Rio Xingu. Its sad that people always pick technology over teh well being of the natural environment.

 

[andywg]

I hardly find a new energy source that is still in its infancy to be laughable. Give it time, and this environmentally friendly energy source may replace conventional sources like natural gas and nuclear fuel. Granted it cannot replace the current facilities, but with more research and funding I'm sure we will find a safe alternative, whether it be wind or something else, to fossil fuels and nuclear power.

I'm sure too, but wind will never make a significant part of it, it is just too unreliable. It has a strictly limited operating window. Too much wind and it has to be shut down completely, too little and you don't get a great deal of production. Tidal power is a far better alternative. That and reductions in energy use.

And it is laughable that wind will provide all our power and save us. Suppose Denmark went one further and had all its power from wind. What happens when a storm hits and it has to turn of production from all its wind farms? Wind has its place, but anything more than about 20-30% is going to lead to large problems. Look at the massive hikes in energy usage at half time in the World Cup Final, how will wind cope with over half of Europe all putting on the kettle and the toilet light at the same time?

Besides how do you explain three mile island, do you think we were poorly managing it like the Soviets did Chernobyl. Things happen, people make mistakes, and it could happen at Sellafield or any other nuclear plant.

But Three Mile Island led to no deaths or injuries of staff. It is an example of a better designed plant being able to fail but not cause major problems. From here:

Detailed studies of the radiological consequences of the accident have been conducted by the NRC, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (now Health and Human Services), the Department of Energy, and the State of Pennsylvania. Several independent studies have also been conducted. Estimates are that the average dose to about 2 million people in the area was only about 1 millirem. To put this into context, exposure from a full set of chest x-rays is about 6 millirem. Compared to the natural radioactive background dose of about 100-125 millirem per year for the area, the collective dose to the community from the accident was very small. The maximum dose to a person at the site boundary would have been less than 100 millirem.

There were issues with the design of the reactors at Three Mile Island and lessons have been learned.

Besides there is new evidence that shows terrorist organizations have plans to attack nuclear plants. The effects would be similiar to a meltdown or a dirty bomb. So even if technicians didn't make an error, then there is always a possibility a group may use teh facility as a weapon.

They might also crash planes into buildings, should we all get a boat everywhere? The London Underground and Bus system was targetted twice, has everybody stopped using that? If you massively change your life to avoid terrorists hurting you, they have already won half the battle.

What I was mainly stressing was the fact that any heat produced by this plant could effect the local environment and fish populations and radioactive particles could easily be transported by the oceanic currents in the same way that radioactive particles were carried by the wind in the atmosphere all over the world after the Chernobyl meltdown. Regardless of whether you believe nuclear power is the supreme fuel source, its effect are here and they almost irreversible.

I don't believe it is the supreme fuel source. I believe it is the best current source to allow a reduction in fossil fuels while better renewable energy sources come online, and (who knows) the introduction of nuclear fusion which will not have the capacity for Chernobyl style events (it is shown as a proof of concept, except for now superheating the plasma costs more energy than they get back, but a new reactor is to be built in the UK over the next few years to trial it on a larger scale).

fish populations are on the decrease in the North Sea and surrounding bodies of water because of poor management and placement of fuel sources, just like the hydroelectric dams in the Rio Xingu. Its sad that people always pick technology over teh well being of the natural environment.

This is just wrong and if you lived over here I don't think you would make that statement. Fish stocks are on the decrease in the North Sea because none of the governments have the guts to stand up to the fishing industry. Year after year the scientists go out and measure the fish stocks and suggest a moratorium on fishing certain species, or a very low limit. Then the fishing industry complains and the governments allow a much higher quota. This process is repeated every time the quotas are up for renewal. It is almost certainly no coincidence that Cod (the national fish dish of the UK for so long) is now so close to extinction in the North Sea.

 

[OldMan47]

I see references to all power plants but hydro being a problem with aquatic life. Why exempt the hydro plants? they pass all the water behind the dam through a water turbine. I doubt that a fish going through a water turbine fares any better than one being overheated by the warm water coming back from a cooling source. As far as sucking fish into the cooling system, a lot of work has been done in the last 30 years to improve the technology available to return the fish to their source water. This is something that has had a great deal of work done during that time in the US for the very reason that people were worried about the large fish kills that were happening back then. It has led to much lower impacts from the water flow than was the case before the attempt was made. At one time the fish killed and removed by the water cleaning systems were measured in tons per day at each power plant, now they are measured in the hundreds of pounds per week. In my opinion that is progress but it has a ways to go.
Another area of work has been the work to spread the returning water out over a larger area so that the local temperature effects on fish populations would be smaller, not non-existent.
Since my own obser vation is that Europe in general is more environmentally conscious than the US, I would have expected even more improvements to have been made there but I don't know that to be a fact.

 

[darknirvana217]

In response to Hydro electric dams, they are awful. Take the Rio Xingu for instance. Several fish, especially catfish lay their eggs upstream to be fertilized. After the hatching the fry float down stream only to be destroyed by the turbines in the dam. So not only are adult fish being sucked in, but the next generation are killed before they can even pass on their genes. Also, they are finding now that the dams are stirring up methane gas deposits that were created from rotting vegetation on the bottom of the river. This methane gas, a ozone depleting agent, is four times more dangerous to our atmosphere than carbon dioxide.

This is a fishforum, so lets steer it back to the fishes. Anything humans do will manipulate the natural environment, whether it be fishing, oil drilling, nuclear facilities, or even cruise ships. To say the nuclear facilities are being wrongfully blamed or to say the fishing industry is the main contributor to the fish population decrease is absurd. There are so many contributors that you cannot say yep that's it. The Germans even discovered during the second world war that there was a warming of the oceans where there was large amounts of naval activity. Nuclear facilities are a minor contributor, but still a contributor to a massive issue of oceanic warming and species decrease that is facing us and our wet little friends. We can help to decrease the waste in our waters and warming of the regions around such facilities by bringing them more inland and cooling them through other methods other than by oceanic waters. If I did live over there I'm sure I would feel the same way. Where I live there is a nuclear power plant inland that is only 15 miles from my house and miles away from the Atlantic Ocean.

 

[nickelplates]

I see references to all power plants but hydro being a problem with aquatic life. Why exempt the hydro plants? they pass all the water behind the dam through a water turbine. I doubt that a fish going through a water turbine fares any better than one being overheated by the warm water coming back from a cooling source.

I think you may have misread that, what was said is that all large power stations but hydro use cooling water so have the specific issue mentioned in the article, if it's not the sea it's a river or a lake that is affected. No one said that hydro plants don't damage fish that I can see, just that they don't need cooling water which is correct.

 

[Dave Spencer]

The two key factors when considering power generation are diversity of source and security of fuel supplies. Localised heating of water in fossil fired outfalls is minor. I worked at a 1000MW coal fired power staion on the River Trent, with another two 2000MW coal fired stations within 5 miles. We all had our outfalls in to the Trent, but the river still remained healthy.

What most people don`t seem to realise is that the water taken from rivers recycles through the cooling towers, where it is cooled and reused. Water is taken from the river to top the system up due to evaporation from the towers. Water return in to rivers is minimal.

It is only stations on the coast that tend not to use cooling towers, but this is because the sea is a far greater heat sink than rivers.

No industry is scrutinised and regulated as heavily as the power industry by the EA.

Atoms for power.

Dave.