Author Archives: nuclearhistory

“Climate change, nuclear power, and the adaptation–mitigation dilemma”

“Climate change, nuclear power, and the adaptation–mitigation dilemma”

Natalie Kopytko a JohnPerkins b
a The University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK
b The Evergreen State College, 1806 24th Avenue NW, Olympia, WA 98502, USA
Received 15 April 2010, Accepted 29 September 2010, Available online 30 October 2010.

Many policy-makers view nuclear power as a mitigation for climate change. Efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change, however, interact with existing and new nuclear power plants, and these installations must contend with dilemmas between adaptation and mitigation. This paper develops five criteria to assess the adaptation–mitigation dilemma on two major points: (1) the ability of nuclear power to adapt to climate change and (2) the potential for nuclear power operation to hinder climate change adaptation. Sea level rise models for nine coastal sites in the United States, a review of US Nuclear Regulatory Commission documents, and reports from France’s nuclear regulatory agency provided insights into issues that have arisen from sea level rise, shoreline erosion, coastal storms, floods, and heat waves. Applying the criteria to inland and coastal nuclear power plants reveals several weaknesses. Safety stands out as the primary concern at coastal locations, while inland locations encounter greater problems with interrupted operation. Adapting nuclear power to climate change entails either increased expenses for construction and operation or incurs significant costs to the environment and public health and welfare. Mere absence of greenhouse gas emissions is not sufficient to assess nuclear power as a mitigation for climate change.

Research Highlights
►The adaptation-mitigation criteria reveal nuclear power’s vulnerabilities. ►Climate change adaptation could become too costly at many sites. ►Nuclear power operation jeopardizes climate change adaptation. ►Extreme climate events pose a safety challenge.

end quote of abstract. see original link above.


Extreme weather and nuclear power plants

Extreme weather and nuclear power plants

see also download at :

Kirsti Jylhä
32.05Finnish Meteorological Institute
Hanna M. Mäkelä
24.69Finnish Meteorological Institute
+ 8
Ari Venäläinen
34.18Finnish Meteorological Institute
Milla Johansson
19.57Finnish Meteorological Institute

“This research comprehensively described the occurrence of extreme weather and climate events and aspects of sea level rise that are relevant from the view point of safety of nuclear power plants. Studies about the frequency, intensity, and spatial and temporal variation of the extreme weather events and their combinations were carried out utilising instrumental meteorological observations, a 1 200-year long preindustrial control simulation and future climate model simulations. In addition to the role of natural climate variability, the study clarified the influence of human-induced climate change on extreme weather events and sea level values. The longest future climate and sea level projections extend to the end of the 21st century. According to them, the daily maximum temperatures and the length of the longest hot spells will clearly increase in Finland. The largest changes, however, are projected for the wintertime minimum temperatures. During summer there will be more intensive precipitation events and during winter more frequent precipitation days. The mean sea level is projected to rise, the change depending on the location along the Finnish coastline. Uncertainty ranges in the mean sea level scenarios are large mainly due to uncertainties in the future behaviour of the continental ice sheets.” end quote. Please see original link above.

IAEA: “Effects of Extreme Weather on Nuclear Power Plants” 2010

Selected slides from an IAEA slide show.

source link:

Joint ICTP-IAEA Workshop on Vulnerability of Energy Systems to
Climate Change and Extreme Events
Oszvald Glöckler
19 – 23 April 2010
Effects of Extreme Weather on Nuclear Power Plants

Station Blackout due to grid failure IS a serious safety issue for a nuclear power plant.

Max Planck Institute: “Probability of contamination from severe nuclear reactor accidents is higher than expected”

Source Link:

Publication Date:
MAY 22, 2012
Probability of contamination from severe nuclear reactor accidents is higher than expected Western Europe has the worldwide highest risk of radioactive contamination caused by major reactor accidents

Brief quote: “Catastrophic nuclear accidents such as the core meltdowns in Chernobyl and Fukushima are more likely to happen than previously assumed. Based on the operating hours of all civil nuclear reactors and the number of nuclear meltdowns that have occurred, scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz have calculated that such events may occur once every 10 to 20 years (based on the current number of reactors) — some 200 times more often than estimated in the past. The researchers also determined that, in the event of such a major accident, half of the radioactive caesium-137 would be spread over an area of more than 1,000 kilometres away from the nuclear reactor. Their results show that Western Europe is likely to be contaminated about once in 50 years by more than 40 kilobecquerel of caesium-137 per square meter. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, an area is defined as being contaminated with radiation from this amount onwards. In view of their findings, the researchers call for an in-depth analysis and reassessment of the risks associated with nuclear power plants.” end quote.

Please see original full text at the above link

Non Fuel Renewable Energy, Australia, 2018-19

Last year was a record year for renewable energy in Australia, with 2,200 megawatts of capacity added. Based on data from the Clean Energy Regulator, during 2018 and 2019 Australia will install about 10,400MW of new renewable energy, comprising 7,200MW of large-scale renewables and 3,200MW of rooftop solar (see charts below). This new capacity is divided roughly equally between large-scale solar photovoltaics (PV), wind farms, and rooftop solar panels. This represents a per-capita rate of 224 watts per person per year, which is among the highest of any nation.


Summarised at

No wind, solar or hydro power plant in the world has caused a radiological emergency in any nation.

An Assessment of Radiocaesium Activity Concentrations in Sheep in Restricted Areas of England and Wales and Potential Consumer Doses (UK Post-Chernobyl Monitoring Programme)

An Assessment of Radiocaesium Activity Concentrations in
Sheep in Restricted Areas of England and Wales and
Potential Consumer Doses
(UK Post-Chernobyl Monitoring Programme)

November 2011


Andrew Field
Food Standards Agency
Aviation House
125 Kingsway


“The doses to the representative person from consuming sheep meat from each monitored farm
range from <0.05mSv to 0.21mSv per year with a mean of <0.09mSv per year. The doses are
considerably below the 1mSv per year limit established underArticle 48 of Council Directive
96/29/Euratom for members of the public exposed to radiation from routine planned exposures and
the 1mSv per year reference level typically used in existing exposure situations (ICRP, 2006 & 2007).
Doses are also well below 0.26mSv, the dose the Representative Person would receive, if they
consumed all their meat at the 1,000 Bq/kg limit.
The mean radiocaesium activity concentration in sheep on each restricted farm ranged from <160
Bq/kg to 739 Bq/kg and the maximum from <160 Bq/kg to 1433 Bq/kg. Only 4 out of 78 farms
recorded sheep above 1,000 Bq/kg. No more than 2.5% percent of sheep on each of these four
farms exceeded this limit.
Although low levels of radiocaesium persist throughout the restricted areas of Cumbria and North
Wales, the level of consumer risk, if control measures were removed, is considered to be very low.
With very few sheep exceeding the 1,000 Bq/kg limit when activity concentrations are at their peak,
the Mark and Release monitoring programme is having a negligible impact on reducing consumer
doses. end quote from the above source.

This being the results 25 years after the contaminating event deposited the cesium fission isotope on area of North Wales.

It is hard to imagine how a solar or wind or any other form of fuel-less renewable could create such a cesium contamination event over a number of nations in Europe. Pursuant to the generation of electrical power.

Chernobyl and the north Wales sheep farmers, 30 years on

Chernobyl and the north Wales sheep farmers, 30 years on
By Telor Iwan
Newyddion 9
26 April 2016

BBC at

The Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986 is widely believed to have caused the death of at least 4,000 people, with a further untold number of children born with abnormalities.

The explosion forced the evacuation of more than 100,000 Ukrainians and Belarussians, laying waste an area measuring 3,000 sq miles (7,769 sq km) that remains uninhabitable to this day.

Within weeks of the fire that started at about 01:30 BST on 26 April, 30 years ago, hill farmers across north Wales were also dragged into the developing crisis.

Heavy rain in April and May drenched higher ground with alarming quantities of radioactive caesium and iodine. The authorities reacted by imposing a blanket ban on the sale of all farm animals. Panic spread.

Glyn Roberts, now the president of the Farmers Union of Wales, said: “At the time we were worried what effect the fallout would have on our health. My wife was expecting and we were worried what effect it would have on our children, that was the prime issue.

“The news was difficult to believe, and it made you think ‘how safe is nuclear energy production?’.

“I remember I was in Ruthin market when we were told that we could not sell any of our lamb or beef. That was when it hit home, and there was quite a bit of accumulative cash flow problems.”

Mr Roberts, and others at the time, felt the government’s response was too slow, and matters came to a head at a public meeting in Llanrwst, Conwy county, when representatives of the Welsh Office were not allowed to leave until firm promises of compensation were given.

“When someone said that the issue was not going to be addressed that night, the crowd outside went a bit wild,” he said.

“Following that, Nicholas Edwards the Secretary of State came to this farm and we explained our situation.

“From there things did move on a bit and we were told that there was going to be some compensation.”

In total, 344 Welsh farms were put under restrictions, with animals’ radiation levels monitored before they were allowed to be sold at market.

The number of failing animals peaked in 1992, but some still recorded higher levels of caesium as recently as 2011.

‘Abnormal lambs’
A year later, the authorities decided the numbers were then insignificant and there was no reason to continue the monitoring. This saved the taxpayer about £300,000 a year.

Some farmers were in favour of further monitoring, if only to maintain the public’s trust in Welsh meat, but the majority approved and welcomed the end of a long saga that started 1,500 miles (2,414km)away deep, in the former Soviet Union.

The following years were still full of concern for many Welsh hill farmers.

“Every farm has some abnormal lambs born, but I believe that for the first years after Chernobyl there were more abnormalities in the lambs,” Mr Roberts said. “I have no evidence, but that is what I feel.”

But at least the Welsh farmers were able to stay in their homes and keep their livestock and livelihoods.

It was a different story in northern Ukraine, where anyone living within a 30-mile (48km) radius of the power plant had to leave their homes.

As well as the cities of Chernobyl and Pripyat, that meant the emptying of villages and hamlets.

One of the largest was Parashev, some 10 miles (16km) east of the power station.

Maria Adnamova was born there and, after a few years of enforced exile, she, her husband and a few other unhappy souls decided to return.

But the world had moved on, and Parashev with its hundreds of empty homes, shops, schoolroom and council offices rotted away before their eyes.

Today, the widowed Mrs Adnamova, 81 years old and with failing health, is one of just five people existing in Parashev.

A translator for Mrs Adnamova explained why the threat of Chernobyl’s poisoned legacy was not enough to keep her from her home.

“They were evacuated late on 3 May. They were given a house some place in the Kiev region, quite far from here, but she did not like the climate. She decided to return, because her parents and grandparents live here. She will die on her own land.”

The power station stands at the centre of a sprawling complex of buildings and can be seen from many miles away.

The fourth reactor, the cause of so much suffering, is encased in a crumbling concrete shell, built in the years immediately after the disaster.

end partial quote, source as above.

It is hard to envisage technically how solar, wind, solar/wind/battery, hydrogen, hydro, biomass etc could produce such risk, harm, cost and disruption as nuclear reactors repeatedly do.

Far from being a once in a 1000 year event, as claimed by the industry in 1974, it was re estimated to be a once in 30 year event by Toshiba in 2012. Toshiba claimed then that the industry could easily afford such consequences. Toshiba/Westinghouse nuclear divisions are now bankrupt.