Why Torness nuclear power plant is not all it's cracked up to be
The risk of a nuclear accident is thought to be relatively high in new reactors as they are broken in. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were both in their break-in phase when accidents occurred. Then the risk lowers in mid-life. But as reactors become older, as with any other sort of equipment, there is an increased risk of age-related failures. The Fukushima reactors began commercial operation between 1971 and 1975, so were over 40 years old when the meltdowns occurred.
Torness and Hunterston B are both Advanced Gas-cooled Reactors (AGRs) which opened in 1976 and 1989 respectively. There were an estimated 586 cracks across the two Hunterston B reactors when it was eventually forced to close in January 2022. There are a similar number of cracks in just one of the two reactors at Torness, with cracks also starting to appear in the other reactor. Cracking in the graphite core of these reactors is a problem because graphite debris could build up in the fuel channels comprising the operator's ability to keep the fuel cool and misshapen bricks could make inserting the control rods difficult. In a worst-case either of these could lead to a meltdown.
The late John Large, a nuclear engineering consultant, explained that cracks also cast doubt on the safety of these reactors in the event of an emergency like an earthquake. A cracked and deteriorating core has lost its residual strength. If the core is wobbled by a small earthquake the core could become misaligned, and the fuel modules could get stuck in the core. Then the fuel temperature would get raised and could undergo a melt. If the radioactivity gets into the gas stream and the reactor is venting because it's over pressurised then you have a release the radioactive gas into the atmosphere and you have dispersion and a contamination problem.
Pete Roche (Image: NQ) Clearly, it's time for the ageing Torness reactors to be closed. Keeping them open any longer would be gambling with public safety.
We also have to bear in mind that there is a significant design difference at Torness, compared with Hunterston, which could make the cracking problem worse. The Torness reactors have seal rings between the graphite bricks that make up the reactor core. The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) says there could be 'a systematic failure' of the seal rings after cracking.
In January 2020, ONR brought forward the date when it expected to start seeing cracks appearing at Torness by six years but the closure date was only brought forward by two years from 2030 to 2028. Logically, we might have expected Torness to close in 2024. Then, in January 2024, in a bizarre switch, EDF changed its mind, and reverted to a 2030 closure date 'subject to plant inspections and regulatory approvals'.
READ MORE on the Future of Torness series:
Torness was only ever expected to operate for 30 or at most 35 years, so it is now past its sell by date. With cracks appearing in both reactors the precautionary principle dictates that it is time to shut up shop.
Jobs at Torness won't disappear immediately when the station closes. It took over three years to empty Hunterston B of fuel. After that it will take almost a century to dismantle the buildings, decommission the reactors and eradicate the radiation from the land and buildings, in fact, when Hunterston B transfers its ownership from EDF to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) next April, the Scottish Parliament has been told the NDA will probably need to recruit more staff to help with the decommissioning work.
As far as building new reactors at Torness, or anywhere else in Scotland, whether large or small, is concerned, that would be the last thing Scotland needs. It is perfectly feasible to supply 100% of Scotland's energy (not just electricity) from renewable sources.
Future of Torness logo (Image: NQ) In fact, a recent study by renowned energy modelling academics at the LUT University in Finland, showed that not only is a 100% renewable energy mix feasible for the whole UK but it would save well over £100 billion in achieving net zero by 2050, compared to the UK Government's current strategy.
What we need to balance variable renewables and reduce payments for turning off renewables is not always on 24/7 nuclear reactors, but more energy storage and flexibility in electricity demand. Nuclear power is too slow, too inflexible and too expensive to play a role in cutting carbon emissions.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
5 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Why Torness nuclear power plant is not all it's cracked up to be
The risk of a nuclear accident is thought to be relatively high in new reactors as they are broken in. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were both in their break-in phase when accidents occurred. Then the risk lowers in mid-life. But as reactors become older, as with any other sort of equipment, there is an increased risk of age-related failures. The Fukushima reactors began commercial operation between 1971 and 1975, so were over 40 years old when the meltdowns occurred. Torness and Hunterston B are both Advanced Gas-cooled Reactors (AGRs) which opened in 1976 and 1989 respectively. There were an estimated 586 cracks across the two Hunterston B reactors when it was eventually forced to close in January 2022. There are a similar number of cracks in just one of the two reactors at Torness, with cracks also starting to appear in the other reactor. Cracking in the graphite core of these reactors is a problem because graphite debris could build up in the fuel channels comprising the operator's ability to keep the fuel cool and misshapen bricks could make inserting the control rods difficult. In a worst-case either of these could lead to a meltdown. The late John Large, a nuclear engineering consultant, explained that cracks also cast doubt on the safety of these reactors in the event of an emergency like an earthquake. A cracked and deteriorating core has lost its residual strength. If the core is wobbled by a small earthquake the core could become misaligned, and the fuel modules could get stuck in the core. Then the fuel temperature would get raised and could undergo a melt. If the radioactivity gets into the gas stream and the reactor is venting because it's over pressurised then you have a release the radioactive gas into the atmosphere and you have dispersion and a contamination problem. Pete Roche (Image: NQ) Clearly, it's time for the ageing Torness reactors to be closed. Keeping them open any longer would be gambling with public safety. We also have to bear in mind that there is a significant design difference at Torness, compared with Hunterston, which could make the cracking problem worse. The Torness reactors have seal rings between the graphite bricks that make up the reactor core. The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) says there could be 'a systematic failure' of the seal rings after cracking. In January 2020, ONR brought forward the date when it expected to start seeing cracks appearing at Torness by six years but the closure date was only brought forward by two years from 2030 to 2028. Logically, we might have expected Torness to close in 2024. Then, in January 2024, in a bizarre switch, EDF changed its mind, and reverted to a 2030 closure date 'subject to plant inspections and regulatory approvals'. READ MORE on the Future of Torness series: Torness was only ever expected to operate for 30 or at most 35 years, so it is now past its sell by date. With cracks appearing in both reactors the precautionary principle dictates that it is time to shut up shop. Jobs at Torness won't disappear immediately when the station closes. It took over three years to empty Hunterston B of fuel. After that it will take almost a century to dismantle the buildings, decommission the reactors and eradicate the radiation from the land and buildings, in fact, when Hunterston B transfers its ownership from EDF to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) next April, the Scottish Parliament has been told the NDA will probably need to recruit more staff to help with the decommissioning work. As far as building new reactors at Torness, or anywhere else in Scotland, whether large or small, is concerned, that would be the last thing Scotland needs. It is perfectly feasible to supply 100% of Scotland's energy (not just electricity) from renewable sources. Future of Torness logo (Image: NQ) In fact, a recent study by renowned energy modelling academics at the LUT University in Finland, showed that not only is a 100% renewable energy mix feasible for the whole UK but it would save well over £100 billion in achieving net zero by 2050, compared to the UK Government's current strategy. What we need to balance variable renewables and reduce payments for turning off renewables is not always on 24/7 nuclear reactors, but more energy storage and flexibility in electricity demand. Nuclear power is too slow, too inflexible and too expensive to play a role in cutting carbon emissions.
The Herald Scotland
a day ago
- The Herald Scotland
Inside the Torness nuclear power protests, 50 years later
Yet, the plant, first mooted in the early 1970s by the South of Scotland Electricity Board (SSEB), has long been a lightning rod of controversy. Anti-nuclear activists waged a futile battle to prevent the station from being built, with thousands of campaigners famously occupying the site in May 1978. Pete Roche is one of the founders of the Scottish Campaign to Resist the Atomic Menace, or SCRAM, a radical group who fought against the construction of Torness. 'I came to Edinburgh from Birmingham in 1974 to study ecology,' he tells me. 'I started going to Friends of the Earth meetings. That's when I first heard about the plans to build a nuclear power station. 'The public inquiry lasted seven days, and in the wake of that, a group of us decided to form SCRAM in 1975." Police remove a protester from a bulldozer in November 1978. (Image: Newsquest) 'I was supposed to go to the inaugural meeting but ended up in a car crash. Perhaps it was divine intervention…' Roche laughs. 'I'm only partly serious', he quips. 'We decided to camp for a weekend on the site in April 1976 - the campaign was still quite small. Then, we returned to the same field in 1978 and had a much bigger protest. More than 5000 people attended. 'We wrote to every organisation listed in the back of Peace News, slowly building up the anti-nuclear movement in Scotland,' Roche recalls. 'SCRAM had quite a sympathetic hearing in East Lothian. I would routinely cycle out from Edinburgh and help facilitate community meetings in all the small villages.' In 1978, a group of campaigners occupied 'Half Moon Cottage', a 'ramshackle and bleaky exposed' building on the site of the proposed station. Roche tells me: 'I stayed for around two weeks, but others stayed on longer. When the board wanted to start construction, they got harassed by the cottage people so they went down to demolish the cottage and arrested the activists.' Activists vowed to do everything in their power to stop the plant from being built, and would regularly throw themselves in front of bulldozers to prevent construction. A strong police presence stopped 200 Scottish students entering the Torness site. May 1980 (Image: Newsquest/Duncan Dingsdale) A November 1978 report, published in The Scotsman, states: 'The power game took a nasty turn when anti-nuclear protestors packed into pits, threw themselves in between the tracks of huge bulldozers and scrambled into mechanical shovels at Torness.' Roche looks back on those heady days with fondness. He remarks: 'We had a very active phone tree at the time. I remember we got 400 people there to block JCBs from digging sewage pipes. 'They started work at four in the morning but we were there to stop them.' A 1983 pamphlet entitled 'From Folly to Fiasco' illustrates the strength of feeling among campaigners. One excerpt reads: 'Controversy surrounds the Torness nuclear power station being built, just 30 miles from Edinburgh. Scene of numerous direct actions, Torness is a monumental example of corporate obstinacy. 'At every stage, independent voices have spoken out against the reactor on the grounds of excessive cost, surplus generating capacity, job losses in the coal mining industry, and the unsolved problem of radioactive wastes. 'Conventional protest, sound argument, and majority public opinion have, so far, proved fruitless.' Read more from Josh Pizzuto-Pomaco: 8,000 jobs boost in Peterhead after £1bn energy transition investment Edinburgh University staff to strike today as 1800 job losses threatened Glasgow 'tourist tax' approved as visitors face 5% tariff from 2027 Dr Ewan Gibbs, who lectures on energy politics at Glasgow University, says the protests were a 'significant moment' in Scottish energy history. He tells me: 'At the time, the prevailing distinction between nuclear weapons and nuclear energy was being challenged. There was a growing environmental movement against the nuclear industry throughout the 1970s. 'The SNP were anti-nuclear power while Labour and the trade union movement was divided. They were able to draw on a cohort of young people, mainly university graduates, who had increasing suspicion about nuclear power.' 'Their opposition was partly apocalyptic but also more practical, as fears over the impacts of nuclear waste and radiation grew. 'Of course, it's interesting to see how much the environmental movement has changed since Torness. Right now, it is driven by carbon. But this was not always the case. In the 1970s, coal miners and anti-nuclear campaigners were allies.' Demonstration at Torness. May 1980. (Image: Newsquest/Duncan Dingsdale) Gibbs argues that the relationship between Scottish nationalism and nuclear energy 'flows through Torness'. He notes: 'Torness shapes the energy policy of modern Scotland. We've had a nuclear moratorium for years now, which is very much seen as an SNP policy, but was actually shaped by Jack McConnell's Labour government.' Asked why he joined SCRAM, Roche, who would go on to work for Greenpeace, says: 'My reasons have probably changed over the years. I was motivated by fears of radiation at first, but then I started to engage with all these groups and I began to realise how autocratic the nuclear process was. It wasn't the sort of government I wanted.' Ultimately, the campaign could be dismissed as a Quixotic remnant of a bygone era. Activists didn't stop the bulldozers. Torness was built, and still stands today. Since 1988, the plant has produced 290 TWh of zero carbon electricity. Station owners EDF Energy proudly state this is enough energy to power every home in Scotland for 29 years, and that the use of the plant has avoided 101m tonnes of carbon emissions. Torness rises over the East Lothian coast. (Image: EDF) Yet, the 'Torness Alliance' casts a shadow of radicalism which remains relevant today, as Just Stop Oil and pro Palestine activists block roads, throw paint, and march in the streets. SCRAM will celebrate the 50th anniversary of its founding this autumn, at an event in Edinburgh. I'm told an archival film will be shown. Greying activists in the twilight of life will come together to remember a time when the world seemed on the brink of collapse, and all that stood between nuclear armageddon was a group of radicals camping in a field near Dunbar. Indeed, the legacy of these men and women will live on, long after the reactors of Torness power down for the last time.
South Wales Argus
17-06-2025
- South Wales Argus
Queen's Road fire in Chepstow showed best and worst of people
The fire broke out on Friday evening and spread quickly to neighbouring houses, causing roofs to be destroyed and extensive water and smoke damage to neighbouring properties. The affected houses were in a block of four and all properties had to be evacuated, following fire spreading through the attic spaces, witnesses said. The claims are backed up by pictures showing significant fire damage to the roofs of adjacent houses. Shirley Young, of Queen's Road, said: 'All the residents came together and helped each other. It was a real community effort and showed our good side. However, there were some who just came along and watched it as a show.' The fire at Queen's Road, Chepstow, on Friday (Image: NQ) A neighbour who wished to remain anonymous added: 'People came along with their cameras and sat in their camper chairs watching it as a show. They must have thought they were on Eastenders or something. Sitting in chairs and gawping at misery was what they were doing.' Seven-bedroom country residence with panoramic views on market for £1.5m Emergency services close road in Chepstow due to fire Pearl Barton, an elderly next-door neighbour to the gutted house is now staying with relatives and recovering from shock at the damage to her house, which includes fire damage to the roof and extensive water and smoke damage in the house. According to witnesses, the roofs of all four connected houses were dampened by water spay, presumably to cool them and help prevent fire spreading. Damage to the roof after the blaze (Image: NQ) Pearl's son, Maurice Barton said: 'We would like to thank the firemen and all emergency services. It was all a great service they provided and they acted so quickly to control things and save us from worse. 'Everyone here has mucked in together to help and offer sympathy. We are so grateful to all who helped.' Gwent Police said they had received reports of a fire on Queen's Road, Chepstow at about 4.30pm on Friday 13 June, with officers assisting colleagues from South Wales Fire and Rescue and Rescue. They confirmed that several properties were evacuated, with all residents accounted for.
