Latest news with #FutureofTorness
The Herald Scotland
10 hours ago
- General
- 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
14 hours ago
- Business
- The Herald Scotland
NIA: Torness can be base of new Scots nuclear revolution
Torness Nuclear Power Station paints a picture of what our future could be like: clean, reliable, affordable energy, available when we need it, with good, stable long-term jobs on which our children can build a life and a family. The station is simply the single largest, cleanest and most reliable generator in the nation and the strongest engine of economic growth in East Lothian. From first power in 1988, the station has generated enough clean, homegrown electricity to power every home in Scotland for 30 years. That will have saved nearly 120 million tonnes of carbon, the most of any station in Scottish history. On top of that, Torness has added a colossal £16.1 billion in value to our economy. In that £16bn are the stories of generations, of fathers to sons and daughters and even grandchildren, who have found good work and new opportunities for themselves and their families. In that story, are the local businesses and enterprises who have prospered from the growth of this station, and in it are millions of billpayers who have saved money because the station was always there, through the winter, through the dark and the cold, to prop up the nation's grid. But Torness is due to retire in 2030. The question we should ask then is, why would we not replace it? Everything that Torness provides, we will need double in the years to come. We need reliable energy all the more, as bills rise, industry struggles, and the grid creaks. We need the clean power, to preserve our environment and our world against the threat of climate change. We need the jobs, to revive our economy and our communities. A general view of Torness power station The site at Torness is primed for new nuclear, and the opportunity is immense. 40 years ago, land was plotted out, sea walls built, and cooling water connections prepared next to the existing station for a Torness B that was never built. The bedrock is sturdy, the grid connection right there, and the transport links unparalleled. If we take advantage of all that, billions of pounds of investment could flow into Scotland with thousands and thousands of jobs. Look at Hinkley Point C: £5.3bn has been spent with local businesses in the South West and a thousand local apprentices trained on site. That is the kind of future we should want and cannot afford to squander. READ MORE on the Future of Torness series: There are those who say Scotland can have this future with 100% renewables. The facts prove them wrong. Despite a surfeit of renewable generation, Scottish grid decarbonisation has flatlined, unable to get rid of that last 10% of power from gas. As nuclear stations like Hunterston B retire, the nation still needs power that it always available whatever the weather. Scotland also has most expensive transmission network in the country: baseload power close to demand is being replaced by variable power far from where it is needed, and that is not cheap. Scotland also has the highest balancing costs, the price of keeping electricity supply and demand amidst feasts and famines of power generation. All of that ends up on our bills. In this context, nuclear, alongside and complementing renewables, is the right choice for nature and for our planet. It is the United Nations, not the nuclear industry, who found that nuclear has the lowest lifecycle carbon emissions, from uranium mining through station decommissioning, of any electricity source. Likewise, it is the UN who found that nuclear has the lowest mining use and the lowest land use of any electricity source. Torness in real life bears out the studies: 15% of the nation's power is generated on just one-tenth of a square mile, of the 30,000 we have in Scotland. Tom GreatrexMoreover, nuclear is the only energy source, that tracks, manages and makes safe its own waste, with money in a dedicated money to address the cost of decommissioning. As the IAEA [ International Atomic Energy Agency] says, nuclear facilities are among the safest and most secure facilities in the world. Here again, Torness shows the way: visitors will be taken through a station so safe that pregnant women are able to work on top of reactors powering a million homes each. The real challenge is can we learn from our experience to build nuclear faster and cheaper. The answer is yes, if we apply the known and proven model for deploying nuclear validated over and over again worldwide. Plan and design your projects well, replicate proven designs, and do not stop building. Torness once more proves the point. It began construction after five other nuclear projects, and a 25-year period of continuous nuclear new build in the UK. Lessons from the previous projects were incorporated into the project, and construction was carefully planned, including the creation of a dedicated construction village to minimise temporary disruption to the surrounding community. The station was built in less than eight years, the best of that generation. Scottish Government's anti-nuclear ideology means that inevitably, a Torness B could only start now after probably four other projects in England and Wales because of lost time, but that does mean we can learn, replicate and improve on construction further south so that Scotland benefits from all the lessons being learned at those projects. We can apply the tried and true formula across nuclear, wind, solar, civil infrastructure of any kind to deliver new energy and new opportunity to Scotland. The alternative presented to us by the Scottish Government of an energy system with no clean, firm power is a fraud on the Scottish people. Opponents of a Torness B propose that we have no new nuclear in Scotland, and when we are inevitably short of power that we import English power, including English nuclear, or European nuclear power, to pick up the slack. In a word, jobs for England, not for Scotland. That ideology would leave Torness like Longannet coal station, the Ravenscraig steelworks, the Greenock dry dock, relics of an industrial past and a bitter reminders of a future foreclosed by a lack of vision. We can choose a different way: long-term investment starting today, in jobs, in 24/7 clean power, in opportunity for our children and for coming generations. A bet not on the weather, but on the skill, ingenuity and commitment of the Scottish people to deliver. That is a bet I would take any day.
