Slashdot Mirror
South Korea To Restart Its Oldest Nuclear Reactor
ananyo writes "South Korea's oldest nuclear reactor is set to restart after a four-month closure, despite strong opposition from local residents and activists. The Kori-1 reactor in Busan was shut down on 13 March, after it was revealed that the reactor and its emergency generator had temporarily lost power during routine maintenance the month before, causing the coolant temperature to rise. The power failure did not cause an accident, but a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna discovered that senior engineers from Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power, which runs the reactor, had neglected the safety problems for more than a month after the loss of power. In June, after a safety check, the IAEA gave the green light for Kori-1 to resume operation. Korea's Nuclear Safety and Security Commission (NSSC) approved the restart on 4 July, but activists and local residents remain strongly opposed to restarting the reactor. At first, the Korean Ministry of Knowledge Economy, which oversees energy policy, had said that the restart would be delayed to alleviate anxiety. But the government changed its mind as a result of a nationwide heatwave that has put a strain on the country's electricity supply in recent days."
Would Koreans agree to pay more for, and use less, electricity as a whole so this reactor can remain offline?
These things are always well-spun, from either side. For "strong opposition from local residents and activists" read "strong opposition from activists and the local residents they've frightened out of their wits."
Activists *exist* to provide strong opposition to things. You never see something happening "despite luke-warm opposition from activists." The volume of their opposition does not make them right.
Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
They had to restart because there is a need for more electricity. I wish people started to realize this when they block new generators.
They are safer, and you aren't exactly going to consume a lot less, are you? Thus either you are forcing us to hold older plants open for a lot longer than intended, or you allow us to make a new and better plant.
By stopping new ones from being made, you are only making it more dangerous for everybody.
... it was revealed that the reactor and its emergency generator had temporarily lost power ...
So does this actually pose a safety risk? I thought that all modern reactors were protected by passive safety mechanisms (i.e., not requiring external power).
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
Just don't let any Iguanas near the reactor. We all know what happened with Japan! Worst of all there might be a bad US remake of the movie staring Matthew Broderick. Just safer all round to keep lizards away from any radiation.
So what, if it melted down it would be a great way to get rid of the n. koreans. I happily advocate nuclear power for my enemies.
And you would happily destroy your friends ( south Korea ) to also destroy your perceived enemies ( north Korea. ) ?
It's the people who run it... most often the people who run it without consideration of safe operation.
Just as in the case of the BP oil spill and of the Fukushima, the common thread is someone refusing to spend the money on safety. Had they done so, neither one of those would be a topic for discussion.
Blame needs to be laid squarely on those decision makers and not on the rather successful and viable technology of nuclear energy. Nuclear works. It can, and mostly is, done safely.
Worse, though, is the allowed secrecy of corporate interests. Sorry, but we all share an interest in the environment, so fuck you very much. The only reason I feel nuclear energy should be done away with is if it can't be done safely. We already know this isn't the case. After that, it's a business decision. If they can't make money at the same time, let them shut it down.
It's all about the people. They are the root of the problem. They are in the middle of the problem. They are the end of the problem. This perception that technology is the problem doesn't stop at nuclear... it's guns, cars, clothes [hoodies?], phones and all that.
No one will come out and say "people are not responsible for their actions" but that's what we are implying every time we blame the tools or the technology. Fine... if I shoot someone, please put my gun in jail.
Sure, this is pie-in-the-sky thinking. But imagine what would happen if activists would not protest *against* the restart because of safety problems, but *for* better safety systems before the reactor is to be restarted.
They might actually end up doing something good for a change. Of course, this would require a much more cerebral process than a pavlovian reflex. You would actually have to understand what happened and understand what needs to be done about it. Finally, you'd need to protest for some specific activity - not just against a very general one - which is certainly not going to be a nice catchy phrase.
This case calls for a thorough investigation of the generator failure and review of all generators. Perhaps (actually quite likely) the addition of more emergency generators to provide for redundancy and finally the investigation of all similar reactors. (Although Kori-1 seems to be unique in Korea, while the other reactors in Kori are more advanced Westinghouse designs. So this may or may not limit the applicability.)
Obviously, not a nice catchy phrase, but much more useful.
Even better is how he thinks that every innocent person in North Korea should die just because their leaders are douches. If that were true, we should have nuked the US when Dubya was in power.
which is totally what she said
it is very simple and straightforward to cover heat wave peaks with solar energy. Demand from air conditioning is proportional to production from solar panels and with sun intensity. It sounds really stupid to use nuclear, coal, or any other type of electricity)for air-conditioning peaks.
839*929
Why don't they just construct additional pylons?
But imagine what would happen if activists would not protest *against* the restart because of safety problems, but *for* better safety systems before the reactor is to be restarted.
That is one of the things that people in Japan have been asking for. The problem is that to be really safe the bar has to be set so high that no reactor would pass it. For example the 11/3 quake was a magnitude 9, and most Japanese reactors are only certified to magnitude 7.3. If the epicentre were close to one of them it would not be certified to survive it without the reactor cracking, the control rod mechanism failing or the cooling system being damaged and so forth.
Japan is mostly earthquake proof, but even so when there are big ones there is still damage and people are still killed. The belief was that Japan could overcome this with its reactors and make them safe, but it appears that predictions of the maximum amount of lateral force experienced and the height of any resulting tsunami were wrong, and it is hard to escape the conclusion that our understanding of earthquakes is not as good as we thought it was. Remember that we are not just talking about Fukushima here.
Earthquakes happen all the time in Japan. When there is damage the Japanese learn from it and take steps to prevent the same thing happening. The worry here is that no steps have been taken because, well, there are not really any to take short of demolishing and re-building the reactor based on a more resilient design.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Whose fault is it that we have so many old reactors on our planet? Why do we have so many reactors using old designs when we know how to make safer ones? Why so many aging power plants?
Maybe if we didn't have so many anti-anything nuclear protesters we would have new, safer ones and these things would have been torn down years ago.
Are you worried, right now, that a stone or other heavy item will drop on your head from 50m height? No? That's probably because there is nothing to suggest that such an item is anywhere 50m above your head.
If I go to a place a bit of a way down the road, there may actually be that possibility, but not here. Hence, I don't need to worry about this. It's the same with the earthquake. A mag 9 earthquake cannot happen in Japan for tectonic reasons.The mechanism depends on having a subduction zone in the immediate vicinity and not 100km further away. Preparing to seismically proof anything for a mag9 earthquake on mainland Japan is pointless because it's not going to happen there.
You may argue that the Tokai region in Japan is especially vulnerable to strong earthquakes, indeed it is, and the Hamaoka Nuclear Power plant has been designed to withstand a mag 8.5 earthquake (in line with historic records). However, given the way Japan has handled nuclear safety in other respects e.g. by attending international conferences and being the only country not to take any action whatsoever - as for example the Paris conference on filtered containment vents in 1988 - structural earthquake proofing is not the weak spot in Japanese nuclear power plants at all. The weak spot is disregarding a quarter century of developments, investigations and remedies after Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.
very good response. I wished activist protested for improvements. One of the biggest problems in the US in the 24 hour news channel era era is that it has led to making complicated issues with a lot of gray area such as nuclear power totally polorizing with the average public not know the truth . How much toxic material is produced in solar power production. Is it really clean vs. nuclear long term. what do you do with the old solar cells. Nuclear is not as bad or unsafe as activist make it seem. The worst nuclear accident in the US with ancient tech kills far fewer than coal power over the years
Um, Busan (or Pusan...spelled either way) is in South Korea, not the north, and about as far away from the north as it could be.
Just another day in Paradise
"Soon Hwang, a nuclear scientist at Seoul National University, says that a thorough government investigation found that the pressure vessel is safe. However, he adds that a more democratic process is needed to get a consensus on the reactor from local residents."
A consensus on the reactor from local residents? That would never happen.
Mark my words! They will start it up, run it as poorly as possible, come very close to disasters that could have global effects, and then ask for some kind of concession in exchange for shutting it back down. They have repeated this "be bad, then ask for something in exchange for stopping the bad behavior" trick at least a dozen times that I can remember.