– Poland needs the energy of the atom. In 20 years we depleted the resources of coal and we will be forced to import it. I do not deny the need to invest in renewable energy, green energy but has serious drawbacks. Is unstable and is associated with high costs – says prof. Andrzej Strupczewski. 30 years after the Chernobyl disaster expert of the National Center for Nuclear Research says, when we will see the first nuclear power plant and explains why the tragedy of April 26th, 1986 has no right to repeat.
Przemysław Ciszak, money.pl: 30 years have passed since the Chernobyl disaster. Since then, nuclear power programs are constantly being developed, and there are now nearly 440 reactors. Still coming back, but the question of whether it’s safe?
Prof. Andrzej Strupczewski, chairman of the National Nuclear Safety Research Centre Nuclear Studies: The reactor at Chernobyl was modeled on the Soviet military reactors for plutonium production. Its construction would be unacceptable in any other country. When our engineer asked about the design of the reactor Chernobyl, they heard that they are the solution for us too complicated.
In a typical reactors, which operate in the US, France and around the world, and will also operate in Poland, fuel removed from the reactor after about three years. Formed in one isotope of plutonium is not suitable, however, for the production of bombs, because it is unstable.
And what isotope suited?
To be able to use it for the purpose of military fuel you need to pull out of the reactor there after three years, but after about a month. The Russians and wanted to have a platoon to command the party, or at any time.
The disaster was the result of the Soviet innovation?
First of all, was caused by fundamental errors in the project. The reactor was very large and it was surrounded by construction safety. The second problem concerned the uncontrolled growth of power. Together with the heating of the water, the reactor will automatically rise, even more elevated the temperature of the water. As a result, there have to complete evaporation of the water and dramatic jump power.
Throughout the world the power of the reactor disaster decreases, failures rectors of the type of Chernobyl cause increases. For these reasons, they were excluded similar facilities in Lithuania and Ukraine, and in Russia undergo phase pedestal. The impulse that caused the disaster, was operator error, who wanted to perform poorly conceived and unreconciled with nuclear supervision experience, which overlaps with carefully concealed defect reactor.
Is today the issues of nuclear safety are based on the full transparency?
When the four majors Reactor reported offer in the tender for a nuclear power plant in the UK, detailed descriptions of the proposed reactors have been placed on the Internet and are available to all interested parties. A nuclear regulatory authority in the United Kingdom encouraged to comment critically. The issues of transparency, safety, and understanding of the fact that the reactor at Chernobyl was substantially different from those operating in the world, is the basis of our belief that such a failure can not be repeated.
But there was a failure in Japan. And the old fears returned.
The Fukushima accident was the result of the largest in the history of Japan’s earthquake and tsunami. As a result of tectonic movements collapsed power plant, a tsunami destroyed the electric power systems, and thus cooling systems. The reactors at Fukushima were old, it was designed 50 years ago. They did not have safety systems protected against flood, as in modern reactors. Dramatic lesson from Japan led to the fact that around the world checked the status of the reactors for resistance to external threats.
reactors of a new type, which are to be built in Poland, are resistant to this type of failure?
the results of the tests proved successful, though there were some requests for modification. After the experiences of September 11, 2001. It takes into account the danger of terrorist attacks. Power plants are equipped with safety shields impact resistant aircraft or missile attack, which also provides them with resistance to external threats of natural origin. Secured them extra power and safety systems, protecting against core melt and radioactive leakage.
The best proof of their safety is the fact that the danger zone is only 800 meters away. Above this radius, the population can safely remain in their homes even in the time of the accident.
What about the security associated with the disposal of radioactive waste? This is one of the main arguments of environmentalists protesting against nuclear power.
Now, a lot of what ecologists call nuclear waste, can be used again. The radioactive waste is a fuel containing up to 96 percent. fissionable material. It can be used fuel sent for reprocessing. Then discarded is the “ash” nuclear, or cleavage product, but recovered 96 percent. uranium that is added back to the new fuel.
This method is used in power plants in France, England and Russia. The rest buried deep underground 600-meter shafts, so that is not a threat and does not require further investments. It’s pure activity that brings additional profits and is not dangerous for the environment.
E nergetyka nuclear power as a carbon-free source of electricity?
Exactly. Fission of nuclei of uranium does not emit CO2. The main advantage of nuclear energy is clean air, clean water and soil, for the production of electricity in nuclear power stations does not cause environmental pollution.
Supporters of renewable energy sources will not give up so easily convinced. Wind, sun, water, the ecological past, after the energy sector. If we consider that the Polish nuke rise for ten years …
I’m afraid that 10 years is a very optimistic vision. A more realistic deadline is 2030. I think that only 15 years run first block.
It makes more sense to my next question. Will it be too late investment, in addition to outdated technology? In Germany, already takes a serious discussion on phasing out nuclear power technology for renewable energy.
I do not see another solution. It is still the most efficient energy source. In Europe, we are in the tail of the countries that use electricity per capita. Just ahead of Romania and Latvia. If we want to emulate the Germans, the Danes or the Austrians, we await us increase the use of energy, and hence the need for more of its production. In 20 years we depleted the resources of coal and we will be forced to import in order to maintain the current level. so I do not deny the need to invest in renewable energy, green energy but has a serious drawback – is unstable. For now, it is impossible to resist all energy on renewables.
Why?
Fraunhofer Institute calculated that at least once a year there is a gap in the supply of wind energy and sun for 4 days and nights. To compensate for this loss, it was decided surplus of sunny days and windy used to pump water in pumped storage to the upper reservoir. In the days devoid of energy from the sun and wind, support is the energy of the water turbines. As it does, but it is effective in countries with a highly developed renewable energy. Poland not one of them. We are able to compensate in this way the loss of just four hours.
I would add that pumped storage are not built in Poland in order to replace the wind or the sun, but to compensate for fluctuations in the collection and generation of power normal energy system. This shows how much we need the energy of the atom.
But such investment is very expensive. The construction of a nuclear power plant consumes an average of around 12 billion euro in Poland will cost it between 40 billion to 60 billion zł.
Of course, third-generation reactors are expensive, but still cheaper than windmills and solar panels.
How?
Comparing the cost of the investment, they say usually cost at megawatt. Meanwhile, the windmills work during the year with the intensity of 25 per cent. maximum power. It’s the same with solar panels – the sun 360 times a year there, but during the day does not shine with the same power. As counted the German Fraunhofer Institute for sun utilization rate of installed capacity is only 0.11, the wind already mentioned 0.25.
A nuclear power?
This is 0.90. Expenditure per unit of average power during the year show that investments in renewable energy are 2-3 times more expensive than investment in the atom.
But environmentalists point out the sun shines and the wind blows free. The use of renewable energy sources should therefore be cheaper.
The experience of countries such as Germany or Denmark, which introduced successively green transformation in the energy sector, shows just the opposite. Let me give you an example. According to the adopted five years ago in Germany the law on renewable energy, energy from offshore wind farms have to pay the manufacturer 190 euro per MWh for geothermal 250 euros per MWh and for generating energy from biomass 140 euros per MWh. At this time in France for energy from nuclear power plants paid 42 euros per MWh.
Why the difference?
The way acquisition and use of energy sources. These deficiencies have long-term wind and sun make it necessary to cover the gaps in the energy supplied by the power system, mainly coal, nuclear and gas. This will add to the cost of energy in the countries in which the share of renewable energy is significant and they grow in direct proportion to the share of green energy in the energy economy of the country. In addition, it has a side effect: Germany currently emit about 2 percent. more CO2 than before the green revolution, for which, of course, again, pay. So much the topic of free sun and wind. Perversely we can say that coal is also a półdarmo in the ground. Costs generates only the mining, burning and removing the effects of historical contamination.
Yes, but even if we take into account the possibility of recycling nuclear waste, it is still the cost of their disposal in the case of wind and sun that there is no.
Therefore, in the case of investment in nuclear power plant in production costs, and therefore in the price of energy is contained price of disposal of nuclear waste, security, and the costs of subsequent decommissioning.
What is the price?
this is the amount of about 4 euros per megawatt hour, you will get the recipient. In the case of wind energy that does not mean a time of useful work for the installation of renewable energy sources is equal to 20 years, 60 years for a nuclear power plant.
And what was disposed of at windmills?
think about what will happen next with the great ferroconcrete, reinforced with the basics of wind farms? Each must keep the pole from the cabin the size of a bus and wings with a diameter of 70 meters! The amount of concrete and steel for the fan per unit of power is four to five times larger than needed for the construction of a nuclear power plant.
In addition, if you are already at the ecology, is a big wind field also arouse opposition activists. It is not only birds, but also about the people and the change in the landscape. You can also raise the issue of strategic security. Imagine the cost of maintaining and protecting against terrorist attack Saharan field of mirrors for solar energy, as it was in the construction plan.
If security considerations, environmental, and above all economic point in favor of the construction of nuclear power plants , why in Poland, it takes so much time? For years, he talks about the construction of Polish nukes, and the nearest real term rise is 15 years old. Belarusian nuclear power plant will be launched in 2 years.
The actual construction time for a nuclear power plant is estimated at four to six years. This time is counted from the first pour the foundation to supply energy to the grid.
Before this happens, you need to take care of many things, permits, announce the tender. When will be chosen an appropriate company, presented a safety analysis. The document consists of about 10 thousand. pages and it must be examined by many experts and approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Then the project has to go through the consultation phase. Poland, as befits a model student of international relations, decided to ask all your neighbors for an opinion on Polish nuclear program. Response to comments from these countries lasted a total of two and a half years. And before us another round of consultations with domestic and foreign, to which we proceed after the selection of the type of reactor. After choosing the location we await us another call, and then before the decision to start construction is needed opinion Municipal Assembly, which discusses the limits of the zone of limited use. If all this we will do well, which I doubt, there is a chance that hell bureaucracy does not consume Polish nuclear program.
No comments:
Post a Comment