RSS

Fukushima unyieldingly shows us the birth defect of the light water reactor (LWR). The fuel elements of LWR are not inherently safe; they require active cooling even after the power plant has been turned off and after they have been removed from the reactor; they continue to require cooling for up to five years.

The fuel elements are by far the weakest link in the LWR; they are the main reason why the LWR is considered to be unsafe, they are the birth defect of the LWR.

The fuel element of the LWR was modeled on the submarine reactors of the US Admiral Hyman Rickover which were implemented in an environment where cooling water was always (!!) at hand and where there was no (!!) human population.

The light water reactor, LWR (boiling-water reactor and pressurized-water reactor) and the high performance reactor, RBMK (as in Chernobyl) have their roots in military armament as is typical of almost all reactors. Safety was never paramount in all these systems but rather their usage. The LWR functioned as a compact, almost maintenance-free energy source for the propulsion of submarines. The RBMK served to generate weapons grade plutonium. The two systems are completely different, both technically and in terms of reactor physics and they are both unsafe for different reasons.

The concept of the submarine reactor with its weak fuel element was developed into a power plant on land in the early 1950's. These power plants were built in areas where water for cooling was not always guaranteed and which are populated. This was an abuse of a military achievement to create an unsafe, bad design for the electricity industry; not to mention the low energy efficiency.

The lack of security of the fuel elements is hidden with very different barriers around the fuel element and rigs which maintain the cooling. All of them are failure prone systems. Pseudo-scientific risk analysis is used to disguise the accidents caused by this weakness with the concept of improbability! No insurance company in the world is prepared to insure the remaining risk.

Many highly qualified engineers and technicians are still today working to improve the safety of the LWR with the parameter that ‘safety is a dynamic term' as written in Der Spiegel in 1987.

The energy sector could not and still cannot resist the temptation to put economic profitability before safety; it is a sector where deals are made between politics and the economy without regard for the citizens.

The safety features of the LWR cannot be improved to such an extent that they become immune to the effects of human error, particularly that of decision makers in politics and management. Disasters where serious damage is inflicted upon workers, the local population, the environment and the economy continue to be a possibility. The disasters in Chernobyl and Fukushima have unyieldingly shown this.

The mutation of the LWR from submarine actuator propulsion to nuclear power plant was and remains a very lucrative business for General Electric and Westinghouse. In this sense they have proliferated this faulty design through worldwide licensing, like two giant octopuses of energy technology.

The faulty design of the LWR, the fuel element, even affects the handling of the used fuel elements in the fuel re-treatment and conditioning systems, all with high-risk potential in the radioactive chemical processes.

There was no closed concept for the safety for the entire nuclear fuel circle, from the layout of the fuel element to the waste disposal, with the parameter that excluded all but nominal potential for danger.

In contrast to the LWR, the European high-temperature reactor (HTR) was developed with such a safety concept; it was developed specifically for densely populated areas like Nordrhein-Westfalen and was developed in such a way that waste could be disposed of in a safe manner. Unfortunately the HTR failed due to economical and political considerations. The global lobby for the LWR was too strong. 

The era of nuclear energy is over, unless, we muster the will to introduce the inherently safe high-temperature reactor - where nuclear meltdown is impossible - to the market, especially as a medium sized plant for cities. Even the future of the HTR, however, is limited due to the loss of confidence in nuclear energy in general; except perhaps in China.

All LWRs, this faulty design, should be taken out of circulation in the medium term.

Nuclear power plants will be replaced by highly efficient natural gas power plants. There is sufficient natural gas globally for this.

This means, however, that our politicians have to finally free themselves from the CO₂ lie - the lie that CO₂ produced by people alters the climate - just as it is now disassociating itself from the LWR lie.

The so-called alternative energy sources solar, wind and biomass will make their contribution.

Dr.-Eng. Heinrich Bonnenberg is a member of the German Nuclear Society (associated with the German Atomic Forum), a member of the Association of German Engineers and a member of the German Council on Foreign Relations.

Translation by Philip Evans