• 35 mins Syrian Rebels Relinquish Control Of Major Gas Field
  • 2 hours Schlumberger Warns Of Moderating Investment In North America
  • 3 hours Oil Prices Set For Weekly Loss As Profit Taking Trumps Mideast Tensions
  • 4 hours Energy Regulators Look To Guard Grid From Cyberattacks
  • 5 hours Mexico Says OPEC Has Not Approached It For Deal Extension
  • 7 hours New Video Game Targets Oil Infrastructure
  • 8 hours Shell Restarts Bonny Light Exports
  • 9 hours Russia’s Rosneft To Take Majority In Kurdish Oil Pipeline
  • 16 hours Iraq Struggles To Replace Damaged Kirkuk Equipment As Output Falls
  • 21 hours British Utility Companies Brace For Major Reforms
  • 1 day Montenegro A ‘Sweet Spot’ Of Untapped Oil, Gas In The Adriatic
  • 1 day Rosneft CEO: Rising U.S. Shale A Downside Risk To Oil Prices
  • 1 day Brazil Could Invite More Bids For Unsold Pre-Salt Oil Blocks
  • 1 day OPEC/Non-OPEC Seek Consensus On Deal Before Nov Summit
  • 1 day London Stock Exchange Boss Defends Push To Win Aramco IPO
  • 1 day Rosneft Signs $400M Deal With Kurdistan
  • 1 day Kinder Morgan Warns About Trans Mountain Delays
  • 2 days India, China, U.S., Complain Of Venezuelan Crude Oil Quality Issues
  • 2 days Kurdish Kirkuk-Ceyhan Crude Oil Flows Plunge To 225,000 Bpd
  • 2 days Russia, Saudis Team Up To Boost Fracking Tech
  • 2 days Conflicting News Spurs Doubt On Aramco IPO
  • 2 days Exxon Starts Production At New Refinery In Texas
  • 2 days Iraq Asks BP To Redevelop Kirkuk Oil Fields
  • 3 days Oil Prices Rise After U.S. API Reports Strong Crude Inventory Draw
  • 3 days Oil Gains Spur Growth In Canada’s Oil Cities
  • 3 days China To Take 5% Of Rosneft’s Output In New Deal
  • 3 days UAE Oil Giant Seeks Partnership For Possible IPO
  • 3 days Planting Trees Could Cut Emissions As Much As Quitting Oil
  • 3 days VW Fails To Secure Critical Commodity For EVs
  • 3 days Enbridge Pipeline Expansion Finally Approved
  • 3 days Iraqi Forces Seize Control Of North Oil Co Fields In Kirkuk
  • 3 days OPEC Oil Deal Compliance Falls To 86%
  • 4 days U.S. Oil Production To Increase in November As Rig Count Falls
  • 4 days Gazprom Neft Unhappy With OPEC-Russia Production Cut Deal
  • 4 days Disputed Venezuelan Vote Could Lead To More Sanctions, Clashes
  • 4 days EU Urges U.S. Congress To Protect Iran Nuclear Deal
  • 4 days Oil Rig Explosion In Louisiana Leaves 7 Injured, 1 Still Missing
  • 4 days Aramco Says No Plans To Shelve IPO
  • 7 days Trump Passes Iran Nuclear Deal Back to Congress
  • 7 days Texas Shutters More Coal-Fired Plants
Alt Text

Rising Costs Slow The Growth Of Nuclear Power

High costs and public fears…

Alt Text

New Tech Is Transforming Japan’s Energy Sector

The tech that built bitcoin…

Alt Text

This OPEC Strategy Could Boost Uranium Prices Next Year

Kazakhstan, the world’s largest uranium…

John Daly

John Daly

Dr. John C.K. Daly is the chief analyst for Oilprice.com, Dr. Daly received his Ph.D. in 1986 from the School of Slavonic and East European…

More Info

German Nuclear Plans Reveal Deep Flaws

German Nuclear Plans Reveal Deep Flaws

Ten months ago, in the wake of Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant (NPP) disaster two months earlier, German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced that Germany would close all of its 19 NPPs between 2015 and 2022. It was an audacious move, as Germany’s NPPs produce about 28 percent of the country's electricity, but Merkel’s government felt it was necessary in order to forestall a similar fate overtaking one of the nation’s nuclear installations.

Amid the glare of worldwide publicity, one fact largely overlooked was that nine German NPPs will still be operating for up to a decade. With 10 other German NPPS now offline, the nine still operating mean that Berlin has only halved its chances of a Fukushima Daiichi type disaster, not ended it.

So, how prepared are German authorities to deal with an incident of Fukushima’s magnitude?

Not much, apparently.

Germany’s Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS) made an intensive study of the events precipitating Fukushima. In their conclusions about the catastrophe, BfS officials concluded that the nuclear complex’s vulnerability to earthquakes, and given its coastal position, tsunamis, was underestimated. Other conclusions included the observation that Fukushima Daiichi’s technical design was significantly flawed and that the nuclear power plant (NPP) operators were apparently insufficiently prepared to deal with emergencies. As regards an emergency, BfS officials concluded that Fukushima Daiichi was woefully unprepared because the technical design of the reactors lacked a number of safety features, such as a usable emergency electricity supply catering to all emergency situations, backup secondary technical measures which could be implemented during emergency situations, or clear instructions for the NPP operators to implement in the event of an emergency.

Now it was time to predict what would happen if such an event occurred at a German NPP. BfS specialists decided to model such a scenario. First, they compiled 2010 weather data for both the Philippsburg 2 NPP in the southwestern state of Baden-Wuerttemberg, and the northern Unterweser NPP in Lower Saxony. When it first came online in 1978, the Unterweser NPP was the largest nuclear reactor in the world, but it was brought offline in March 2011 and decommissioned two months later.

As the BfS scenario unfolded, on 1 December 2010 fuel elements begin melting at the Philippsburg 2 NPP. Engineers release pressure to prevent the facility from exploding, and for the next 25 days, radioactive clouds move northwards toward the Rhine Valley, passing over Speyer and Hockenheim on their way towards Mannheim and Heidelberg. The BfS maps calculated that radioactive clouds would pass over vast swaths of German territory, including the cities of Linkenheim-Hochstetten, Schwanewede and Bremerhaven.

If the Philippsburg 2 NPP suffered an accident, Karlsruhe, Heidelberg, Mannheim, Ludwigshafen and Darmstadt could all be subjected to radioactive fallout, requiring iodine tablets to be distributed through a far broader area. The simulations concluded that people living up to 60 miles from the stricken NPP would need to stay inside their homes, but how long hundreds of thousands of people would be able to stay at home without provisions remains unanswered.

The single most unsettling observation of the study was that radioactive material would contaminate far larger areas than previously assumed and entire cities would need to be evacuated. Last autumn the study results were made available to the Federal Environment Ministry (BMU), working groups, project groups and specialists. Since then the BMU has been meeting with officials from the Interior Ministry (BMI), the state interior ministries and catastrophe response specialists but nothing overall has been accomplished. In the worst-case scenario, BMI experts said that up to one million people might need to be evacuated - quickly.

What kind of scenarios should these officials be looking at?

Floods.

Equipment failures, including electrical fires knocking out coolant pumps to spent fuel ponds.

Earthquakes.

Terrorist attacks, to name but a few.

The last word belongs to BfS President Wolfram Koenig, who said last year, "The events in Fukushima require that we ask ourselves seriously whether the existing allocation of responsibilities and resources in Germany is adequate for today's requirements." Up to now the answer is obviously “nein.”

 By. John C.K. Daly of Oilprice.com




Back to homepage


Leave a comment
  • Robert Wood on April 03 2012 said:
    Berlin has only halved its chances of a Fukushima Daiichi type disaster

    I'd say the chances of a tsunami in Germany are rather low.
  • Lina on September 03 2012 said:
    The Fukushima incident aparpes to be the most severe, with insufficient backup power to remove decay heat. Those units are older BWRs and were not designed as fully for beyond design basis accidents. The newer ABWRs have improved in vessel melt arrest and retention and would not pose a safety risk even in the most severe quake. Though BWRs do have the advantage of lower power density cores and much more in vessel water volumes, compared to PWR. If no significant radioactivity is released then we have a good case against the fear mongering that quakes could lead to severe nuclear safety disasters.

Leave a comment




Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News