Last night in a talk show here on TV nuclear engineer
Lars-Olov H?glund, the former chief of
Vattenfall's construction department, was a special guest. He is one of those, who actually built nuclear power plants and must therefore be considered a first-rate expert, who actually knows what building and running a nuclear power plant means. So he was a welcome addition with his knowledge and
practical experience (which most commentators and experts seem to lack these days).
He was the engineer, who uncovered the
"incident" in the Swedish "Forsmark" plant in July 2006, where it almost came to a core meltdown, because an external short circuit had crippled the system and the emergency diesels simply wouldn't start automatically (!). Eventually two of the diesels started after about 20 minutes of desperate attempts and until today obviously nobody knows, why they started at last. So even today something "simple" like a diesel engine can confront enginneers with unsolved mysteries. So much for controlling technology.
H?glund is in retirement now and he said some interesting and very worrying things:
- Since it's been so long, that new nuclear power plants have been built on a big scale, most of the engineers and specialists are now in retirement and it's very hard to recruit new ones for what is widely considered a "dying technology" among young people. To illustrate the problem he said:
"How many engineers are there today, who could build a steam locomotive?". Obviously there is a shortage of real experts of the technology today, who know the practical side and not only the theoretical part. He compared the personnel in nuclear power plants today to pilots of an airplane or drivers of a locomotive, who can operate it all and have handbooks to tell them what to do in case. But there are hardly any real experts anymore, who know the construction by heart and are familiar with its bugs or kinks, when things start to get seriously wrong. And even if they brought back the old engineers from retirement, it wouldn't matter much, because too many changes, upgrades or fixes have been made, since they left, so they wouldn't find their way so easily anymore, too.
- According to H?glund, construction faults can "sleep" for years and decades within a nuclear power plant without ever showing up. They will never show up in any test or inspection but will then show their ugly face in a crisis and nobody will know, what the hell is going on. That doesn't necessarily mean the construction is faulty but there might have been some slouchiness by construction workers or somebody didn't exactly stick to the plan. For example in the German Biblis power plant, which has been in operation since the early 1970's, it was discovered in the early 2000's, that some of the wall plugs in the concrete were mounted wrong and that effected the whole installation's ability to handle earth quakes, which are common in the area up to 5 points on the Richter scale or so. So who knows what undiscovered faults and bugs are lurking in all the other nuclear power plants in the world?
- The 50 men at Fukushima are, as he blatantly said,
"sentenced to death" and he raised the question, how this catastrophe can be contained without bringing thousands of people in to repair the damage. Will be hard to find so many volunteers, who you can use for such a job, even in Japan. Even when they succeed in preventing a complete meltdown of the core(s), the installation is heavily contaminated and some containment or casing needs to be built (like in Tchernobyl). But who shall do that? In the Soviet Union they could simply order people to go there -- they sacrificed tens of thousands of people for building the contrete sarcophage at Tchernobyl. But in a free democracy? And for at least 3 reactors instead of 1?
- It's practically impossible to upgrade old power plants to the current safety standards. H?glund said, that would be like trying to upgrade a VW Beetle to the standards of a current VW Golf. Vattenfall had to answer a commission of inquiry after the Forsmark incident and were asked, if it was possible to upgrade old reactors to modern standards. The answer was
"Yes, it's technically possible but it would be cheaper to tear them down and build them new."
- Even in the 1970's engineers like H?glund considered nuclear power a transition technology to something better and less dangerous and not a final solution to our power needs. H?glund said that all engineers knew the dangers of nuclear power, that there was always a remaining risk involved and that in the end there isn't such a thing like failsafe technology. He insinuated, that only wannabe experts could say such stupid things like "nuclear energy is safe". Every technology can fail, every construction can malfunction, no matter how high you set the safety standards. Failsafe is an illusion. But of course this wasn't said to people from officials at the time and also rarely ever since.
- He called the current attempts at Fukushima
"acts of desperation" without a reliable power supply. Nobody knows how far the meltdown already proceeded but bringing it to a halt isn't just a matter of days. To put it into perspective: Burned-out fuel rods are stored for 5 years in a pool of water to cool down, before they can safely be taken to a disposal site.
There was a representative of the German nuclear lobby present at the talk show, too, and he stayed suspiciously quiet during and after H?glunds statements. If I remember correctly, he only contradicted him once but couldn't really make a point. The lack of opposition spoke for itself -- but of course that is only my personal impression.
EDIT:
Here's the summary of an interview with Lars-Olov H?glund on the Forsmark incident, which I found earlier by googling his name a bit.