Oldbury incident outcome same as Chernobyl?

Last night we had a public meeting at the Old Town Hall in Stroud with two renowned nuclear experts: Dr Ian Fairlie, a consultant on radiation who gave evidence as to why nuclear is not the answer to climate change or energy needs, while top nuclear scientist John Large gave a detailed look at the problems with Oldbury's graphite core and showed how an accident there could be comparable to Chernobyl.

Photo: Audience, John Large (with a fuel rod), Ian Fairlie and then a series of slides from John Large

Worryingly John Large said that an accident at Oldbury could mean Gloucester would be effected within 3 and a half hours...anyhow over 70 people turned up to the event - a good turn out and makes all the preparation work worthwhile. Here are some of my notes from the evening - rather hurriedly put together but hopefully a flavour of the evening...

Ian Fairlie kicked off by showing how nuclear would only make up 4 to 5% of our overall energy, that it would take 10 to 15 years to start producing, fails to provide energy security and costs double wind power according to the Government's own figures. If I can I'll get his excellent slides put up on the Glos Green party site in the coming weeks.

It was interesting to see the list of organisations that have doubts about nuclear: Environment Agency, the Commons' Environment Audit Committee, the Governments' Sustainable Development Commission, MPs from all parties, 3 Cabinet Ministers, 2 Former Environment Ministers, Mayor of London, All Environment groups, 10 Former Environment groups, David Cameron MP (but not Tory party), Mikhail Gorbachev and much more.

It was also interesting to see the list of large corporations set to profit from building and operating nuke reactors - all companies outside the UK. And that the DTi have spends three times more on Research and Development of nuclear than renewables, that the trend for renewables is to become cheaper while the trend for nuclear is that it becomes more expensive.

Interestingly a quarter of UK gas is used for electricity - mainly at peak times as it can be switched on and off quickly - nuclear would not be suitable to help with this as when it is on it is on - so why the argument about nuclear being for securing energy supplies - especially when it is only such a small proportion and most UK gas comes from Norway (we have contracts until 2020). The UK has no uranium reserves and some 15 to 20% of our uranium supplies come from Uzbekhistan and Kazakhstan - hardly stable especially with rising prices in uranium as it becomes increasingly hard to find and extract.

Anyhow then it was questions - including some from what sounded like the nuclear industry - good to have them there.

After this was a stop for snacks and drinks then John Large's presentation - a detailed and entertaining description of how nuclear power works at Oldbury and why there are serious concerns.

The reactors were designed for 20 to 25 years and are still running over 10 years past that date despite a whole host of identified problems.

Indeed we have seen repeated closures and as John Large noted running Oldbury now 'maybe taking a risk too far'.

In the detailed talk John Large showed why he and others considered there were risks. He also gave a detailed description as to why an accident at Oldbury could be comparable to Chernobyl. He concluded: "Potentially an accident at Oldbury would have the same outcome as Chernobyl."

John Large used computer modelling programmes for the 3rd October 2007 as an example to show how an accident at Oldbury would mean that Gloucester could be affected within 3 and a half hours and Birmingham within 7 hours - sooner on a windy day. His analysis shows that over half a million people would need to be evacuated with deaths from the accident numbering 57 and over 3,000 in the following years. Iodine tablets would be needed in the first day at Sharpness area while an area up to 40km from Oldbury would also require tablets to prevent cancers.

It was worrying to learn that the computer programmes can take three days to show how an accident will progress. This is not good enough when in the event of an accident nuclear experts will be concentrating on the incident and evacuation plans, iodine tablet distribution and more should start immediately. How will local authorities be able to act when they wont have the information they need?

As Sarah Lunnon who chaired the event said: "Last night showed how we need to invest in safer and cheaper renewables and micro generation that provide real energy security."