Cracks in nuclear reactor could lead to the evacuation of Edinburgh and Glasgow

Exploration of the failure envelope is a human instinct.

This may well be the case during normal operation. It seems the worry, however, is that seismic activity etc. could lead to a steam explosion and release of radioactive gases if the plant failed to shut down.

(I’m not a nuclear engineer and the article doesn’t make the assessed risks 100% clear, though.)

I don’t have domain knowledge, so to me intuitively it feels like the risk of this crack quickly widening is real. Experts also seem to have called out risks due to factors such as quakes, steam escape etc.

That's not risk. That's likelihood. The article admits that the likelihood is low, but the severity could be high. Risk is a combination of severity and likelihood. The nuclear industry has an entire discipline (PRA) dedicated specifically to risk assessment [1].

[1] https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/risk-informed/pra.h...

They have already exceeded the safety margin specified in the design, that is why it is shut down. They want to change the safety margin of the design to start it up again.

I suspect trade unions are most concerned with the short to medium term interests of their current members. And less so with the interest of the greater public.

In this case they likely want a pay check for their members.

This is just my opinion and I’m completely speculating.

Trade unions were not created to represent the masses, however some of them took this up, with varying levels of success depending on the inherent conflicts of their trade versus the needs of the masses, as a side job. They are supposed to represent the workers in a particular trade for pay and working conditions. Often what the masses would prefer is just less work to do and that is not in a trade unions interest to really help with. I have had discussions about increasing productivity in UK factories by integrating CNC processes so that you can have more machines per operator. I was told flat that it was a non-starter as it was one machine per operator and if I did anything different I would be opposed at every turn.

Wasn’t aware of that, do you have some links?

> Many countries are vastly reducing carbon while not investing in nuclear at all

In this case we are talking about shutting down a plant that could potentially run for 4-5 more years without decommissioning. I suspect the difference will be made up by coal/gas.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davekeating/2019/02/01/germany-... “Coal, the most emissions-intensive fossil fuel, now provides more than 42% of Germany’s power according to the International Energy Agency – a proportion that has been growing since the nuclear decision. The result is that Germany’s carbon emissions have been growing, while their neighbors’ has been declining.”

Yes, you can still reduce carbon footprint if you're not investing in nuclear. You can invest in renewables, energy efficiency, or reduce emissions in other industries.

But closing working nuclear reactors always leads to higher emissions. You can replace nuclear with renewables, but that means these new renewables would otherwise replace more fossil fuels.

According to the article, experts in nuclear engineering (working for the company) have modeled the state of the reactor and determined it is safe to restart.

The anti-nuclear quotes in the article don’t appear to be from people qualified to judge the analysis of the cracks, which is why I mentioned it. Can’t they find an independent expert like a professor who specializes in nuclear reactor design, rather than someone who studies “energy policy”?

But if they are planning to install a different type of control rod that won’t be jammed, isn’t that more like taking your car to the mechanic and getting the brake pads replaced and then feeling safe to drive it again?