Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by fifilura | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

fifilura

Why do they use trains to move the rods around?

Are there actually places in Britain where it is not possible to move them by shipping.

It seems like a high cost to introduce a new way of transportation when one (safe-ish) method is already available.

View on HN

It's other way round.

Although nuclear sites tend to have access to water many of them in the UK do not have ready access to suitable large harbours (these places by definition tend to be out of the way). In the UK building and maintaining these harbours would be way more expensive than sticking it on the road for a relatively short hop (even in the remote areas) to the nearest local railhead.

Many also have/had their own railhead, so the road part wasn't always needed.

There are a few without their own rail head e.g. Oldbury on Severn and think the fuel for there was sent somewhere near Berkley and then by road

I lived in Berkley about 25 years ago and my next door neighbour was part of the team that managed fuel shipments around the UK

As far as I can tell, the Torness AGR plant doesn't have a rail link even though it is pretty close (less than 1km) from the east coast main line.

See https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/torness-power-station-r... ; it is perhaps a mile and a bit west of the power station, crane and all.

There's a dedicated transfer facility with a siding and crane on the ECML about 1.5km west of the power station.

Thanks - once I knew it was there it was easy to spot.

I’d rather nuclear material be kept away from water…

Spent nuclear fuel has to cool down in water for a few years. Being spent it is not very prone to partaking in chain reactions; no many neutron poisons, too few fissionable atoms.

To be fair, I expect the water around the spent nuclear fuel is also borated as an added precaution.

I suppose salt water can leech ions from anything, but how soluble are the rods?

A lot of UK nuclear plants (all?) are on the coast but they certainly don't all have docks handy with the kind of equipment necessary to move such items. Rail actually seems a pretty good choice to me.

Also it depends what's are the other end: do they have railways or docks?

I imagine that, at the time of this test, it would have been the place formerly known as Windscale, and renamed as Sellafield at some point after the eponymous Windscale fire/disaster/WTFWTT/cover-up. It is on the coast, but does not appear to have any sort of harbor. I see it stopped reprocessing fuel in 2022, so if Britain's spent fuel is going anywhere these days, it probably spends some time on a ship.

The harbour was destroyed.

Yeah, my question was mostly out of curiosity.

At some point someone must have approved this project and the costs coming with it. One answer could be the military with endlessly deep pockets.

My point is that it should have been easy to just continue with shipping, as it seems to me that it has to be the default. But maybe I am wrong?

Either way there has to be pros and cons of course. But risking a train accident at 100 mph relative speed and fuel laying open without means for cooling seems like a very high risk.

I don't think the UK military has ever operated on the basis of "endlessly deep pockets" e.g. At one point the PM relied on using AA phone boxes and reverse charges calls to launch the V bombers:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/10/08/britains-bizarre...

Edit: Mind you, the hand written "letters of last resort" and regarding not being able to receive Radio 4 as indicating the end of civilisation as we know it do have a certain charm.

It wasn't the AA phone boxes but their radio network. From the article:

> Whitehall arranged for the prime minister’s car to have a radio link – with which the AA used to communicate with its mechanics – that would tell the driver that he needed to reach a public phone box, from which Macmillan would call Whitehall. It was suggested that government drivers carried four pennies, as that was the minimum sum needed in a GPO phone box.

I once heard a Radio 4 programme about the letters of last resort, where a senior military figure described the responsibility on a PM's shoulders whilst writing them as "Awesome, with a capital F"

How very British to use a system like this. I think it's just in our bones from a lifetime of scrappy existence. I always think of this: https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/make-do-and-mend-0

Thats's a great site, thanks for the link! I'm chuffed to learn from it about IncSoc:

> The Incorporated Society of London Fashion Designers (IncSoc) was founded in 1942 to represent the collective interests of the fashion industry in Britain, promote exports and develop standards of design.

https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/how-clothes-rationing-affecte...

Not to be confused with IngSoc, coined in 1949:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_geography_of_Ninetee...

I can not read the article, but maybe this was by design. They expected the telephone boxes to be more resilient than building a custom system.

Either way - what did the V bomber program cost?

> "My point is that it should have been easy to just continue with shipping, as it seems to me that it has to be the default. But maybe I am wrong?"

I don't think it was ever the default for domestic nuclear fuel shipments.

Despite being on the coast, many of the UK nuclear sites do not have easy access to harbours, and the processing facility at Sellafield itself does not have a harbour either: ships carrying foreign nuclear fuel would dock further up the coast at Workington [1].

Since the fuel would be transferred to rail for the final leg to Sellafield anyway, presumably it just made more sense to transport domestic fuel flasks directly via the rail network rather than have a longer, slower, and more complex journey with multiple mode transfers.

It was also likely considered the lower-risk option: train collisions in the UK are very rare (much more rare than shipwrecks!) and the flasks were proven to be able to withstand even the worst-case collision scenario.

In some cases, like at Dungeness for example, old rail infrastructure already existed nearby that could be re-used for a nuclear rail terminal pretty cheaply [2].

[1] https://cumbriashipphotos.weebly.com/nuclear-carriers.html

[2] https://kentrail.org.uk/dungeness_nuclear_terminal.htm

> My point is that it should have been easy to just continue with shipping, as it seems to me that it has to be the default. But maybe I am wrong?

... Yeah, I'm pretty sure you're wrong. What made you think that they used ships? Most or all British nuclear plants are coastal, but they mostly don't have port facilities, I don't think. And nuclear plants in _other_ countries often aren't coastal, so it's not like ships could be a global standard practice or anything.

This project was an attempt to increase safety and improve public confidence (the train crash bit was the latter), but I'm fairly sure they were already using trains.

> What made you think that they used ships?

Probably because Sweden use ships and most - if not all? - nuclear plants have access to waterways.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Sigyn

And I had some idea that they are used for intercontinental transportation of fuel. But maybe that is not so common?

But I am here for the discussion. I don't need to be right.

This seems to start from the weird premise that moving things by ship is the default? Not really the case in the UK since the invention of the railways started to obsolete the canal network.

Nuclear power needs massive amounts of cooling so they are most often built close to the sea, or at least a major river.

Shipping is incredibly efficient, so it is not an outrageous assumption.

I guess it'd be harder to retrieve it from the seabed if there was an accident than from a train line, as you can always drive / build cranes to places on land. I doubt it'd rust through any time soon in the sea, but I'd imagine it would have been even more likely to draw environmental protest.

I would also think the "locating" aspect plays a role. Things can easily be lost at the bottom of the sea, isn't there a history of nuclear bombs that were accidentally lost at sea and never found?

The US lost an atom bomb in the swamps of North Carolina and never recovered it.

they also move them by trucks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com