Probabilistic Risk Analysis of Nuclear Energy and Nuclear War

[bananas]

Over the past several years, I've pointed out that we can expect a nuclear meltdown about every 23 years, and here we are, right on schedule, 25 years after Chernobyl. Because most reactors are now in the wear-out phase of the bathtub curve, the failure rate will be increasing, which means we can expect to see more meltdowns over the next 23 years. The only way to avoid it is to shut down these old reactors.

I've also pointed out that the failure rate of deterrence is about 1% per year, and as Martin Hellman puts it: "If we continue to rely on a strategy with a one percent failure rate per year, that adds up to about 10% in a decade and almost certain destruction within my grandchildren's lifetimes."

If nuclear weapons technology spreads, the deterrence failure rate will increase.

Some of you thought that nuclear energy was perfectly safe because we haven't had a meltdown in 25 years. Some of you think nuclear deterrence is perfectly safe because it hasn't failed in 50 years. That's not the case.

Someone said that diplomacy is what prevented nuclear war. But what we're talking about is a meltdown of diplomacy, and it's as inevitable as the meltdowns of these reactors.

Please keep this in mind after this disaster is over - the devastation of nuclear war will be much worse and is something we must try to avoid.


References:

Risk Analysis of Nuclear Deterrence by Martin Hellman: http://www.nuclearrisk.org/paper.pdf

Martin Hellman's website: http://www.nuclearrisk.org

Some posts I've made on the meltdown frequency of nuclear reactors:
here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=261464&mesg_id=261748
here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=271837&mesg_id=271951

[TheMadMonk]

1. If we don't fucking well grow up as a species, HOW we kill ourselves...

...is of little issue.

[Zoeisright]

2. I don't agree. Dying by cancer is horrific.

So is dying by radiation poisoning.

[TheMadMonk]

6. And you think cancer WON'T run rampant under a rejuvenated fossil fuel...

Industry? There are many more mutagens in the world than radiation. Many of which have radiation beaten hands down when it comes to triggering agressive carcinomas, including any number of coal tar and petrochemical products and byproducts.

You can kiss global climate change mittigation goodbye if the anti-nuke crowd parlays the Japanese disaster into a reason to abandon nuclear technology or even prohibit further construction.

[kristopher]

7. Let's see.... Isn't that a variant of #5? Or is really 4? .....6?

It is actually all three.

Congratulations, not to many people can pack three off the industries list into a rant that short.
Way to go! Kudos to ya.

6 Standard lies of the nuclear industry

1. nuclear power is cheap;
2. learning and new standardized designs solve all past problems;
3. the waste problem is a non-problem, especially if we’d follow the lead of many other nations and “recycle” our spent fuel;
4. climate change makes a renaissance inevitable;
5. there are no other large low-carbon “baseload” alternatives;
6. there’s no particular reason to worry that a rapidly expanding global industry will put nuclear power and weapons technologies in highly unstable nations, often nations with ties to terrorist organizations.

[GliderGuider]

9. I would agree with you if nuclear power was doing anything to reduce fossil fuel use.

It's not.

• In 2009 our CO2 output fell by 422 million tonnes, the second greatest drop in the last 45 years. The only other times it fell in that period were in 1973, 1974, 1980, 1981 and 1982. You probably remember what was going on then. In all cases, nuclear power had nothing to do with the reductions, which were due entirely to a drop in oil and coal use due to recessions.
  
• We are now in a recession that is reducing our FF use, and we have hit peak oil which will reduce our use even further as prices escalate. The combination is likely to reduce our CO2 emissions beyond anything nuclear power advocates have dreamed of.
  
• Nuclear power is a complex technology that provides just 6% of the planet's primary energy, needs constant babysitting, and turns quite hazardous if it's left unattended.
  
• Our civilization is quite arguably on the brink of decline, which makes it more likely that FF use will continue to go down, and less likely that we'll be able to babysit nuclear reactors adequately over the long haul.
  
• World public opinion has turned solidly against nuclear power.

Leaving nuclear power plants that need constant monitoring and maintenance in the hands of a declining civilization that is losing its technological capacity is like giving an old lady with progressive dementia a running chainsaw.

[TheMadMonk]

12. The source that passed before my eyes said 14%. But even 6% is significant...

...if you have to replace it all in one go.

Wait for the teabaggers running on a "No nukes in our state" platform, and the stupid idiots who would vote for them even if they promise to sodomise those voters children in the same breath.

In America at least I am very afraid this will go exactly the same way as "tough on crime" and ten times as tough on the pervs.

And with plenty of oil and coal money backing them they may quite possibly succeed.

[GliderGuider]

14. That's 14% of global electricity. I'm talking about primary energy.

I like to remember all the CO2-spewing oil we use for transportation as well.

[One_Life_To_Give]

17. Given the Years they were produced. Every MW-HR

Given the Years they were produced. Every MW-HR generated by a nuke is one avoided being generated by ff.
Phasing them out is possible. But given a fixed function for the introduction of Renewable Sources. Your choice is which sources will be throttled back and terminated for each MW-HR of renewable energy produced. Throttling Nuclear first means that other ff's are allowed to continue unhindered for a longer period.

As a society we can choose to Cut consumption of one or the other as we bring alternatives online. The only other option is to turn off the Air Conditioners, etc. But we all know that ain't going to happen.

[Ozymanithrax]

3. How does catastrophic failure due to natural disaster fit in the curve?

I agree that things break down. This, however, wasn't a berak down.

[bananas]

4. "PRA includes both internal events and external events, i.e., natural disasters."

That's from MIT's "The Future of Nuclear Power" report, as quoted in the first post I linked to in the OP.

[JDPriestly]

5. Thank you Bananas. You are absolutely right.

And we have alternatives. They may not be quite as inexpensive in the short run, but they will be much les expensive in the lower in the long run.

[Confusious]

8. failure rate of deterrence is about 1% per year

I should go out and buy lottery tickets then, because I'm sure I've bought 99. Tomorrow's my big day! 100% chance of winning!

Not that I like nuclear weapons, as I suppose some would accuse me of if I didn't put this in here, I just hate fear-mongering, no matter where it comes from.

Nuclear weapons have been around since 1945, and if the same stupid odds this guy pushes were still in effect, we would have ~60% percent chance. ( Why wouldn't the same odds be in effect? I'm sure someone can give me a "reason" why not. Maybe Jupiter was in accession?)

The odds don't add up. Its 1% every year, until they are gone.

[txlibdem]

10. A voice of reason amidst those salivating over Japan's current natural disaster

Thank you.

And lest the incorrect statement in the OP that diminishes the deterrence of having nuclear weapons should stand, anyone can use google to find out how many times we've attacked North Korea since they got "the bomb:" NONE, NADA, NEVER. Anyone who thinks the CIA wouldn't be in there with insurgent groups armed to the teeth without N. Korea's nukes knows nothing of the history of the CIA.

For a list of nations that have had CIA backed coups and even US Military troops landing on their shores to "take out" a democratically elected leader, see:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=270692&mesg_id=270722
... you will notice that in this LONG list of nations where we have attacked and overthrown democratically elected governments, not one of them had nuclear bombs. Not one.

History does not lie: failure to have a nuclear bomb enables the CIA to overthrow your government; having the bomb ensures nothing but sabre rattling from the US. That sounds like a pretty darn clear nuclear deterrent to me.

[bananas]

13. North Korea had their first successful nuclear test in 2006

and they weren't considered a nuclear power until 2009, yet we haven't invaded them since 1950, so your reasoning is extremely faulty.

[txlibdem]

19. Wrong. Prior to that, China had a protection pact with N. Korea, China has nukes, Proven

"The 1961 Sino-North Korean Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance says China is obliged to defend North Korea against unprovoked aggression."
--http://www.cfr.org/china/china-north-korea-relationship/p11097

So there goes *your* theory and fully supports mine: It has only been since the two nuclear tests that China has been less aggressive in their protection of North Korea. China has had nuclear weapons since 1964, ending any chance of a CIA coup against Kim (and we were neck deep in coups in 5 different nations at the time so I'm sure the CIA didn't have enough assassins or "advisors" handy during those 3 years).

1961 -- The Bay of Pigs, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, and Congo (Zaire)
1963 -- Dominican Republic, Ecuador (again!) — A CIA-backed military coup overthrows President Arosemana, whose independent (not socialist) policies have become unacceptable to Washington. A military junta assumes command, cancels the 1964 elections, and begins abusing human rights.
1964 -- Brazil — A CIA-backed military coup overthrows the democratically elected government of Joao Goulart. The junta that replaces it will, in the next two decades, become one of the most bloodthirsty in history. General Castelo Branco will create Latin America’s first death squads, or bands of secret police who hunt down "communists" for torture, interrogation and murder. Often these "communists" are no more than Branco’s political opponents. Later it is revealed that the CIA trains the death squads.
-- ref: "A Timeline of CIA Atrocities" http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html

Thank you for playing "Failure to Learn History" -- Doris has some lovely parting gifts for you backstage. :hi:

[bananas]

22. The Korean War ended in 1953, 8 years before the 1961 pact with China

So your theory has a lot of big holes in it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War

[txlibdem]

24. You're grasping at straws there

We got our collective butts kicked out of Korea (that's why there IS a North Korea and a South Korea). You conveniently skirt the facts of the issue, forgetting that since then we didn't have much of a taste for an overt war there. That's why we use the CIA to find some ruthless and gullible idiots in country to do our dirty work for us. The Soviet Union didn't have a nuclear bomb until 1949 so we had a clear advantage for 4 years so why didn't we attack them as well?

If you had read the link I posted you would have noticed that we were occupied during those years anyway.

1953 -- Iran, Operation MK-ULTRA
1954 -- Guatemala
1954-1958 -- North Vietnam
1956 -- Hungary
1957-1973 -- Laos
1959 -- Haiti

[bananas]

11. The odds of winning the lottery are a lot less than 1% per ticket.

You have a misunderstanding of probability and statistics, which is harder to correct than a lack of understanding.

[Confusious]

18. The point still stands

if I keep buying them, eventually, according to your OP, my chance of winning will be 100%.

[bananas]

21. This is a rather simple and straightforward application of probability and statistics.

I'm not sure I could make it any simpler for you.

[bananas]

23. Maybe you don't understand the terminology

(edit to use wikipedia instead of a dictionary: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/expected+value )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value

In probability theory, the expected value (or expectation, or mathematical expectation, or mean, or the first moment) of a random variable is the weighted average of all possible values that this random variable can take on. The weights used in computing this average correspond to the probabilities in case of a discrete random variable, or densities in case of a continuous random variable. From a rigorous theoretical standpoint, the expected value is the integral of the random variable with respect to its probability measure. <1><2>

<snip>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failure_rate

Failure rate is the frequency with which an engineered system or component fails, expressed for example in failures per hour. It is often denoted by the Greek letter λ (lambda) and is important in reliability engineering.

The failure rate of a system usually depends on time, with the rate varying over the life cycle of the system. For example, an automobile's failure rate in its fifth year of service may be many times greater than its failure rate during its first year of service. One does not expect to replace an exhaust pipe, overhaul the brakes, or have major transmission problems in a new vehicle.

In practice, the mean time between failures (MTBF, 1/λ ) is often used instead of the failure rate. The MTBF is an important system parameter in systems where failure rate needs to be managed, in particular for safety systems. The MTBF appears frequently in the engineering design requirements, and governs frequency of required system maintenance and inspections. In special processes called renewal processes, where the time to recover from failure can be neglected and the likelihood of failure remains constant with respect to time, the failure rate is simply the multiplicative inverse of the MTBF (1/λ ).

<snip>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_curve

The bathtub curve is widely used in reliability engineering. It describes a particular form of the hazard function which comprises three parts:
- The first part is a decreasing failure rate, known as early failures.
- The second part is a constant failure rate, known as random failures.
- The third part is an increasing failure rate, known as wear-out failures.

The name is derived from the cross-sectional shape of a bathtub.

The bathtub curve is generated by mapping the rate of early "infant mortality" failures when first introduced, the rate of random failures with constant failure rate during its "useful life", and finally the rate of "wear out" failures as the product exceeds its design lifetime.

In less technical terms, in the early life of a product adhering to the bathtub curve, the failure rate is high but rapidly decreasing as defective products are identified and discarded, and early sources of potential failure such as handling and installation error are surmounted. In the mid-life of a product—generally, once it reaches consumers—the failure rate is low and constant. In the late life of the product, the failure rate increases, as age and wear take their toll on the product. Many consumer products strongly reflect the bathtub curve, such as computer processors.



<snip>

[txlibdem]

25. Excellent reason to replace all the older nuclear power plants with new ones

If we replace all of the old plants with Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor power plants we solve numerous problems at once. Thorium cannot be used to create nuclear bombs, the amount of Thorium required to provide electricity for your entire lifetime is the size of a marble (it's much more efficient than Uranium), LFTRs do not create any high level waste and only a small amount of short lived waste which can be stored on site safely, America worked out all of the issues with Thorium cycle nuclear reactors in the 1960s (the program was cancelled precisely because Thorium cannot be used to make bombs).

[Confusious]

26. I understand the termonology just fine

When you're talking about mechanical parts, baring maintenance, You're right.

If you're talking about humans, you're wrong.

[bananas]

27. Probabilistic risk analysis absolutely applies to humans

and is an important part of critical systems engineering.

Human reliability factors were used in designing the launch control systems for nuclear weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_reliability

Human reliability
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Human reliability is related to the field of human factors engineering and ergonomics, and refers to the reliability of humans in fields such as manufacturing, transportation, the military, or medicine. Human performance can be affected by many factors such as age, state of mind, physical health, attitude, emotions, propensity for certain common mistakes, errors and cognitive biases, etc.

Human reliability is very important due to the contributions of humans to the resilience of systems and to possible adverse consequences of human errors or oversights, especially when the human is a crucial part of the large socio-technical systems as is common today. User-centered design and error-tolerant design are just two of many terms used to describe efforts to make technology better suited to operation by humans.

<snip>

Human reliability analysis techniques

A variety of methods exist for human reliability analysis (HRA).<1><2> Two general classes of methods are those based on probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) and those based on a cognitive theory of control.

PRA-based techniques

One method for analyzing human reliability is a straightforward extension of probabilistic risk assessment (PRA): in the same way that equipment can fail in a plant, so can a human operator commit errors. In both cases, an analysis (functional decomposition for equipment and task analysis for humans) would articulate a level of detail for which failure or error probabilities can be assigned. This basic idea is behind the Technique for Human Error Rate Prediction (THERP).<3> THERP is intended to generate human error probabilities that would be incorporated into a PRA. The Accident Sequence Evaluation Program (ASEP) human reliability procedure is a simplified form of THERP; an associated computational tool is Simplified Human Error Analysis Code (SHEAN) .<4> More recently, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has published the Standardized Plant Analysis Risk (SPAR) human reliability analysis method also because of human error.<5><6>

<snip>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_system

Life-critical system
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Critical system)

A life-critical system or safety-critical system is a system whose failure or malfunction may result in:
- death or serious injury to people, or
- loss or severe damage to equipment or
- environmental harm.

Risks of this sort are usually managed with the methods and tools of safety engineering. A life-critical system is designed to lose less than one life per billion (10^9) hours of operation.<1> Typical design methods include probabilistic risk assessment, a method that combines failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) with fault tree analysis. Safety-critical systems are increasingly computer-based.

<snip>

Several reliability regimes for life-critical systems exist:

- Fail-operational systems continue to operate when their control systems fail. Examples of these include elevators, the gas thermostats in most home furnaces, and passively safe nuclear reactors. Fail-operational mode is sometimes unsafe. Nuclear weapons launch-on-loss-of-communications was rejected as a control system for the U.S. nuclear forces because it is fail-operational: a loss of communications would cause launch, so this mode of operation was considered too risky. This is contrasted with the Fail-deadly behavior of Perimetr system built during the Soviet era.

<snip>

[GliderGuider]

15. A commentary on that 1% probability

Risk Analysis Finds Nuclear Deterrence Wanting

The stickiest points are the last two probabilities (GG: the conditional probability that a Cuban Missile Type Crisis (CMTC) leads to the use of a nuclear weapon, and the conditional probability that the use of a nuclear weapon leads to full-scale nuclear war), because they have never happened. Hellman uses statements from participants in the Cuban crisis to come up with a lower bound of 10 percent and an upper one of 50 percent for the chance that nuclear weapons would be used. His estimate of the probability of nuclear weapon use leading to an all-out nuclear war is in the same range, based on statements by both the U.S. president at the time, John F. Kennedy, and his secretary of defense, Robert S. McNamara.

The result is a range from 2 chances in 10 000 per year to 5 chances in 1000 per year for just this one type of trigger mechanism. The values are valid only for the Cold War years, writes Hellman. But that doesn’t make them irrelevant at a time when relations between the United States and Russia are deteriorating; India and an unstable Pakistan have acquired atomic weaponry; and military planners from Washington, Tokyo, and Seoul worry about whether a nuclear-armed China would go to war to reclaim Taiwan.

Hellman’s method isn’t unfamiliar to those trying to gauge the risk of failure for complex systems, such as nuclear reactors. IEEE Spectrum asked J. Wesley Hines, a professor of nuclear engineering at the University of Tennessee, to examine Hellman’s methods, which were detailed in the appendix of the Bent article. ”I only read the appendix but feel his argument is rational and also feel his methods are justified,” says Hines. ”Some could argue with the numbers he used, but he does give logical reasons for using those numbers and admits that they have large uncertainties since the events have been rare in the past.”

Robert N. Charette, who runs the risk-management consultancy ITABHI and is a regular contributor to IEEE Spectrum , agrees with Hines. However, he says Hellman should have also turned the analysis on its head. ”The other side of the risk equation is, suppose you get rid of nuclear weapons. Does that increase the probability of war? Pretending there aren’t any nukes, how many wars would we have had?”

So, simply promulgating a 1% annual probability of failure without acknowledging the inherent uncertainties or even the fact that it's just one man's informal assessment leaves you open to charges of being agenda-driven. But here on E/E we all need an agenda to get through the day...

[bananas]

16. Hellman discusses the uncertainties, and I think he's right.

He thinks his estimate is within an order of magnitude, and frankly I don't think even a detailed study would realistically have any greater accuracy. And remember that the uncertainty goes both ways - it could be higher as well as lower.

As far as charges of me being agenda-driven: I didn't mention the uncertainties because I try to make my posts short-and-to-the-point, I know I don't read most threads at all, I look at the subject line and author and try to guess if it's something I want to read, and after that I might only read the first sentence or first paragraph before moving on. So I tried to write my main points, followed with some links to more detailed information.

A few years ago, Bush wanted to drop nuclear bunker-busters on Iran, and I was shocked that on what pretends to be one of the most liberal websites there were people who thought it was a good idea. The next Republican president may go ahead and follow through on that.

[GliderGuider]

20. Good explanation, thanks.

We've all got a point of view that can turn into an agenda on here - I certainly get pretty broad-brush about some of my positions... :-) I sure feel better having finally straightened out my position on n-power.