Safety Engineering and Risk Management Debate 2012

Is
nuclear power safe for humans and the environment?

Nuclear power plants
provide close to 6% of the world's energy and 13.5% of the world's electricity.
There are now over 430 commercial nuclear power reactors operating in 31
countries, with 372, 000 Megawatt electric (MWe) of total capacity [Cited 2012 Sep.
29]. Available from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#cite_note-Share-8.
Nuclear technology uses the energy released by splitting the atoms of certain radioactive
elements like uranium or plutonium and usually producing radiation.

Radiation can cause an unwanted transmutation in human gene or
genetic modification which might lead to the growth of cancerous cells in human
lungs or other part of the body. Currently, there is evidence that suggests
that any exposure to radiation poses some risk; however, it has not been
completely proved that there are risks at very low exposure level. The
definition for 'low dose of radiation' has not been agreed upon by expert and
radiation protection measures are based on the assumption that even small
amounts of radiation exposure may pose some small risk.

Nuclear accidents can and do result from natural disasters, such
as earthquakes and tsunamis, and also from human error and negligence. There are
also possibilities of terrorist attacks on nuclear power plants.
But radiation is not just a concern in a nuclear accident. The
processes involved in the nuclear fuel chain releases radiation, starting with
drilling for a particular radioactive element; it then continues for
generations because nuclear waste includes plutonium that will remain toxic for
thousands of years.

Any activity that produces or uses radioactive material
generates radioactive waste that must be disposed of properly. Radioactive
waste can be in liquid or solid form, and its level of radioactivity can vary.
Radioactive waste can remain radioactive for anywhere from days to hundreds or
even thousands of years. Waste not properly isolated from the public and the
generally accessible environment may contaminate air, soil, and water supplies

Nuclear power advocates must confront the fact that nuclear
power program has an unending harmful effect from generation to generation. It
is obvious that the use of nuclear power is not safe and should be discourage.

Victor Adukwu

If we look at the potential risk a nuclear power plant poses to life in the event of radioactive exposure/leak we would say it is not not safe. but if we look at the overall value in terms of ecological and Environmental effects, magnitude of energy produced, overall disaster control and safety management response history, and the extent of damage/fatalities compared to other energy sources http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html we can categorically say it is safe

 For Example there are only three to four major known Nuclear plant accidents for over the past 50years of man's quest for nuclear energy sources (www.youtube.come)  i.e Chernobyl(Ukraine 1986), Three Mile Island(USA 1979), Fukushima (Japan 2011), Windscale(Britain 1957), and the Fatalities have been very minimal infact Fukushima, Three Mile Island and Windscale did not record any Fatalities and infact technicians where still working in the plants after the accidents had occured to reduce the imminent risks.

This is obviously

Suggest a reading of the Kaplan-Mikes paper on risk analysis.  Risk from engineering activities (such as oil spills or nuclear disasters etc.) cannot be solved by design engineers or operating company only. Kaplan-Mikes make a potent argument for going beyond rule-based risk management.

Reference:  http://www.hbr.org/2012/06/managing-risks-a-new-framework/ar/1

Usually, most risk statements are inward looking (risks to me or my organization). TCS in India does risk analysis for the risk that the customer incurs for outsourcing them work !! Reference: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.197.424

Human perception and behavior are immense contributors to risk related study. (Reference: http://www.cmu.edu/dietrich/sds/people/faculty/baruch-fischhoff.html )

The vogue/neccesity for four (may need more !?) dimensional risk management is here- probability, impact, frequency and difficulty of detection.

With this course, a new level of risk management is coming to play - how do we mitigate risks for humanity in the work we do? Kudos.

Postscript- Gower Publishers has about 200+ titles on risk which is worth looking into.

Discussion Topic 3: Is fracking for shale gas safe and without damage to community environment? Should it be banned? Before we are going to discuss more details about the safety of the shale gas fracking, we need to know what the shale gas is, where it is located and what benefits it can bring to the market. From the “Wikipedia” definitions, we can know “Shale gas is natural gas formed from being trapped within shale formations”, Shale is a fine-graded rock and it is less permeable to allow fluids flow around or flow to the well bore, most shales are not considered to be good sources of natural gas, especially back in 1970s and 1980s, drilling in shale is not commercially viable.

Yes. Most nuclear
plants in the western world operate using a ‘defence-in-depth’ approach with
multiple safety systems supplementing the natural features of the reactor core.
These safety provisions include a series of physical barriers between the
radioactive reactor core and the environment, multiple safety systems each with
a backup and designed to accommodate human errors. The design and operation of
nuclear power plants aims to minimise the likelihood of accidents occurring and
most especially avoiding any major human consequences when they do occur.(Culled from http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html)

However in history
there have been three major reactor accidents, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and
Fukushima. The reactor accident in Three Mile Island was contained without any
harm done to anyone, the Chernobyl accident that is considered the worst
nuclear power plant accident killed 31 people and had significant health and
environmental consequences and the Fukushima which was caused by a huge tsunami
severely tested the containment allowing some release of radioactivity.

In the over 50 years
of operating nuclear power plants, no members of the public or nuclear plant
workers have ever died as a result to exposure apart from the Chernobyl
incident.

It is important to
know that a commercial type power reactor cannot explode as a nuclear bomb as
the fuel is not enriched beyond about 5%.

Nuclear power plants
are designed to safe in their operation and safe in the event of any
malfunction, although there is no industrial activity that is risk free. As in
the case of the Fukushima accident that was triggered by natural disasters
(Earthquake and Tsunami), it was a man-made disaster that could and should have
been foreseen and prevented. Wilful negligence left the Fukushima plant
unprepared for these natural events.

OKECHUKWU CHUKELU (51231798)

Long considered as a safe and
environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuel based generation, solar
power is now becoming "demonized" as more and more people are coming to recognize
the harmful environmental impact associated with solar panels. This mostly
focuses on the manufacture of the panels themselves. The solar cell is mostly
comprised of silica, which (simply put) is produced by crushing quartz and
separating the crystalline silica. The danger here is that during this process
silica dust is produced; this could be seen as harmful as asbestos dust causing
similar side effects within humans. However the story doesn’t end there, the
silica is required to enter an electric arc furnace where it’s combined with
coke to produce metallurgical grade silicon; the process produces carbon and
sulfur dioxide, which is displaced into the atmosphere. Following this the
process is still further refined to change the metallurgical grade silicon to
poly-silicon, a process which involves combining with hydrogen chloride gas
using copper catalyst in a fluid bed reactor; all nasty stuff, utilizing a
process that uses many hazardous chemicals and products.

It would be good to say that
the process was complete, but not so the silicon needs to be cut into wafers,
which produces harmful dust and great care is needed otherwise the dust could
inhaled, with similar side effects to the silica dust described above.

Once inserted between glass
panels and sealed, baring a fire the solar panels should now be considered
‘safe’ and provide years of use.      

(chemical characteristics are taken from Wikipedia and "Introduction to Solar Electricity and Residential Solar Panels – AltE"

Ekaterina Pavlichenko

It would seem from all reports
and inquests that followed the Piper Alpha accident that errors were made in
almost every aspect of operation by Occidental Petroleum on Piper Alpha;
however following this accident the rule book was rewritten in nearly every
company operating off-shore platforms worldwide. Considering this the root
causes (identified as a maintenance error that brought about a fuel leak; a
result of poor training and poor maintenance procedures) that brought about the
Piper Alpha accident should not be evident today as the international operating
culture has changed from "Production First" to a culture of "Safety First"! As safety has become the priority for major world-famous industries.

As such, we would find that the
following would take place in the unlikely event of a similar occurrence;
initial checks would center on the operators observance of the Safety Case
Regulations and the Offshore Installations and Wells (Design and Construction,
etc.) Regulations 1996, Offshore Installations and Pipeline Works (Management
and Administration) Regulations 1995, Offshore Installations (Prevention of
Fire and Explosion and Emergency Response Regulations 1995), which introduced
the requirements for Safety Critical Elements to be installed on Offshore
Platforms following Piper Alpha.

It goes without saying that Occidental Petroleum Corporation
would have faced a stricter, more robust legislative regime, more expensive
consequences in terms of financial and corporate costs if the Piper Alpha
disaster were to happen today.

The binding legislation as at the time of the disaster in
1988, the UK Health Safety and Wokplace act was initially drafted for only onshore
activities in 1974 and was only extended offshore in 1976 without creating
extensions for individual sets of regulations directly related to offshore
activities under the act

Today, regulations guiding offshore operations and
environment are more detailed. Firstly, the offshore installations regulations introduced
in 1992 which required organizations to draw up safety cases and submit to the
HSE for approval, began the revolution of increasing the responsibility placed
on companies involved in offshore operations.

Other detailed regulations developed over the years are the offshore
installations and pipeline works regulation – (1995) which set requirements for
safe management of offshore installations; PFEER – (1995) which ensures
protection of offshore workers from fire and explosions; the corporate
manslaughter and corporate homicide act – (2007) which assures organizations of
prosecution (including unlimited fines) if investigation into fatalities
offshore indicate management failures amounting to gross breach of relevant
duty of care (www.lge.gov.uk); the dangerous substances and explosive
atmosphere regulation – (2002) which ensures protection of employees at
workplace and any other individuals at risk due to the presence of dangerous
chemical and explosive materials offshore and the environmental protection act
– (1990) which ensures protection of the environment including air and water
resources from operational activities offshore.

I think it’s fair to say that the
legislative framework available today is more specific and detailed as regards
HSE responsibilities of organizations and employers and sanctions attached to
non-compliance.

I don’t think we need to develop a “human activity integrity
management process” that would give us feedback on human impact assessment, it
already exists!!!

There have been sets of human factor analysis tools
developed and implemented in organizations to evaluate the human activity/inactivity
impact assessment.

One of the tools is of the premise that there are 4 stages
of human information processing and performance namely perception, memory,
decision making and action taken and ALL human errors leading to accidents
occur due to errors in any or all of the 4 stages. (Process Safety and Environmental Protection, IChemE
Part B, 2006) – (http://www.keilcentre.co.uk/Data/Sites/1/Process%20Safety)

Analysis of the Piper Alpha disaster;

Perception Error – Non-existence of proper procedural hand
over of shifts between day and night shifts resulting in critical information
not being exchanged.

Memory Error – Negligence of the day shift engineer not
informing the night shift custodian of the status of the faulty pump

Decision Error – The night shift custodian panicking under
pressure because of the failure of the second pump and deciding to switch to
the faulty pump without adequate enquiry as to the state of the pump

Action Error – Starting the faulty pump resulting in the
explosions and accident that followed.

There are two reasons why these errors occur; 1) performance
shaping factors such as workloads, inadequate training, and poor ergonomic
design of components; 2) Psychological errors such as antecedents and trends.

The process of identifying these errors and reasons for the
errors would create solutions that would prevent further occurrences thereby
ensuring all bases are covered.

In my opinion, YES solar panels are safe to use. “Safe” here
is relative but compared to the other conventional fossil fuel technologies
(coal, crude oil and natural gas) studies have shown that solar panels generate
per kilowatt hour at least 89% fewer harmful emissions into the environment
(Brookhaven national laboratory research. The safety/pollution issues with
solar panels only arise in their MANUFACTURE (inhalation of hazardous
by-products when sawing polysilicon into wafers for the panels; ASSEMBLING THE
PANELS (risk of lead and other dangerous materials used in soldering the solar
panels together being released into the environment); INSTALLATION AND USE (in
the event of  fire, hazardous fumes can
be released into the atmosphere) and finally in DISPOSAL/DECOMMISIONING( risk
of exposing different hazardous substances from raw materials used in
manufacturing solar cells to leas used in soldering cells together).I believe
solar cells are most dangerous at the end of their useful life.

CONTINUES
ASSESSMENT.

Discussion topic 5:
In recent years, millions of solar panels have been placed on roofs around the
world. Discuss how safe are they? Discuss the hidden pollution caused by solar
panels.

The earth is in constant supply of solar power of up
to 100,000TW, this is enough energy to meet the energy needs of the earth’s
population every hour. The solar radiation thus supplied to the earth can be
put to meaningful use by applying the concept/technology of photovoltaics (PV)
– converting solar radiation into direct electricity using semiconductors (monocrystalline
silicon,  polycrystalline silicon,
amorphous silicon, cadmium telluride and copper indium gallium
selenide/sulphide) that exhibit the photovoltaic effect and illuminating them
by photons [1].

Even though PV systems have been known to offer
plentiful energy, the cost of solar energy technology (SET) along the
production line in terms of environmental, accident and associated risk issues
is still high [1].

ENVIRONMENT
IMPACT FROM SOLAR THERMAL HEATING SYSTEM.

Only little amounts of the large quantity of
materials used for production of solar thermal (ST) systems are consumed during
their operation [2]. At the operation stage of solar panels, the safety concern
and exposure to hazards comes as a result environmental pollution from changing
the coolant. A good organizational safety policy/work practice can address this
problem [2].

Leakage of the coolant system can cause fire and
gases released from vapourised coolant all constitute a major health and
environmental safety issues [2].

Loss and changes to an existing ecosystem can also
result when large-scale deployment of solar panels is required [2]. Installation
of solar panels can cause water to leak from the roof and at installation, the
workman is faced with the risk of falling from the top of the roof [2].

The cost components associated with the accident
that may occur are those incurred before occupational injuries, at occurrence
of the accident and that spent on its prevention if properly identified [3].

The pollution associated with the transport and
manufacture of SET are also of considerable significance. Large deployment of
SET proves to have effect on health because of the emissions involved in
material processing, the chemicals involved in the batteries that are used as
well as the raw materials needed for their production [2]. Heat transfer fluids
such as water, oil and liquid sodium are involved in SET, accidental release of
any of these fluids can cause occupational hazard [2].

The equipment for solar energy conversion requires
solar cells which in turn require the use of heavy and rare earth metals, and
the risk of pollution is inherent in their mining, manufacture, construction
and disposal after the useful life of these assets.

On September 19, 2012, a village in eastern china
rioted against a local solar panel manufacturing firm for dumping harmful and
toxic chemicals into its river [4]. Thus, the illusion of green, clean energy
only transfers/exports environmental ruin and damage to countries/places where
the panels are manufactured. This can be classified as a form of risk control
strategy –risk transfer [3] 

REFERENCES

[1] Abdul, W.B. Aqeel, A. B. Gholamreza, Z. (2012)
Greener energy: issues and challenges for Pakistan-solar energy prospective,
Renewable and sustainable energy reviews [online] vol. 16, (pp 2762-2780)
Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032112001372  [Accessed 29 september 2012]

 [2]
Theocharis, T. Niki, F. Vassilis, G. (2005). Environmental impacts from the
solar energy technologies, Energy policy [online] vol 33, (pp 289-296).
Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421503002416  [Accessed 29 September 2012]

[3] Sue, C. Robin , T (1998). Safety, Reliability
and Risk management: an integrated approach. Second edition,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

[4] 500 chinese villages protest solar plant
pollution. [Online] Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tw2qlYxeSj4&feature=relmfu [Accessed 29 September 2012]

 Sorry tried to keep the words down but the first one needs something to bite on?? via background info then onto the debate points as below...........

Sorry about spacing too - not got the hang of the word editor thing for copy paste etc...

Ive went for number 2 although i believe No. 1 is.....板橋水庫大壩 Anybody agree ?

Background For Info -

What:
Chernobyl Nuclear
Meltdown

Where:
Chernobyl, Soviet Union
(now Ukraine)

When:
April 26,
1986

What happened:
An
unexpected surge in power during a routine safety check caused a rupture in the
plant reactor's fuel elements. A large explosion resulted and the reactor's fuel
rod's melted; the graphite
covering the reactor
ignited and burned for more than a week.

Large amounts of radiation were released,
causing the deaths of more than 50 people and the permanent relocation of more
than 350,000 others. To date, it is the only nuclear accident that has been
classified a "major accident" by the International Atomic Energy
Agency.

The longterm impact:
According
to the World Health
Organization around 4,000
cases of thyroid cancer have been linked to the incident and around 5 million
people in the former Soviet Union have been affected by radiation from the
accident.

In the years following the explosion at the
Chernobyl nuclear power plant, there was an increase in malformations of
newly-born children in the Ukraine and Belarus. Many of these children were
subsequently abandoned by their parents and left in special-care institutions.
(Photo: Igor Kostin/Sygma/Corbis)

Read more: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/chernobyl-disaster#ixzz27o1q9xSs

Debate -

(1)What
were the physical/technical circumstances that led to the accident?

http://atomicinsights.com/1996/04/accident-at-chernobyl-caused-explosion.html

(2)What
were the main underlying causes?

Initial
equipment Design errors, could and should have been better !!!

(3)
Why did the accident result in: (i) So many fatalities; initial explosion
followed by 20 years of radiation effects.....30-50 died pretty directly or
within the year although could end up around 4000 in reality.....some have been
disputed/difficult to attribute to the accident ‘’A particularly sad effect of the accident was that some physicians
in Europe advised pregnant women to undergo abortions on account of radiation
exposure, even though the levels concerned were vastly below those likely to
have teratogenic effects. The foetal death toll from this is likely very much
greater than directly from the accident.’’

Ref
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index.html

(ii)
So much harm to the environment etc.??????

(4)
What factors contributed to the escalation of the accident?

HUMAN
FACTORS !!!

Poor
controls in place at time of accident, controls did not meet the circumstances

Procedural
confusion and acceptance criterias

Inadequate
strength of operators to STOP the JOB and simply defer to procedures/
supervisors.

Management
/ Political pressure

These
draw so many parallels with Piper Alpha ( which for any Aberdonian will be close
to home)

(

(5)
What were the legal consequences of the accident?

6 men
jailed – 33 years between them all from the operations/ management side of the
power plant.

No
designers / installers etc.???

Ref =
http://accidont.ru/ENG/trial.html

No.3 – Macondo ?

Kind
Regards

Tony
Morgan

To my mind, one of the most severe
accidents in energy sector occurred in 1984 at
the Union Carbide India Limited pesticide plant in Bhopal. Toxic
gases, such as methyl isocyanate, leaked from the chemical factory when a large amount of water got into the MIC storage tank
raising the temperature and pressure. This poisonous gas escaped into the air
spreading over the city. Hundreds of people and animals were killed while other
people suffered from swollen eyes, frothing at
the mouth and breathing difficulties. Another consequence was the defoliation
of trees and the contamination of soil and lakes. After the accident the Union
Carbide factory was closed and three senior members of staff arrested due to poor
safety and maintenance measures. Even today, chemicals left in the factory continue to leak and pollute the groundwater.

References:

·        
http://www1.american.edu/TED/bhopal.htm

·        
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster

·        
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/3/newsid_2698000/2698709.stm

Mr. Paul Mitchell , professor of the Energy Technologies course, mentioned
at his lecture that nuclear energy had extremely low global consumption from
1986 to 2011 compare to other sources of energy such as coal and oil .Moreover   Mr.
Henry Than said that nuclear energy has average only 0.04 deaths per TWh. If
nuclear energy is said to be the safest source of energy then why it is not
used more often? Indisputably
nuclear energy has a lot of benefits, it produces very low greenhouse gas
emissions, it has the lowest impact on the environment and nuclear power plants require significantly
less land for operation than all other energy sources to produce a large amount
of electricity. However the use of nuclear energy leads to a lot of risks.
Radioactive waste releases harmful radiation as it decays. Plus, accidents such
as the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, the Chernobyl disaster
in 1986 and the Fukushima
nuclear disaster in 2011 released radiation which had an
enormous impact on the humans and the environment. Furthermore, nuclear energy
is linked to nuclear weapons. To my mind, the disadvantages outweigh the
advantages and nuclear energy is not as safe as people used to believe, at
least not yet.

References:

·        
Lecture note of Mr. Paul Mitchell and Mr.
Henry Tan

·        
Article from ‘New York times ‘posted Sunday, September 30, 2012

·        
http://www.fi.edu/guide/wester/benefits.html

While nuclear power plants are designed to be safe in their operation and safe in the event of any malfunction or accident, no industrial activity can be represented as entirely risk-free. Incidents and accidents may happen, and as in other industries, will lead to progressive improvement in safety. (World Nuclear News, Sept 2012, http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html)

From 1969 and 2000, nuclear energy industrial accidents have led to 31 fatalities (immediate) as compared to 16,505 for oil (World Nuclear News, Risk Statistics on energy, http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=28325). On a comparative level based on statistics of fatalities, nuclear energy can be said to be safe with respect to other energy sources. Although nuclear energy has shown to be safe on the statistics side, it does not enjoy a good ‘feeling of safety’. This can be traced to the potential severity of accidents, limited layman understanding about the mechanics of radiation as well as the statistics of incidences and that the fact that the destructive agent is ‘invisible and impalpable’.

However, fatalities are not the only measure of safety. The detriment to the environment must also be considered. Among other impacts that it can have on the region, plant commissioning in a region causes impairment of aesthetic, recreational and natural conservation values and also significantly lowers the value of the surrounding property (M. Sprangler, "Environmental and Social Issues of Site Choice for Nuclear Power Plants," Energy Policy 2, 18 (1974)).

However, my view is that the usage of nuclear energy should be accompanied by well regulated systems to check external influences on power plants. This would include a high level of security in and around regions where nuclear plants are located, low susceptibility of those areas to natural disasters (Fukushima incident was caused by an earthquake), etc) and well as accident effect mitigation (e.g. emergency response system). These would serve to reduce likelihood and severity of accident. All these should be accompanied with proper education of people on the important things to note about the safety of nuclear power

Samuel Bamkefa

In my opinion, wind energy possesses more “cons” than “pros”
as regards being one of the cleaner energy sources. I’ll explain. As against
the “pros” of wind energy which is basically its reputation as one of the cleaner
methods available to harness energy, its “cons” are countless. Firstly in the
transportation of the bulky components (blades, poles, high voltage equipment) required
to set up wind farms, many accidents have been recorded to public infrastructure,
homes, electricity poles. Another point is the nuisance the aerodynamic noise
from the blades and mechanical noise from machinery cause to individuals who
are unlucky to close to wind farms. In fact this has led some governments in
the world to set up policies forbidding wind farms to be set up in close
proximity to residential areas (Australia) or governments giving individuals
veto powers to influence setting up of wind turbines around them(New Zealand).
The most dangerous of the cons is a phenomenon known as” ice-throw” which
usually occurs in areas of harsh weather conditions where ice formed on wind blades
can be thrust at high speeds up to distances of 200metres and impact on humans
are usually fatal. Finally and the most common of the cons is the harm posed to
the bird species and in principle the ecosystem, rare and uncommon species of
birds are wiped out yearly due to wind turbine operations. In conclusion, while
I am a proponent for cleaner alternatives to harnessing energy, wind energy for
me has caused too many accidents/fatalities in relation to the meagre 6% of the
total electricity demands in Europe it provides (www.euobserver.com). Take a
look at the accident statistics for wind energy here - http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/page4.htm

What do you think?

 safety consideration in wave energy system

Wave energy is rapidly
emerging as one of the best means of harnessing energy from the ocean.

Wave
energy is renewable energy source with completely free energy where no fuel is
needed and there is no problem with emissions and/or waste like with some other
energy sources.

Wave power has very big
potential, and can produce more than significant amount of energy (the useful
deep water wave power resources have been estimated to be greater than 2 TW).
Also, once wave energy projects are built they are not very expensive to
operate and maintain.

 Despite that there is no problem with emission
, There is a potential impact on the marine environment.

Noise pollution, for
example, could have negative impact if not monitored, although the noise and
visible impact of each design varies greatly. Other biophysical impacts (flora
and fauna, sediment regimes and water column structure and flows) of scaling up
the technology are being studied.

 In terms of socio-economic challenges, wave
farms can result in the displacement of commercial and recreational fishermen
from productive fishing grounds, can change the pattern of beach sand
nourishment, and may represent hazards to safe navigation. Waves generate about
2,700 gigawatts of power. Of those 2,700 gigawatts, only about 500 gigawatts
can be captured with the current technology.

Therefore,there is need to
but safety practices in place to monitor the generation and use of these system

 References

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_power

•  Safety Concerns for Wave Energy Systems | eHow.com,By Debbie Mcrill, http://www.ehow.com/list_6960521_safety-concerns-wave-energy-systems.html#ixzz27z6bS0Yx

Olamide Sherifah Ajala
Student ID:51230562
Course:Sub sea Engineering
olamide.sherifah.ajala@aberdeen.a.uk

safety consideration in wave energy systems
Wave energy is rapidly emerging as one of the best means of harnessing energy from the ocean.
Wave energy is renewable energy source with completely free energy where no fuel is needed and there is no problem with emissions and/or waste like with some other energy sources [1].

Wave power has very big potential, and can produce more than significant amount of energy (the useful deep water wave power resources have been estimated to be greater than 2 TW). Also, once wave energy projects are built they are not very expensive to operate and maintain.

Despite that there is no problem with emission, there is a potential impact on the marine environment.
Noise pollution for example, could have negative impact if not monitored, although the noise and visible impact of each design varies greatly. Other biophysical impacts (flora and fauna, sediment regimes and water column structure and flows) of scaling up the technology are being studied.

 In terms of socio-economic challenges, wave farms can result in the displacement of commercial and recreational fishermen from productive fishing grounds, can change the pattern of beach sand nourishment, and may represent hazards to safe navigation. Waves generate about 2,700 gigawatts of power. Of those 2,700 gigawatts, only about 500 gigawatts can be captured with the current technology[2].

Therefore there is need to put safety practices in place to monitor the generation and use of these system.

References
1)  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_power.
2) http://www.ehow.com/list_6960521_safety-concerns-wave-energy-systems.html By Debbie mcrill.

Olamide Sherifah Ajala
Student ID:51230562
Course:Sub sea Engineering
olamide.sherifah.ajala@aberdeen.a.uk

Shale fracking is a secondary method of boosting the reservoir production. It opens up the pore spaces of the reservoir their by increasing  the permeability of fluid flow within the reservoir.Typically it entails pumping of 3 to 5 million gallons of water, mixed with sand and fractional amounts of chemical additives into the wellhead at high pressure, thereby creating cracks in the rock beds which open up the pore spaces. The hydraulic fracturing mixture is basically 95 percent water, 4.5 percent sand and 0.5 percent chemical additives formulated to promote gelling and cleaning.  Many of the additives used in fracturing fluids are ingredients in common household goods, such as candy, soaps, and ice-cream. These additives are mostly environment friendly. The only thing that needs to be properly documented by law here is the reservoir depth at which the fracking operation should be allowed to be carried out. I am of the opinion that shale fracking should not be banned since it aids production but a legislative regulation should be put in place to check ascertain the depth that could be fracked. i.e greater than 9000fts, without causing earth quake occurance or hazard to our future generation.

Discussion Topic 6: Discuss safety in wind energy.

Unlike fossil power sources, wind energy consumes
no fuel and does not  emit  air pollutants.  It  is
thus environmentally friendly.

There are however safety issues associated with
wind energy and a number of cases have been reported over the past years for
example the German turbine fire, catastrophic Danish turbine accident
(22/02/2008) and Ardrossen wind firm fire (8 December 2011) among others. Some
accidents have affected workers transporting, erecting and maintaining the
turbines. Wild life fatalities have also been reported. Collision of flying  Bats and Birds with wind turbines results in
many fatalities.

Wind turbines also emit noise as they rotate
(aerodynamic noise of blades) which may have severe impacts on the human ears
especially if the turbines are located near homes. The materials used for
making wind turbines like steel concrete and aluminium are at times heavy and
pose risks of the turbines falling off leading to death especially during heavy
winds. Wind power is also un reliable in freezing temperatures  because ice formation on turbines blades
could have a serious impact on the operation efficiency of the turbines thus it
is important to study the weather patterns of 
a given area before considering this technology. Metallic materials are
used during the manufacture of wind turbine blades hence there are risks of
lightning strikes leading to turbines shedding apart of the blade or the whole
blade (mechanical failure).

Oscillating shadows due to rotating blades leads
to optical disturbances of residents thus wind turbines/ farms need to be
isolated from houses, streets, roads where the population is high to ensure
safety. Wind turbines are also prone to fires especially if not well maintained,
overheating could occur due to expired lubricants and stressed bearings.

Offshore wind turbines may also pose some safety
risks to boats and ships thus proper safety measures need to be in place.

In conclusion, I think wind energy is a better
alternative as opposed to fossil fuels provided the above associated risks are
put in consideration while designing and installing wind turbines.

Regards,

John Bosco Aliganyira

Msc.Oil and Gas Eng.

References:

http://www.britishwindenergy.co.uk/ Add to e-Shelf           

Wind energy systems for electric power generation  by M. Stiebler , 2008  

Advances in wind energy and conversion technology Sathyajith Mathew; Geeta
Susan Philip; , 2011.

How safe are solar panels placed on the roof? 

The use of
Solar panels as energy source is one form of renewable energy that is fast
becoming an alternative to the way we generate electricity in our homes .It is
clean [1] and cheap [2].These solar panels can be rooftop mounted or ground
mounted. The panels on the roof themselves are safe. The risk or danger arises
when installing or maintaining them on the roofs. Available data has shown that
the number of deaths per year from roofers is on the increase [3]. Another source
of concern is hazards caused by electric shock [4].
The risk involved needs to be properly managed to reduce incidents. A detailed
risk assessment is needed and an updated legislation put in place.

 While pollutions attributed to solar panel
(PV) are mostly in the production of the photovoltaic cells but not in the use
of the panel itself [5]. These panels can be used for at least 20-30 years
without contributing CO2 emission to the environment.  And are recycled after decommissioning [6]

REFERENCE

[1]. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5448909

[2]. Ahammed, “Case Study Applications of
Solar PV on Rural development in Bangladesh,”    
Journal of Rural and Community Development, vol.3, pp.93-103, 2008.

[3] http://pattyinglishms.hubpages.com/hub/Most_Dangerous_Jobs

[4] http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/pdf/research/fftacticssolarpower.pdf

[5]http://www.civilsocietyinstitute.org/media/pdfs/091912%20Hidden%20Costs%20of%20Electricity%20report%20FINAL2.pdf

[6] http://www.renewableenergyfocus.com/view/28331/ceres-and-pvc-recycling-to-offer-module-recycling-in-europe-and-north-america/

 In recent years, millions of solar panels have been placed on roofs around the
world. Discuss how safe are they? Discuss the hidden pollution caused by solar
panels. I am of the opinion that  solar energy is unsafe to the environment  here are my reasons . Firstly solar energy is generated by nuclear fusion within the sun. The process operates on the very same basic laws of nuclear physics used in nuclear power plants and atomic bombs. This source of energy is basically hydrogen, a highly explosive gas (remembering  the Hindenberg?) Hydrogen is also the active material in H-bombs, that are not only tremendously destructive, but produce dangerous fallout.Presently  we are already subject to a natural `background' radiation from the sun. We can do little about that, except to stay out of direct sunlight as much as possible. The evidence is already clear that too much exposure to sunlight can cause skin cancer. But solar collectors would concentrate that sunlight (that otherwise would have fallen harmlessly on waste land), convert it to electricity and pipe it into our homes to irradiate us from every light bulb! We would then not even be safe from this cancer-producing energy even in our own homes!We all know that looking at the sun for even a few seconds can cause blindness. What long term health hazards might result from reading by light derived from solar energy? We now spend large amounts of time looking at the light from television monitors or computer screens, and one can only imagine the possible long-term consequences of this exposure when the screens are powered with electricity from solar collectors. Will we develop cataracts, or slowly go blind?Possible fire hazards of solar energy can also result. Sunlight reaching us directly from the sun at naturally safe levels poses little fire threat. But all one has to do is concentrate sunlight, with a simple burning- glass, and it readily ignites combustible materials. Who would feel safe with solar energy concentrators on their roof? Could we afford the fire insurance rates?Presently solar energy has the potential to release more than 2.4 million tons of lead pollution in China and India, countries heavily involved in lead mining, smelting, battery manufacturing and recycling. Lead poisoning can cause damage to the central nervous system, the kidneys, the cardiovascular system, and the reproductive system.

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2011/08/31/Solar-power-brings-lead-pollution-threat/UPI-81811314829387/#ixzz27zVuEHx2http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2011/08/31/Solar-power-brings-lead-pollution-threat/UPI-81811314829387/#ixzz27zVCOySFhttp://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/solar.htmName: Oseghale Lucas OkohueStudent ID:  51231724Course: Subsea Engineering

If the Piper Alpha disaster occurred today, discuss the current safety legislative regime that will apply

The public enquiry into the Piper Alpha disaster by Lord Cullen lead to a review of the existing prescriptive legislation of the 1971 minerals working act in which the DoE regulated offshore Health and Safety to a more goal setting legislative environment in which an independent Health and Safety executive had the responsibility for offshore Health and Safety.

The current offshore safety legislative regime (Safety Case Regulations) were introduced in 1992 as a result of the recommendation from Lord Cullen's report on the public enquiry into the Piper Alpha disaster with an objective of preventing major accidents. The recommendation stated that "the operator should be required by regulation to submit to the regulatory body a safety case in respect to each of iots installations...". By this, the operator of an offshore instalation had to compile a report that described the processes, identified hazards, risk evaluations ans stipulated ALARP measures on each of its installations. This new legislation allowed offshore installation operators to tailor the necessary risk reduction measures to the particular hazards on their installations whilst independently taking advantage of latest technological advancements.

The 1992 Safety Case Regulations have since been ammended because there was an agreement when they came into place that they would be reviewed every decade (10 years) taking into account, the lessons learned from that decade. The Safety Case Regulation is also supported by some other goal setting legislation such as: Offshore Installations and Wells (Design and Construction) Regulations 1996; Offshore Installations and Pipeline Works (Management and Administration) Regulations 1995; and Offshore Instalations (Prevention of Fire and Explosion and Emergency Response) Regulations 1995. The current ammendment now includes a requirement for the verification of the safety critical elements of an installation by an ICP (Independent and Competent Person).

This current ICP verification of safety critical elements forms the Formal Safety Assessment studies in which the HAZID is a main element. in the HAZID sessions, risk levels for each identified hazard are determined using operator risk matrix while considering all proposed safeguards. Based on consequences, possible Major Accident Events are identified and where safeguards are not decided, recommendations are recorded.

Ekekwe Ikenna

Dr Tan you have pointed out a critical part of this argument and that is that majority of the scare is  “feelings of safety rather than Statistics of Safety" Globally today, the most heated debate on the Energy sector is on Nuclear Energy

However, if we look at peoples fear critically, it is mostly on the potential danger facing humanity if Violent Terrorist organisation have access to harnessing this energy.

 http://nci.org/nci-nt.htm The September 11 Incident is a wakeup call http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNNTcHq5Tzk Nuclear Terrorism is perhaps the greatest threat to global security http://nuclearterrorism.tv/wordpress/

So, Credible National and international Governments should develop Policies, Legislation and Control measures to properly utilize this immense Energy Potential

Michael Saiki

Discussion Topic 2: Is nuclear power safe for humans and the environment?

Despite the many negative effects nuclear energy has on
human and environment ranging from nuclear accidents e.g. Fukushima nuclear
plant that resulted in many fatalities and also the various wastes it releases
to the environment e.g. radioactive wastes.

On the positive side of using nuclear energy, Nuclear energy
is a clean burning source of energy. It has helped in reducing the amount of
carbon dioxide released into the ozone, helping to reduce global warming.
Nuclear energy is derived from the nuclear fission which can be used as
substitute for the use of the CFC’s. This is achieved by replacing carbon
emitting plants will nuclear power plants. This will reduce the amount of
carbon dioxide emitted to the environment hence reduction of the effect of
global warming on the environment.

“A report
by Manchester University claims nuclear power could contribute significantly to
reducing greenhouse-gas emissions in the UK but not without consequences”. Read more:

http://www.theengineer.co.uk/sectors/energy-and-environment/news/research-claims-nuclear-power-could-help-to-reduce-emissions/1011168.article#ixzz27zUPVqOx

                                            
Carbon Dioxide Reduction

“This shows that if the world continues to produce carbon emissions at
the current rate, the climates around the world will be affected and many
problems arise due to the idea of Global warming.”

http://www.freeinfosociety.com/site.php?postnum=3115

FELIX MAIYO

Ocean waves provide a clean source of energy with many
advantages:  no pollution emissions,
decentralised production, energy independence, development of remote locations,
employment creation and much more.

Wave energy is an emerging clean energy source, with a
global theoretical energy production potential of over 100,000 TWh/year;
however, there are some safety concerns.

Impact on Marine Life:
Many marine species rely on Earth’s magnetic fields for migrating or searching
for food. Wave energy facilities are large-scale industrial projects containing
heavy structures placed on the seafloor, suspended in mid-water, and floating
on the surface, which can generate substantial electromagnetic fields. There is
a perception amongst environmental activists that these facilities have the potential
to affect marine life. However impact levels are currently unknown with research
still in early stages (for example, UK scientists will measure the effect on marine
environment and wildlife of devices that harness tide and wave energy using
sonar technology that has, for the first time, been successfully deployed on
the seabed). Also, the deployment of structures in a previously clear area
brings the risk of collision and/or entanglement of animals; primarily the
larger fish, the seabirds and the marine mammals.

Shipping Lanes Safety:
Because of their large nature, wave energy generators may cause problems with
commercial shipping and other boats in the ocean. To address this safety
concern, wave devices will be required to have warning equipment, such as
signals, radar, reflectors and lights.

Ecological Impact: Although
the generators cause no pollution once constructed, accidental hydraulic fluid
leaks can cause a major environmental problem. Also, when installing a wave
device or removing an old one, marine ecosystems may be impacted4.

References

·        
Ocean Energy; renewableenergy.no: http://www.renewable.no/sitepageview.aspx?sitePageID=1083

·        
Brian Tissot & Mark Hixon: Protecting sea
life: New marine reserves, wave energy a bad mix for Oregon (http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2010/12/protecting_sea_life_new_marine.html)

·        
Science Daily: First Seabed Sonar to Measure
Marine Energy Effect on Environment and Wildlife (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120710132853.htm)

·        
Safety Concerns for Wave Energy Systems |
eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/list_6960521_safety-concerns-wave-energy-systems.html#ixzz27zXaUKDk

For a technology to be widely accepted, it must be designed
to be economically feasible and environmentally friendly. The use of nuclear power
puts our environment at risk. Such risks can be attributed to the processing,
transportation and storage of radioactive nuclear waste. The nuclear power
technology can not only be used for energy generation but also for the
manufacture of nuclear weapons i.e. atomic bombs. This however can lead to
terrorism if this technology falls into the wrong hands.

They have been some serious nuclear accidents in the past
e.g. chernobyl disaster of 1986, the fukushima daiichi nuclear disaster, which
till date remains the worst nuclear accident. Though it can be argued that the
fukushima accident was largely caused by natural disasters (Tohoku earthquake
and the tsunami); nuclear reactors are very complex and should something
unnatural goes wrong, the outcome will be catastrophic.

http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0810/pdf/climate.2008.99.pdf

Taking in consideration the previous posts from my classmates, my opinion is that wind power (either offshore or onshore) can be a safe source of energy as long as
there is a constant development of new safety measures while learning from the past.

Many will argue that accidents have increased during the last decade as shown by Figure 1.

Figure 1: Annual accidents statistics

This is a fact but let us not forget that also the number of installed wind turbines has also increased.

Scotland, New Zealand and Australia are some of the countries that are working on rules to protect the public from possible wind turbines failures like blade failures.
By law the construction of wind farms will be allowed only if there is a minimum distance of 2km from houses and occupied areas.

Although this will be a very important safety measure it will not actually prevent mechanical failures from happening. Thus Health and Safety Executive (HSE) should create
new safety rules for the workers who work at the construction site and also regular service and maintenance schedules.

Laws that set a lower maximum noise level should be proposed like the Ontario Government in Canada did. They set the max noise level from 40db to 30-32bd for offshore
installations.

In this waymore research and development will improve the overall design and performance of the turbines.

Regarding the bird fatalities, research should be made whether the proposed location for a wind farm is on a route of migrating birds in order to minimize the risk of birds’
collisions.

Finally natural disasters are unpredictable and when they happen the consequences are unknown.  Maybe tougher test will make the structures more prone to extreme situations but this will result in higher costs.

Concluding, I believe that wind energy has potentials to become a safer energy source as long as there is constant research and control from organisations like HSE.

Source:

http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/page4.htm

Angelos Hadjiantonis
Course: MSc Renewable Energy

Discuss safety in wind energy

With wind farms on the rise, there still isnt any conclusive evidence so far that they are responsible for health or safety problems associated with areas where they are situated. Wind farms have been touted for their ability to produse clean renewable energy.

However, despite the absence of hydrocarbon or chemical risks associated with the Oil and Gas industry, wind farms are begining to run into fierce opposition throughout the world as residents have cited the noise pollution from the swooshing of the blades as a factor in vestibular problems affecting the inner ear and balance. According to Dr. Christopher Nanning, the wind turbine syndrome also includes sleep problems, irritability, and depression. The variable audible noise results in frequent awakenings or arousals, which may not be remembered. The disruption of sleep prevents the proper laying down and storage of memory. It is also associated with an increased incidence of obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease. Arousals during slow wave sleep may trigger parasomnias (sleepwalking, night terrors).

According to the Energy Advocate, November 2010, the upper limits of allowable sound measured 100ft in front of a locomotive is 98 dB(A). The average 1.8 mW wind turbine generates 95.6 dB(A), 10m above the ground at the tower at a wind speed of 4 m/s. At wind speeds greater than 8 m/s, the sound level from the wind turbine rises to 103.5 dB(A). From the statistics, there should be no case of noise pollution associated with wind turbines, yet the noise from them is reported to be more annoying than noise from airplanes, roadways and railways. This is because the sound from wind turbines has very high levels of low frequency sound (infrasound) which is inaudible to the normal human ear. The assumption that humans are unaffected by sounds they can't hear is incorrect as the outer hair cells of the cochlea are stimulated by sounds as low in intensity as 40 dB(A). Infrasound has been developed and used in Sweden as a nonlethal weapon for crowd control during riots.

Technically taking a closer look at the structural design of wind turbines, there are possible hazards of construction errors, flaws and hitches. Due to the size of the rotor blades, basic concrete foundations could suffer from strains. Vibrations and load changes could also cause fracture. There have been incidents over the years of fragments of broken rotor blades landing on highways and the tall turbines folding due to wind.

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/wind-turbines-and-health-hazards/

http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2007-08-24/the-dangers-of-wind-powerbusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice

http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2011/07/05/health-hazards-of-wind-turbines/

Ekekwe Ikenna

Is nuclear power safe for humans and the environment?

Hello class

This discussion topic seems to be the hottest and most commented topic in this continous assessment blog. However, not many people have thrown real light on whether nuclear power is safe or not.

Before anybody can authoritatively state if nuclear power is safe or not, the person has to tell us the step by step process of generating nuclear power and also identify all the risks associated with each step while stating the impact of not mitigating such a risk properly. For e.g. you need a radioactive source...what happens if it is not transported securely or in the right containment. In nuclear power generation, you are dealing with high pressure steam. Somebody should compare what we have in a nuclear power plant with what we have in other plants. Imagine the impact of a blow-out. You can also take a look at the nuclear waste management aspect in the event that it is poorly managed.

This topic should be addressed from a perspective of environmental impact, health, injury to personnel, asset loss, etc.

Thanks

Ekekwe Ikenna

Is nuclear power safe
for humans and the environment?

3. Nuclear power plants are
designed to withstand hurricanes, earthquakes, and other extreme events, but
attacks by large airliners loaded with fuel, such as those that crashed into
the World Trade Center and Pentagon, were not contemplated when design
requirements were determined. A taped interview shown September 10, 2002, on
Arab TV station al-Jazeera, which contains a statement that Al Qaeda initially
planned to include a nuclear plant in its 2001 attack sites, intensified concern
about aircraft crashes [Cited 2012 Oct. 1]. Available from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/crs/rs21131.

In light of the possibility that
an air attack might penetrate the containment building of a nuclear plant, such
attack could lead to a meltdown of the containment and the exposure of radiation
to the workers and surrounding communities. I still maintain my view that
nuclear power is not say for humans and the environment since no known design
has been carried out to simulate large airliners loaded with fuel attack on a
nuclear power plant.  

i think nothing in our life is 100 % safe. Also, most of major accidents in human history is because of people. However, i think experiance is the only thing that can decrease the percentage of risk in any project but in the same time not experianced people only who can do the job. Every project will include workers who may do something wrong. Therefore, even with the most experianced engineered, every project has high risk. It's human nature that can only control the degree of safeness in any project. On the other hand, we can not make projects without planning and take every precaution and in the end at all depends on the company and the Big Boss who take the decision at the end and i think most of big companies try to protect their reputation more than anything and taking care of people life and safty is part of their reputation.

Sustainability: Is nuclear energy sustainable? 

• Both the nuclear waste as well as retired nuclear plants are a life-threatening legacy for hundreds of future generations. It flagrantly contradicts with the
  thoughts of sustainability if future generations have to deal with dangerous waste generated from preceding generations. 
• Uranium, the source of energy for nuclear power, is available on earth only in limited quantities. Uranium is being consumed during the operation of the nuclear power plant so it won't be available any more for future generations. This again contradicts the principle of sustainability. [http://timeforchange.org/pros-and-cons-of-nuclear-power-and-sustainability]

Is nuclear power renewable energy?
Nuclear energy uses Uranium as fuel, which is a scarce resource. The supply of Uranium is expected to last only for the next 30 to 60 years (depending on the actual
demand). Therefore nuclear energy is not a renewable energy. [http://timeforchange.org/pros-and-cons-of-nuclear-power-and-sustainability]

Conclusion

The world is talking about sustainability of the environment and Renewability of natural resource. It is neither Sustainable nor Renewable it will be a source of more problems.

As a result of the current interest on how further global warming could be prevented or at least mitigated, the revival of nuclear power seems to be in everybody's - or at least in many politicians - mind. It is interesting to see that in many suggestions to mitigate global warming, the focus is put on the advantages of nuclear power generation, and its disadvantages are rarely mentioned. [http://timeforchange.org/pros-and-cons-of-nuclear-power-and-sustainability].
From the statements that will follow it will be determined if Nuclear energy is safe for humans and the environment. The advantages and disadvantages of Nuclear power will be a determining factor.
Advantages
· The contribution of nuclear power plants to global warming is relatively little or even Zero.
· This technology is readily available; it does not have to be developed first.
· Huge amounts of electrical energy can be generated from a single plant.
 
Disadvantages
· Nuclear plants are more expensive to build and maintain.
· The problem of radioactive waste is still an unsolved one.
· High risks: Despite a generally high security standard, accidents can still happen. It is technically impossible to build a plant with 100% security. [http://timeforchange.org/pros-and-cons-of-nuclear-power-and-sustainability].
· Proliferation concerns.
· The energy source for nuclear energy is Uranium. Uranium is a scarce resource.
From the above statements it is clear that the risk involved in nuclear power usage is high. It is evident that it is risky to humans and the environment on the part of waste disposal and as such the use of Nuclear power should be discouraged.

As Ukrainian, I have first hand experience with Chernobyl accident and just couldn't miss the opportunity to write a couple of words about nuclear power «safety» the way I, and majority of my compatriots see it. None of the people I know back in Ukraine thinks it is safe, and here’s why.

We know that Risk can be approximated as Probability of accident times Consequences [1]. We also know about statistics for global percentage of energy, produced by nuclear power [2] and better safety record then, say, coal mining industry [3], yet there are certain long term consequences to be accounted for.

While probability of failure is low, nuclear accidents, when they happen, awaken the world. No surprise German and Italy, for example, are phasing out their reactors [2].

Here’s personal example. I was 6 years old when Chernobyl disaster happened. My own uncle was one of the so called «liquidators», emergency response team gathered from firemen, policemen and military. He died two decades after the accident from numerous cancers in every possible internal organ of his body. I, myself and more then half(!) of my peers have cystic nodules in thyroid gland. There is a proven correlation between their occurrence and Chernobyl’s outcome as referred to in [4].

Furthermore, there is a number of other concerns, such as very high cost of power plants, nuclear terrorism , limited civil rights in case of a direct threat to facilities and, of course radioactive waste management [5]. The latter is a very sensitive in Ukraine and absolutely undisclosed to general public. In fact, a reporter was murdered recently while trying to unveil major violations in the procedure of nuclear waste management [6].

Thus, though there is not much safety data for renewable energy sources [3], and they are yet to take their place in the top of the list of the energy supply chain, but probably a combination of careful, safety-oriented design of Oil and Gas production systems, along with renewable energy sources is the way world should be turning to.

REFERENCES

[1]. Fundamental Safety Engineering and Risk Management Concepts, 2012/2013 by N. C. Renton, M. J. Baker and H. Tan

[2]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power

[3]. Fundamental Safety Engineering and Risk Management Concepts, 2012/2013 by H. Tan and M.J. Baker

[4]. MASAHIRO ITO, SHUNICHI YAMASHITA, KIYOTO ASHIZAWA, HIROYUKI NAMBA, MASAHARU HOSHI, YOSHISADA SHIBATA, ICHIRO SEKINE, SHIGENOBU NAGATAKI, and ITSUZO SHIGEMATSU. Thyroid. October 1995, 5(5): 365-368. doi:10.1089/thy.1995.5.365.

[5]. Brian Martin. Opposing nuclear power: past and present, Social Alternatives, Vol. 26, No. 2, Second Quarter 2007, pp. 43-47.

[6]. http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/312-16/13014-ukrainian-environmentalist-brutally-beaten-to-death

Any machine that stands out in
the open with exposed spinning blades just has to be dangerous and while I’m in
full agreement with the dangers highlighted by Babawale Onagbola and John Bosco
Aliganyira, I would take issue with John’s conclusion; ‘I think wind energy is
a better alternative as opposed to fossil fuels

provided the above associated
risks are put in consideration while designing and installing wind turbines’.
John hasn’t mentioned that fossil fuel fired power stations are constantly
running on stand-by (spinning reserve) to cover for the periods when the wind
drops or fails to blow altogether. This means that even if the wind powered
generators are producing and meeting demand, the fossil fired power stations
are still running, still creating the same environmental impact as if they were
producing; just no production of electricity! This makes a mockery of the
concept of Wind Energy and really this has to be seen as a fringe form of
energy in meeting our power needs.

I would also wish to reiterate
the importance of regular maintenance of wind powered generators, because of
the variable strengths of the wind driving the blades, the speed governing
system and automatic voltage regulator will be exercised far more than similar
powered governors where the load is fairly constant; breakdown of these systems
will result in overheating and failure of the generator.      

Ekaterina Pavlichenko

Nuclear power has both advantages and disadvantages for human and the environment and it depends on which side of the divide individuals stand.
 
Media reports which suggests political governments’ cover-up on extents of radiation leak which
cause damage to human and the environment could be one of the major reasons
humans deem nuclear power as unsafe.  Examples of reoccurrence of such cover-ups are evident in the Chernobyl nuclear power
plant, Windscale reactor and Fukushima power plant nuclear accidents [1][2]. A typical example of this was seen in the
Chernobyl accident. “Only after radiation levels set off alarms at the Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant in Sweden, over one thousand kilometers from the Chernobyl Plant, did the Soviet Union
admit that an accident had occurred “ [3][4].Humans will continue to advocate that the use of nuclear power plants be discontinued and a better alternative be considered
until governments restore confidence by telling the truth immediately these disasters occur.

Immediate human fatality in a nuclear accident which is one of the major measurements of the scale of a disaster is relatively small and it is not immediately present; however, the long term
effect of terminal deaths associated with such disasters is still in contention till date [3].  It can be seen that the number of death estimates (even though in contention) associated
with such disasters are often in hundreds or thousands.

I think the safety issue of primary concern with nuclear power plants is how effective are the emergency response plans that are put in place when such disasters occur?  How soon can we control the extent of affected areas when such extent is determined majorly by nature – wind and water?  Until the accident at Fukushima, we never knew what the load combination of earthquake and water could have on
our engineering designs.

REFERENCES

[1]    http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2012/03/28/cnn-nuclear-coverup-japan-shit-107762/

[2]    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ4vtUzG6sQ&feature=fvwrel

[3]    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

[4]    http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/9604/26/chernobyl/230pm/index2.html

Why so many fatalities ? Why so much harm to the environment ? Why so much economic damage ? How did the accident, affected the design of offshore installation and pipeline network ? I shall commence this topic trying to explain why the financial damage was so big and the material damages so heavy. The main reason was the fact that although there were safety valves connecting the oil platform with the production wells, there were no safety valves on the pipeline network that was connecting the platform with other installations. This had a tremendous effect, after the control on the platform was lost, because oil and gas were coming in large quantities and this completed the destruction. What happened after when the engineers studied the problem ? Safety valves were installed on the pipeline network connecting platforms between them, and/or the coast installations, and this was enforced soon by law. This was the important change in my opinion, which affected the legislative regime too, the installation of safety valves that could completely block the row of fluids between installations. And it is the most important because we are engineers and we ought to understand the significance of such changes. Ref : '' Offshore engineering - An introduction '' (by Angus Mather)

Wave energy has tremendous potential;
however this is still to be realized, with many prototype and experimental
schemes in place the technology still has to be developed further. The main
areas of concern with respect to safety are noise and possible pollution due to
hydraulic leaks, also dangers of collision between shipping and the installed
energy system, but perhaps most important safety foreboding is the possible
negative impact on marine life.

In my opinion there isn’t really a
significant amount of concern relating to the safety aspects of wave energy
that cannot effectively be managed other than the impact on marine life and
wonder how we really would be able to quantify and successfully manage this to
all but eliminate the risk and possibility of causing irreversible damage to
our planet. Wave energy systems produce electromagnetic fields from wave
generators erected at different levels from the sea floor that could affect the
inherent navigation systems of fish and marine mammals, forcing them to abandon
their normal migration routes; also due to the noise and disruption forcing
them to leave their traditional habitats. 

To work towards the safety of marine life,
conservation areas would need to be set up in areas of known marine habitat in
which no tidal or wave energy systems could be installed; near shore ecosystems
identified for protection would also be off limits to shipping.

Our survival depends on our fishing stocks
and if we allow an irresponsible thirst to install wave energy machines at every
prime location would really be self-defeating; what good an abundant energy
source to a staving population!

Ekaterina Pavlichenko

As part of our core module we are aware that Corrossion, Fatigue and  Fracture are major threats to subsea Assets integrity.

 Are there new innovations aimed at minimizing these threats

I am convinced that safety and Integrity are two inseparable concepts especially as we discuss safety of Energy sources.

We can see that people are much more interested in the integrity of the process of harnessing the Energy even though they dont have handy safety concerns

Please share with us

Michael Saiki

List of the top ten (10) accidents in
the energy sector are:

1.   
The coal fire below
Centralia, PA has which been burning for 50 years since 1962 and has enough
fuel to burn for another 250 years. It's a real life horror story with no
immediate end in sight. The exact cause of the fire going out of control has many
controversies. However it started, it is agreed that the fire remained burning
underground and spread through a hole in the rock pit into the abandoned coal
mines beneath Centralia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia,_Pennsylvania)

2.   
The Transocean Deepwater Horizon (an ultra-deepwater)
built in 2001 in South Korea by Hyundai Heavy Industries dynamically positioned, semi-submersible offshore oil drilling
rig.  Hyundai Heavy Industries. The rig was
commissioned by R&B Falcon, which later became part of Transocean registered in Majuro, Marshall Islands, and leased to BP from 2001
until September 2013. In
September 2009, the rig drilled the deepest oil well in history
at a vertical depth of 35,050 ft (10,683 m) and measured depth of
35,055 ft (10,685 m) in
the Tiber Oil Field at Keathley Canyon block 102, approximately 250 miles (400 km)
southeast of Houston, in 4,132 feet
(1,259 m) of water. On 20 April 2010, while drilling at the Macondo Prospect, an explosion on the rig caused by a blowout killed 11
crewmen and ignited a fireballvisible from 35
miles (56 km) away. The
resulting fire could not be extinguished and, on 22 April 2010, Deepwater Horizon sank,
leaving the well gushing at the seabed and
causing the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon)

Hello everyone,

This is a new discussion topic about hydropower.

According to some studies (link provided at the end), the trees and other material that
are decaying in the dams during floods, decompose at the bottom of the dam
without oxygen. As a result methane is produced and when the water passes
through turbines the gas is released.

Carbon dioxide is also released from dams and the amount differs from dam to dam. Sometimes
as the article suggests dams produce more carbon dioxide than some fossil fuel stations.

In this article I am not stating my personal opinion just introducing the topic.

What do you think about this issue?

For more information: 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7046

Best regards,

Angelos Hadjiantonis

Course: Msc Renewable Energy

Dear Dr. Tan,

While
pondering over this exercise, I notice an ambiguity with the topic “Is nuclear power safe for humans and
the environment?” In the energy industry, the power generated,
regardless of the source has its own safety considerations.

I believe the understanding
is that we are looking at the Safety of the entire process of Nuclear power
generation (I stand for correction). As
the topic stands now, it could be taken as though we are considering the safety
of the final product (the power) that comes out of the whole nuclear generation
process, and therefore answering it the way we are expected to might mean a deviation. 

The topic
therefore could be more clearly worded to suit the expected response. Can I
suggest that the topic ‘Is nuclear
power safe for humans and the environment?’ be reframed to “Is
the nuclear power generation process safe for humans and the environment?”

Regards

Kobby

Due to growing concerns about the environmental impact such as release
of greenhouse gases, particulate matter, water and air contamination by coal
ash etc. of burning fossil fuels like coal, liquid petroleum or natural gas
etc., engineers and scientist have sort out better means of providing the
energy requirements for the survival of man. Other means of energy generation
have been introduced such as use of wind turbines, nuclear power plants, solar
cells, solar panels etc. These other forms also have their advantages and
disadvantages, but this piece talks about the safety in wind energy industry.

Just like every other sector the wind energy needs to be safe and
environmentally friendly. Wind energy is obtained from wind by strategically
placing wind turbines in windy areas, these wind turbines majorly consist of a
long pole, 3blades and a mechanical motor. The energy is obtained by
transforming the kinetic energy as the blades rotate into mechanical energy and
this energy is used to produce electricity. This process seems to be very
simple and straight forward but there are dangers involved from the process of
clearing the land for installation to the decommissioning stage.

Although, recent surveys by the Department of Labour (U.S.) reported
about 75 wind turbine accidents since 1972, these values don’t involve death or
injury. These numbers might seem very small, but the probability is relatively
high compared to other energy industries. The wind energy industry is
associated with industrial risks as a result of its workers operating under
hazardous conditions involving:

1) Hazardous weather conditions.

2) Working at heights greater than 100m.

3) Lightning strikes causing fire.

4) Overheating of generators and transmission lubrication

5) Handling heavy equipment

6) Tower Collapse

7) Vehicular access

8) Impact on wildlife (birds, bats)

9) Climate change

10) Life span

11) Ice shedding

Many of the accidents
that occur in this energy sector occur as a result of ignoring safety standards
and adopting shortcuts instead of the safety standards set. Before this research I
used to think wind energy was the safest way to produce energy with zero
fatality, I will still say it is safe but the safety regulations associated
with it the installation, maintenance and decommissioning should be strongly
adhered to.

If we look at Energy disasters in terms of cost or volume of money lost. I will Rank disaters as below: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVMbNQQKjiA

 1.0 Chernobyl Disater(1986) $ 200 Billion Dollars

2.0 Space Shuttle Columbia (2003) $13 Billion Dollars

3.0 Prestige Oil Spill (2002) $12 Billion Dollars

4.0 Deep Water Horizon Spill (2011) $6 Billion Dollars

5.0 The Challenger Explosion (1986) $5.5 Billion Dollars

6.0 Piper Alpha Oil Rig (1988) $3.4 Billion Dollars

7.0 Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (1989) $2.5 Billion Dollars

8.0  B-2 Bomber Crash $1.4 Billion Dollars

9.0 Metrolink Train Crash(2005) $500 Million Dollars

10. Tanker Truck VS Bridge (2004) $385 Million Dollars

Michael Saiki

The picture below further give a
clearer insight into the severity of the Deepwater Horizon

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9d/Deepwater_Horizon_offshore_drilling_unit_on_fire_2010.jpg/800px-Deepwater_Horizon_offshore_drilling_unit_on_fire_2010.jpg

Another classic situation is the Flixborough
(Nypro UK) Explosion which occurred on 1st June 1974. This explosion was severe, about twenty-eight workers were killed and a
further 36 suffered injuries. It is recognized that the number of casualties
would have been more if the incident had occurred on a weekday, as the main
office block was not occupied. Offsite consequences resulted in fifty-three
reported injuries. Property in the surrounding area was damaged to a varying
degree.

Prior
to the explosion, on 27 March 1974, it was discovered that a vertical crack in
reactor No.5 was leaking cyclohexane. The plant was subsequently shutdown for
an investigation. The investigation that followed identified a serious problem
with the reactor and the decision was taken to remove it and install a bypass
assembly to connect reactors No.4 and No.6 so that the plant could continue production.

During
the late afternoon on 1 June 1974 a 20 inch bypass system ruptured, which may
have been caused by a fire on a nearby 8 inch pipe. This resulted in the escape
of a large quantity of cyclohexane. (http://www.hse.gov.uk/comah/sragtech/caseflixboroug74.htm

As I have read in US articles such as NBCNEWS.com and in
REUTEURS the possibility of causing earthquakes through hydraulic
fracturing is very small. Special reports such as the National Research Council
indicates that in more than 90 years of monitoring, human activity has been
shown to trigger only 154 quakes, most of them moderate or small, and only 60
of them in the United States. That’s compared to a global average of about
14,450 earthquakes of magnitude 4.0 or greater every year.  Most of those are caused by gas and oil
drilling, damming rivers, deep injections of wastewater and purposeful
flooding.

Of course, those are studies made by US government reports that
took place after some earthquake incidents reported in some states like
Arkansas, Ohio and Texas. The reports may vary from country to country but
those reports are supposed to cover any concerns about the possibility if the
hydraulic fracturing is causing earthquakes or not.

Source by:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47835612/ns/us_news-environment/t/report-dont-worry-much-about-quakes-fracking/#.UGl5Y03R4qI

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/15/us-usa-earthquakes-fracking-idUSBRE85E14K20120615 

Discussion Topic 6: Discuss safety in wind energy.

A few of us will agree that turbines
are a major threat to public safety (most fatalities result from handling of
the turbines) In the last five years there have been some 1,500 reported
accidents/‘incidents’ in the UK resulting in 4 deaths and a further 300
injuries to workers. In most of the cases the industries play down some
accidents resulting from wind energy e.g. in Cornwall in 2006 “Part of a
wind turbine blade weighing more than half a ton snapped off and crashed into a
field during high winds. Operators Cumbria Wind farms said the site has been
running since April 1993 and nothing like this had happened there before.”[1]

They are also situations where wind
turbines cause damage members of the general public: A situation where the
turbine might shade off a blade, it’s a rare occurrence; another occurrence is
due to ice forming on the turbine blades and when they are started they are
forced to shed off the ice and this can cause damage to humanity and anything
around it during starting.

The other common problem is noise
pollution to the environment, although noise wind turbine is less than from
many other everyday activities it has to be recognised that it still produces
noise pollution, they are two types of noises produced by the turbines:
aerodynamics (from the blades) ;mechanical noise(from rotating machinery). Despite
the demerits of noise wind turbine a careful design and operation
should ensure that this is minimal.

The other common problem resulting
from wind energy is the interference of the television reception like any other
structure e.g. power pylons, silos and any tall structure.[2]

Source

1.      
http://www.windbyte.co.uk/safety.html

2.      
http://www.portsmouthriedc.com/documents/wt%20safety%20uk.PDF

FELIX MAIYO

Wind energy is considered to be a ‘clean’ and inexhaustible source
of energy.

Through
wind energy we can operate applications such as windmills that provide energy
for milling/grinding grains, wind pumps that pump water and for drainage and wind turbines
that generate electricity.

These
applications mentioned above, have a variety of benefits. They don’t produce emissions
of carbon dioxide, they don’t release toxic pollutants, such as mercury and
they don’t release conventional air pollutants such as smog-forming nitrogen
dioxide. Plus, wind energy in general does not affect climate change.

 EPA estimates that
if you run a 1 MW wind turbine for a year then you reduce the following
pollutants:

·        
1500 tons of
carbon dioxide

·        
6.5 tons of
sulfur dioxide

·        
3.2 tons of
nitrogen oxides

·        
 60 pounds of mercury

However wind turbines cause a lot of
bird accidents. According to a 2007 National Academy of Sciences study, 20,000 to 37,000 birds are being killed
every year in the US from turbine blades.

Despite this fact I strongly believe
that wind energy in one of the safest sources of energy for both environment and
humans and it takes less risk than other resources.

References:

http://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org/en/environment/chapter-2-environmental-impacts/

http://wiki.uiowa.edu/display/greenergy/Wind

http://greenliving.nationalgeographic.com/positive-negative-wind-energy-2715.html

Furthermore i would have to say that
since the dB scale is non linear any 6 dB increase will actually
mean a double Sound Pressure value (SPU). Therefore this increase are
in fact very relevant, as 103,5 will actually configure a sound
equivalent to a Rock Concert. (1)

Infrasounds can travel big distances
without loosing many energy due to their big wavelenght, this also
means that they are dificult to detect and dumpen. Since they induce
vibration in some type of structure this should also be taken into
account when evaluating this topic.

Another interesting topic is the fact
that these type of noises are often described as being more annoyant
than roads or airports, this is due to two different factores. When
evaluating environmental noise one has to take into account not only
the intensity but the sound duration.

In wind energy the duration of the
noise can be quasi permanent (at least when there is wind blowing),
as for roads and airports the ammount of SPU is much bigger but the
total exposition time much lower.

The second is the noise configuration,
since infrasound is very hard to perceive by humans, one can get
confused if in fact the noise is actually there or sometimes if it is
just a product of imagination (ghost noises), while in other sources
the noise such as roads or airports the sound is clearly
distinguished from background noise. The lower the background noise
is the bigger problem with this type of ghost noises becomes. But
this topic is more into psycoacoustics, so i will not go there.

As for the intensities described above
there are some doubts that the A filter (db(A)) is in fact
appropriate to measure infrasound noise, since this filter passes
infrasounds very low. As for proper methods of evaluating this kind
of noise and impacts on human body i will come back to the topic
after further research.

(1)-http://www.nonoise.org/library/envnoise/index.htm

Nuclear power is a technology that was created to satisfy
people’s needs, facilitate people’s life and solve certain problems. However,
people have been noticing that while this technology solves some problems, more
new problems emerge, threathing and damaging the quality of life.  The question then is whether technology is
altogether considered beneficial or detrimental?

The most pertinent question here is not whether Nuclear
energy is beneficial, important or needed in our world but whether it is safe.
The simple answer to this question is NO.

Nuclear energy is a limitless source of power
with an extensity of danger to human life. Irrespective of the fact that
nuclear power plants provide a huge fraction of the total world energy, but its
vulnerability to natural disasters like earthquake, tsunamis,tornado, and also terrorist
attacks on nuclear power plants (Hiroshima and Nagashaki come to mind) makes it
unsafe because of its capacity to cause genetic disorders, carcinoma,
environmental contamination etc . Therefore I opine that anything capable of
wiping off the human race can outrightly be categorised as unsafe

What i have done is to rank the most severe accidents in history on the basis of fatalities recorded(in the case of nuclear accidents, we know that ALL fatalities cannot be recorded at once, and for some accidents, fatalities are still being recorded) as severity is directly related to grieviances recorded. Therefore the fatalities profiles below represent official fatality figures available.

1. Bhopal gas leak disaster, India - 12,000 fatalities

2. Chernobyl disaster, Ukraine - 4056 fatalities

3. Benxihu colliery disaster, China - 1549 fatalities

4. Courrieres min disaster, France - 1099 fatalities

5. San Juanico LPG plant disaster, Mexico - Over 500 fatalities + Over 5000 STILL suffering from burns sustained

6. Petrochina Chuandongbei natural gas explosion, China - 234fatalities

7. Kyshtym nuclear waste explosion, Russia - 200 fatalities + over 270,000 people exposed to radioactive hazards

8. Vila Soco Oil spill fire, Brazil - Over 200 fatalities

9. Piper Alpha disaster, North sea - 167 fatlities

10. Abefran colliery disaster, Wales - 144 fatalities

While i am aware that there are many industrial accidents that have occured in recent times with higher fatality profiles like the texas city disaster and the Banquio dam disaster, I believe these are the top 10 most severe accidents with respect to energy generation, transmission , use and disposal.

A biofuel is a type of fuel whose energy is derived from biological carbon fixation. Biofuels include fuels derived from biomass conversion, as well as solid biomass, liquid fuels and various biogases [1]. The main catch in the use of biofuels is that they do not produce greenhouse gases that cause global warming and that they help reduce dependence on foreign oil for some countries. However, it would be a little reckless to thing that biofuels (and biomass generally) do not come with their own share of concerns. Some of them I discuss below

Personal health impact: 　

An example of negative health impact can be drawn from biodiesel. Biodiesel production commonly uses some potential lethal chemicals including methanol, caustic soda and concentrated sulphuric acid. Methanol exposure on a small daily dose causes cumulative damage to the body, possibly leading to blindness and death. It is also explosive, similar to petrol, and when mixed with caustic soda it is poisonous, explosive and caustic. [2] This can be a particular issue related to non-commercial production

Food prices:

Expanded production of biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel has a strong effect on prices because biofuel production draws largely on agricultural products. Increased biofuel demand in 2000–07 is estimated to have contributed to 30 percent of the weighted average increase of cereal prices. [3]

This effect on food prices will be more profound as governments give subsidies for agricultural production for biofuels. The lucrativeness of the biofuel production will make less focus to be on food production

Environmental Impact:

Environment impacts are a particular concern with solid biofuels. A problem with the combustion of raw biomass is that it emits considerable amounts of pollutants such as particulates and PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons). Even modern pellet boilers generate much more pollutants than oil or natural gas boilers. Pellets made from agricultural residues are usually worse than wood pellets, producing much larger emissions of dioxins and chlorophenols. [4]

Reccommendation

Steps should be taken to regulate the production of biofuels, especially non commercial production. In addition, governments should ensure that agricultural subsidy for food is not relegated for biofuel production. Lastly, increased awareness should exist on the inherent dangers in the production and use of biofulels

References:

1. Demirbas, A. . (2009). "Political, economic and environmental impacts of biofuels: A review". Applied Energy 86: S108–S117.

doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.04.036

2. Using vegetable oil as diesel fuel

http://vegetableoildiesel.co.uk/healthandsafety.html

3. International food policy research institute. High Food Prices: The What, Who,and How of Proposed Policy Actions.

http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/foodpricespolicyaction.pdf

4. Biofuel. Wikepedia.

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

Samuel Bamkefa

Rank top ten severe accidents in energy sector and investigate their causes and consequences.

1 - BHOPAL DISASTER

The Bhopal disaster happened in India and is considered as one of the world’s worst disaster.Bhopal factory plant (Union carbide India Limited) was built in 1969 at Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh for the production of pesticide sevin using Methyl Isocyanate (MIC). The parent company of Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) was Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) that had a stake of about 50.9 per cent share.

On the night of December 2-3, 1984, a serious leak occurred due to a chemical reaction in the Union Carbide factory when a huge amount of water entered into the MIC tank 610. The reaction generated a significant increase in temperature and pressure, thereby venting a large volume of toxic gas into the air. The plant safety systems such as a caustic soda scrubber (for neutralization), flare tower (for burning of excess gas) and refrigeration unit (for cooling the system) were malfunctioning due to lack of routine maintenance. More than 27 tons of poisonous gas escaped into the atmosphere, spreading over the shantytowns of about 900,000. 

The severe irritant effects of MIC initiated fear, anxiety, nervousness and confusion, and it caused people to run out of their houses into the gas mist, the consequence of which was increased dose of the gas substance. More than 600,000 persons were exposed to the gas cloud and thousands of people died. The Government of Madhya Pradesh estimated the death at 3,787 while others estimated 8,000 deaths. Furthermore, 558,125 injuries including 38,478 permanent disabling injuries were recorded.  

Immediately after the disaster, UCC endeavoured to segregate itself from obligation for the gas leak. Its prime approach was to shift liability to UCIL, stating the plant was solely built and operated by the Indian subsidiary. On 7 December 1984, the first lawsuit was filed by the American attorney in a U.S. court. In March 1985, the Government of India enacted the Bhopal gas leak disaster ACT as a way of justifying that claims arising from the disaster would be dealt with quickly and equitable. The ACT also made the Government to represent the victims in legal proceedings in both within and outside India. The settlement was mediated by the Indian Supreme Court and UCC accepted moral obligation and settled to pay $470 million to the victims.

The Bhopal accident has given warning signs to other industries to increase attention to health, safety and environmental policies when operational or when choosing a site for hazardous industry. The hazardous industry should create awareness to the local communities and embark on environmental related projects.

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

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Bhopal%2C_India

 Kingsley Enem

Adding information to Hadjianestis Angelos post.

According to statistics (Angelos has posted a  diagram) , there is a significant icrease in accidents related to wind energy over the last 15 years. This augmentation in accidents that closely related to wind turbines installation, has to do mostly with the fact that there is a great increase in the number of installations around the world. This increase in the number of wind farms, onshore and offshore, results mostly in the increase of injuries and/or deaths.

Things that could be done to reduce fatalities and serious injuries, by the aspect of fundamental safety engineering are : 1) Better training for workers employed for the installation of wind turbines with educating seminars, 2)Increased safety measures when the installation of wind turbines takes place - in situ. What is your opinion ?

More posts plz from people that are doing a Msc at Renewable energy, because their opinion matters, and i believe that wind energy shall be even more important during the next decades.

I am facing problems with internet explorer, try to post this like 1 day ...! 

I like the idea of holding discussions about these topics in a virtual manner, however am getting slightly confused about what topics people are actually commenting on.

As I am reading through the topics being discussed I am trying to find out what has already been mentioned for the different topics to prevent any repetition.  

I have been getting confused as I read further and find that the topics appear to be jumping around a lot on the page, as one moment someone is talking about the safety of nuclear energy and the next the topic of safety in wind energy is being discussed, with peoples comments on previous topics being mixed in everywhere.