Some Weekend Reading

Always learning, always growing, right?

The Whitaker Group provides the argument that nuclear energy can buy African countries energy security and more:

Supporters see nuclear energy as a way for the continent to demonstrate technical progress and achieve energy sustainability. The move toward nuclear energy is also helping regional integration, as African countries cooperate to achieve the economies of scale required for nuclear power. This involves interconnected grids, joint education and training programs, and sharing technological expertise on safety measures.

These are good things, though we hesitate to recommend building plant to “demonstrate technical progress.” To whom and why? We expect African nuclear projects to bring in a good amount of expertise from European, American and Asian partners. And why not?

Whitaker can also be a touch condescending:

Of course, African countries should not pursue nuclear energy unless they have the capacity to maintain the highest standards of safety and quality…

We’re sure they’ll do their best to measure up.

---

This is just getting underway, but will make for some plausible beach reading:

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) have published a report on the inaugural meeting of the Nuclear Energy Standards Coordination Collaborative (NESCC), a new ANSI Standards Panel, co-chaired by NIST and ANSI, to address the current and future standards needs of the nuclear energy industry.

Nothing like standards to make the heart race. Right now, committees are coming together and deciding stuff. That lends the reports a certain – er, quality (pdf):

Ms. [Fran] Schrotter [of ANSI] provided rationale for changing the name by explaining that the name change would provide more clarity of the forum’s role. Participants at the January 29, 2009 meeting felt that calling the forum a panel would indicate that the forum would be creating standards. The name change would clearly show that it’s a forum for coordination and collaboration.

Which means, we guess, that this is the Nuclear Energy Standards
Coordination Collaborative Forum.

Which indicates where they are in the process. Snark aside, very worthwhile – but nothing really to see here yet.

---

Federal Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff reaffirmed his support for nuclear energy before a receptive audience Thursday.

Who? What?

In his speech, Ignatieff criticized the current state of the nuclear industry in Canada, citing the shutdown of the Chalk River reactor in Ontario and the subsequent isotope crises. He said a lack of proper management of crucially important nuclear energy projects was causing Canada to lag in nuclear technology, despite being a global leader for decades.

[Provincial Energy Minister Jack] Keir and the provincial government have pushed hard to develop the Saint John energy hub, which aims to develop economic growth through various energy projects in the area. The nuclear reactor at Point Lepreau and a proposed second reactor are a large part of that.

Oh, Canada. Or perhaps that’s O, Canada. Michael Ignatieff is leader of the liberal party and an MP from Ontario. Clearly, his embrace of nuclear energy is not chimerical and New Brunswick is all over it.

That’s a pretty good way to kick off the weekend. After all, we did know this about New Brunswick and were happy to learn it. Perhaps we even grew a little.

Note: Mistake fixed. Michael Ignatieff is an MP from Ontario not New Brunswick as previously stated.

Michael Ignatieff. We’ve noted often that American politicians like to point in photographs. Do their Canadian opposite numbers prefer pretending to read?

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog