Skip to main content

National Journal’s Blog - How does Japan's Crisis Affect America's Nuclear Industry?

By

Four folks have weighed in so far including NEI’s Marv Fertel:

All U.S. electric companies that operate nuclear power plants are taking action now to verify their capability to maintain safety even in the face of severe adverse events. The industry is verifying that the emergency response capability to withstand a total loss of electric power to a nuclear power plant will maintain safety at the facility even after extreme events. We also will verify our capability to withstand natural disasters such as earthquakes and flooding, as well as the impact of floods on systems inside and outside the plant.

…

The Fukushima accident certainly will prompt a review of nuclear energy facility capabilities in America and we support that reassessment. However, we recognize that America’s reactors – which are inspected daily by federal regulators – continue to exceed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) safety standards.

…

Labels:

Comments

Steve said…
The Las Vegas Business Press posted a similar poll:

Does the nuclear crisis in Japan make you believe a nuclear storage facility at Yucca Mountain would be dangerous?

Voting ends March 23. So far, results are about tied.

http://www.lvbusinesspress.com/articles/2011/03/16/poll/doc4d81315cc7fac753401429.txt
March 21, 2011 at 12:46 PM
Horizon3 said…
A suggestion for those involved in designing the backup systems.

Fore reactors in flood prone (tsunami) zones, encase the backup power source and its fuel supply in an air and water tight reinforced concrete enclosure.
Use the valve technology developed for submarines to isolate the engines intakes and exhaust from the outside environment. And elevate the intakes and exhaust stacks far enough off ground level to allow the engine to operate while the enclosure is completely submerged.
Only put one unit and its fuel supply and switchgear per enclosure, for redundancy.

I know elevating the units will be the first knee jerk reaction, but this is an inherently bad idea, generator sets of the size required to perform backup power duty for a nuclear unit are very large, and very heavy.
Anyone that has experience designing equipment for use in seismic zones knows that the farther off the ground something is, the more prone it is to be damaged by high degrees of earth movement. (Look to the bridge collapses in the Loma Prieta Quake in S.F.) Not to mention it makes servicing the unit that much more difficult.
March 21, 2011 at 2:03 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
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...
23 comments
Read more

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

By
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...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
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...
6 comments
Read more