Skip to main content

Rep. Joe Barton Visits Comanche Peak

By

joe-barton And liked what he saw. Rep. Barton (R-Texas) wanted to visit the plant in his district because he worried it might not be safe in case of a large earthquake. It went well:

"Our safety systems in the United States are much more robust than in Japan," said Barton, R-Arlington and former chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. "If there's ever an earthquake, I want to be in the control room at Comanche Peak. ... It can withstand the largest earthquake we could have and then some."

Which doesn’t mean Barton doesn’t want some more – official - assurances.

But Barton said he'd like to convene a committee hearing in Congress so members can learn about safety plans in place at all U.S. nuclear power plants.

He said he doesn't believe that support for these facilities will wane, despite Japan's problem, if Congress and plant operators "can continue to show these plants are safe, new designs are safe and safety regulations are being enforced."

And I’m reasonably sure that plant operators will be able to do that.

The significance of the Japan earthquake is not lost on Comanche Peak:

"The nuclear industry in the states is taking a lot of actions, keeping a close eye on what's going on in Japan," said Rafael Flores, senior vice president and chief nuclear officer at the plant. "There will be a lot of lessons learned from it."

Flores pointed out differences between Japan's plants and Comanche Peak. In Japan, fuel oil is stored above ground, boiling-water reactors produce steam and spent fuel pools are above ground. At Comanche Peak, he said, diesel is stored underground, pressurized-water capacitors avoid the use of steam and spent fuel pools are in a separate building, at ground level.

"We believe we have a large margin of safety," he said. "But we are always looking to make it larger."

And I should note that writer Anna Tinsley brought out all these points. Although the public knows that nuclear energy plants are not tin cans with uranium in them, finer distinctions are harder to communicate – and grasp – and Tinsley, with Flores, does a good job of this. Worth a read as a fair, good bit of reporting.

Rep. Joe Barton.

Labels:

Comments

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