Skip to main content

French Frack Fried

World Nuclear News Has up a story on how the French nuclear energy industry is responding to the accident in Japan:

In an accident situation the ASN [Autorité De Sûreté Nucléaire, essentially the French NRC] wants French reactors to be able to rely on what it calls a 'hard core' set of safety requirements. These arrangements would protect safety-critical structures and equipment to ensure that vital functions can be maintained in the face of demands beyond the design basis of the plant, such as earthquakes, fires, or the prolonged loss of power or emergency cooling. Among the 'hard core' set-up would be robust emergency centers, improved communication and hardened supplies of water, diesel generators and dosimetry supplies for workers.

The whole story is worth a read, but what struck me is that this sound much like the American industry’s FLEX approach (this is from NEI’s member newsletter):

In a series of meetings with NRC staff last week, the industry put forward its diverse and flexible (FLEX) approach to implementing the NRC’s directives on its staff’s Fukushima task force recommendations. FLEX is a comprehensive and integrated plan to mitigate the effects of severe natural phenomena at nuclear energy facilities while expediting the attainment of safety benefits.

And here’s what the FLEX approach includes:

    • Provides portable equipment to assure that multiple means of obtaining power and cooling water are available to support key safety functions for all reactors at a site. Equipment includes portable pumps, generators, batteries, battery chargers, compressors, hoses, couplings, tools, debris clearing equipment and other materials.
    • Provides reasonable protection of portable equipment to guard it from the severe natural phenomena predicted for that site by locating the equipment at diverse locations.
    • Creates procedures and provides guidance for emergency response personnel for the use of FLEX equipment and capabilities.
    • Provides for program controls to ensure regular maintenance and testing of FLEX equipment.
    • Trains personnel in FLEX capability and response.

And perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising that the French and Americans are moving in parallel – the French have been keeping tabs on what is happening over here:

The focus of additional safety in response to previous accidents was to develop universal excellence in nuclear operation, first across the USA as facilitated by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) and then globally through its sister, the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO).

WANO talked a bit earlier this year of taking a stronger regulatory hand in international nuclear safety (as did the IAEA), but issues of national sovereignty make that difficult to pull off. What seems more useful (at least, more likely to be widely accepted) is for WANO to further develop its standards for operational excellence and allow countries to apply them. That’s still the goal:

At the eleventh WANO Biennial General Meeting (BGM), the world’s nuclear operators approved a series of wide-ranging new commitments to nuclear safety, as WANO’s General Assembly unanimously approved a series of recommendations put forward by its Governing Board.

And these include:

  1. Expanding the scope of WANO’s activities
  2. Developing a world-wide integrated event response strategy
  3. Improving WANO’s credibility, including important changes to WANO’s peer review process
  4. Improving visibility
  5. Improving the quality of all WANO products and services

There’s that word “integrated” again, as in “FLEX is a comprehensive and integrated plan.” It’s less a quirk or a nod  to current thinking about accident mitigation than a simple recognition that everything that goes into mitigation should be thought about together so as to press out redundancies – to make a tight and austere yet thorough plan. It’s good to see that WANO is sharing that approach with the French, if that’s what’s happening.


A cautionary tale"?

Barbara Scott had 21 solar panels installed last March on her house in Media, Pa. Scott's family was the first in the community, and she was prepared to evangelize, "We can have open houses and write newsletter articles and promote the idea of solar," she said. But that was before the economics changed.

With government rebates and tax incentives, Scott says, her family spent $21,000 to install the system. She figured it would take eight years to recoup that investment.

Barbara Scott and Mac Given in Media, Pa., had 21 solar panels installed last March. With government rebates and tax incentives, Scott says, her family spent $21,000 to install the system.

A lot of other people had the same idea at the same time, which sent the price of solar energy credits down sharply in Pennsylvania. Scott says that added another seven years to the payback period.

On top of that, Scott says, electricity rates aren't going up as quickly as she thought they would, thanks in part to low natural gas prices.

The idea here was to sell back unused electricity, which would defray the cost of the investment. And I imagine folks might hit three cherries if the timing is right – but for these folks right now, not so much. Well, it’s a long term investment and there are reasons to do this that do not include profit. Take your chances, take your risks.


On the other hand:

The Northstar No. 1 disposal well stopped injecting brine and fracking fluids from natural-gas wells in Pennsylvania on Friday, about a day before a 4.0-magnitude quake shook Youngstown. It was the 11th such quake recorded in that area last year and the strongest to date.

The original injection pressure should force the brine back out of the well into 12 storage tanks, said Andy Ware, a deputy director of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, which oversees Ohio’s oil and gas industry. The hope is that will help stop the ground from shaking.

Imagine if a nuclear energy facility spontaneously generated earthquakes as well as electricity and one can see the problem here.

In case you thought nuclear energy was the one that carried risk.


Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

Sneak Peek

There's an invisible force powering and propelling our way of life.
It's all around us. You can't feel it. Smell it. Or taste it.
But it's there all the same. And if you look close enough, you can see all the amazing and wondrous things it does.
It not only powers our cities and towns.
And all the high-tech things we love.
It gives us the power to invent.
To explore.
To discover.
To create advanced technologies.
This invisible force creates jobs out of thin air.
It adds billions to our economy.
It's on even when we're not.
And stays on no matter what Mother Nature throws at it.
This invisible force takes us to the outer reaches of outer space.
And to the very depths of our oceans.
It brings us together. And it makes us better.
And most importantly, it has the power to do all this in our lifetime while barely leaving a trace.
Some people might say it's kind of unbelievable.
They wonder, what is this new power that does all these extraordinary things?

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.


The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.

What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…