Skip to main content

Sovietologist on Climate Progress' Nuclear Critic Joe Romm

By
This is definitely worth reading!
Labels:

Comments

Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus said…
David,

This has nothing to do with your post, but are you guys aware of the problems with digital I&C that exist at the Finnish new plant site? I really think that digital I&C, software QA and cyber security are going to be the biggest stumbling blocks in new nuclear build. I am actually surprised that this is a problem in Europe, but our regulator is as paranoid about digital I&C, also.

--THERE IS CURRENTLY NO REASON FOR FINNISH REGULATORS TO THINK CONSTRUCTION OF OLKILUOTO-3 will have to be stopped because of delays related to design documentation of automation systems, the head of the Finnish Radiation & Nuclear Safety Authority, Jukka Laaksonen, said in an interview May 7. Laaksonen's comments followed media reports this week of a December 9, 2008 letter from Laaksonen to Areva Chief Executive Anne Lauvergeon. The letter expressed concerns about delays with the systems' design documentation and said that if the problem was not resolved, the project might have to be stopped. Laaksonen said in the interview that the authority "still does not understand the design" of the automation systems, but hopes to have thorough documentation from Areva and Siemens by the end of June. Areva's business unit Areva NP and consortium partner Siemens are building the reactor for utility Teollisuuden Voima Oy. Areva spokeswoman Patricia Marie said May 6 that Areva has already responded to Finnish regulators' concerns about the design delays.

http://newsroom.finland.fi/stt/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=21621&group=General

UPDATE: Finnish nuclear watchdog warns Areva Olkiluoto site may face shutdown -YLE
6.5.2009 at 13:31(Adds comment from Teollisuuden Voima.)
The Finnish Broadcasting Company (YLE) on Tuesday quoted a letter from the Finnish Nuclear and Radiation Safety Authority (STUK) to Areva as saying that the watchdog might order the Olkiluoto power station building site shut down if the French nuclear group failed to address shortfalls in the facility's automation systems.
YLE further quoted STUK as saying that the design of the automation systems fell short of basic nuclear safety requirements and that the authority therefore did not see any possibility of clearing the systems for installation at the Olkiluoto site.
"Areva NP SAS was to have designed very important systems for safety, but unfortunately, the attitude or lack of professional knowledge of certain individuals who represented the organisation in question at meetings of experts prevent progress in solving the concerns," STUK wrote to Areva, according to the public broadcaster.
The Olkiluoto site has suffered from a string of delays, some to do with safety concerns.
YLE added that there had been no immediate comment from Areva.
A number of Finnish environmental groups said in a joint statement Wednesday that work on the site should be stopped "at once and once and for all"
The Association for Nature Conservation, Friends of the Earth and six other groups added that recurrent reports of quality, control and safety lapses showed that the power station could not be operated safely.
Teollisuuden Voima (TVO), the Finnish utility that ordered the power station, said the site was not under threat of shutdown.
TVO added in a statement that while the planning stage of the station's automation systems had not kept to schedule the company had supplied Areva documents on the systems to STUK for approval.
May 8, 2009 at 10:53 AM
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