NEI will continue to update information over the weekend at its page dedicated to keeping you up to date on the earthquake. We’ll maintain silence here in favor of following events at the main NEI site.
From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin...
Comments
I do hope we return here, soon. This is one of several of my preferred sources of credible information, to moderate the hype.
The dream is over. My degree is in Nuclear Engineering (B.S. 1992), and I've believed (and preached) the pro-nuke gospel since I was a child.
I've just watched my religion melt before my eyes.
"4. What would U.S. nuclear plant operators do if they faced a loss of power from the grid and loss of emergency diesel generators like that faced by the operators at Fukushima Daiichi?
Nuclear power plant operators are trained to ensure that the plant will achieve and maintain safe shutdown during a station blackout scenario (loss of offsite power and loss of onsite emergency AC power). They have operating procedures that guide them on actions to be taken in responding to this scenario. The training includes regular classroom work as well as plant-specific simulator exercises."
That does not answer the question. What is the backup after the the AC generator? All this says is that the personnel are trained in procedures for various scenarios, and practice on simulators. But when is the next line of defense in the event of generator failure?
I agree the NEI canned answer doesn't answer what I think you are asking--what (not when) is the next line of defense following a loss of the emergency diesel generators.
There really isn't one. Some plants have other (non-safety-grade) generators that might be available, but, in general, if you lose AC to your safety-grade electrical buses, you can only do what the Japanese tried to do--bring in a generator from the outside or find a pump that can be driven from another type of prime mover (e.g., a diesel engine), try to maintain the necessary fuel supply, and rig the thing so you can deliver the water from your local ocean, lake, river, or pond to where you most urgently need it.
Actually, there is another line of defense, of sorts. You could just tell everyone not to worry, see what happens, and then favorably compare whatever results you get to the results of some other misfortune and declare it a victory for nuclear power. This seems to be the argument of some of the pro-nuclear zealots these last few days.
Yeah, it's called perspective. You should try it sometime. Perhaps then you might rid yourself of this silly notion that absolute perfection is required, always.
I wouldn't say that there is no need to worry, but I certainly don't think people should worry needlessly.
Danny should relax and take a deep breath. Support for nuclear power is not a religion. It comes from comparing the alternatives and arriving at a rational decision based on the merits of the technology.
Sure, a hydrogen explosion in a reactor building is a dramatic event, but at least it doesn't result in a 100-foot fireball. Have you seen the consequences of the earthquake at the natural gas facility in the Chiba Prefecture, or the fireball that erupted at an oil refinery there? More pictures: here, here, and here.
No form of energy is risk free. Those who call for risk free nuclear power are unrealistic. If this unrealistic expectation prevents a nuclear power plant from being built, a riskier alternative will provide the power instead. Usually, though, those whose actions cause these riskier alternatives to be used are seldom held responsible for the consequences of their actions.
A piece of advice for danny: I am an engineer, 36 years in the profession. I still am passionate about what I do to help solve problems. You may be loved by your customer for the problems you solve, but don't expect to be loved by most people for it. Most people don't know and don't care, even if their lives would be worse off for the lack of your efforts. The things I do help keep the electrical grid running reliably, but for most people, electricity seems as natural as sunshine and rain. Only when it is not there do most people even give it a thought. If you want adulation from the crowds, quit engineering now and find some other line of work. If on the other hand you want to really help people to have better lives, so much so that they don't have to think about the benefits of your work, then engineering is for you.
You've got to be kidding. Do you honestly think that the currently situation at Fukushima is less serious than a refinery explosion. There are at least 3 units with exposed melting fuel cores. The condition of the spent fuel pools (possibly containing 40 years worth of spent fuel) is unknown.
On the GE Mark 1 reactors, the spent fuel pools are located up above the reactor level. What happened to these pools in the explosion. If the water evaporated, what is condition of the spent fuel.
This event spells the end of new nuclear power development. If you think there is a future for nukes after this, you are seriously deluded.
Don't be deluded. The public will NEVER accept new nukes. To continue to argue that it is the "safest form of energy" when there are youtubes of an exploding reactor building is folly. No one will take you seriously.
Don't complain about irresponsible or uninformed commentators. So no one should say anything about this disaster until the government has sorted out what we should believe?
Don't like inaccurate or alarmist commentary? Counter it with FACTS, not with silence and circling the wagons until you can work out your PR strategy.
It has taken the country this long to recover from that accident, which was hardly on scale with what happened in Japan. There were no videos of exploding reactor buildings, no employees rushed to the hospital with radiation exposure. But due to that accident (then reinforced by the one in Chernobyl), Americans developed a irrational distrust of nuclear power.
I would like to think, as Brian Mays and donb have said, that perspective heals all wounds and cooler heads will prevail in a year or two. But if history is any guide, I'm afraid it will take decades for the country to get past the recent catastrophic events in Japan.
I hope I'm wrong.
Yes, I do, but that is because, unlike you, I am not hysterical and I'm not letting my emotions get away from me.
The explosions and fires at the fossil-fuel facilities have already released more carcinogenic material into the atmosphere than all three troubled nuclear reactors combined. (Do you know how many carcinogenic materials are found in the smoke of an out of control hydrocarbon fire in a modern industrial facility?!) Unlike the controlled releases at Fukushima, this material has simply been allowed to pour freely into the atmosphere. Given a choice, I know which facility I would prefer to be downwind of. How about you?
And I haven't even addressed the damage done locally from the intense heat of the fire.
Perhaps you haven't kept tabs on how many workers have been killed at nuclear facilities and how many have been killed at oil/gas facilities in the past year. It's night and day. The key difference, however, is that nobody gives a damn about workers killed at a gas power plant or on an offshore oil rig. The media hype is all about nuclear, and you've swallowed that hype hook, line, and sinker.
By the way, the spent fuel pool in the reactor building does not contain 40 years of spent fuel -- not anywhere near that much. Don't be silly.
"Dam breaches following Japan earthquake
14 March 2011
A dam in the Fukushima prefecture of Japan was breached following the recent earthquake and tsunamis which have devastated the country.
According to media reports, the dam broke on Friday, with a wall of water washing away 1800 homes downstream."
If not, can you suggest a good one?
If you were the NRC, what regulations would you suggest to improve safety?
NEI's webpage on the event that Flanagan linked to above is being updated every couple of hours
http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/information-on-the-japanese-earthquake-and-reactors-in-that-region
Other sources:
http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/
http://ansnuclearcafe.org/
I am not aware of any Yucca Mountain-type nuclear waste storage facilities in Japan. (A High Level Waste Disposal Program is in the planning stages but not scheduled to be operational until at least 2030.)
http://www.japannuclear.com/nuclearpower/program/waste.html
Don't forget that Japan has sent some of its used fuel to both France and the UK for reprocessing. (Where do you think they got their MOX fuel from?) Furthermore, Japan has already sent some of its used fuel to Rokkasho-mura for reprocessing, where it remains even though startup of the plant has been delayed.
Don't be deluded. The public will NEVER accept new nukes. To continue to argue that it is the "safest form of energy" when there are youtubes of an exploding reactor building is folly. No one will take you seriously.
Don't be deluded. In a few years, when the aftermath of the disaster in Japan is studied and put into perspective, people will be ready for nuclear energy again.
If it doesn't happen then, not much later when people are freezing in the dark because they can't afford electricity from increasingly expensive fossil fuels, nuclear will become acceptable.
It is also quite possible that fatigue from disaster sensationalism will set it. This happened with regard to aviation some time in the 1970s when air travel stopped decreasing in the wake of airliner crashes. Most people finally took a hard look at air travel and decided that it was the way to go for longer distances, even when there were alternatives. For some it was despite the risk. For others it was because the risk was lower than other forms of travel.
Several leaders of countries have stated that this event will not affect their nuclear contruction plans at all. No leaders have said that they will abandon contruction plans.
Also, utilities (such as Southern) have said that they don't expect their contruction plans to be delayed (let alone abandoned) due to the event.
There's even a poll (Fox News, admittedly) showing that 79% of Americans oppose a moratorium on new nuclear plants.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/14/AR2011031402700.html
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/business/2011/mar/15/tdmain01-dominion-still-seeks-reactor-license-ar-905807/?referer=None&shorturl=http://timesdispatch.com/ar/905807/
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/news/371848,atomic-power-summary.html
http://www.platts.com/RSSFeedDetailedNews/RSSFeed/ElectricPower/8652673
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/business/energy-environment/15power.html?_r=1&hp
Jim Hopf
Given the current events in Japan, I can't imagine TEPCO investing hundreds of millions of dollars for U.S. reactors when they need to spend that money on their existing reactors. Nor can I imagine the government of Japan continuing to guarantee such projects.
Will the U.S. public accept new nukes based on Japanese designs? Toshiba now owns the GE ABWR design and GE-Hitachi are marketing the ESBWR.
Would it be more effective to drop HEAVY WATER ( deuterium oxide ) which could be supplied from Canadian designed Candu "heavy water" reactors that operate in Korea, China, Canada and other places? The Bruce Heavy Water Plant in Ontario is the world's largest heavy water production plant with a capacity of 700 tonnes per year. It is expensive stuff, but if it does the job then it would be worth using even at such a cost.
What do the experts say? Would the heavy water be more effective at cooling the nuclear fuel? If so, will Canada be asked to respond with assistance?
2) Heavy water is good of moderation, not putting our fires. Using Heavy water would actually add to the problem.