The topic for Day 4 of National Nuclear Science Week is “Nuclear Safety,” and our contract announcement today is a good example of the nuclear industry actively responding to safety lessons learned from Fukushima.

Safety systems at Units 1 and 2 at CNE Cernavoda nuclear power plant in Romania will have an added defense-in-depth layer with the installation of AREVA’s Filter Containment Venting System (FCVS). This compact, modular and proven system can be used in all types of reactors: Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR), Boiling Water Reactors (BWR), and CANDU plants.

Bigger picture—the FCVS is just one component of AREVA’s comprehensive Safety Alliance, an initiative providing expert safety analyses, upgrades and enhancements to help utilities meet post-Fukushima safety requirements. Last year’s spate of extreme U.S. weather events and U.S. nuclear energy facilities’ successful safety responses and return to reliable energy generation clearly showed the benefits of decades of ongoing safety upgrades and enhancements.

World-view—New Gen III+ nuclear reactor projects are designed from the foundations up to incorporate these decades of safety experience in multiple redundant passive and active safety systems, for example, in AREVA’s EPR^TM reactor. With more than 60 nuclear reactors under construction in 14 countries, the benefits of modern nuclear facilities generating reliable, safe clean energy will be a reality in these locations. Now, for the rest of the world …

Welcome to National Nuclear Science Week … This is a week “designed to recognize the contributions of the nuclear science industry and those who work in it every day. Each day of the week of January 24-28, 2011, we will be promoting a different aspect of nuclear science.”

Follow this effort on Twitter, or Facebook or their blog …

We liked this article from Denise Carpenter, the President and CEO, Canadian Nuclear Association, as a guest blogger on the Canadian Energy Association webiste. She makes the case that Canadians want energy security, energy jobs, and affordable safe and reliable energy power, and that nuclear energy needs to be a central part of any national solution.

Here in Canada, we have 17 operational CANDU reactors that supply 15% of all electricity in Canada and over 50% in Ontario. The Ontario Government’s Long-Term Energy Plan sees this role continuing, calling for the addition of two new units and for the mid-life refurbishment of ten existing reactors in the province. Nuclear units are also installed in New Brunswick (where a mid-life refurbishment is nearing completion) and in Quebec (where a refurbishment decision is due in the near future)… Refurbishing these nuclear units is one of the most effective ways to use public dollars to reduce carbon emissions, maintain generating capacity, and create jobs.

read more…

Our friends at NEI put together a great animated overview of how securely and safely the United States nuclear plants withstood what was a dramatic year of unprecedented natural events. 2011 included a 5.8 earthquake striking ten miles from a nuclear energy facility, massive flooding surrounding another, and a direct hit from a category 3 hurricane on multiple facilities up the East Coast. Our industry is always improving and implementing new safety features, and this animated infographic illustrates the successful steps taken at each nuclear facility to ensure safety and security in every situation.

One of France’s top business daily papers, Les Echos, recently published an opinion on Nuclear growth in 2012 after a Post-Fukushima slowdown stating, “But as 2012 begins, it is becoming clear that the freeze is beginning to thaw. And the BRICS nations [Brazil, India, and China] will lead the way.”

Les Echos describes the global pause in nuclear efforts after Fukushima, but suggest that, “seven months later, however, nuclear power suddenly looks as if it may be on the comeback trail.” They make their case for this point saying:

Even if the Japanese disaster didn’t mobilize anti-nuclear activists in the United States the way it did in Europe, U.S. authorities still decided to put new nuclear power plant projects on hold. That construction freeze, however, is now beginning to thaw.

On Dec. 22, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) announced its approval of the latest version of Westinghouse Electric’s AP1000 reactor design. Analysts hailed the move as a symbolic step toward new atomic power plant construction in the United States.

The United States isn’t the only large western power ready to delve back into nuclear energy. The British government, concerned about diminishing North Sea oil reserves and keen to limit its dependence of foreign fossil fuels, has decided to build a dozen nuclear plants between now and 2020. The decision had almost universal support in the British parliament, where it was supported by both the Conservative and Labour parties…

The principal emerging powers – notably China, India, Brazil and South Africa – likewise put their respective nuclear programs on hold during the months that followed Fukushima.

read more…

Over at the investment site Seeking Alpha, writer Simet Patel noticed another trend in 2011, that Oil prices rose by 19% over the year, the third year of increases. He cites this chart on the price of crude oil:

He notes these factors of currency devaluation, political tensions, speculators as market forces at work, but then he suggests a bigger picture with larger issue: “…a growing factor that suggests the price rise will continue is the supply/demand imbalance in the oil market. In other words: demand for oil and other fossil fuels is only growing, but the supply of them is diminishing.”

His conclusion to investors?

“While I believe the world will likely be using fossil fuels as a primary source of energy for some time, we are clearly at a point where a new source of energy is needed. I believe nuclear energy is the primary candidate destined to grow, for the following reasons:

1. It can provide “baseload” – meaning always on – energy
2. It is emission-free
3. It has high power density, which means it does not require an inordinate amount of land and thus is conducive to powering cities
4. It is inexpensive

No other source can really make these same claims. Wind and solar are much more expensive and cannot effectively provide baseload energy, which is precisely why they remain insignificant sources of power on a global basis. Technological breakthroughs may change this, though I don’t see this on the horizon, and believe renewables will have limited roles in the global energy market until this changes.

And so, the rise of nuclear energy is virtually inevitable — the world will demand it for survival.”

Some really solid writing and thinking here, from William H. Miller, professor with the University of Missouri’s Nuclear Science and Engineering Institute.

He makes the valid point that much of what we term “nuclear waste” really isn’t or need not be waste:

Often mistaken for nuclear waste, used fuel contains large amounts of valuable plutonium and uranium that can be extracted and then chemically reprocessed into a so-called mixed-oxide, or MOX, fuel that can be used in a nuclear plant to produce more electricity. In 1977, President Jimmy Carter ended reprocessing in the United States, citing proliferation risks and hoping other countries such as France and Great Britain would do likewise. They didn’t.

They have continued to reprocess used fuel — in the case of France, using recycling as part of its nuclear program to obtain 80 percent of its electricity and to sell surplus power to neighboring countries. Reprocessing has great potential value for the United States. Using it along with breeder reactors would recover 90 percent of the original energy that remains in the fuel after one use in a reactor.

He also points out how Congress has been “absurd” in their policies on used nuclear fuel, and asks some great questions:

How ironic that Congress has approved the processing of weapons plutonium into MOX fuel for commercial electricity production but has yet to do the same for reprocessing used fuel stored at nuclear power plants. This contradictory policy is absurd …

Given the strong political support in South Carolina for nuclear power, why not build a plant there to demonstrate the technology for reprocessing used fuel? And why not tap into the Nuclear Waste Fund for that very purpose?

Read the entire article here.

We applaud this insightful Op-Ed article from TheDay, describing a new investigative report on energy choices for Connecticut issued by the Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering:

It concludes that expansion of nuclear power could provide the best means to meet the state’s energy needs in the long term, do so without creating greenhouse gases, and supply needed energy-generation diversity.

Then the Op-Ed gives a bit more background on the organization issuing the report:

Chartered by the state legislature in 1976, the Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering is a private nonprofit corporation patterned after the National Academy of Sciences. It advises state government and industry “in the application of science and engineering to the economic and social welfare.” It has a reputation for objectivity and its report, requested by the Connecticut Energy Advisory Board, deserves serious consideration.

And supports the wise strategic direction recommended for Connecticut’s energy choices:

The report recognizes fuel diversity as critical to stabilizing electricity costs in Connecticut….The answer is not to ease environmental rules and boost pollution. Renewable sources, such as wind, solar and hydro can contribute, but will not be enough to meet long-term energy needs, the report concludes. The answer may be nuclear power. Over the last 10 years nuclear plants in the U.S. have operated at 90 percent of capacity and are not subject to the cost fluctuations of fossil-fuel plants.

In conclusion, the editorial states and emphasizes:

… Currently, five new-generation nuclear plants are under construction in southern states. Their successful completion and operation could help establish public trust in the technology.

That does not mean Connecticut has the luxury of time. The groundwork for potential nuclear construction in a decade or so should begin now. The state that built the first nuclear-powered submarine should not accept as its fate that high electric rates will forever place it at a competitive disadvantage.

Read the entire editorial here.

What do a late-model car and a nuclear reactor have in common? They both can react with a fast, reliable digital safety response system.

The first installation of such a system in a U.S. reactor was recognized yesterday by Platts at its 13th Annual Global Energy Awards Assembly with the prestigious “Engineering Project of the Year” award.

As described in the press release,

The June installation of AREVA’s TELEPERM® XS is the first comprehensive application of a safety-related Digital Instrumentation & Control (I&C) Reactor Protection System in the United States. The system enables state-of-the-art digital processing of functions for the Reactor Protection System (RPS) and the Engineered Safeguards Protection System (ESPS).

Performing as a key component of the “Defense in Depth” approach to nuclear energy safety, our digital I&C enables the #2 and #3 requirements in a safety response.

AREVA is the world leader in digital I&C, with safety-related digital I&C systems installed in reactors in Europe, China and Russia over the past decade. The TELEPERM® XS platform has been installed, or is on order, at 69 units at 40 separate sites in 14 countries … and now helping maintain the unmatched energy safety record of U.S. nuclear reactor facilities.

Very clear thinking and writing from former Microsoft Chief Strategist and Technology Officer, Nathan Myrvold in his NY Times Op Ed, “After Fukushima: Now More than Ever.”

Some key quotes. He begins, as the title of the piece would suggest, at the primary lessons to be learned from the Fukushima tragedy:

“The primary lesson from Japan’s recent trauma, however, is that a tsunami is dangerous to everything in its path, nuclear plants included. Consider the growing needs for reliable energy, the fact that nuclear is probably the safest form of power that can meet those needs, and the unfortunate truth that fossil-fueled alternatives emit so much pollution that they arguably pose a much greater threat than the darkest nuclear accident scenario… A logician would see no reason for ambivalence, but most people are not logical when it comes to scary events. That’s why people worry about dying in a plane crash while driving to the airport, even though the drive is more dangerous than the flight.”

And he makes a persuasive case for the role we have long advocated for nuclear power, as a key source of “baseload power” with supplemental renewable sources.

“Now the world has focused on the danger of global warming and the need for technologies that can supply large amounts of power all day, every day, without emitting CO2. Nuclear plants are the only proven technology that fits that bill; they actually deliver 90 percent of rated capacity. That means a reactor rated at 1,000 megawatts pumps a full 900 megawatts onto the grid, averaged over a decade or so. In contrast, the vicissitudes of sunlight and wind mean that, over a similar period, a solar plant delivers less than 20 percent of its rated peak capacity even if it is in a sunny desert, and a wind farm generates less than 30 percent of its potential. With no good technology to store large amounts of energy, power companies must add baseload generators (nuclear, gas or coal) as backup for every wind and solar facility.”

Then he paints a very clear picture of the global energy challenges we face:

The energy problem for the 21st century is giving every citizen of Earth enough energy to support a modern standard of living — that probably means quadrupling the output of electrical plants. Advances in efficiency could, in principle, lower that number, but more likely other factors will raise it. Today, for example, only about 1,500 watts of the approximately 6,700 watts of power a typical American uses comes in the form of electricity, based on figures from the International Energy Agency. But if we continue to use more electricity to power cars, trains and other vehicles, demand for electrical power will probably soar. Where is all that electricity going to come from?

And Myrvold closes by pointing out the very different choices being made between Germany, and other countries:

The future of nuclear energy hinges on how we reconcile fears with needs. For Germans, the emission of CO2 appears to be the lesser evil, at least at the moment. In just the past few months, Brazil, South Africa and Saudi Arabia announced plans to move ahead with the construction of nuclear plants — 16 of them, in Saudi Arabia’s case. In those nations and in India, China and other parts of the world where nuclear reactors are scheduled to go up by the dozens, the complex calculus of risk may yield a different result.

It’s a very powerful and carefully considered understanding of the need to expand nuclear energy; read the entire article here.