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.

“We need the power in Vermont…If we lose this plant it’s going to be a huge blow to our economy.”

- Dick Trudell, one of the supporters who gathered to show their support of the Vermont Yankee Plant

“Virginia voters approve 71 – 20 percent of using nuclear power to produce electricity and support 60 – 32 percent the construction of new nuclear plants in the commonwealth.”

From Quinnipac University polling of Virginia voters, October 12th, 2011

We think this is a must-read (and share) op ed by the Richmond Times-Dispatch editorial board …

Until Japan’s catastrophic tsunami and Virginia’s recent earthquake, nuclear power had been enjoying something of a renaissance. This was owing to its status as the only zero-carbon-emissions technology capable of providing reliable power on an industrial scale. The problems at Japanese reactors and the worries about U.S. ones have prompted second thoughts among erstwhile enthusiasts, and strident demands for a moratorium from those who never were convinced of nuclear power’s merits in the first place.

And it highlights the need for context and a view of the whole picture regarding our energy choices, especially compared with the alternative of continuing to maintain our use and dependence on fossil fuels:

Virginia’s reactors were hit by a quake bigger than they had been designed for, with remarkably little effect. And as difficult and alarming as the explosions and radiation leaks at Japan’s facilities have been, they need to be put in context. The reactors have served the Japanese people extremely well for many years. They were struck by a natural disaster of biblical proportions. And they largely withstood it. Nearly no nuclear-related casualties have been reported in Japan. That may change as time wears on, but it’s worth noting that even the worst nuclear accident to date — Chernobyl — is responsible for vastly fewer lives lost than the number who have died from the production and use of fossil fuels.

The Times-Dispatch writers then focus on Virginia and it’s energy choices, and make their summary view here:

Nuclear power boasts an astoundingly good safety record, and will continue to do so even after the events in Japan and Virginia are taken into account. Dominion Virginia Power sets a standard in this regard. It would be the height of foolishness to let the panic of the hour divert the country from a future in which nuclear power plays a much bigger part.

Read the entire article here.

As we announced yesterday, AREVA will be a key member of the contract partners helping TVA complete the Bellefonte nuclear facility, one of our largest U.S. projects, employing thousands of Americans.

In easily understood terms, the completion of the Bellefonte Unit 1 nuclear facility is similar to the complete restoration and modernization of a solidly built house, only this improvement project will generate 2,800 construction jobs, 650 permanent operations jobs, and clean energy electricity for 750,000 American homes.
read more…

To ensure clear and correct information is received and understood regarding the explosion at a low-level waste facility in France, here’s a summary of the situation according to our latest information:

• The incident occurred at a low-level waste facility, called CENTRACO, owned by SOCODEI, an EDF subsidiary. Geographically, this facility is located at the Marcoule site in southeastern France. This site is quite large and hosts multiple other industries, including a separate AREVA facility.
• This event had no impact on the AREVA facility or its operations.
• The CENTRACO facility reduces and packages low-level materials, such as clothing and scrap metal from nuclear sites.
• The explosion occurred near a furnace processing these materials.
• Unfortunately, one person was killed and four injured.
• Monitors outside the facility measure no radiological or chemical waste released into the outside environment.
• The site is secured and a resulting fire was extinguished
• There is no nuclear fuel processing at this facility.
• Inspectors are onsite examining the site and monitoring the environment.

Additional source information:

• Decommissioning facility – CENTRACO

The sensational statements in a recent Washington Post article are fully addressed in a recent Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) paper on the seismic safety of nuclear power facilities.

As described in NEI’s information,

Like many scientific and engineering issues that span decades, there is new information emerging about earthquakes, particularly in the central and eastern regions of the United States. The industry and the independent U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission are evaluating this data and this fall will discuss steps that may be taken to update seismic criteria …

“… these increased estimates of seismic hazards would primarily have little impact on previous estimates of the potential damage to buildings and equipment.” This is because the safety margins built into nuclear energy facilities are expected to protect them against earthquakes that are stronger than the design basis for the plant.

Read the detailed content, including seismic safety information about the North Anna facility.

From the Washington Post, here is a Bloomberg video interview with Seth Grae, President and CEO of Lightbridge …

“The plants performed exactly as they should … and I know the NRC is now taking a look, particularly at earthquakes and other effects, at making the systems even more robust …”

 

All safe and secure (as designed).

Or as Scott Peterson, senior vice president at the Nuclear Energy Institute, put it:

“Nuclear energy facilities in the path of Hurricane Irene have responded well and responded safely to this storm…Every facility was ready to take any steps necessary to maintain safety, thanks to careful planning and deliberate storm preparations several days in advance of the storm.

Highly trained operators and emergency response personnel were stationed at the plants throughout the weekend and were prepared to take actions beyond their usual duties to protect the power plants and communities that surround them. In the aftermath of the storm, operators are undertaking complete inspections of nuclear energy facilities to ensure that systems and equipment were not affected by the storm and that the plant’s condition is safe.”