Progress can be a matter of perspective, but in the months since an extreme earthquake and tsunami struck the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plants, the U.S. nuclear industry has clearly made many significant advancements:

• Began examining every single one of the 104 American nuclear power plants, confirming (PDF) that the ongoing safety and operational upgrades installed during the decades since the plants were built have maintained a secure level of performance and modernization … even in the case of a flooded river plain.
• Established a Fukushima Response Steering Committee of nuclear industry executives and leaders to ensure a comprehensive and coordinated response in the event of an emergency
• Confirmed the vision and value of advancing America’s nuclear power fleet with new, modern reactors, such as AREVA’s EPR™ reactor, built from the ground up with active and automatic safety systems and enhanced operational design efficiencies
• Conducted personal interviews and opened their doors to host facility tours for government, media and public scrutiny of plant security, fuel management, operational processes, and contingency plans
• Engaged in the national nuclear fuel cycle deliberations discussing the option of recycling used fuel to recapture and reuse the 96% energy content that remains, evaluating centralized interim storage of used fuel, and the eventual development of a repository.

As with any advancement, progress is pegged on a continuum from past accomplishments to future goals. The U.S. nuclear industry’s intense, ingrained focus on safety is obvious with the unmatched statistic of zero deaths attributed to operating a commercial nuclear reactor beginning with President Eisenhower commissioning the first commercial nuclear power plant in 1954. No other energy industry in the U.S. comes close to matching this commitment and accomplishment.

In support of the nation’s goal of reduced carbon emissions and energy security, the nuclear power industry can play a larger role if we expand its current 20% supply of America’s electricity demand with modern, safe reactors. Additional reactors could significantly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and replace fossil-fuel-generated carbon emissions with reliable, sustainable nuclear power. In tandem with expanding renewable energies, expanding safe nuclear energy could help us meet the expected 100% increase in electricity demand by the year 2050 with low-carbon sources.

We noted with interest this recent poll on the U.S. attitudes on nuclear power:

A June survey of private and public sector public policy elites in energy policy shows that the Fukushima nuclear accident has had little effect on the level of support for nuclear power in the United Sates. The survey, conducted by APCO Insight, the research division of the consulting firm APCO Worldwide, and released today under the auspices of the non-profit American Council on Global Nuclear Energy, shows that 69% of energy policy makers and influentials continue to believe that nuclear energy should be a somewhat or very high priority for meeting future energy demand. A similar 65% have a favorable impression of nuclear energy for balancing environmental and energy needs….

It certainly implies that the energy thought leaders in the U.S. continue to see the crucial role nuclear energy has to play and the needs for continuing to make support for nuclear development a key priority:

Views on specific nuclear energy policies remain mostly unchanged since October 2010. Support for the Obama Administration’s federal loan guarantee program remains strong at 60% approval and 25% disapproval. 71% of U.S. energy policy activists also agree that foreign partnerships will be essential to reinvigorating the U.S. nuclear industry.

Worth highlighting: Leaders of some of the world’s top electricity companies met this past week and released a New York Summit Statement on energy and the ongoing need for nuclear power:

Today the 13 Chairmen of the Global Sustainable Electricity Partnership met to discuss the need for clean energy and the trend observed in some areas of the world to review nuclear strategies, by taking it out completely from the mix of technologies that provide affordable, reliable, clean power.

The Chairmen emphasize the need for a balance of advanced coal, large hydro and other renewables, natural gas, nuclear and energy efficiency that provide energy security, jobs, economic growth and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

By limiting the use of nuclear power, the Chairmen are concerned that short and long term impacts will occur in certain countries including significantly higher costs, less CO2 free emission capacity and risks to reliability.

The statement was unanimously agreed by:

American Electric Power (USA)
Duke Energy (USA)
Comisión Federal de Electricidad (Mexico)
Electricité de France (France)
Eletrobras (Brazil)
Enel S.p.A. (Italy)
Eskom (South Africa)
Hydro-Québec (Canada)
Kansai Electric Power Company Inc. (Japan)
RusHydro (Russia)
RWE AG (Germany)
State Grid Corporation of China (China)
Tokyo Electric Power (Japan)

By Laura Clise, Director of Sustainable Development and Continuous Improvement, AREVA

To take the pulse of the Future of Nuclear Energy following the nuclear crisis in Fukushima, the Johns Hopkins University School for Advanced International Studies (SAIS) Center for Transatlantic Relations and the Atlantic Council convened representatives last week from EU member countries, the U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. regulators, and industry. These three perspectives – governments, regulators, industry – provided some interesting insights.
read more…

Speaking during a news conference about the Czech Republic’s decision to continue with new nuclear energy development, Czech Prime Minister Petr Necas said:

“Safety is of the utmost concern, but events and tests must be carried out on an expert level and must not be politicized.”

We completely agree that nuclear energy needs to be part of the mix, Výborně !

From EnergyBiz Insider, we liked seeing this article on the pressing need for new nuclear construction and a continued Governmental role to maintain momentum in this crucial energy space for the country. Here are snippets:

Nuclear developers and some utility companies are imploring the American government to proceed with new nuclear construction in the wake of the Japanese crisis, noting that much can be learned. During this phase, they say it is critical to maintain the previous momentum.

And they quote our CEO, Jacques Besnainou:

“Nothing has changed,” says Jacques Besnainou, chief executive of Areva North America, in an interview with this writer, referring to the recent events in Japan. “This event will make nuclear safer. We bet on the U.S. 10 years ago and we think it is still a good bet. Fukushima will not delay the renaissance.”

Any delays in nuclear construction will be a function of the economic downturn and its effect on energy demand — not the events tied to Japan, the executive said. The way to move ahead, he adds, is to get government assistance to build the first few modern nuclear facilities by 2020….

“Hoover Dam was not built by Wall Street,” he says. “This is why we have a government. It does not mean because it is harder, we should not do it. Once a nuclear plant is built, I can guarantee the cost of power, unlike a natural gas plant.”

Great article by Gwyneth Cravens at Bloomberg Businessweek, starting to address the true lessons to learn from Fukushima:

The technical community will review the Japanese nuclear crisis and recommend improvements. Although the reactors properly shut down with the first jolt, the cascade of difficulties brought by the tsunami overwhelmed the site.

In any case, that 1966 plant is outmoded. Modern ones have redundant passive-safety features that would have ensured Fukushima’s stability. These innovations are partly thanks to lessons learned about oversight and human engineering from the meltdown at Three Mile Island. U.S. plants are continuously upgraded, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will be instituting new improvements and encouraging other countries to follow suit.

And she mentions this ultimate key point, that even though it is less visible than the Fukushima crisis, the health and environmental hydrocarbon crisis is ever-present now and needs an ultimate solution:

We are all suffering from a health and environmental catastrophe being unleashed by hydrocarbon combustion. By 2030, power demand is expected to almost double. If we are to keep the lights on while reducing harm to humans and the planet, nuclear power must grow and fossil-fuel power must shrink.

Here is a good article in the Atlantic on DC’s reaction so far to the Japanese crisis and the larger issues around nuclear power support. They begin with the current state of things in the capitol:

When something big happens, Washington tends to react impulsively. Whether or not it’s helpful or appropriate, some cosmic force seems to impel congressmen before the cameras, and before you know it, they’re demanding hearings, bills, new commissions — in a word, action. The disaster unfolding at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant has riveted everybody here, as it has around the world. But so far, the response has been measured and cautious…. On the contrary, most lawmakers and administration officials have hastened to emphasize that their views about nuclear power are still the opposite of those held by the likes of Greenpeace, even in the wake of the Japanese catastrophe.

Testifying before a House subcommittee on Tuesday, Energy Secretary Steven Chu lauded the ”rigorous safety regulations” that he said governed the US nuclear industry and then made it clear that nuclear energy must remain an important component of the White House energy policy.”

He has a theory as to why this is. The article theorizes that nuclear energy has been in the process of becoming more of a non-partisan, non-”wedge issue.” That from a larger policy standpoint the two parties seem to find something approaching common ground here:

But beyond political factors lie common policy interests. One reason more Democrats haven’t responded critically is that many now view nuclear power in the broader context of climate change. With the planet overheating from carbon pollution, nuclear energy has come to appear part of the necessary solution to a global disaster, rather than a potential source of a regional disaster, like Japan’s. Republicans push nuclear power as at least a partial substitute for their lack of a comprehensive energy plan. And so, nuclear energy has appeared to be the rare issue on which both parties might agree.

Over on NPR there is some rational thinking from Foreign Policy with one clear message:

“The case for nuclear power remains strong.”

In a piece from James M. Acton, associate in Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment of International Peace, he discusses why nuclear energy is still a safe, rational choice. He points out that the major hurdle will not be rebuilding the why nuclear plants operate, but rebuilding public trust.

Saying:

“This last point is crucial. New reactors, with enhanced safety features, would almost certainly not have befallen the same fate as those at Fukushima Daiichi, which is four decades old. Convincing the public of this argument will be extremely hard now, however.”

We agree with Matthew Stepp over at Energy Collective and his thoughtful response to the questions swirling about nuclear energy in America. His three reasons clearly outline a positive, safe energy future for the U.S.

“Without a doubt, we should question whether currently operating nuclear reactors can withstand such natural disasters (they can) and can effectively shut down if there is a power failure (they can). Policymakers should also require that new reactor designs are safe in these extreme situations, if it already isn’t. But any new legislative or regulatory action should not impede the long term development of nuclear energy for three reasons.”

Read Matthew’s three reasons.