French Frack Fried

World Nuclear News Has up a story on how the French nuclear energy industry is responding to the accident in Japan:

In an accident situation the ASN [Autorité De Sûreté Nucléaire, essentially the French NRC] wants French reactors to be able to rely on what it calls a 'hard core' set of safety requirements. These arrangements would protect safety-critical structures and equipment to ensure that vital functions can be maintained in the face of demands beyond the design basis of the plant, such as earthquakes, fires, or the prolonged loss of power or emergency cooling. Among the 'hard core' set-up would be robust emergency centers, improved communication and hardened supplies of water, diesel generators and dosimetry supplies for workers.

The whole story is worth a read, but what struck me is that this sound much like the American industry’s FLEX approach (this is from NEI’s member newsletter):

In a series of meetings with NRC staff last week, the industry put forward its diverse and flexible (FLEX) approach to implementing the NRC’s directives on its staff’s Fukushima task force recommendations. FLEX is a comprehensive and integrated plan to mitigate the effects of severe natural phenomena at nuclear energy facilities while expediting the attainment of safety benefits.

And here’s what the FLEX approach includes:

• Provides portable equipment to assure that multiple means of obtaining power and cooling water are available to support key safety functions for all reactors at a site. Equipment includes portable pumps, generators, batteries, battery chargers, compressors, hoses, couplings, tools, debris clearing equipment and other materials.
• Provides reasonable protection of portable equipment to guard it from the severe natural phenomena predicted for that site by locating the equipment at diverse locations.
• Creates procedures and provides guidance for emergency response personnel for the use of FLEX equipment and capabilities.
• Provides for program controls to ensure regular maintenance and testing of FLEX equipment.
• Trains personnel in FLEX capability and response.

And perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising that the French and Americans are moving in parallel – the French have been keeping tabs on what is happening over here:

The focus of additional safety in response to previous accidents was to develop universal excellence in nuclear operation, first across the USA as facilitated by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) and then globally through its sister, the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO).

WANO talked a bit earlier this year of taking a stronger regulatory hand in international nuclear safety (as did the IAEA), but issues of national sovereignty make that difficult to pull off. What seems more useful (at least, more likely to be widely accepted) is for WANO to further develop its standards for operational excellence and allow countries to apply them. That’s still the goal:

At the eleventh WANO Biennial General Meeting (BGM), the world’s nuclear operators approved a series of wide-ranging new commitments to nuclear safety, as WANO’s General Assembly unanimously approved a series of recommendations put forward by its Governing Board.

And these include:

1. Expanding the scope of WANO’s activities
2. Developing a world-wide integrated event response strategy
3. Improving WANO’s credibility, including important changes to WANO’s peer review process
4. Improving visibility
5. Improving the quality of all WANO products and services

There’s that word “integrated” again, as in “FLEX is a comprehensive and integrated plan.” It’s less a quirk or a nod  to current thinking about accident mitigation than a simple recognition that everything that goes into mitigation should be thought about together so as to press out redundancies – to make a tight and austere yet thorough plan. It’s good to see that WANO is sharing that approach with the French, if that’s what’s happening.

---

A cautionary tale"?

Barbara Scott had 21 solar panels installed last March on her house in Media, Pa. Scott's family was the first in the community, and she was prepared to evangelize, "We can have open houses and write newsletter articles and promote the idea of solar," she said. But that was before the economics changed.

With government rebates and tax incentives, Scott says, her family spent $21,000 to install the system. She figured it would take eight years to recoup that investment.

Barbara Scott and Mac Given in Media, Pa., had 21 solar panels installed last March. With government rebates and tax incentives, Scott says, her family spent $21,000 to install the system.

A lot of other people had the same idea at the same time, which sent the price of solar energy credits down sharply in Pennsylvania. Scott says that added another seven years to the payback period.

On top of that, Scott says, electricity rates aren't going up as quickly as she thought they would, thanks in part to low natural gas prices.

The idea here was to sell back unused electricity, which would defray the cost of the investment. And I imagine folks might hit three cherries if the timing is right – but for these folks right now, not so much. Well, it’s a long term investment and there are reasons to do this that do not include profit. Take your chances, take your risks.

---

On the other hand:

The Northstar No. 1 disposal well stopped injecting brine and fracking fluids from natural-gas wells in Pennsylvania on Friday, about a day before a 4.0-magnitude quake shook Youngstown. It was the 11th such quake recorded in that area last year and the strongest to date.

The original injection pressure should force the brine back out of the well into 12 storage tanks, said Andy Ware, a deputy director of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, which oversees Ohio’s oil and gas industry. The hope is that will help stop the ground from shaking.

Imagine if a nuclear energy facility spontaneously generated earthquakes as well as electricity and one can see the problem here.

In case you thought nuclear energy was the one that carried risk.

Where Goes Solar, There Goes Nuclear?

This MIT Technology Review article is good but gets off on the wrong foot:

Politicians are drawing parallels between the $535 million federal loan guarantee issued to bankrupt solar manufacturer Solyndra and loan guarantees that the U.S. Department of Energy is offering to utilities building new nuclear power plants. But while those nuclear startups could also go bust, experts say U.S. taxpayers are unlikely to take a loss on them. That's because the only reactor projects moving forward are those in a handful of southern states, where laws allow utilities to offload the risk onto state ratepayers.

Offload the risk? All the risk of any large electricity project redounds to the ratepayers – because they pay the bills. What those southern companies are doing is using a method that pays for plant construction as it goes along – which means less money borrowed from banks or paid back to banks – and thus less interest charges for ratepayers to eventually absorb.

Here’s how Southern Co. explains this in relation to the Plant Vogtle project:

• The cost of the plant will be phased-in over 7 years, versus included in rates over only two years. (Approx. 1.3 percent/yr over 7 years for total of 9 percent, versus approximately 12 percent total over two years.)
• Customers will avoid paying $300 million in interest charges, thereby saving money over the life of the plant.
• The in-service cost of the plant will be reduced by nearly $2 billion (30 percent).
• Total rate increases required to cover the cost of the plant when it goes into service will be nearly 3 percent lower.
• Preserving utility credit ratings reduces costs for other projects and helps keep customer rates low.

The MIT story is interesting in that it explains how this use of pay-as-you-go differs in regulated and non-regulated states and what the implications of that might be for nuclear energy projects.

It still comes back around to loan guarantees:

While the Solyndra case appears unlikely to be replicated with nuclear loan guarantees, political attacks from Congressional Republicans on the wisdom of loan guarantees for energy projects may, ironically, hurt the prospects for further nuclear projects that many support.

We’ll just have to wait and see, but those Congressional Republicans are as aware of nuclear energy loan guarantees as we are. It doesn’t necessarily follow that where goes solar also goes nuclear.

----

If you’re going to open a new nuclear facility, it makes sense to stress safety.

Hsu said Taipower had incorporated improvements to the project, such as an emergency diesel generator facility, after the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant crisis in Japan, triggered by a massive earthquake and tsunami that crippled the facility on March 11.

This is in Taiwan. Hsu is Taipower vice president Hsu Hwai-chiung. There’s more on safety:

In line with Ma’s instructions, Hsu said, Taipower would adopt the strictest possible safety standards in handling the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant’s testing and supervisory work.

“We will invite international professional organizations, such as the World Association of Nuclear Operators, to assist with oversight and the plant will go online only once optimal safety is guaranteed,” Hsu said.

In addition to Taipower’s internal controls, the Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Atomic Energy Council (AEC) have also closely monitored the construction of the plant to ensure safety standards are met, Minster of Economic Affairs Shih Yen-shiang said.

And Ma is Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou. The World Association of Nuclear Operators, or WANO, is really stepping up to the plate here. These are the recommendations approved by WANO’s board during its general meeting in October:

These included expanding the scope of WANO's activities; developing a world-wide integrated event response strategy; improving WANO's credibility, including important changes to WANO's peer review process; improving visibility; and improving the quality of all WANO products and services.

This sounded as though WANO was interested in adopting the approach taken by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, the nuclear energy industry-created watchdog, into the international sphere. And indeed, that’s at least partly the case:

WANO said that it will also put into place an internal emergency response procedure that clearly defines roles and responsibilities in the event of a nuclear emergency. It will also take additional initiatives of working with other key industry organizations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency, the World Nuclear Association and the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations.

Issues of national sovereignty can easily keep WANO from becoming as effective as it could be, but if the organization’s members allow it latitude, as Taiwan is doing, and WANO is able to gather enough authority around itself, then its potential expands accordingly. It’ll be interested to see how the experience in Taiwan goes.

Sort of an interesting merger of the WANO logo – which is a wireframe world map – and a map showing its main offices.

At the Nuclear Energy Assembly

NEI hosted its annual Nuclear Energy Assembly in Washington DC Tuesday and Wednesday with a solid lineup of speakers and plenty of opportunities for attendees to catch up with colleagues and industry pals. Let’s consider the latter analog social media and leave it at that.

The speakers represented a topflight assemblage of industry, government and regulatory figures. Happily, none tried “the future is bright for nuclear energy” approach you might reasonably expect at an industry meeting. Everyone looked at the year and years ahead through clear eyes.

Here’s a bit of what they had to say:

NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko expressed the continued confidence of his agency in the safety of U.S. nuclear energy facilities.

“The commission remains confident in the programs of the NRC and in the safety of the nation’s nuclear power plants,” he said, noting that in 2010 “there were no statistically significant adverse trends in industry performance.”

Still, Jaczko warned the gathered nuclear energy executives against complacency. He noted an increase in the number of automatic reactor shutdowns and significant reactor events in 2010 compared to 2009.

---

In the wake of events in Japan, the head of the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations has proposed an international organization for emergency response to accidents at nuclear energy facilities.

“Events of the last few weeks have clearly shown the benefits of significantly improving site-specific plans while moving beyond them to establish and formalize a national and even international response capability worthy of the name,” said James Ellis, INPO’s president and CEO.

Formed after the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island, INPO is an industry-established organization that rigorously promotes excellence in nuclear energy facility safety and operations.

---

Deputy Energy Secretary Daniel Poneman made clear that the president’s support for nuclear power remains unwavering, as the events at Japan’s Fukushima plant continue to unfold.

“The president made clear that we still see nuclear energy as an important element of a diverse clean energy portfolio and an important source of low-carbon baseload electricity,” said Poneman.

The domestic nuclear energy industry must continue to make safe and secure operations its top priority, said Poneman, who is also the Energy Department’s chief operating officer.

---

In order to “win the future” we need to continue investing in nuclear and other forms of clean energy, Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said.

“Advances in innovation don’t occur in a vacuum,” said Clyburn. “We must make the necessary investments today. Unless we keep innovating, exploring and investing in basic research, our economy will shrivel and die.”

Clyburn said that recent nuclear energy budgets “have been more generous,” but international competition means the country will have to push harder to keep the edge in innovation.

---

Events at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear energy facility “have changed the industry landscape,” said Laurent Stricker, chairman of the World Association of Nuclear Operators.

And, Stricker said, WANO is changing to respond to a post-Fukushima world. For example, he anticipates a better WANO strategy for sharing operational experience and safety information among members and with such organizations as the Institute for Nuclear Power Operations, Japan Nuclear Technology Institute, World Nuclear Association and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

---

Given this round-up, I suspect the next year will be an extremely interesting time.

Consider the Nuclear Energy Assembly a snapshot in atomic time: we’ll check back in 2012 to see how things are going.

---

This is all original reporting, by Chris Charles, Lynne Neal, T.J. Swanek and myself.

NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko at NEA.