Image: Wikimedia Commons/Stefan Kühn
With U.S. demand for nuclear energy projected to flatline over the next decade, the success or failure of the American nuclear industry will depend on its ability to forge partnerships overseas, particularly in the developing world.
As it does so, though, it will have to work hard to ensure that stringent safety regulations are implemented anywhere nuclear energy gains a foothold, or risk public backlash on the world stage.
Those were two key messages delivered by industry leaders and regulators at yesterday's Nuclear Energy Assembly, held this week in Charlotte, N.C. Speakers urged their colleagues to embrace emerging opportunities in places like China, India, Thailand and Indonesia, even as low natural gas prices and a fleet of aging reactors cast doubt over the resource's domestic future.
"We are building in an era of unbelievable demand from emerging economies," said Ric Perez, president and chief operating officer at Westinghouse Electrical Co. "This is no longer just an American or a Japanese game."
"Gone are the days when you could dial 001 and reach your supplier," he noted, referring to the globalized nature of the nuclear supply chain, where components may be manufactured in Japan, imported to China and assembled by an American company. "Our ability to master that, share same nuclear ethic, is going to be a requirement for those who follow us."
At the same time, he cautioned, a global expansion of nuclear power would come without possible pitfalls. As the technology gains a foothold in the developing world, countries like the United States that have already established rigorous safety standards will have to work twice as hard to ensure that those same standards are replicated elsewhere.
Countries no longer operate in a vacuum
"We've had three nuclear disasters in history, in three countries: Russia, the United States and Japan," Perez said, referring to the Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima disasters, respectively. "Those are all technologically advanced, technically savvy nations."
Many of the countries currently pursuing nuclear energy have less of a track record for stringent regulation, he noted. And as those previous disasters have taught the industry, a disaster on one continent can affect the industry the world over.
That fact was evident in the immediate wake of Japan's recent nuclear disaster. The meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant in March of 2011 provoked a widespread public backlash against nuclear energy around the globe, prompting Germany to start phasing out of its own nuclear capabilities and spurring an industrywide safety review in the United States.
Japan itself shut down the entirety of its own nuclear facilities with the last plant going offline earlier this month.
"A lot more [than just infrastructure] came down on shore on March 22," said Westinghouse's Perez. "The tsunami touched down here, too. We can't be insular."
"There needs to be a lot of that best practice sharing" along with technology sharing, said Scott Peterson, vice president of communications at the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), which is hosting this week's event. "Developed countries need to be on hand while developing countries set up their safety and regulatory culture, because when [developing countries] operate those plants, they won't operate in a vacuum -- what happens to them will impact the entire nuclear industry."
Learning lessons in crisis management
Controlling the public fallout of nuclear disasters has itself been a learning experience for the industry, Peterson said.
"One of the things that we've discovered over time is that we have to be open and transparent -- and we have to do it right away," he said. Immediately following the Fukushima disaster, the NEI rushed to share what it knew about events with its stakeholders and the public. "We got out to the people who live near nuclear plants and we told them, 'Here's what happened in Japan, and here's the steps we're taking'" to make sure a similar incident doesn't happen on U.S. soil, he said.
See what we're tweeting about
7 Comments
Add Comment"risk publish backlash" The general publish?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSafety standards? I guess so. It is easy to focus on trivial procedural safety when structural issues like what in the heck we are going to do with 50+ years of spent nuclear fuel have been off-loaded onto the US government. Congress has been kicking that particular can down the road for so long it's hardly even on anyone's agenda anymore; but it is the single biggest security threat today.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUsed fuel rods are not stored inside the containment; in some cases they reside in a swimming pool, inside a warehouse built on the top of a five story building. In the US some of these pools already house five hundred percent of their originally designed-for capacities. They are stuffed; crammed to the max. Fuel assemblies have been 're-racked' to make room for more used-up ones until they are practically nuclear critical now. Security for these installations was designed to keep people from carting the stuff away for nefarious uses; it was never designed to prevent it being detonated 'in place'. Safety? I guess; if you say so. Just keep those pumps running non-stop, for half a decade beyond the actual lifetime of the reactor itself.
Turns out, the typical spent fuel storage pool is an ideal mechanism for widely distributing fallout over the surrounding countryside. It's a radioactive howitzer pointing straight up. Some of these installations are within sight of major population centers too. Indian Point, for instance, is in range of some eight million residents. Everybody know their evacuation route? You best leave early, there's going to be one heck of a traffic jam!
We were sold the equivalent of a 1979 Ford Pinto; under the wrong set of circumstances the fuel storage unit will explode. Right now, there is no other place to put this stuff, either. At least not one that will be safe for the centuries needed until it decays enough to become harmless again.
Safety first. Well, first after profits; as long as it doesn't cost too much or inconvenience anyone important.
Sponia - you almost sounded like you knew what you were talking about right up to "the fuel storage unit will explode". Nothing can be further from the truth. Spent fuel, even new fuel are incapable of exploding. Physics is physics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe premise of this article (U.S. demand for nuclear energy projected to flatline over the next decade) is false. As the availablity of oil declines and the price sky rockets, Americans are looking towards Nuclear Power as an inexpensive, safe and reliable source of energy. How in the world will we be able to power all those electric vehicles anyhow? Orders are up for both the new Westinghouse plant and the new GE plant. Nuclear will replace most of the aging oil fired power plants in the next 20 years.
As for the safe operation of international Nuclear Power plants, its been happening for decades. In the US, Nuclear Power is regulated by the NRC (Nuclear regulatory Commission) with oversight by INPO (Institute of Nuclear Operators), while overseas WANO (World Association of Nuclear Operators) has oversight.
Ther has been no "widespread public backlash against nuclear energy" becuse of the problems in Japan. Instead there has been a scientific engineering review of plants using similar designs and designs that require active instead of passive safety systems. New reactor designs do not rely on energy dependent safety systems, but use instead use passive systems that operate on physical principles such as natural circulation.
Germany decided a decade ago to not pursue new Nuclear Power plants. That decision was based upon two factors: Pressure from the environmental wackos and the availability of cheap electricity from France who generate most of their electricity from Nuclear Power.
Another Big Oil sock puppet out spreading FUD and disinformation about Nuclear Energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe truth about Nuclear Spent Fuel:
ansnuclearcafe.org/2012/05/16/spent-fuel-at-fukushima-not-dangerous/
"...These articles are highly deceptive. The occurrence of a cataclysmic release of radioactive material as surmised is hinged upon the occurrence of so many statistically impossible events that it is certain to be a practical impossibility. Since the assertions continue to gain a wider audience, however, it is necessary to examine them and make a realistic assessment of their likelihood..."
Notice that Big Oil spokesperson Sponia has no worries about the 20 LNG tanker loads that replace each NPP's Electricity output every year, each load is capable of destroying a city. No worries there. Notice the Big Oil sycophants never mention the Mud Volcano in Indonesia, caused by NG drilling that releases 6 million cubic feet of mud per day, causing the evacuation of 13,000 families already & a dozen deaths, homes buried forever, and is expected to continue for another 80 yrs? Here any press about that? Nope - you haven't. They don't tell us how much radioisotopes are being released, likely far, far in excess of the amount released by the Fukushima Reactors.
djysrv.blogspot.ca/2012/04/argh-debunking-some-nuclear-nonsense.html
"...The fuel is covered by 20 feet of water as a shield against radiation. It can remain in wet storage for15-20 years, or longer, but as a practical matter, can be safety transferred using remote handling cranes to dry storage casks as early as year five. U.S. nuclear utilities are increasingly moving their spent fuel to dry casks..."
atomicinsights.com/2012/05/nuclear-experts-crowd-source-detailed-response-to-fukushima-fuel-fable.html
"...In order for a cladding fire to occur the fuel must be recently discharged (about 10 to 180 days for a BWR and 30 to 250 days for a PWR)..."
The Big Carbon Stooge don't want you to see this:
Deaths per TWh of energy:
Coal: 161
Oil: 36
Biomass: 12
NG: 4
Hydro: 1.4
Wind: 0.15
Nuclear: 0.04
nextbigfuture.com/2012/02/how-many-lives-does-coal-and-oil-have.html
You know it is ironic that you said this about "Sponia", "Another Big Oil sock puppet out spreading FUD and disinformation about Nuclear Energy." What kind of 'Another Big Nuclear Energy sock puppet' do you think it makes you spreading all the FUD and disinformation about Nuclear Energy? Let me guess.... all the FUD and disinformation you are spreading about Nuclear Energy makes you "Another big DIMWITTED stupid Conservative idiot moron." ...right?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNuclear Energy, as it stands now and will for the next 250,000 years is way too expensive - where do you think you are going to get that $50 billion dollars from to build one low grade Nuclear Power Plant, and how are you going to pay it back? Let me guess this one too, ...you are going to skyrocket peoples taxes and utility bills and lower big business taxes.
Nuclear Energy is far too dangerous! A radioactive isotope (sic)(from big Nuclear Energy) is deadly to humans and animals for 250,000 years. I am surprised you didn't mention any of that or give any links. You do know that there are links on this web site that speaks about the same thing I just spoke of, but of course to you idiot moron conservatives, these scientists are lying and trying to give big Nuclear a black-eye.
How can we increase our energy needs without Nuclear? Put solar panels on every home and business in America and use those extra lithium batteries that electric cars use to store extra energy to use at night when it is not daylight. This can be done throughout America for the price it takes to build just two Nuclear Reactors. Put that in your radioactive pipe and smoke it, 'dwdb'.
"Put solar panels on every home and business in America and use those extra lithium batteries that electric cars use to store extra energy to use at night when it is not daylight."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe manufacturing of PVs and lithium batteries are two of the most polluting and environmentally loading processes around. Putting panels on every roof and batteries in every driveway is the kind of environmental disaster that no one can afford. Both applications (individual home installations) are, at the very best, net energy neutral - meaning net no power is gained over their real-world lifetimes when the cost and environmental load of raw materials, manufacturing, distribution, installation, maintenance, decommission and disposal costs are taken into account. How could scaling this effort up do anything but put a greater environmental load on the Earth?
Despite all the fact less hysteria purported by Sponia and JamesDavis, the history of Nuclear Power has shown that given the right design and operation, Nuclear Power plants are safe and economical.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOpponents point to the Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima disasters as proof of Nuclear Power Plant's vulnerability; but nothing could be further from the truth. The Three Mile Island accident (not disaster) proved that the American designed Pressurized Water Reactor was safe. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html
That accident was caused by poorly trained operators, who did not properly interpret the plant parameters, consequently taking the wrong course of action. The end result - 0 deaths, 0 over exposures, 0 cancers, barely detectable releases and no impact on the general public in the area. The only victim was the utility itself due to the damage to its equipment. The Institute of Nuclear Plant Operations (INPO) was born of this accident and serves to ensure Nuclear Operators are properly trained and Nuclear Power Plants are properly maintained and operated. In addition, engineering reviews of safety systems by the NRC resulted in upgrades that reinforced the safety system functions and equipment. Similar reviews and upgrades are now in progress after the Fukushima Daiichi event.
The Fukushima Daiichi plant is a Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) whose design is considerably different than a PWR. It relies on active safety systems to remove decay heat from the reactor after it is shutdown. Unfortunately, no one foresaw a disaster such as the tsunami that not only wiped out the emergency diesel generators, but also off site power. The Japanese were able to take control of the situation and the dire predictions of “radioactive clouds” wafting over California were proved to be media hysteria.
The Chernobyl disaster was the result of two factors. The most significant being an unsafe design that provided no containment and inadequate safety systems. The second was a test by plant personnel that was unsupported by proper procedures or engineering review. It is irresponsible to compare Chernobyl to western design nuclear plants for there is nothing in common.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.html
Readers of these comments would do well to note that dwbd spoke of relative verifiable facts to support his/her arguments while Sponia and JamesDavis did not.