Michele Kearney's Nuclear Wire - Major Energy and Environmental News and Commentary affecting the Nuclear Industry. Nuclear Activities
Saturday, April 30, 2011
India’s First Indigenous Nuclear Reactor to Be Ready by 2012
India’s First Indigenous Nuclear Reactor to Be Ready by 2012
Fukushima update: TEPCO delays plans to submerge reactor vessels - April 28, 2011
Fukushima update: TEPCO delays plans to submerge reactor vessels - April 28, 2011
US to offer Taiwan aid in case of nuclear power plant accident
US to offer Taiwan aid in case of nuclear power plant accident
Nuclear power in Russia: the great energy debate
Nuclear power in Russia: the great energy debate
This online supplement is produced and published by Rossiyskaya Gazeta (Russia), which takes sole responsibility for the content.
Nuclear Power in Russia
Nuclear Power in Russia
(Updated March 2011)
- Russia is moving steadily forward with plans for much expanded role of nuclear energy, nearly doubling output by 2020.
- Efficiency of nuclear generation in Russia has increased dramatically since the mid 1990s.
- Exports of nuclear goods and services are a major Russian policy and economic objective.
Contents
- Electricity Supply
- Present Nuclear Capacity
- Extending Nuclear Capacity
- Reactor Technology
- Improving reactor performance
- Exports of nuclear reactors
Friday, April 29, 2011
(282KB)
Epidemiologist, Dr. Steven Wing, Discusses Global Radiation Exposures and Consequences with Gundersen
Epidemiologist, Dr. Steven Wing, Discusses Global Radiation Exposures and Consequences with Gundersen
Fairewinds Calls for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Delay Licensing Until Fukushima Lessons Are Evaluated
Fairewinds Calls for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Delay Licensing Until Fukushima Lessons Are Evaluated
Gundersen Postulates Unit 3 Explosion May Have Been Prompt Criticality in Fuel Pool
Gundersen Postulates Unit 3 Explosion May Have Been Prompt Criticality in Fuel Pool
IAEA Update Briefing on Fukushima Nuclear Accident (28 April 2011, 18:00 UTC)
IAEA Update Briefing on Fukushima Nuclear Accident (28 April 2011, 18:00 UTC)
Presentation:→ Summary of Reactor Status
1. Current situation
Overall, the situation at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant remains very serious, but there are signs of recovery in some functions, such as electrical power and instrumentation.
Changes to Fukushima Daiichi plant status
The IAEA receives information from various official sources in Japan through the Japanese national competent authority, the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA). Additional detail is provided in the IAEA Incident and Emergency Centre (IEC) status summary with information received by 17:00 UTC on 27 April 2011.
Management of on-site contaminated water
According to the 25 April evaluation by NISA of the report submitted by the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), there is a little less than 70,000 tonnes of stagnant water with high level radioactivity in the basement of the turbine buildings of Units 1, 2 and 3.
Plant status
On 25 April the power supply for the temporary electrical pumps that supply water to the reactor pressure vessel of Units 1, 2 and 3 was switched from the off-site power supply to temporary diesel generators to allow work to enhance the off-site power supply. The power supply has now been returned to the off-site supply.
White smoke continues to be emitted from Units 2 and 3. No more white smoke was seen coming from Unit 4 as of 21:30 UTC on 25 April.
In Unit 1 fresh water was being continuously injected into the reactor pressure vessel through the feedwater line at an indicated flow rate of 6 m3/h using a temporary electric pump with off-site power. On 27 April at 01:02 UTC an operation was initiated to increase the flow rate for injected water gradually from 6 m3/h to 14 m3/h to determine the amount of water required to flood the reactor core.
In Unit 2 and Unit 3 fresh water is being continuously injected into the reactor pressure vessel through the fire extinguisher line at an indicated rate of 7 m3/h using temporary electric pumps with off-site power.
In Unit 4 water continues to be sprayed on to the spent fuel pool using a concrete pump truck. An amount of 85 tonnes of water was sprayed on 27 April.
Nitrogen gas is still being injected into the containment vessel in Unit 1 to reduce the possibility of hydrogen combustion in the containment vessel. The indicated pressure in the reactor pressure vessel is still increasing.
In Unit 1, the indicated temperature at the feedwater nozzle of the reactor pressure vessel is 132.0 °C and at the bottom of reactor pressure vessel is 110.5 °C.
In Unit 2 the indicated temperature at the feedwater nozzle of the reactor pressure vessel is 120.4 °C. The reactor pressure vessel and the dry well remain at atmospheric pressure. On 26 April an amount of 47.5 tonnes of fresh water was injected into the spent fuel pool using the spent fuel pool clean-up system.
In Unit 3 the indicated temperature at the feed water nozzle of the reactor pressure vessel is 72.0 °C and at the bottom of the reactor pressure vessel is 110.7 °C. The reactor pressure vessel and the dry well remain at atmospheric pressure.
There has been no change in the status in Unit 5 or Unit 6 or in the common spent fuel storage facility.
Spraying of anti-scattering agent at the site is continuing. An area of 7500 m2 to the east of the Unit 3 turbine building was sprayed on 27 April.
2. Radiation monitoring
Deposition of Cs-137 was detected in four prefectures on 26 and 27 April, the values reported ranging from 4 Bq/m2 to 29 Bq/m2. I-131 deposition was reported for one prefecture on 26 April, with a value of 3.3 Bq/m2.
Gamma dose rates are measured daily in all 47 prefectures. A general decreasing trend has been observed in all locations since around 20 March. For the Fukushima prefecture gamma dose rates remain at 1.8 μSv/h. In Ibaraki prefecture gamma dose rates were slightly below 0.12 µSv/h. The other 45 prefectures had gamma dose rates of below 0.1 µSv/h, falling within the range of local natural background radiation levels. Gamma dose rates reported specifically for the eastern part of Fukushima prefecture, for distances beyond 30 km from the Fukushima Daiichi plant, showed a similar general decreasing trend, ranging from 0.1 to 13.6 µSv/h, as reported on 26 April.
On-site measurements at the west gate of the Fukushima Daiichi plant indicate the presence of I-131 and Cs-137 in the air in the close vicinity of the plant (within approx. 1 km). The concentrations in air reported since 31 March show a maximum on 14 April of 11.8 x 10−4 Bq/cm3 for total I-131 and 2.7 x 10-4 Bq/cm3 for total Cs-137. The values reported for 26 April are 9.0 x 10−5 Bq/cm3 for total I-131 and 2.4 x 10−5 Bq/cm3 for total Cs-137.
Since 1 April there has been one remaining restriction on the consumption of drinking water relating to I-131 (with a limit of 100 Bq/L), which applies to one village in the Fukushima prefecture and only for infants.
Enforced plan on environmental monitoring
On 22 April the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) issued a press release on an 'Enforced plan on environmental monitoring' with the objectives of obtaining an overview and providing data necessary to support the decision to establish the planned evacuation zones.
To meet these objectives, the plan included the following:
− Collection of data on the distribution of radioactive material inside an appropriate area, including the area in the vicinity of the Fukushima Daiichi plant;
− Preparation for future evaluations of changes in dose rates and accumulated amounts of radioactive material in all delineated zones around the Fukushima Daiichi plant;
− Provision of information on environmental dose rates for the purpose of evaluation of personal radiation doses to local residents.
It was announced that maps will be produced on the basis of the results of environmental monitoring, including maps of dose rates and distributions of radioactivity, estimated accumulated doses and levels of soil surface contamination.
This 'enforced plan on environmental monitoring' will be conducted in close cooperation between MEXT, Japan Atomic Energy Agency, universities, the Ministry of Defence, the police, prefectural police, Fukushima prefecture, electrical utilities and others, including the United States Department of Energy.
MEXT will compile all the data collected. MEXT and the Nuclear Safety Commission will cooperate with the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) and other organizations, and will establish procedures for standardizations on ranges and methods for the emergency environmental monitoring.
Food monitoring
Food monitoring data were reported by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare on 27 April for a total of 129 samples taken on 21 and 24-27 April from 10 prefectures (Chiba, Fukushima, Gunma, Ibaraki, Kanagawa, Miyagi, Niigata, Saitama, Tochigi and Yamagata). Analytical results for 125 of the 129 samples for various vegetables, mushrooms, fruit (strawberry), pork, seafood, fresh milk and raw unprocessed milk indicated that I-131, Cs-134 and Cs-137 were either not detected or were below the regulation values set by the Japanese authorities. In Fukushima prefecture, two samples of spinach from 24 and 25 April and two samples of seafood (sand lance) from 26 April were above the regulation values set by the Japanese authorities for Cs-134/Cs-137.
Food restrictions
On 27 April restrictions were lifted on the distribution of spinach in Tochigi prefecture. In Fukushima prefecture, restrictions were lifted on the distribution and consumption of head type leafy vegetables from 17 locations in the Aizu and Minamiaizu districts (cities of Aizuwakamatsu and Kitakata; towns of Aizubange, Aizumisato, Bandai, Inawashiro, Kaneyama, Minamiaizu, Mishima, Nishiaizu, Shimogo, Tadami and Yanaizu; villages of Hinoemata, Kitashiobara, Showa and Yugawa) and flower head brassicas from nine locations (city of Shirakawa; towns of Hanawa, Tanagura, Yabuki and Yamatsuri; villages of Izumizaki, Nakajima, Nishigo and Samegawa).
3. Marine monitoring
Marine monitoring programme
The marine monitoring programme is carried out both near the discharge areas of the Fukushima nuclear power plant by TEPCO and at off-shore stations by the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). The locations of the sampling positions, including several new additional positions, were provided in the briefings of 26 April and 27 April. Contamination of the marine environment occurred by aerial deposition and by discharges and outflow of water with contamination.
Monitoring at off-shore sampling positions consists of:
1. Measurement of ambient dose rate in air above the sea;
2. Analysis of ambient dust above the sea;
3. Analysis of surface samples of sea water;
4. Analysis of samples of sea water collected at 10 m above the sea bottom.
The analysis for almost all sampling positions has shown a general decreasing trend in concentrations of the relevant radionuclides over time. Samples from the coastal positions still show higher concentrations of such radionuclides than samples from the off-shore positions. The radionuclides I-131, Cs-134 and Cs-137 are still detected in most sea water samples, but no longer for some of the off-shore positions.
→ Chronology of Daily Updates:
28 April | 27 April | 26 April | 21 April | 20 April | 19 April | 18 April | 15 April | 14 April | 13 April | 12 April | 11 April | 10 April | 9 April | 8 April | 7 April | 6 April | 5 April | 4 April | 3 April | 2 April | 1 April | 31 March | 30 March | 29 March | 28 March | 27 March | 26 March | 25 March | 24 March | 23 March | 22 March | 21 March | 20 March | 19 March | 18 March | 17 March | 16 March | 15 March | 14 March | 13 March | 12 March | 11 March | Full Update
Tepco Slows Water Injection at Reactor to Curb Risk of Explosion
Tepco Slows Water Injection at Reactor to Curb Risk of Explosion
TEPCO Data Shows Ongoing Criticalities Inside Leaking Fukushima Daiichi Unit 2
TEPCO Data Shows Ongoing Criticalities Inside Leaking Fukushima Daiichi Unit 2
April 28, 2011
How to Tear Down a Nuclear Power Plant [Slide Show]
How to Tear Down a Nuclear Power Plant [Slide Show]
What happens to nuclear reactors like those at Fukushima after they melt down or reach the end of their useful lives?
V.C. Summer Nuclear Station in South Carolina answers meltdown questions
V.C. Summer Nuclear Station in South Carolina answers meltdown questions
Spent Fuel Rod Pool of Unit 4 at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant Video
Spent Fuel Rod Pool of Unit 4 at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant
How to Help Protect Yourself From Low-Level Radiation from Washington's Blog
How to Help Protect Yourself From Low-Level Radiation
As everyone knows, exposure to high levels of radiation can quickly sicken or kill us. Here's an illustration from Columbia University:UPDATE: Special Adviser To Japan Govt Quits Over Handling Of Nuclear Crisis
UPDATE: Special Adviser To Japan Govt Quits Over Handling Of Nuclear Crisis
IAEA chief calls for strengthening of nuclear safety
|
Exelon-Constellation Deal Could Create 'Clean Energy' Giant By JOEL KIRKLAND
Exelon-Constellation Deal Could Create 'Clean Energy' Giant
By JOEL KIRKLANDWhy Older Nuclear Power Plants Remain 'Cash Cows' Despite Fukushima By PETER BEHR of ClimateWire
Why Older Nuclear Power Plants Remain 'Cash Cows' Despite Fukushima
By PETER BEHR of ClimateWire
E.ON CEO: Nuclear Energy Remains Key For Climate Goals, Jobs
E.ON CEO: Nuclear Energy Remains Key For Climate Goals, Jobs
Russia Is Set to Propose Stricter Rules for Reactors By ANDREW E. KRAMER
Russia Calls for Binding New Global Rules for Nuclear Countries
The Times reported that more nuclear power plants were being built in Russia than in any other country--15 of the 60 new reactors underway worldwide, Russian officials said. Rosatom said it had 30 more orders for reactors that were priced from $2 billion to $5 billion.
Russia was readying a proposal for a new global framework of regulations to cover nuclear power generation, the New York Times reported today from Moscow. Rosatom Director Sergei V. Kiriyenko said safety would be enhanced if all 29 nations relying on nuclear power would accept binding standards. Russia planned to present the proposal at an upcoming Group of 8 meeting in France. However, World Nuclear Association analyst Jeremy Gordon said he saw no need for a new set of rules because International Atomic Energy Agency standards were being upheld by most nuclear regulators: "Anybody who is using nuclear power in a serious way is already well within those guidelines. I could not put my finger on a concrete change" that would make Russian proposals any better than IAEA rules.
The Times reported that more nuclear power plants were being built in Russia than in any other country--15 of the 60 new reactors underway worldwide, Russian officials said. Rosatom said it had 30 more orders for reactors that were priced from $2 billion to $5 billion.
EIA Annual Energy Outlook - 2011
Annual Energy Outlook - 2011
Release Date: April 26, 2011 | Next Release Date: April 2012 | Full report in PDF coming soon
Executive Summary
On This Page
Introduction
The projections in the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook 2011 (AEO2011) focus on the factors that shape the U.S. energy system over the long term. Under the assumption that current laws and regulations remain unchanged throughout the projections, the AEO2011 Reference case provides the basis for examination and discussion of energy production, consumption, technology, and market trends and the direction they may take in the future. It also serves as a starting point for analysis of potential changes in energy policies. But AEO2011 is not limited to the Reference case. It also includes 57 sensitivity cases (see Appendix E, Table E1), which explore important areas of uncertainty for markets, technologies, and policies in the U.S. energy economy.Key results highlighted in AEO2011 include strong growth in shale gas production, growing use of natural gas and renewables in electric power generation, declining reliance on imported liquid fuels, and projected slow growth in energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions even in the absence of new policies designed to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
AEO2011 also includes in-depth discussions on topics of special interest that may affect the energy outlook. They include: impacts of the continuing renewal and updating of Federal and State laws and regulations; discussion of world oil supply and price trends shaped by changes in demand from countries outside the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development or in supply available from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries; an examination of the potential impacts of proposed revisions to Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards for light-duty vehicles and proposed new standards for heavy-duty vehicles; the impact of a series of updates to appliance standard alone or in combination with revised building codes; the potential impact on natural gas and crude oil production of an expanded offshore resource base; prospects for shale gas; the impact of cost uncertainty on construction of new electric power plants; the economics of carbon capture and storage; and the possible impact of regulations on the electric power sector under consideration by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Some of the highlights from those discussions are mentioned in this Executive Summary. Readers interested in more detailed analyses and discussions should refer to the "Issues in focus" section of this report.
Imports meet a major but declining share of total U.S. energy demand
Real gross domestic product grows by 2.7 percent per year from 2009 to 2035 in the AEO2011 Reference case, and oil prices grow to about $125 per barrel (2009 dollars) in 2035. In this environment, net imports of energy meet a major, but declining, share of total U.S. energy demand in the Reference case. The need for energy imports is offset by the increased use of biofuels (much of which are produced domestically), demand reductions resulting from the adoption of new vehicle fuel economy standards, and rising energy prices. Rising fuel prices also spur domestic energy production across all fuels—particularly, natural gas from plentiful shale gas resources—and temper the growth of energy imports. The net import share of total U.S. energy consumption in 2035 is 17 percent, compared with 24 percent in 2009. (The share was 29 percent in 2007, but it dropped considerably during the 2008-2009 recession.)
figure data
Much of the projected decline in the net import share of energy supply is accounted for by liquids. Although U.S. consumption of liquid fuels continues to grow through 2035 in the Reference case, reliance on petroleum imports as a share of total liquids consumption decreases. Total U.S. consumption of liquid fuels, including both fossil fuels and biofuels, rises from about 18.8 million barrels per day in 2009 to 21.9 million barrels per day in 2035 in the Reference case. The import share, which reached 60 percent in 2005 and 2006 before falling to 51 percent in 2009, falls to 42 percent in 2035 (Figure 1).
Domestic shale gas resources support increased natural gas production with moderate prices
Shale gas production in the United States grew at an average annual rate of 17 percent between 2000 and 2006. Early success in shale gas production was achieved primarily in the Barnett Shale in Texas. By 2006, the success in the Barnett shale, coupled with high natural gas prices and technological improvements, turned the industry focus to other shale plays. The combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing technologies has made it possible to produce shale gas economically, leading to an average annual growth rate of 48 percent over the 2006-2010 period.Shale gas production continues to increase strongly through 2035 in the AEO2011 Reference case, growing almost fourfold from 2009 to 2035. While total domestic natural gas production grows from 21.0 trillion cubic feet in 2009 to 26.3 trillion cubic feet in 2035, shale gas production grows to 12.2 trillion cubic feet in 2035, when it makes up 47 percent of total U.S. production—up considerably from the 16-percent share in 2009 (Figure 2).
figure data
The estimate for technically recoverable unproved shale gas resources in the Reference case is 827 trillion cubic feet. Although more information has become available as a result of increased drilling activity in developing shale gas plays, estimates of technically recoverable resources and well productivity remain highly uncertain. Estimates of technically recoverable shale gas are certain to change over time as new information is gained through drilling, production, and technological and managerial development. Over the past decade, as more shale formations have gone into commercial production, the estimate of technically and economically recoverable shale gas resources has skyrocketed. However, the increases in recoverable shale gas resources embody many assumptions that might prove to be incorrect over the long term.
Alternative cases in AEO2011 examine the potential impacts of variation in the estimated ultimate recovery per shale gas well and the assumed recoverability factor used to estimate how much of the play acreage contains recoverable shale gas. In those cases, overall domestic natural gas production varies from 22.4 trillion cubic feet to 30.1 trillion cubic feet in 2035, compared with 26.3 trillion cubic feet in the Reference case. The Henry Hub spot price for natural gas in 2035 (in 2009 dollars) ranges from $5.35 per thousand cubic feet to $9.26 per thousand cubic feet in the alternative cases, compared with $7.07 per thousand cubic feet in the Reference case.
Despite rapid growth in generation from natural gas and nonhydropower renewable energy sources, coal continues to account for the largest share of electricity generation
Assuming no additional constraints on CO2 emissions, coal remains the largest source of electricity generation in the AEO2011 Reference case because of continued reliance on existing coal-fired plants. EIA projects few new central-station coal-fired power plants, however, beyond those already under construction or supported by clean coal incentives. Generation from coal increases by 25 percent from 2009 to 2035, largely as a result of increased use of existing capacity; however, its share of the total generation mix falls from 45 percent to 43 percent as a result of more rapid increases in generation from natural gas and renewables over the same period. The role of natural gas grows due to low natural gas prices and relatively low capital construction costs that make it more attractive than coal. The share of generation from natural gas increases from 23 percent in 2009 to 25 percent in 2035.
figure data
Electricity generation from renewable sources grows by 72 percent in the Reference case, raising its share of total generation from 11 percent in 2009 to 14 percent in 2035. Most of the growth in renewable electricity generation in the power sector consists of generation from wind and biomass facilities (Figure 3). The growth in generation from wind plants is driven primarily by State renewable portfolio standard (RPS) requirements and Federal tax credits. Generation from biomass comes from both dedicated biomass plants and co-firing in coal plants. Its growth is driven by State RPS programs, the availability of low-cost feedstocks, and the Federal renewable fuels standard, which results in significant cogeneration of electricity at plants producing biofuels.
Proposed environmental regulations could alter the power generation fuel mix
The EPA is expected to enact several key regulations in the coming decade that will have an impact on the U.S. power sector, particularly the fleet of coal-fired power plants. Because the rules have not yet been finalized, their impacts cannot be fully analyzed, and they are not included in the Reference case. However, AEO2011 does include several alternative cases that examine the sensitivity of power generation markets to various assumed requirements for environmental retrofits.The range of coal plant retirements varies considerably across the cases (Table 1), with a low of 9 gigawatts (3 percent of the coal fleet) in the Reference case and a high of 73 gigawatts (over 20 percent of the coal fleet). The higher end of this range is driven by the somewhat extreme assumptions that all plants must have scrubbers to remove sulfur dioxide and selective catalytic reduction to remove nitrogen oxides, that natural gas wellhead prices remain at or below about $5 through 2035, and that environmental retrofit decisions are based on an assumption that retrofits occur only if plant owners can recover their costs within 5 years. The latter quick cost recovery assumption is meant to represent the possibility of future environmental regulation, including for GHGs.
In all these cases, coal continues to account for the largest share of electricity generation through 2035. Many of the coal plants projected to be retired in these cases had relatively low utilization factors and high heat rates historically, and their contribution to overall coal-fired generation was relatively modest.
Electricity generation from natural gas is higher in 2035 in all the environmental regulation sensitivity cases than in the Reference case. The faster growth in electricity generation with natural gas is supported by low natural gas prices and relatively low capital costs for new natural gas plants, which improve the relative economics of gas when regulatory pressure is placed on the existing coal fleet. In the alternative cases, natural gas generation in 2035 varies from 1,323 billion kilowatthours to 1,797 billion kilowatthours, compared with 1,288 billion kilowatthours in the Reference case
| Table 1. Coal-fired plant retirements in alternative cases, 2010-2035 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Analysis case | Coal-fired capacity retired (gigawatts) | Average size of plants retired (megawatts) | Average heat rate of plants retired (million Btu per kilowatthour) |
| Reference | 8.8 | 93.0 | 12,338 |
| Transport Rule Mercury MACT 20 | 13.5 | 91.4 | 12,053 |
| Transport rule Mercury MACT 5 | 17.8 | 83.3 | 12,102 |
| Retrofit Required 20 | 19.2 | 84.5 | 12,034 |
| Retrofit Required 5 | 44.8 | 91.2 | 11,579 |
| Low Gas Price | 15.6 | 104 | 12,098 |
| Low Gas Price Retrofit Required 20 | 39.5 | 97.8 | 11,576 |
| Low Gas Price Retrofit Required 5 | 72.6 | 109.6 | 11,363 |
Assuming no changes in policy related to greenhouse gas emissions, carbon dioxide emissions grow slowly and do not return to 2005 levels until 2027
After falling by 3 percent in 2008 and 7 percent in 2009, largely as a result of the economic downturn, energy-related CO2 emissions grow slowly in the AEO2011 Reference case due to a combination of modest economic growth, growing use of renewable technologies and fuels, efficiency improvements, slower growth in electricity demand (in part because of the recent recession), and more use of natural gas, which is less carbon-intensive than other fossil fuels. In the Reference case, which assumes no explicit regulations to limit GHG emissions beyond vehicle GHG standards, energy-related CO2 emissions do not return to 2005 levels (5,996 million metric tons) until 2027, growing by an average of 0.6 percent per year from 2009 to 2027, or a total of 10.6 percent. CO2 emissions then rise by an additional 5 percent from 2027 to 2035, to 6,311 million metric tons in 2035 (Figure 4).
figure data
To put the numbers in perspective, population growth is projected to average 0.9 percent per year, overall economic growth 2.7 percent per year, and growth in energy use 0.7 percent per year over the same period. Although total energy-related CO2 emissions increase from 5,996 million metric tons in 2005 to 6,311 million metric tons in 2035 in the Reference case, emissions per capita fall by 0.7 percent per year over the same period. Most of the growth in CO2 emissions in the AEO2011 Reference case is accounted for by the electric power and transportation sectors.
The projections for CO2 emissions are sensitive to many factors, including economic growth, policies aimed at stimulating renewable fuel use or low-carbon power sources, and any policies that may be enacted to reduce GHG emissions. In the AEO2011 Low and High Economic Growth cases, projections for total primary energy consumption in 2035 are 106.4 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) (6.9 percent below the Reference case) and 122.6 quadrillion Btu (7.4 percent above the Reference case), and projections for energy-related CO2 emissions in 2035 are 5,864 million metric tons (7.1 percent below the Reference case) and 6,795 million metric tons (7.7 percent above the Reference case), respectively.
Significant portion of TVA power grid remains down
Significant portion of TVA power grid remains down
TVA Coverage Map
ISO New England Forecasts Adequate Resources to Meet Summer Electricity Demand
ISO New England Forecasts Adequate Resources to Meet Summer Electricity Demand
Gradual Economic Improvement Pushes Peak Forecast Slightly Higher
HOLYOKE, Mass.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--According to ISO New England Inc., the operator of the region’s bulk power system and wholesale electricity markets, the six-state region should have sufficient resources to meet consumer demand this summer.
Kewaunee nuclear plant up for sale again
Kewaunee nuclear plant up for sale again
Wisconsin Business-- For the second time in six years, the Kewaunee nuclear power plant is up for sale. Dominion Resources said today it would sell the facility because the company could not carry out a strategy to buy additional power plants and then quote, “build a business around that portfolio.”
Wisconsin nuclear plant on the auction block
Wisconsin nuclear plant on the auction block
(Reuters) - One of America's oldest nuclear power plants is up for sale.
EPA rules risk 'collision course' with reliability concerns: FERC member Washington (Platts)--28Apr2011/604 pm EDT/2204 GMT
EPA rules risk 'collision course' with reliability concerns: FERC member
Washington (Platts)--28Apr2011/604 pm EDT/2204 GMT
U.S. nuclear plants hit by storm are stable: NRC
U.S. nuclear plants hit by storm are stable: NRC
(Reuters) - The U.S. nuclear safety regulator took a closer look at the ability for U.S. plants to withstand power blackouts on Thursday, a day after severe storms and tornadoes knocked out power to three nuclear reactors in Alabama.
FEPC Update to Information Sheet Regarding the Tohoku Earthquake 4/29
Update to Information Sheet Regarding the Tohoku Earthquake
The Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan (FEPC) Washington DC Office
As of 11:00AM (EST), April 29, 2011
All times listed below are Japan Standard Time (JST) unless otherwise noted.
- Radiation Levels
- On April 29, TEPCO announced the result of the analysis of water samples from the spent fuel pool at Unit 4 of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant taken on April 28. The concentration of radioactive nuclides were as follows:
Nuclides (half-life) | Concentration (Unit : Bq/cm3) | ||
Sampled on April 28 | (Reference) Sampled on April 12 | (Reference) Sampled on March 4 | |
I-131 (8 days) | 2.7 x 101 | 2.2 x 102 | Under the Detection Limit |
Cs-134 (2 years) | 4.9 x 101 | 8.8 x 101 | Under the Detection Limit |
Cs-137 (30 years) | 5.5 x 101 | 9.3 x 101 | 1.3 x 10-1 |
- The concentration of radioactive nuclides from the seawater sampled at the screen device (installed to remove waste before the intake of seawater) of Unit 2 and sampled near the seawater discharge point (south side) of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Station were as follows:
Nuclides (half-life) | Concentration (Unit : Bq/cm3) | Ratio | |||||
Sampled inside the silt fence at the screen of Unit 2 | Sampled outside the silt fence at the screen of Unit 2 | Sampled at south side discharge point | Maximum Permissible Water Concentration (d) | a / d | b / d | c / d | |
4/28 6:59AM (a) | 4/28 6:54AM (b) | 4/28 2:00PM (c) | |||||
I-131 (8 days) | 1.2 x 102 | 1.4 x 101 | 1.1 x 10-2 | 4.0 x 10-2 | 3,000 | 350 | 0.28 |
Cs-134 (2 years) | 2.1 x 101 | 3.8 x 100 | 8.0 x 10-2 | 6.0 x 10-2 | 350 | 63 | 1.3 |
Cs-137 (30 years) | 2.1 x 101 | 4.0 x 100 | 7.6 x 10-2 | 9.0 x 10-2 | 230 | 44 | 0.84 |
- At 9:00PM on April 29, radiation level at main gate (approximately 3,281 feet from Unit 2 reactor building) of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station: 48 micro Sv/hour.
- At 9:00PM on April 29, radiation level at west gate (approximately 3,609 feet from Unit 2 reactor building) of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station: 21.4 micro Sv/hour.
- Measurement results of environmental radioactivity level around Fukushima Nuclear Power Station announced at 4:00PM on April 29 are shown in the attached PDF file. English version is available at: http://www.mext.go.jp/
english/incident/1304082.htm - For comparison, a human receives 2,400 micro Sv per year from natural radiation in the form of sunlight, radon, and other sources. One chest CT scan generates 6,900 micro Sv per scan.
- Plant Parameters
Unit 1 | Unit 2 | Unit 3 | Unit 4 | Unit 5 | Unit 6 | |
pressure inside the reactor core (gauge pressure, MPa) | 0.410 | -0.020 | -0.060 | - | 0.007 | 0.013 |
4/29 11:00AM | 4/29 11:00AM | 4/29 11:00AM | - | 4/29 1:00PM | 4/29 1:00PM | |
pressure inside the primary containment vessel (absolute pressure, MPaabs) | 0.105 | 0.075 | 0.1033 | - | - | - |
4/29 11:00AM | 4/29 11:00AM | 4/29 11:00AM | - | - | - | |
water level inside the reactor core (meter) *1 | -1.7 | -1.5 | -1.85 | - | +1.901 | +1.965 |
4/29 11:00AM | 4/29 11:00AM | 4/29 11:00AM | - | 4/29 1:00PM | 4/29 1:00PM | |
temperature of the reactor vessel measured at the water supply nozzle (degrees Fahrenheit) | 238.5 | 246.6 | 177.1 | - | - | - |
4/29 |
[Message clipped] View entire message
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)