Challenges of Digital Control Rooms for nuclear power plants

The editorial team at the American Nuclear Society blog would like to publish an article on the challenges of digital control rooms for nuclear power plants. This can be on conversion of an existing plant or building a new one. The blog is located at: http://ansnuclearcafe.wordpress.com  

In addition to writing for the blog, ANS also invites experts to propose articles for ANS News.  If you are interested, please contact Laura Scheele, Rick Michal, or myself.  I will be available to help an author craft an article suitable for the blog format. Rick will provide editorial guidance for ANS news.  

Please share this invitation with colleagues.  Thanks.

NRC wants waste stored for century By JOSH STILTS / Reformer Staff

NRC proposes to extend on-site storage of high-level waste, used fuel

 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing rule revisions that would allow nuclear facilities to store high-level waste and used fuel for more than 120 years. "This analysis will go well beyond the current analysis that supports at least 60 years of post-licensed life storage with eventual disposal in a deep geologic repository," the NRC said. "In terms of the disposal of [used] fuel and high-level waste, the revisions to the Waste Confidence Decision reflect the reality that a repository for the material remains unavailable," Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the NRC. Brattleboro Reformer (Vt.)

To meet N.J. energy needs, look to nuclear

New Jersey should continue to focus on nuclear energy
Keeping New Jersey's nuclear plants running would help the state increase its clean-energy production and bring economic benefits, writes Scott Peterson, the Nuclear Energy Institute's vice president of communications. State officials should not hesitate to approve the license renewals of its nuclear plants, he writes. The state's four nuclear power plants produce 55% of its electricity. Courier-Post (Camden-Cherry Hill, N.J.)

Russia plans 2013 start of construction of Turkish nuclear plant

Russia plans 2013 start of construction of Turkish nuclear plant
Russia will begin constructing a $20 billion nuclear facility in Turkey by 2013, said Vladimir Ivanovsky, the Russian ambassador to Turkey. "The launch of the plant's first power unit is planned for 2018, while the other three will be launched with an interval of one year," he said. http://en.rian.ru/russia/20101212/161741673.html

Related articles

• Ukraine to open Chernobyl nuclear power plant to tourists next year (theglobeandmail.com)
• Vietnam's first nuclear power project may start in 2013 (lookatvietnam.com)
• Maariv: How to build another nuclear reactor without signing the NPT (coteret.com)

Egypt plans to build first nuclear plant by 2019

Egypt plans to have first nuclear plant operational by 2019, and build 3 more by 2025 http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Egypt-plans-to-build-first-apf-1424993263.html

Assessing the seismic hazard of the central eastern United States

As the U.S. policy makers renew emphasis on the use of nuclear energy in their efforts to reduce the country's oil dependence, other factors come into play. One concern of paramount importance is the seismic hazard at the site where nuclear reactors are located.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-seismic-hazard-central-eastern-states.html

Related articles

• Nuclear Energy Vs. Seismic Hazards In Central Eastern United States (lockergnome.com)
• Assessing the seismic hazard of the central eastern United States (eurekalert.org)

Countdown to nuclear liftoff LIONEL FAULL, JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA

The pressure is on for the government to roll out the country’s nuclear strategy and decisions are expected to be made within a year about the technologies and vendors for the country’s R300-billion expansion of nuclear capacity.

The favoured option of the draft Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) 2010 calls for the first new nuclear station to come on stream in 2023. With a lead time of at least 12 years, decisions will have to be made soon.

The IRP 2010 calls for six new nuclear stations, each with a capacity of 1600MW. The government is understood to favour a "fleet strategy", meaning that a single vendor could supply the technology for decades to come.

Opinion remains divided on the suitability of nuclear for the country’s energy mix. Supporters say it can supply baseload power but opponents say that it continues to carry too many risks and is not preferable to renewables such as wind and solar.

Public participation in the draft IRP 2010 is winding down -- the deadline for written submissions on all electricity generating technologies under consideration expires on Friday.

The implementation of the new energy policy will then begin in earnest.

The IRP proposes that nuclear energy should provide 14% of South Africa’s total electricity generating capacity by 2030. Nuclear is seen as the best replacement for coal and the way to provide most of the country's baseload requirements when ageing coal-fired stations are decommissioned to meet South Africa's carbon emission reduction targets.

'Time is very tight'
The department of energy expects the IRP to be promulgated by February, after which the government's nuclear procurement process will begin.

"Time is very tight, but it would be equally inappropriate to rush into nuclear without public participation," said Ompi Aphane, the department's deputy director general for electricity, nuclear and clean generation.  More at link.
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-12-10-countdown-to-nuclear-liftoff

Related articles

• Nuclear is the least-cost, low-carbon, baseload power source (nextbigfuture.com)
• Mini nuclear reactors: Thinking small (economist.com)

Observations on U.S. nuclear export control policies By Andrew C. Kadak, Ph.D

By Andrew C. Kadak, Ph.D
Having recently attended a Pillsbury and Nuclear Energy Institute seminar on “Export Controls for the Nuclear Renaissance,” it became clear to me why the United States is losing its leadership position in nuclear energy:  The bureaucracy is winning the war over effectiveness of policy and nonproliferation.

"While the goals of nonproliferation policy are laudable and needed, the bureaucracy established to implement these laws is not. We are at a point where U.S. participation in the world nuclear expansion is diminished, allowing other nations to be faster in granting approvals to work with other nations by implementing equally effective nonproliferation policies.
What is missing is common sense. What is needed is a rewrite of legislation to eliminate centers of delay to allow the United States to compete and affect nuclear expansion on a world scale. The limitations imposed on training and information exchange are at best archaic and totally contrary to expanding our influence to the development of safe nuclear energy for peaceful purposes." More at:http://ansnuclearcafe.wordpress.com/2010/12/06/observations-on-u-s-export-control-policies/

Passing the starting line: nuclear construction risk -- Ernst & Young

http://paceeenvironmentalnotes.blogspot.com/2010/12/passing-starting-line-nuclear.html

This report from Ernst and Young finds that there is a growing momentum for investment in nuclear power, with 65 reactors1 under construction in 15 countries, a further 120 being actively pursued and many existing reactors being refurbished.

These major capital projects come with a multibillion-dollar price tag and a correspondingly high level of risk. To attract investment and earn a good rate of return, the nuclear industry needs to demonstrate that it can deliver these projects on time and on budget. Unfortunately, its track record in previous phases of investment has been weak. Should a significant number of these new projects fail, the entire industry could be penalized with higher financing costs and fewer investors.

The key is to focus on areas that matter the most, and to build in flexibility from the onset; for example:
• The regulatory environment: this represents one of the greatest risks to prospective nuclear new build, as changes can have a large impact on the viability of projects. We look at the importance of modeling the various contingencies that have to be built in from the start.
• Lack of planning: the classic mistake in the nuclear industry is to skimp on planning and rush into construction, but it’s in the early phases that project owners have the greatest chance to influence the project’s success.
• Operational experience: many utilities do not have the organizational expertise to deliver major capital programs due to the lack of recent experience with large-scale construction projects. Bringing in the right expertise to manage these projects is essential.

Related articles

• Reportlinker Adds Global Nuclear Reactor Decommissioning Industry Analysis: Market Size, Regional Analysis and Competitive Analysis (prnewswire.com)
• In nuclear energy, smaller is better (money.cnn.com)

How to make people 'love' nuclear power

The Hinkley Point poll is likely to have guided people to think about nuclear power in a different way. Photograph: Martin Argles for the Guardian

Climate question & answer service ready for journalists’ questions

AGU Release No. 10–38
10 November 2010
For Immediate Release

WASHINGTON—Climate scientist-members of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) have organized a Climate Q&A Service to provide timely scientific answers to journalists reporting on climate.
Approximately 700 Ph.D.-level climate scientists, who represent the diversity of climate science-related disciplines, have volunteered to receive and respond to questions via a shared e-mail in-box. Teams of up to10 scientists at a time have signed up for shifts from Monday to Friday, 8AM–4PM (Pacific Time).
Scientist-volunteers in AGU's Climate Q&A Service will field questions about climate science (not policy) that are e-mailed to questions@agu.emailcenterpro.com, an e-mail box set up specifically for the project. Responses to questions will be returned in a timely fashion with regard for journalists' deadlines. Answers will reflect the responding scientists’ research and views. They do not represent official positions of the AGU, the world's largest organization of Earth and space scientists.
The service is an extended pilot project and will operate from today through at least the third week of January. This project is building off the success of last year's 10-day pilot program that coincided with the UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen. Last year, 54 climate science inquiries were received from 27 media outlets, including Newsweek, National Public Radio, and the UK Sunday Times. This year's extended pilot will run for a significantly longer period and will seek increased visibility and use by journalists. AGU will collect data on requests and responses and solicit feedback from participants in order to evaluate the service.
If you have climate science questions, please e-mail them to questions@agu.emailcenterpro.com. For more information about the service, visit and bookmark the project's mobile-device-friendly website. From there, you can download a free widget for submitting questions to the service, which can be easily embedded on a web page.
AGU is a not-for-profit, professional, scientific organization with more than 58,000 members in over 135 countries. The organization advances the Earth and space sciences through its scholarly publications, conferences, and outreach programs. AGU is accessible on the Web. The Climate Q&A Service email box operates on a platform provided by Palo Alto Software of Eugene, Oregon.

http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2010/2010-38.shtml

Related articles

• Inaccurate news reports misrepresent a climate-science initiative of the American Geophysical Union (prweb.com)
• Big Confusion on Climate Science Communication vs. Activism | The Intersection (blogs.discovermagazine.com)
• Are Climate Scientists Fighting Back Against Skeptics? (livescience.com)
• AGU Climate Q&A Service won't answer this Q: "Is current U.S. infrastructure adequate for sea level rise?" - Is that prudent -- or lame? (climateprogress.org)
• A Climate Science Headache (motherjones.com)
• Climate Scientists Ready to Engage Public and Take on "Skeptical" Congress (planetsave.com)
• US Researchers Fight to Reclaim Climate Science Message | CommonDreams.org (f33dyourhead.wordpress.com)

Leaking underground CO2 storage could contaminate drinking water

Leaking underground CO2 storage could contaminate drinking water
Leaks from carbon dioxide injected deep underground to help fight climate change could bubble up into drinking water aquifers near the surface, driving up levels of contaminants in the water tenfold or more in some places, according to a study by Duke University scientists. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-leaking-underground-co2-storage-contaminate.html

Related articles

• Will stored CO2 leak into drinking water? (holykaw.alltop.com)
• Leaking underground CO2 storage could contaminate drinking water (scienceblog.com)
• Leaking underground CO2 storage could contaminate drinking water (eurekalert.org)
• Analysis of drill cores links variations in CO2 40M years ago to changes in global temperatures; questions as to the source of CO2 (greencarcongress.com)
• Dutch Drop Plan to Store Carbon Dioxide Underground (foxnews.com)
• EPA Subpoenas Halliburton for Documents About "Fracking" (legaltimes.typepad.com)

Biofuel worse for climate than fossil fuel: study

Biofuel worse for climate than fossil fuel: study

European plans to promote biofuels will drive farmers to convert 69,000 square km of wild land into fields and plantatons, depriving the poor of food and accelerating climate change, a report warned on Monday.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=biofuel-worse-for-climate-than-foss

Related articles

• Biofuel worse for climate than fossil fuel - study. (af.reuters.com)
• Biofuel worse for climate than fossil fuel: study (reuters.com)
• Green groups launch fresh attack on 'carbon intensive' biofuels (businessgreen.com)
• Biofuel worse for climate than fossil fuel: study (scientificamerican.com)
• Forced use of biofuels could hit food production, EU warned (guardian.co.uk)
• EU Biofuel Expansion Plans Worse For Environment Than Burning Fossil Fuels, New Report Claims (treehugger.com)
• The Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) reports that indirect impacts of European Biofuel Policy will cause more CO2 emissions, not less. (greenfudge.org)
• Tallying Biofuels' Real Environmental Cost (time.com)
• Biofuels Fallacy: Why Burning Plants Instead of Fossil Fuels Won't Save the Climate (alternet.org)
• EU Biofuel Expansion Plans Worse For Environment Than Burning Fossil Fuels, New Report Claims (treehugger.com)

Climate scientists plan campaign against global warming skeptics

The American Geophysical Union plans to announce that 700 researchers have agreed to speak out on the issue. Other scientists plan a pushback against congressional conservatives who have vowed to kill regulations on greenhouse gas emissions.

Related articles

• Climate Scientists To Fight Back Against Republican Climate-Change Deniers (crooksandliars.com)
• "Climate Scientists Plan Campaign Against Global Warming Skeptics" and related posts (drroyspencer.com)
• 700 Scientists Fight Back Against Climate Change Denying Politicians (treehugger.com)
• Scientists have a duty to engage with the public on climate change | John Abraham (guardian.co.uk)
• Two New Climate Science Outreach Efforts On Tap (news.sciencemag.org)
• Climate scientists say enough is enough and mobilize an army (grist.org)
• Big Confusion on Climate Science Communication vs. Activism | The Intersection (blogs.discovermagazine.com)
• Dot Earth: Scientists Join Forces in a Hostile Climate (dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com)
• Dot Earth: Principles for Managing Climate 'Management' (dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com)
• US scientists unite against climate sceptics (guardian.co.uk)
• Life after Climategate (cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com)

EU battles to lock down radioactive waste forever

Brussels (AFP) Nov 3, 2010 Europe offered new plans Wednesday to lock away forever lethal radioactive waste, but the proposals attacking hopelessly inadequate disposal facilities drew a stinging rebuke from environmentalists. Half a century after atomic power was first produced in Britain, the European Union's nuclear energy-producing countries stand accused of future negligence without a single "deep geological disposal" site equipped to withstand up to an estimated one million years of decay.
As a result, the EU's executive arm tabled for the third time legislative proposals that would see states pushed to build the kind of facility deep in the earth's crust that it says scientists claim is the only way to protect nature's balance.
"We have to make sure that we have the highest safety standards in the world to protect our citizens, our water and the ground against nuclear contamination," said EU energy commissioner Guenther Oettinger, specifying that depths should be "a minimum of 300 metres (990 feet)."
The proposals immediately fell foul of anti-nuclear Greenpeace, whose "dirty energy" campaigner Jan Haverkamp termed them "sub-standard."
"It would take an engineering genius to safely bury white-hot, highly-dangerous nuclear waste deep underground for longer than mankind has been on the planet," he said.
"We fear a disposal facility could rupture high-level nuclear waste into the water table for hundreds of thousands of years."
Quite simply, added leading German Green EU lawmaker Rebecca Harms, the plans "do not address citizens' concerns given the danger posed by radioactive waste."
Oettinger acknowledged that two similar initiatives were previously batted away by states, but insisted this one "will not be blocked" under post-Lisbon treaty majority voting.
The commission is targeting adoption next year, and said states would then have four years to nail down a "concrete timetable" for constructing facilities, including "the financing schemes chosen."
The commission wants nuclear power plant operators "to put money aside for the financing of future disposals."
Producers would not be allowed to export nuclear waste to countries outside the EU for final disposal.
Current schemes offering so-called "interim storage" are given a lifespan of "maximal 50-100 years," the commission said, meaning waste "has to be retrieved and repackaged."
Spent fuel and radioactive waste "need continuous maintenance and oversight," it said.
As the material is typically near the surface, "there is in addition a risk of accidents, including airplane crashes, fires or earthquakes."
Each year, 7,000 cubic metres (247,000 cubic feet) of "high-level" waste that cannot be re-used are produced in the EU, and by 2020, a definitive solution must be found for 1.8 million cubic metres.
Once the rules are adopted, Brussels would be able to fine states that miss targets.
Finland plans to have the sort of repository the commission says science recommends operational in 2020, Sweden in 2023 and France in 2025, Oettinger's office said.
There are 143 nuclear power reactors in use across 14 of the EU's 27 states, with another two, Italy and Poland, planning to build their first.
Not every country would need to host a disposal site, should cross-border public support emerge for sharing.
Most European nations have settled on maintaining nuclear energy at the core of their power needs for coming generations, as oil threatens to run dry and new green technologies have yet to deliver their full potential.
The first nuclear plant to enter service in the EU was Calder Hall, which came on line in northwest England in 1956.

Related articles

• EU wants answers on nuclear waste (bbc.co.uk)
• Cumbria could host nuclear waste (bbc.co.uk)
• Nuclear waste could be dumped in Lake District (telegraph.co.uk)
• Lake District identified as prime site for burial of nuclear waste (guardian.co.uk)
• Thousands Protest Plans to transport Radioactive Waste (nowpublic.com)
• Appeal begins over Kings Cliffe radioactive waste dump plans (guardian.co.uk)
• Not in my backyard (bbc.co.uk)
• Move across city for radioactive waste (news.theage.com.au)
• Matheson, Corroon: Keep high-level waste out of Utah ()

EU’s Oettinger Wants Plans for Nuclear Waste Storage, Welt Says

European Union Energy Commissioner Guenther Oettinger wants EU countries with nuclear power plants to submit plans to the regulator for how they will manage final storage of radioactive waste, Die Welt said.
The affected member states would have to detail their plans within four years after a draft law Oettinger will present tomorrow takes effect, the German newspaper said, citing an interview with the commissioner.
The law would also ban exports of nuclear waste to third party countries, Welt reported.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-02/eu-s-oettinger-wants-plans-for-nuclear-waste-storage-welt-says.html

California nuclear group proposes new power station

California nuclear group proposes new power station
A California nuclear energy group recently proposed building a nuclear power station that would provide electricity for food processing and power desalination of waste water. Proponents of the plan say the three-decade-old state ban on new reactors is not applicable to thermal reactors with industrial uses and that the development would help solve California's "waste issue." TheEnergyCollective.com

PSC continues Progress Energy nuke plant fee

The commission's decision "confirms the state's commitment to state-of-the-art nuclear power as a strategic asset," Jacobs said.

The Florida legislature passed a law in 2006 that lets utilities begin charging customers for nuclear plant costs during construction. Costs for conventional plants cannot be recovered until they are completed. More at:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/39854935

Changes in energy R&D needed to combat climate change

A new assessment of future scenarios that limit the extent of global warming cautions that unless current imbalances in R&D portfolios for the development of new, efficient, and clean energy technologies are redressed, greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets are unlikely to be met, or met only at considerable costs.More at:  http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-10-energy-combat-climate.html

Related articles

• Changes in energy R&D needed to combat climate change (eurekalert.org)
• Navistar Issues Statement on Fuel Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Regulations for Heavy Trucks (eon.businesswire.com)
• Real-World Steps on Energy and CO2 (dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com)
• Changes in energy R+D needed to combat climate change (nanowerk.com)
• Engine and Truck Manufacturers Welcome Opportunity to Work with EPA and DOT to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions (eon.businesswire.com)

Why People Are Afraid of Nuclear Power By: David Ropeik | The Moscow Times

Germany’s ambivalence about nuclear energy, common in many developed countries, has been on display again recently, following Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to extend the operating life of the country’s 17 nuclear plants for an average of 12 years beyond their currently scheduled closure dates. Merkel says this will help Germany develop the “most efficient and environmentally friendly energy supply worldwide.” Opposition leaders say the government is “selling safety for money.”
Both sides argue about the facts, but underlying that debate is an argument about how those facts feel. How risk is perceived — whether the risk is nuclear power or genetically modified food or any other potential threat — is never a purely rational, fact-based process.
Decades of research have found that risk perception is an affective combination of facts and fears, intellect and instinct, reason and gut reaction. It is an inescapably subjective process — one that has helped us survive, but that sometimes gets us into more trouble because we often worry too much about relatively smaller risks, or not enough about bigger ones, and make choices that feel right, but that actually create new risks.
So, as Germany grapples with the issue of nuclear power, there are important lessons to be learned, not only about nuclear power per se, but also about how we perceive risk in the first place, because understanding that subjective system is the first step toward avoiding its pitfalls.
Consider the two aspects of the risk of nuclear radiation: the facts and the feelings. More at:
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/why-people-are-afraid-of-nuclear-power/420621.html