U.S.A. - Experts on Fukushima: It Can't Happen Here

A new analysis of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant meltdown caused by the Japanese earthquake and tsunami a year ago puts some of the blame on human error and regulatory oversight, but paints an optimistic picture of the safety of America's nuclear power plants.

The report, issued by the American Nuclear Society's special committee on Fukushima, says that the meltdown was caused by a "catastrophe of monumental, unanticipated proportions," but says the Japanese response is a "complex story of mismanagement, culture, and sometimes even simple errors in translation."

"Given the backdrop of the situation, mistakes related to Fukushima Daiichi certainly should have been expected," it says. "However, there were serious problems with accident management and with risk communication and crisis communication that need to be examined."

In a New York Times op-ed published Friday, James Acton and Mark Hibbs, senior associates in the nuclear policy program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, similarly condemned the Japanese response.

"The potential risks of tsunamis to nuclear power plants are well understood and a set of international standards has been developed to mitigate those risks," they wrote. "Despite Japan's history of tsunamis … Japan's nuclear regulator did not apply those standards."

Read More...

Indy car driver talks to students about nuclear power

Indy car driver Simona de Silvestro was surprised by the lack of knowledge about nuclear power in the United States when she moved to this country to pursue her racing career.

“I grew up with it,” the native of Switzerland said. “When I came to theU.S., I was actually shocked that so few people knew about it.”

In Switzerland, she said, about 40 percent of energy is nuclear.

In theU.S., it’s 20 percent.

Hoping to raise awareness about nuclear energy, de Silvestro, who is about to start her third season driving the nuclear clean air energy car, spoke to about 50 students from the Central Virginia Governor’s School and Lynchburg City Schools Tuesday morning at AREVA’s Old Forest Road location.

Read More...

NRC Freezes All Nuclear Reactor Construction & Operating Licenses In U.S.

WASHINGTON, Aug. 7, 2012 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Decision Follows 24 Groups' June Petition in Wake of Major Waste Confidence Rule Decision; Most Reactor Projects Already Stymied by Bad Economics and Cheaper Fuel Alternatives 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) acted today to put a hold on at least 19 final reactor licensing decisions - nine construction & operating licenses (COLS), eight license renewals, one operating license, and one early site permit - in response to the landmark Waste Confidence Rule decision of June 8th by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. 

The NRC action was sought in a June 18, 2012 petition filed by 24 groups urging the NRC to respond to the court ruling by freezing final licensing decisions until it has completed a rulemaking action on the environmental impacts of highly radioactive nuclear waste in the form of spent, or 'used', reactor fuel storage and disposal. 

READ MORE....

*** COMMENTARY  *** 

As Harry Reid holds up Yucca Mountain, a perfectly dry and geologically inactive site, the nation will begin to suffer the inability to continue nuclear power operations.  The results will be runaway energy costs, reduced production capabilities, jobs losses, and an overall lowered standard of living for the people of the United States.

The Barack Obama Administration has purposely put in NRC Chairpersons that are anti-nuclear power and have thwarted the zero emission operations of our nuclear power fleet.

The halting of these new plants is a huge blunder as they create far more power, are less expensive, have far less waste, use far less fuel, are highly efficient, and exceedingly safe.

It is a shame when politics trumps common sense and intelligence.

Worldwide Nuclear Energy Expansion Continues

Global production of nuclear energy is expected to grow significantly in future years, despite setbacks in Japan and Germany, as China and the United States eyes next-generation reactors.

Worldwide nuclear electricity generating capacity is expected to increase between 44 percent and 99 percent by 2035, the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Nuclear Energy Agency said in their joint biannual report on uranium resources, released this week.

Japan's decision to shut down all but two of its nuclear reactors in the wake of the nuclear accident at Fukushima Daiichi last year played in to Germany's decision to phase out nuclear by 2022, but has apparently not slowed plans in other parts of Asia. Nuclear energy will see the sharpest expansion in China, India, and South Korea, the agencies said in a release, as well as in Russia.
Gary Dyck, head of nuclear fuel cycle and materials at the International Atomic Energy Agency, told Reuters that the long-term impact of Fukushima on global nuclear energy production was a "speed bump... We still expect huge growth in China."

Capacity in East Asia will jump by 125 percent to 185 percent, according to the report.

Though China suspended new nuclear projects in the wake of Fukushima, it now appears that China will react to the incident by turning to newer, domestically produced nuclear reactors, Harvard research scholar Yun Zhou wrote last month.

"It appears that the Fukushima disaster may lead China to adopt newer, third-generation (or Gen III) reactor designs created by Chinese firms, allowing China to wean itself from purely foreign reactor technology much more quickly than was expected pre-Fukushima," she wrote. "In fact, a race to develop indigenous Gen III technology is emerging, with all three major nuclear power companies in China announcing their own Gen III reactor designs."

READ MORE...

Building costs rise at U.S. nuclear sites

 

 

By RAY HENRY

ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

July 15, 2012 12:00 AM

ATLANTA — America's first new nuclear plants in more than a decade are costing billions more to build and sometimes taking longer to deliver than planned, problems that could chill the industry's hopes for a jumpstart to the nation's new nuclear age.

Licensing delay charges, soaring construction expenses and installation glitches as mundane as misshapen metal bars have driven up the costs of three plants in Georgia, Tennessee and South Carolina, from hundreds of millions to as much as $2 billion, according to an Associated Press analysis of public records and regulatory filings.

Those problems, along with jangled nerves from last year's meltdown in Japan and the lure of cheap natural gas, could discourage utilities from sinking cash into new reactors, experts said. The building slowdown would be another blow to the so-called nuclear renaissance, a drive over the past decade to build 30 new reactors to meet the country's growing power needs. Industry watchers now say that only a handful will be built this decade.

"People are looking at these things very carefully," said Richard Lester, head of the department of nuclear science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Inexpensive gas alone, he said, "is casting a pretty long shadow over the prospects" for construction of new nuclear plants.

The AP's review of pending projects found:

— Plant Vogtle in eastern Georgia, initially estimated to cost $14 billion, has run into more than $800 million in extra charges related to licensing delays. A state monitor has said bluntly that co-owner Southern Co. can't stick to its budget. The plant, whose first reactor was supposed to be operational by April 2016, is now delayed seven months.

— The long-mothballed Watts Bar power plant in eastern Tennessee, initially budgeted at $2.5 billion, will cost up to $2 billion more, the Tennessee Valley Authority concluded this spring. The utility said its initial budget underestimated how much work was needed to finish the plant and wasted money by not completing more design work before starting construction. The project had been targeted to finish in 2012, but has been postponed until 2015.

— Plant Summer in South Carolina, expected to cost around $10.5 billion, has seen costs jump by $670 million; but with lower interest rates and cheaper-than-expected labor; the owners assert the project is still on or under budget. A deadline to put the first new reactor online has been delayed from 2016 to 2017; the second reactor is now eight months ahead of schedule, targeted for early 2018.

READ MORE...

Obama taps Yucca Mtn critic to lead nuclear agency

[Commentary:  U.S. nuclear power has just been delivered yet another setback.  Gregory Jaczko hurt the growth of renewable nuclear power and green energy growth and now he is replaced with Allison Macfarlane who is fully endorsed by Harry Reid.  Anyone endorsed by Harry Reid is hardly an ally of nuclear power in the United States.  Expect more delays, cost run ups, regulations, and energy prices to continue to soar.]

By MATTHEW DALY, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Moving quickly to stem a controversy, President Barack Obama on Thursday nominated an expert on nuclear waste to lead the federal agency that regulates the nation's nuclear power plants.
Allison Macfarlane, who served on a presidential commission that studied new strategies to manage nuclear waste, would replace Gregory Jaczko as head of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Jaczko announced his resignation Monday after a tumultuous three-year tenure in which he pushed for sweeping safety reforms but came under fire for an unyielding management style that fellow commissioners and agency employees described as bullying.
A White House spokesman said Obama believes Macfarlane is the right person to lead the commission, calling her a highly regarded expert who has spent years analyzing nuclear issues.
Macfarlane "understands the role that nuclear power must play in our nation's energy future while ensuring that we are always taking steps to produce this important energy source safely and securely," White House spokesman Clark Stevens said.
Stevens called the NRC crucial to protecting public health and safety and said Obama hopes the Senate considers her nomination quickly.
Macfarlane, 48, an associate professor of environmental science and policy at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., wrote a book in 2006 that raised technical questions about a proposed nuclear waste dump at Nevada's Yucca Mountain.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who is the leading congressional opponent of the Yucca site, praised Macfarlane as someone who will make nuclear safety a top priority. Macfarlane's education and experience, especially her service on the blue-ribbon commission on nuclear waste, make her qualified to lead the NRC "for the foreseeable future," Reid said in a statement.


Reid said he continues to have concerns about Republican Kristine Svinicki, who has been nominated by Obama for a new term on the commission, but added that he believes Svinicki and Macfarlane should be considered together, continuing a recent Senate tradition of considering NRC nominees from opposing parties at the same time.
Svinicki, a nuclear engineer and former Senate GOP aide, was among four NRC commissioners who publicly criticized Jaczko's management style last year. The commissioners — two Democrats and two Republicans — sent a letter to the White House last fall expressing "grave concern" about Jaczko' s actions, which they said were abusive and "causing serious damage" to the commission.
No disciplinary action was taken against Jaczko, who has strongly denied the allegations.
Jaczko, a Democrat, announced his resignation ahead of a potentially blistering report due out soon from the agency's inspector general, which has been investigating Jaczko's actions for more than a year.
A former Reid aide, Jaczko led a strong response to the nuclear disaster in Japan and was a favorite of industry watchdogs, who called his emphasis on safety a refreshing change from previous agency chiefs who were close to the nuclear industry or who came from it.
But scientists, fellow commissioners and many rank-and-file staffers said Jaczko had created a chilled working environment at the NRC, which oversees safety at the nation's 104 commercial nuclear reactors.
The Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group, called Macfarlane "an active contributor to policy debates in the nuclear energy field for many years" and urged the Senate to confirm her nomination as soon as possible.
"It would not serve the public interest to have her nomination linger," the group said. "We urge the Senate to confirm both Commissioner Svinicki and Professor Macfarlane expeditiously."
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Environment Committee, said Macfarlane's background and experience demonstrate a strong commitment to safety — a commitment she called especially important in the wake of the nuclear disaster at Japan's Fukushima Dai-ichi plant.
Boxer said she will schedule a joint hearing on the two NRC nominees in June.
Per Peterson, a professor of nuclear engineering at the University of California, served with Macfarlane on the nuclear waste commission, which was appointed by the Obama administration to make recommendations on how the nation should store and dispose of more than 71,000 tons of radioactive waste at dozens of sites across the country.
"I think she will be effective in leadership" of the NRC, "mainly because she listens," Peterson said of Macfarlane.
In a 2009 interview with Technology Review, Macfarlane acknowledged that most of the objections to the never-completed Yucca Mountain site were political, but added: "The technical objections are serious and real."
The area near Yucca Mountain is seismically and volcanically active, she said, adding that spent nuclear fuel could be stored safely at nuclear plants for decades.
The presidential panel recommended that the government start looking immediately for an alternative to Yucca Mountain. The report also recommended that responsibility for managing nuclear waste be transferred to a new organization, independent of the Energy Department.

LINK

Analysis: U.S. firms may miss out as Saudi nuke plan advances

DUBAI (Reuters) - Top oil exporter Saudi Arabia expects to finalize its atomic energy plans this year but the U.S. nuclear industry may miss out on multi-billion dollar contracts to turn it into a reality unless Washington and Riyadh sign a non-proliferation deal soon.

Saudi Arabia has some of the world's largest oil and gas fields but rapidly rising power demand in the kingdom threatens to absorb much of those reserves unless it can find alternative fuels for its long-term economic growth.

Riyadh, which says electricity demand could soar from around 45 gig watts (GW) to 120 GW by 2035, commissioned the King Abdullah City for Atomic and Renewable Energy (KA-CARE) in 2010 to draw up a plan for reducing reliance on oil and gas.

It has signed nuclear cooperation deals with countries able to build reactors, including the United States, France, Russia, South Korea, China and Argentina. And Riyadh needs to move relatively quickly if it is to achieve its goal of opening its first nuclear plant by 2020.

"We expect the current consultation phase with the Council to last for a few more months before we can announce the Kingdom's energy sources, capacity targets, and milestone regulations," a KA-CARE spokesman said. "Soon we will be announcing what the energy mix for the reactors will be."

U.S. companies lost out to a lower-bidding Korean consortium in the first Gulf region nuclear plant tender in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in 2009. They could be sidelined again until Washington and Riyadh sign a "123 agreement" under the U.S. Atomic Energy Act - opening the door for U.S. nuclear exports.

Nuclear projects tend to progress slowly - thanks to their size, complexity and many safety issues.

A U.S. embassy cable released by Wikileaks warned in 2009 that Saudi Arabia pressing ahead with one of the world's largest atomic energy programs without U.S. involvement was a "near-term risk to U.S. interests."

But with congress preoccupied with U.S. presidential elections and stopping Iran's nuclear program, which it suspects includes weapons development, it is unlikely any deal will be concluded this year.

"There's high doubt that President Obama or the U.S. congress, which needs to ratify the 123 agreement, will move on this in 2012," said a source in Washington familiar with U.S. energy policy.

"I think the Saudis will have to wait and see who wins the elections first before they proceed ... this may not be until 2014 before the United States considers it."

Riyadh, may not wait until 2014 for a U.S. non-proliferation deal and has several other options if the door to U.S. companies remains shut.

"It would constrain American suppliers of reactors or of services, like conversion or enrichment, but as far as anybody else is concerned, no," Ian Hore-Lacy, spokesman for the World Nuclear Association (WNA), a group representing nuclear power companies around the world, said.



"But there would be plenty of options. Even in a worst case scenario, there are still other avenues of buying equipment and services ... It certainly wouldn't be a show stopper," he said.

It is unclear how the use of some U.S.-patented technologies by other nuclear plant builders would be affected if the United States and the kingdom do not strike a 123 deal.

The UAE signed the 123 agreement with the United States in early 2009, forfeiting its right to enrich uranium domestically, before awarding a $40 billion contract to a Korean-led consortium later that year.

Prince Turki al-Faisal, a key Saudi royal, has said the kingdom would not surrender its right to enrich its own uranium for energy use in the long term, although it expects to have to import fuel in the medium term.

"Early economic studies have indicated that although Saudi Arabia is naturally rich with uranium, using that uranium in Saudi Arabian facilities to produce fuel for electrical generation will not be economically feasible in the foreseeable future," the KA-CARE spokesman said. "Importing fuel is preferable at this time."

While concrete construction plans remain far off, Saudi Arabia has signed memorandums of understanding (MOUs) with several countries with experience in building nuclear plants - including the United States, France, Russia, South Korea, China and Argentina - over the last few years.

LINK

Nuclear Power – The World Report 2012 - 2030

By Lee S. Gliddon III
Research by:  Mary Owings, Lee S. Gliddon III

Mark Twain once said, "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."  Like Mark Twain, recent reports of the death of nuclear power are also greatly exaggerated, but unlike the prolific author who died in 1910, nuclear power will be present, with growth scheduled for decades to come, throughout the planet.  Recent trends, plans, and quotes from the world community let us know there will be expansion of nuclear power, not contraction.

WORLDWIDE

Growth in nuclear power reactors is expected throughout the world and particularly from China and India.  Over 80 new nuclear power plants are expected to be commissioned by 2017.  61 nuclear plants are under construction and an additional 491 are planned or proposed.  That number has grown by 9 since the Fukushima event.   

The International Energy Agency estimates world electricity demand will double by 2030.  The advantages are that nuclear energy is not subject to unreliable weather or climate, uranium supplies are solid, and there are zero carbon emissions.  Ever improving technology have new plants producing far more energy using less fuel; while being less expensive to build with far less waste.  Countries looking to meet their Kyoto environmental commitments simply cannot without nuclear power.

EUROPE

Currently almost 30% of the electricity consumed in the European Union comes from nuclear power. Although Germany has claimed they will “get off” nuclear power; it remains an important technology of choice and the European Commission will maintain and develop research into nuclear power.  France alone obtains over 70% of its electricity needs from nuclear power with no plans to change.

Germany

German Chancellor Merkel has vowed to get off nuclear power.  That goal is costing Germany economically and environmentally already.  Germany was a net exporter of energy and is now at a “break even” point with still over half of its nuclear reactors online.  Germany is now slated to build 17 new coal and 29 new gas-fired plants.  Meanwhile, German environmentalists are upset as 25 million tons of carbon emissions have been added according to, Laszlo Varro of the International Energy Agency.  

The Czech Republic defies Germany

Merkel backed down on the German position regarding its neighbors which was to oppose the Czech Republic’s plan to build two more reactors at the Temelin nuclear power station near the German and Austrian border.  There may even be a long term plan to buy energy from the Czech Republic as Germany must begin to buy energy from its neighbors.

Belarus embraces nuclear power 

The first Belarus plant, currently under construction, is scheduled to come online in 2017.

Belarus plans to build a second nuclear power plant with the help of the United Nations.  "If we have IAEA cooperation, support and suitable conditions, we are ready to build a second nuclear power station in Belarus," President Alexander Lukashenko said early this year.

"I strongly believe that atomic power is a must and that it is the safest way to acquire cheap energy that the world will need in larger and larger amounts," Lukashenko said.

The most noteworthy element of this position is that Belarus is the country most seriously affected by the Chernobyl disaster.

ASIA

The economic growth in Asia has rapidly increased energy needs.  Nuclear power is viewed as the source to enable continued expansion.

China buys resources and continues nuclear plant construction

China is currently engaged in negotiations with Areva SA (AREVA) to buy a stake in the company’s uranium mine operations.  China intends to continue its record growth fueled by nuclear power and resumes its approval process for even more nuclear reactors.  According to the China Nuclear Energy Association, it is building at least 27 reactors and has 50 more planned.

India’s nuclear power aspirations forge ahead despite activists 

India’s plan to build six Russian reactors in Kudankulam was conceived in the late 1980’s.  Activists protesting have delayed commissioning of the first reactor, which is 99% complete, and a second reactor that is 94% complete.  Even ardent anti-nuclear activists acknowledge that India has a huge energy shortfall, producing 12% less electricity than it needs at peak times, resulting in frequent, extended blackouts.  

The postponements attributed to the activists have added $500 million to the now-$3.3-billion project.  The Indian government appears to have had enough with the delays.  In February 2012, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh accused foreign groups of funding the protests to hold back India’s development.  The Indian government went as far as arresting and deporting a German national, Hermann Rainer Sonntag, accusing him of funding the Kudankulam protests.  Recent Indian government activity points to a new commitment to completing Kudankulam and pushing for even more nuclear reactors.

Recent approvals have marked the next phase of growth in the Indian nuclear power program.

South Korea partners with Vietnam continuing Southeast Asia nuclear power growth

South Korea currently has 21 nuclear reactors with a combined regular capacity of 19,259 megawatts.  With its nuclear expertise, South Korea’s Ministry of Knowledge Economy said in March 2012 that it had signed an agreement with its Vietnamese counterpart on building a nuclear power plant.

The Vietnam plans will mark the second South Korean consortium to build nuclear plants for other countries.  A group led by Korea Electric Power Corp. signed an $18.6 billion deal with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in late 2009 under which they would build a total of four nuclear reactors in the UAE.

RUSSIA (Europe/Asia)

Russia receives 16% of all its energy from nuclear power generation.  Russia announced in 2003 a policy to reduce natural gas power ad to increase nuclear power generation in attempt to hit 23% of its electricity needs by 2020 and 25% by 2030 through nuclear power.  The planned increase in reactors is from 31 to 59 by 2030.

Russia sees Germany’s move away from nuclear power as a huge opportunity as anticipated German energy shortfalls will be met with increased exports of Russian natural gas.

Russia is also exporting its nuclear power expertise throughout the world for projects in China, India, Vietnam, Iran, and Turkey.

AFRICA

Several African countries including Egypt, Nigeria, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Ghana and Kenya are at different stages of nuclear development. South Africa exploits nuclear energy for power generation and is expanding its capacity. More than 20 African countries have made the political decision to go nuclear.  The developing world has chosen its path for growth and nuclear power has a strong role.

Kenya’s quest to modernize embraces nuclear power 

A political decision marks approval regarding nuclear electricity. It has given rise to the formation of the Nuclear Electricity Project Committee. By December 2015, Kenya should be ready to for bids on its first nuclear power plant. By the end of 2022, Kenya projects it will be ready to commission and operate the first nuclear power plant which will generate at least 1000MW, and increasing  to 4000MW by 2030 with the construction of three more nuclear power plants.

South Africa plans large investment

South Africa will likely spend more than $78 billion on new nuclear plants, another coal-fired plant, and a hydropower project in the Democratic Republic of Congo to stave off power shortages in Africa’s largest economy.  Proposals to spend $39 billion on nuclear plants with the capacity to generate 9,600 megawatts of energy by 2029 are in the “final stages of consideration,” the Treasury said in February 2012.

SOUTH AMERICA

Argentina’s growth is accommodated 

Soon, Argentina will receive 10% of its electricity from nuclear power.  In September 2011, President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner attended the opening of Argentina’s third nuclear plant, Atucha II, and highlighted the fact that “Argentina is a leader in the use of nuclear power for peaceful purposes.”

Mrs. Kirchner announced that 45.5% more megawatts of energy have been created since 2003. ”In the past 8 years, new factories, businesses and workshops have needed more energy,” she said.

Electricity consumption in Argentina has grown strongly since 1990. Per capita consumption was just over 2000 kWh/yr in 2002 and rose to over 2600 kWh/yr in 2007. Gross electricity production in 2007 was 115 billion kWh.  In 2008, nuclear power provided over 6.8 billion kWh of electricity – about 6.2% of total electricity generation.  Argentina expects the overall percent of nuclear energy to rise.

Argentina now plans to build another nuclear plant, Atucha III to meet its increasing energy needs.

Brazil’s high energy demands

Brazil is the world’s tenth largest consumer of energy and the demand is growing.  Brazil’s natural uranium resources account for 5% of the total in the world according to the World Nuclear Association.  The country has two nuclear reactors Angra I and II with plans to have Angra III complete by 2014.

Brazil’s Senate approved fiscal incentives for nuclear power in June of 2011.  The new direction offers Eletrobras (EBR), along with equipment partners, the ability to buy capital goods, building materials, infrastructure materials and nuclear industry specific technologies for use in energy generation without having to pay the industrial production tax, nor tariffs on imported goods.  Germany is a beneficiary of this embrace of nuclear power by Brazil as Germany’s E.On is planning a building new nuclear power plant in Brazil. Four more large Brazilian reactors are expected to come on line by 2025, according to the World Nuclear Association.

NORTH AMERICA 

Canada’s Energy Czar - Nuclear industry will thrive 

Nuclear generation supplies 15% of Canada’s electricity needs and 60% of Ontario’s with 18 reactors providing over 12,600 MWe of power.  Canada has plans to expand its nuclear capacity over the next decade by building more reactors.  

"While other jurisdictions may be scaling back their nuclear energy commitment because of Fukushima, we are not," Tom Mitchell, president and CEO of Ontario Power Generation (OPG), declared in an address Thursday to several hundred Ottawa delegates at the Canadian Nuclear Association's annual conference.

United States falters on nuclear industry

While providing support publicly for new nuclear plant construction the current U.S. Administration apparently has a far different position on nuclear power.  Two nuclear sites have been in construction since President Obama took office.  

The first site was South Texas Project 3&4.  In April 2011, NRG Energy that owned the application for the two new reactors announced they were abandoning the process due to a slow permitting process which drove up costs.  Behind the scenes, the U.S. Federal Government pulled the loan guarantee previously offered during the previous administration forcing NRG Energy to write off its $331 million investment.

The only active site under construction is the Vogtle Project in Georgia.  Less than a month ago it was announced that Georgia Power and its partners may not be able to reach terms with the US Department of Energy on $8.3 billion in loan guarantees to finance the Vogtle nuclear plant expansion.  The Federal Government increased the interest rate and hit the project with an $800 million “application fee”.  The U.S. nuclear power industry is watching with great concern.

Although there are dozens of applications being submitted for new plants in the U.S., the recent collapse of STP 3&4 and the sudden changes on the Vogtle Project may tell of a demise of the past dominance of the U.S. nuclear industry.   But, with 104 active reactors and nearly 20% of U.S. Energy coming from nuclear power there is little concern of big changes as there is no viable replacement.

Summary

The countries that are embracing nuclear power have realized historical trends of reduced energy costs, growth, and an improved standard of living.  As third world nations progress and their energy demands necessarily increase, nuclear power has become an approved energy source.  

It is expected that countries embracing nuclear power will be on an economic growth pattern.  These include:  Russia, China, India, France, and Canada.  Those rejecting nuclear power will realize increased energy costs and a lowered standard of living.  These countries include:  The United States, Germany, and Japan.  

The claims that nuclear power is, “on its deathbed”, is a gross misrepresentation of the actual current state of world energy affairs.  New plants are not only safer, but require less fuel, produce less waste and much more power.  The embrace of nuclear power by most of the world ensures that nuclear power is here to stay.

Report: U.S. nuclear plants have lowest number of unplanned shutdowns in 2011

U.S. nuclear power plants in 2011 recorded the lowest number of unplanned shutdowns since 2005 and achieved near-record levels of reliability and safety performance, according to safety and operations data compiled by the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO) and the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO). The industry also reached record levels for industrial safety, placing it among the best industries in U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics rankings.

U.S. nuclear plants recorded 62 unplanned shutdowns last year, three fewer than the decade-low 65 that occurred in 2005. The record-low number of unplanned shutdowns helped the plants achieve reliability levels on par with the high operational efficiency sustained throughout the past decade.

Unplanned shutdowns can result from severe weather or grid disturbances that trigger safety responses. In 2011, despite tornadoes in the Southeast, an earthquake and hurricane along the East Coast and flooding in the Midwest, U.S. nuclear plants posted a capability factor of 91.4 percent. Last year marked the 10th straight year that a median capability factor of at least 91 percent has been achieved. Capability factor measures the amount of time a facility is online and producing electricity. The industry’s record-high capability factor, 92 percent, was set in 2005.

“America’s nuclear energy facilities performed extremely well in the face of a host of natural challenges,” said Tony Pietrangelo, the Nuclear Energy Institute’s senior vice president and chief nuclear officer.

Since 1990, the U.S. nuclear energy industry has increased its electricity production nearly 40 percent, with 790 billion kWh generated in 2011 from approximately the same number of reactors.

LINK

U.S. nuclear reactors are safe

By Marvin Fertel, Special to CNN

updated 1:05 PM EDT, Wed March 14, 2012

(CNN) -- The massive earthquake and tsunami in Japan one year ago understandably raised questions about the safety of America's nuclear energy facilities. Americans should know that all U.S. nuclear energy plant safety systems have been verified by the companies operating them as well as deemed safe by the independent Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Equally important, the industry is proactively applying lessons learned from Fukushima Daiichi and is making nuclear power, which provides 20% of America's electricity, even safer.

The nuclear energy industry is working with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on the steps to be taken to enhance safety at America's reactors. To further strengthen the plants' ability to withstand extreme events, the commission will require U.S. facilities to install additional instruments to monitor the level of water in used reactor fuel storage pools and add protection from extreme natural events such as floods and earthquakes, no matter how infrequent they may be.

Nuclear energy facilities already have multiple emergency generators, battery banks, backup offsite power supplies, extra pumps and other equipment. But companies that operate America's 104 commercial reactors have added or ordered nearly 400 major pieces of equipment to supplement layers of safety at these facilities. Under a commitment made by all U.S. operators, the companies will buy additional equipment, such as portable generators and pumps, which can be used to provide power and water to cool the reactors and used fuel pools under any extreme scenario.

Additional backup equipment at America's reactors will add even more layers of protection to deepen the resources that operators can draw upon to ensure power can be delivered to critical safety systems no matter what causes an event.

Our industry is committed to continuous learning: checking and rechecking every safety measure to make sure nuclear energy facilities are safe at all times. After global operational or natural events, it is our responsibility to ask again: How can we be even safer?

The nuclear industry is, without hesitation, using what is being learned from Japan to improve safety. Within days of the Fukushima accident, the U.S. industry launched intensive inspections to evaluate the readiness of the operators and equipment to respond to events similar to what happened in Japan, including managing an extended loss of power for vital safety systems, and seismic and flooding challenges.

Another view: Our reactors are still vulnerable a year after Fukushima

The inspections confirmed assessments by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and state-based task forces that nuclear energy facilities are safe and have identified key areas for near-term safety enhancements. Important operational and preparedness features at U.S. reactors, different from those in Japan, would have enabled them to maintain safety during earthquakes or extreme flooding. Nonetheless, the industry is forging ahead to make those enhancements.

In a recent CNN.com opinion piece, an organization criticized these actions, saying industry is "getting out ahead of the NRC" by launching its own safety initiative. We would have it no other way. It's in our industry's DNA to learn safety lessons at any opportunity and apply them where warranted at our facilities. That is why our industry and its own watchdog organization -- the Institute for Nuclear Power Operations -- was held up as a model for safety when the president's commission on the Deepwater Horizon accident was looking at other industries for the oil industry to emulate.

Public and worker safety is our industry's top priority. We constantly reevaluate our safety practices to see how they can be even stronger. We have embraced this challenge, and our industry is aggressively seeking out and applying the lessons from Fukushima to our operations.

America needs nuclear energy as part of a portfolio of electricity options that will power our economy for generations. It is a vital source of affordable, carbon-free electricity today and for the future. To continue to reap its benefits and move toward American energy independence, we must and we will ensure that nuclear energy facilities operate safely.

LINK