DOCSLIB.ORG

U.S. Nrc Slams Westinghouse Ap1000's Flawed Design

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
U.S. Nrc Slams Westinghouse Ap1000's Flawed Design NOVEMBER 6, 2009 | No. 697 U.S. NRC SLAMS WESTINGHOUSE AP1000’S FLAWED DESIGN Two new reactor designs were forecast (at least in Europe and North-America) make the nuclear renaissance happen: the Westinghouse AP1000 and Areva’s EPR. The EPR-design, is as we U.S. NRC SLAMS all know, under heavy fire, and now also from the French nuclear WESTINGHOUSE AP1000’S regulator (see next article). But in the U.S., the AP1000-design is FLAWED DESIGN 1 also running into all kind of problems with the Nuclear Regulatory REGULATORS HIGHLY Commission. CRITICAL ON EPR CONTROL AND COMMAND SYSTEM 2 (697.5987) NIRS Southeast - In a highly unusual move, on 15 October 2009, the The “Safety Shield Building” which NGO'S FORCE RWE OUT OF U.S. nuclear regulator sent a key surrounds the containment has several BELENE PROJECT 3 component of the Westinghouse AP1000 functions, among these to hold a large (not-yet-licensed) “standardized design” tank of water over containment so that in CRACK IN FLORIDA REACTOR CONTAINMENT SIGNALS back to the drawing board. The NRC staff the event of an accident the water is HIDDEN DANGER IN PWR'S 4 is quoted in a press release stating that dribbled over the surface of the steel the AP1000 “Safety Shield Building,” the containment dome (the so-called gravity- U.S.A.: SOUTHWEST outer structure surrounding the AP1000 fed cooling). The AP1000 containment is INDIGENOUS URANIUM containment, does not meet “fundamental a separate, inner structure made of 1 FORUM engineering standards” with respect to inch (2.54 cm) thick steel. This “passive” 5 design basis loads, as well as several convection cooling of the containment SUIT TO AIR INTERNAL EPA other concerns not disclosed to the surface is projected to lower pressure PROTESTS ON RADIATION public. inside containment, in the event of a EXPOSURE PLAN 7 major core disaster. Given the weight of The press release indicates, and a water, in two storage tanks of 70 cubic GLOBAL FISSILE MATERIAL review of NRC documents confirms, that meters each, design basis loading is a REPORT 2009 8 NRC had been raising issues with serious concern. IN BRIEF 8 Westinghouse for more than a year. This move impacts 14 out of 26 currently The Safety Shield Building is three feet proposed new reactor licenses in the US (91.4 cm) thick reinforced concrete, and and throws the review schedule for is intended to protect the reactor from reactor into the air. severe weather including tornado- hurled The NRC October 15, press release projectiles, hurricanes, earthquakes and states that NRC have been talking to air crashes. A somewhat more eerie Westinghouse regularly about the shield function is to add shielding in the event of building since October 2008, and "we’ve a severe accident; the new 1 inch steel consistently laid out our questions to the containment does not provide sufficient company,” according to Michael Johnson, mass to absorb gamma ray emissions director of the NRC’s Office of New after a major accident. In effect, the Reactors. “This is a situation where Safety Shield Building is a pre-installed fundamental engineering standards will “sarcophagus” (like at Chernobyl) which have to be met before we can begin would provide some protection for determining whether the shield building emergency workers called to the site in meets the agency’s requirements.” the event of a meltdown. The structure, 1 far from containment, also functions as that a new review schedule for the considers which reactor applications a cooling tower for the melting core, “design certification amendment” had garner a loan guarantee subsidy. sporting an air-circulation hole at the yet to be established. top. That the LGP has been considering Westinghouse, which is owned by issuing loan guarantees to reactors that Given how the US NRC embraced its Toshiba, has four AP1000s planned for do not have final certification and also mandate from industry and Congress to China. Two nuclear utilities in the U.S. do not have construction and operating streamline the new reactor licensing which are pursuing AP1000s are on the licenses is now clearly revealed to be process, rejection of a major component U.S. Department of Energy’s short list an extremely risky approach. As we of a reactor that was previously certified to receive federal loan guarantees to now see that it is far from certain if as “standard” is a substantial departure back private loans for construction. reactors or combined licenses will win from this regime. In an apparent attempt Given the news from the NRC about the regulatory approval, any move to now at cost-cutting, the new AP1000 version design flaws in the AP1000 design, a issue conditional loan guarantees is features modular construction – bringing number of U.S. public interest groups premature and opens DOE to justified prefab components to the site, rather wrote to the DOE on 19 October, calling criticism." than construction of the Safety Shield on a halt to the imminent issuance of Building on-site from the ground-up. “conditional” loan guarantees for the Given the serious issued now raised by The difference in integrity between projects. They stated: "Given that the the reactor regulatory agency itself, the pouring concrete on the site and action by the NRC is so serious in public interest groups call on DOE to erecting “building blocks” is apparently nature, it is imperative that the "immediately halt issuance of substantial. Department of Energy immediately halt conditional loan guarantees and take the issuance of any conditional loan action to publicly assure the public that The NRC notified Westinghouse on 15 guarantees to any utilities which are this is the case." October in a letter, linked in the NRC basing their plans on the AP1000 news release, that ‘either a confirmation reactor design. Issuance of DOE loan Source: Tom Clements (FOE U.S.A.) test or a validated (or benchmarked) guarantees at this time to companies and Mary Olson (NIRS Southeast) analysis method” must be used to which are considering a reactor which Contact: Mary Olson, Nuclear demonstrate that the “shield building” may well have serious design problems Information and Resource Service can survive design basis events. The would not only heighten public concern (NIRS), Southeast Office. PO Box 7586, letters state that the “NRC considers its about DOE’s regard of oversight of Asheville, North Carolina 28802, USA. review of the shield building, as nuclear reactor safety but would also Tel: +1 828-252-8409 proposed, to be complete” but affirms further call into question the Email: [email protected] that a review of other parts of review, methodology applied by the DOE’s Web: www.nirs.org now in Revision 17, will continue and Loan Guarantee Program (LPG) as it REGULATORS HIGHLY CRITICAL ON EPR CONTROL AND COMMAND SYSTEM Not only the AP1000 is under fire, also the EPR becomes more and more subject of doubts regarding safety questions by the official safety authorities in countries where the reactor is built (Finland, France) or should be built (U.K.) Now the French Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) has just published a letter to EDF, which questions in the most serious way the ability of the control and command system of the EPR being built in Flamanville to meet safety requirements. Like British and Finnish authorities did before, ASN makes appropriate answers to these doubts a condition to the future operational license of the reactor. (697.5988) WISE Amsterdam - In June, interconnectivity of what were meant to allows lower safety class systems to the U.K. Nuclear Installations be independent systems designed to have write access [the ability to Inspectorate (NII) wrote to EDF and operate the plant and ensure its safety. override] to higher safety class Areva, to express their concerns about systems,” it continued. the control and instrumentation (C&I) of The Health and Safety Executive, which The letter also highlighted concerns Areva’s European Pressurised Reactor oversees the NII, said that the EPR about the absence of safety display (EPR). C&I governs the computers and design could be rejected for use in systems or manual controls that would systems that monitor and control the Britain if its concerns could not be allow the reactor to be shut down, either station’s performance, including satisfactorily addressed. “It is our in the station’s control room or at an temperature, pressure and power output regulatory judgment that the C&I emergency remote shutdown station. levels. The NII, said the EPR architecture appears overly complex,” The NII said that it would grant a technology was significantly the NII letter said. “We have serious license for the EPR reactor only if it was compromised because of the concerns about your proposal which satisfied that the reactor design could 2 NUCLEAR MONITOR 697 be built and operated safely and "the complexity of the architecture no acquired certainty to build an securely. proposed by EDF makes it difficult to acceptable demonstration of safety on That was late June, a few days later, on provide a satisfying demonstration of the basis of the current architecture". July 2, the Finnish safety authority the safety" and states that its Therefore ASN asks EDF, in parallel to raised similar concerns, but the French acceptability is subject to changes in trying to provide this justification, to safety authority ASN remained very the design and complementary "examine as from now arrangements for silent. It would not comment and said it justifications. Furthermore, "the analysis different options of conception" [again, was on the process of assessing this of these elements [to be provided by rough translation from French].
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nuclear Renaissance by Jone-Lin Wang and Christopher J
    Revisiting Nuclear Renaissance by Jone-Lin Wang and Christopher J. Hansen Critical milestones in the first wave of new nuclear development in the USA may prove decisive. overnments and businesses around the globe have countries — China, India, Japan, South Korea and the moved beyond talking to real action to renew USA. Gdevelopment of nuclear power, and have created good prospects for a major nuclear expansion over the com- In the USA, several dozen reactors are in various stages of ing decades. Over the past few years, high fossil fuel prices, proposal development, while international nuclear vendors energy security and climate change concerns and increas- and service providers are forming new alliances. Finally, ing urgency about reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emis- rising uranium prices have led to development of new sions have all converged to improve the position of nuclear mines. power relative to other options. However, critical milestones in the first wave of new In the USA, where no new reactor has been ordered in 28 nuclear development will provide insights into whether and years, these trends, plus excellent performance of the exist- how well new nuclear development is proceeding. Such key ing nuclear fleet and financial incentives in the Energy near-term milestones are: Policy Act of 2005, have led to a race to develop new nuclear power reactors. In Asia, where the building of new nuclear v Late 2007–2008 — Submission of construction and plants never stopped, several countries have recently upped operation license (COL) applications; their target for new nuclear capacity. In Western Europe, a new reactor is under construction for the first time in more v 2007-2008 — Ordering long lead-time items such as than a decade, and a second one is not far behind.
    [Show full text]
  • Scotland, Nuclear Energy Policy and Independence Raphael J. Heffron
    Scotland, Nuclear Energy Policy and Independence EPRG Working Paper 1407 Cambridge Working Paper in Economics 1457 Raphael J. Heffron and William J. Nuttall Abstract This paper examines the role of nuclear energy in Scotland, and the concerns for Scotland as it votes for independence. The aim is to focus directly on current Scottish energy policy and its relationship to nuclear energy. The paper does not purport to advise on a vote for or against Scottish independence but aims to further the debate in an underexplored area of energy policy that will be of value whether Scotland secures independence or further devolution. There are four central parts to this paper: (1) consideration of the Scottish electricity mix; (2) an analysis of a statement about nuclear energy made by the Scottish energy minister; (3) examination of nuclear energy issues as presented in the Scottish Independence White Paper; and (4) the issue of nuclear waste is assessed. A recurrent theme in the analysis is that whether one is for, against, or indifferent to new nuclear energy development, it highlights a major gap in Scotland’s energy and environmental policy goals. Too often, the energy policy debate from the Scottish Government perspective has been reduced to a low-carbon energy development debate between nuclear energy and renewable energy. There is little reflection on how to reduce Scottish dependency on fossil fuels. For Scotland to aspire to being a low-carbon economy, to decarbonising its electricity market, and to being a leader within the climate change community, it needs to tackle the issue of how to stop the continuation of burning fossil fuels.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Reactors' Construction Costs
    Nuclear reactors’ construction costs: The role of lead-time, standardization and technological progress Lina Escobar Rangel and Michel Berthélemy Mines ParisTech - Centre for Industrial Economics CERNA International WPNE Workshop Project and Logistics Management in Nuclear New Build NEA Headquarters - Issy les Moulineaux, 11th March 2014 Growing demand for nuclear power... Demand for nuclear power has increased in the past years and it is likely to keep on rising. Experienced countries: US, UK, Russia, South Korea According with UK’s Department of Energy & Climate Change nuclear industry plans to develop around 16 gigawatts (GW) of new nuclear EDF → 4 EPRs (6.4GW) at Hinkley Point and Sizewell Hitachi → 2 or 3 new nuclear reactors at Wylfa and Oldbury NuGeneration → 3.6GW of new nuclear capacity at Moorside Fast-growing economies: China, India China has 28 reactors under construction and it is planned a three-fold increase in nuclear capacity to at least 58 GWe by 2020, then some 150 GWe by 2030 16 AP1000 reactors are planned to start to be constructed from 2014-2018 At least 6 ACC1000 in 4 different locations 2 EPRs in Guangdong Other technologies like VVER-1000, VVER-1200, CNP-600, etc are also envisioned Growing demand for nuclear power... Demand for nuclear power has increased in the past years and it is likely to keep on rising. Experienced countries: US, UK, Russia, South Korea According with UK’s Department of Energy & Climate Change nuclear industry plans to develop around 16 gigawatts (GW) of new nuclear EDF → 4 EPRs (6.4GW) at
    [Show full text]
  • France USA Research
    atw Vol. 61 (2016) | Issue 2 ı February safety and was subject to a separate After joint examination of this file global markets, and submitted the set of “conventional” permits. with IRSN, ASN convened the Advi- license application to the NRC in Hanhikivi­1 will be a 1,200­mega­ sory Committee for nuclear pressure September. watt VVER pressurised water reactor equipment (GP ESPN) on 30 Septem­ Westinghouse and Toshiba Corpo­ 141 of the Russian AES-2006 type. Start of ber 2015. The GP ESPN submitted its ration are working collaboratively on commissioning is scheduled for 2022 opinion and its recommendation to a limited number of customized mate­ and commercial operation for 2024. ASN. On this basis, ASN issued a rials and/or reinforcements that will | www.fennovoima.fi | 7304 position statement on the procedure allow new units to be built in areas adopted by Areva, with a certain that have a higher seismic condition. NEWS number of observations and add­ This Specialized Seismic Option will itional requests. provide the same advanced safety France The results of the new test pro­ features, modular design and simpli­ gramme will be crucial to ASN’s fied systems as the standard, NRC- Flamanville 3 EPR: ASN has decision on the suitability for service certified AP1000 plant technology. no objection to the initiation of the Flamanville 3 RPV closure head | www.westinghousenuclear.com of a new test programme and bottom head. This test pro­ | 7283 (asn) On 12 December 2015, ASN gramme will take several months. issued a position statement concern­ | www.asn.fr | 7290 ing the approach used to demonstrate the mechanical properties of the Research Flamanville 3 EPR reactor pressure vessel (RPV) closure head and bottom USA IPP: The first plasma: head proposed by Areva.
    [Show full text]
  • AREVA and MHI Agree on Collaboration in Nuclear Energy - Memorandum of Understanding Signed in Tokyo
    AREVA and MHI Agree on Collaboration in Nuclear Energy - Memorandum of Understanding Signed in Tokyo - 2006-10-19 AREVA Group Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd Tokyo, October 19, 2006 -AREVA, the world's largest business group in the nuclear energy field, and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (MHI) have agreed to collaborate in the area of nuclear energy, according to a memorandum of understanding signed today in Tokyo by Anne Lauvergeon, CEO of AREVA, and Kazuo Tsukuda, President of MHI. The "nuclear renaissance" has brought about new challenges for the whole nuclear industry, as growth and new expectations of clients require significant mobilization of large financial and human resources. Facing the tremendous market changes, AREVA and MHI have decided to establish a powerful and ground-breaking alliance built on their historical successful relationship* and respective human and industrial capabilities. As a first step, the two companies have already agreed to develop a 3rd-generation 1,000 MWe nuclear power plant expected to attract great market demand. The agreement covers other fields of possible cooperation such as procurement, services, fuel cycle and new types of reactors. AREVA CEO Anne Lauvergeon noted, "This alliance has been worked out on the ground of mutual trust and common vision. Our technical innovation capabilities and our geographical complementarities will bring to our clients, in the field of nuclear power plants and services, unequalled solutions." MHI President Kazuo Tsukuda stated, "We at MHI are all excited about this collaboration with AREVA. It will enable to provide the nuclear power plant technologies and experience accumulated by the two companies around the world in nuclear power generation.
    [Show full text]
  • Waiting for the Nuclear Renaissance: Exploring the Nexus of Expansion and Disposal in Europe
    Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy www.psocommons.org/rhcpp Vol. 1: Iss. 4, Article 3 (2010) Waiting for the Nuclear Renaissance: Exploring the Nexus of Expansion and Disposal in Europe Robert Darst, University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth Jane I. Dawson, Connecticut College Abstract This article focuses on the growing prospects for a nuclear power renaissance in Europe. While accepting the conventional wisdom that the incipient renaissance is being driven by climate change and energy security concerns, we argue that it would not be possible without the pioneering work of Sweden and Finland in providing a technological and sociopolitical solution to the industry’s longstanding “Achilles’ heel”: the safe, permanent, and locally acceptable disposal of high-level radioactive waste. In this article, we track the long decline and sudden resurgence of nuclear power in Europe, examining the correlation between the fortunes of the industry and the emergence of the Swedish model for addressing the nuclear waste problem. Through an in-depth exploration of the evolution of the siting model initiated in Sweden and adopted and successfully implemented in Finland, we emphasize the importance of transparency, trust, volunteerism, and “nuclear oases”: locations already host to substantial nuclear facilities. Climate change and concerns about energy independence and security have all opened the door for a revival of nuclear power in Europe and elsewhere, but we argue that without the solution to the nuclear waste quandary pioneered by Sweden and Finland, the industry would still be waiting for the nuclear renaissance. Keywords: high-level radioactive waste, permanent nuclear waste disposal, nuclear power in Europe, nuclear politics in Finland and Sweden © 2010 Policy Studies Organization Published by Berkeley Electronic Press - 49 - Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • From Gen I to Gen III
    From Gen I to Gen III Gabriel Farkas Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava Ilkovicova 3, 81219 Bratislava [email protected] 14. 9. 2010 1 Evolution of Nuclear Reactors Generation I - demonstration reactors Generation II - working in the present Generation III - under construction 14. 9. 2010 2 Generation IV - R&D 14. 9. 2010 3 Expected development in nuclear technologies Prolongation of lifetieme of existing nuclear reactors Construction of new reactors in frame of Gen. III and IV . Figure 1 Replacement staggered over a 30-year period (2020 - 2050) Rate of construction : 2,000 MW/year 70000 60000 Lifetime 50000 prolongation 40000 Generation IV 30000 Actual reactors 20000 Generation III+ 10000 0 197519801985199019952000200520102015202020252030203520402045205020552060 14. 9. 2010 Average plant life : 48 years 4 Nuclear in Europe (Nuclear ~ 32% of total EU electricity production) SE, 7.3% UK, 7.9% SP, 5.8% BE,4.8% CZ, 2.5% GE, 16.3% FI, 2.4% BU, 1.8% Other 12.4% SK, 1.7% HU, 1.4% LT, 1.1% FR, 45.5% SI, 0.6% NL, RO, 0.5% 0.4% Source PRIS 14. 9. 2010 5 Central & Eastern Europe - Nuclear Landscape Russia Lithuania Ukraine 6 VVER440 Poland 1 RBMK 1300 2 VVER440 8 VVER1000 Min. of Energy 13 VVER1000 NNEGC State owned 11 RBMK 1 BN600 4 Graph Mod BWR Czech Republic Rosenergoatom State 4 VVER440 owned 2 VVER1000 CEZ/ 67% State Romania owned 2 Candu PHW Nuclearelectrica State owned Slovak Republic 4/6 VVER440 Bulgaria ENEL 67% owned 2/4 VVER1000 NEC State owned Hungary Armenia 4 VVER 440 1 VVER440 MVM State owned Armatomenergo, State owned 14.
    [Show full text]
  • Deployability of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors for Alberta Applications Report Prepared for Alberta Innovates
    PNNL-25978 Deployability of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors for Alberta Applications Report Prepared for Alberta Innovates November 2016 SM Short B Olateju (AI) SD Unwin S Singh (AI) A Meisen (AI) DISCLAIMER NOTICE This report was prepared under contract with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), as an account of work sponsored by Alberta Innovates (“AI”). Neither AI, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), DOE, the U.S. Government, nor any person acting on their behalf makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by AI, PNNL, DOE, or the U.S. Government. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of AI, PNNL, DOE or the U.S. Government. Deployability of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors for Alberta Applications SM Short B Olateju (AI) SD Unwin S Singh (AI) A Meisen (AI) November 2016 Prepared for Alberta Innovates (AI) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, Washington 99352 Executive Summary At present, the steam requirements of Alberta’s heavy oil industry and the Province’s electricity requirements are predominantly met by natural gas and coal, respectively. On November 22, 2015 the Government of Alberta announced its Climate Change Leadership Plan to 1) phase out all pollution created by burning coal and transition to more renewable energy and natural gas generation by 2030 and 2) limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from oil sands operations.
    [Show full text]
  • The EPR™ Reactor
    The EPR™ reactor the reference for New Build - © Photo credits: AREVA - EDF - TNPJVC - Tracy FAVEYRIAL - Elodie FERRARE - René QUATRAIN - Charlène MOREAU - Image et Process - Image - Charlène MOREAU QUATRAIN - Elodie FERRARE René FAVEYRIAL - Tracy - EDF TNPJVC AREVA credits: - © Photo April 2014 - design and production: April 2014 - design and production: The value of experience With 4 EPR™ reactors being built in 3 different countries, AREVA can leverage an unparalleled experience in licensing and construction to deliver high-performance new-generation projects to nuclear utilities all over the world. Olkiluoto 3, Best practices from continuous Finland project experience The most advanced new-generation Licensing experience with different regulators: project in the The only reactor with 5 separate licensing processes world underway worldwide • Construction licenses granted in Finland, France and China • Full Design Acceptance Confirmation awarded in the United Kingdom • Licensing review underway in the United States Flamanville 3, The only Gen3+ reactor design submitted to the European France “post-Fukushima” stress tests The first reactor in the new EDF’s EPR™ fleet Project management excellence • The largest in-house nuclear Engineering Procurement Construction (EPC) team: - More than 1,000 project management skilled people - 6,000+ Engineering and Project experienced workforce • Most Taishan Project Directors have worked on Taishan 1 and 2, Olkiluoto 3 or Flamanville 3 projects China EPR™ projects on track to be delivered Company-wide
    [Show full text]
  • From Wilderness to the Toxic Environment: Health in American Environmental Politics, 1945-Present
    From Wilderness to the Toxic Environment: Health in American Environmental Politics, 1945-Present The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Thomson, Jennifer Christine. 2013. From Wilderness to the Toxic Environment: Health in American Environmental Politics, 1945- Present. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:11125030 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA From Wilderness to the Toxic Environment: Health in American Environmental Politics, 1945-Present A dissertation presented by Jennifer Christine Thomson to The Department of the History of Science In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the subject of History of Science Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts May 2013 @ 2013 Jennifer Christine Thomson All rights reserved. Dissertation Advisor: Charles Rosenberg Jennifer Christine Thomson From Wilderness to the Toxic Environment: Health in American Environmental Politics, 1945-Present Abstract This dissertation joins the history of science and medicine with environmental history to explore the language of health in environmental politics. Today, in government policy briefs and mission statements of environmental non-profits, newspaper editorials and activist journals, claims about the health of the planet and its human and non-human inhabitants abound. Yet despite this rhetorical ubiquity, modern environmental politics are ideologically and organizationally fractured along the themes of whose health is at stake and how that health should be protected.
    [Show full text]
  • After Years of Stagnation, Nuclear Power Is On
    5 Vaunted hopes Climate Change and the Unlikely Nuclear Renaissance joshua William Busby ft er years oF s TaGNaTioN, Nucle ar P oWer is oN The atable again. Although the sector suffered a serious blow in the wake of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear meltdown that occurred in Japan in early 2011, a renewed global interest in nuclear power persists, driven in part by climate concerns and worries about soaring energy demand. As one of the few relatively carbon-free sources of energy, nuclear power is being reconsid- ered, even by some in the environmental community, as a possible option to combat climate change. As engineers and analysts have projected the poten- tial contribution of nuclear power to limiting global greenhouse gas emis- sions, they have been confronted by the limits in efficiency that wind, water, and solar power can provide to prevent greenhouse gas emissions from rising above twice pre-industrial levels. What would constitute a nuclear power renaissance? In 1979, at the peak of the nuclear power sector’s growth, 233 power reactors were simultaneously under construction. By 1987, that number had fallen to 120. As of February 2012, 435 nuclear reactors were operable globally, capable of producing roughly 372 gigawatts (GW) of electricity (WNA 2012). Some analysts suggest that, with the average age of current nuclear plants at twenty-four years, more than 170 reactors would need to be built just to maintain the current number in 2009 1 Copyright © 2013. Stanford University Press. All rights reserved. Press. All © 2013. Stanford University Copyright operation (Schneider et al. a).
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparison of Advanced Nuclear Technologies
    A COMPARISON OF ADVANCED NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGIES Andrew C. Kadak, Ph.D MARCH 2017 B | CHAPTER NAME ABOUT THE CENTER ON GLOBAL ENERGY POLICY The Center on Global Energy Policy provides independent, balanced, data-driven analysis to help policymakers navigate the complex world of energy. We approach energy as an economic, security, and environmental concern. And we draw on the resources of a world-class institution, faculty with real-world experience, and a location in the world’s finance and media capital. Visit us at energypolicy.columbia.edu facebook.com/ColumbiaUEnergy twitter.com/ColumbiaUEnergy ABOUT THE SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS SIPA’s mission is to empower people to serve the global public interest. Our goal is to foster economic growth, sustainable development, social progress, and democratic governance by educating public policy professionals, producing policy-related research, and conveying the results to the world. Based in New York City, with a student body that is 50 percent international and educational partners in cities around the world, SIPA is the most global of public policy schools. For more information, please visit www.sipa.columbia.edu A COMPARISON OF ADVANCED NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGIES Andrew C. Kadak, Ph.D* MARCH 2017 *Andrew C. Kadak is the former president of Yankee Atomic Electric Company and professor of the practice at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He continues to consult on nuclear operations, advanced nuclear power plants, and policy and regulatory matters in the United States. He also serves on senior nuclear safety oversight boards in China. He is a graduate of MIT from the Nuclear Science and Engineering Department.
    [Show full text]