Tuesday, February 16, 2016

Safety in Nuclear

To begin, we'll invoke the names of the biggest accidents in the history of nuclear power. Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima, each will ring a certain bell most heads. For many, they pull to mind nuclear meltdown and death. Apocalyptic images. What else is that a nuclear accident involves invisible radiation which promises increased cancer risk, potentially for miles around. 

What's more is the association with one of the most feared weapons in all of the world, the atomic bomb. It is no wonder that the common man doesn't like the idea, and makes it clear. Nuclear power is abided, in the best of terms. In fact, the accident at Three Mile Island in 1979 caused a complete stop on all new plant construction. Only recently, in 2012, have steps begun towards new construction.

With all this scrutiny and fear involving nuclear power plants, the industry had to evolve. Today, huge emphasis is placed on the safety of our nuclear plants. Every accident that occurs is mined for as much information as possible, in order to enhance future safety. There are strict regulations in place, governed by he Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), such as the requirement not only for redundant (multiple) but also diverse (different) components for vital functions. I won't bore you with the details, but the number of regulations for nuclear are intense and in-depth, google 10CFR20 to get a taste.

And it shows. Because of the strict adherence to safety, nuclear plants tend to do well and not need to be shut down very frequently, beyond refueling. Because of this, their capacity factor (percent of the theoretical possible power) is very high.




Of course, part of the large capacity factor is that nuclear plants are base-load, meaning they don't normally turn off, while plants like natural gas or coal might shut on or off as demand increases or decreases. Still, an average of 90% capacity factor is impressive.

7 comments:

  1. Is the nearly sinusoidal pattern for the nuclear line due to refueling or baseload adjustments with the seasons?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure. A few of other types of plants (coal, natural gas) follow the the same pattern, so that makes me think it has to do with demand.

      Delete
  2. I agree that the industry has evolved its safety standards, but the public as a whole still thinks that Chernobyl is a likely event today. I think the nuclear industry needs to start media campaigns to correct this misconception.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What would you suggest for a pro-nuclear ad campaign? Films like Pandora's Promise have already been created talking about the benefits of nuclear. Are we talking running ads, or just more outreach?

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the movie suggestion. I haven't watched it and probably will add it to my list. But then that is alot of the problem. I think, like me, alot of other people also have not heard of these types of advertisements. Also haven't extensively studied the capacity factors of different energy sources so that was a welcome addition.

      Delete
  3. Do you think that Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 will be likely to be licensed given the public's demeanor for nuclear?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hope so, but think it'll depend on the outcome of the project at Vogtle, Nextera's persistence and the amount of outside pressure against the license.

      Delete