| |
 |
1. What is the role of the nuclear unit in French embassies?France appoints a nuclear counsellor to its embassies in countries which have already running nuclear plants and those which are interested in nuclear energy: USA, China, Russia, UK, Finland, India, Japan, etc. The mission of a Nuclear Counsellor consists in representing the French administration: supporting cooperation projects, facilitating exchange of
|
information as regards nuclear energy between France and the host country, and thus promoting benchmarking.
Historically, the Nuclear Advisor is linked both to the French Administration and to the CEA (French organisation dedicated to R&D in nuclear and alternative energies). This may seem quite dubious, because the nuclear advisor is then representing both the State and a specific organisation, but that is also the case for foreign nuclear advisors, so at least it is consistent with international practices in terms of nuclear cooperation.
2. What is the path to become a Nuclear Advisor?
Usually, Nuclear Counsellors worked for CEA, particularly at the International Relations Department and had already contacts with the host country. Yet my carrier is not a classic one.
First, I had worked for a long time for COGEMA which became later AREVA, and also had been in relation with safety authorities. The Nuclear Counsellor in the French Embassy in Tokyo was to be replaced in 2011. Because of the Fukushima accident, they needed a special profile, someone who would be operational immediately. At that time, I was working in the Japanese industry, I spoke Japanese and I could understand the environmental, technical and political stakes of Fukushima accident. I was in the right place at the right moment.
3. What are the latest news from Fukushima power plants?
The situation is stabilised: core and pool cooling are ensured, radioactivity dose rate is decreasing thanks to cleaning of the area, and buildings are getting dismantled.
As regards spent fuel of plant n°4, operations to take away the spent fuel from the pool are on time and on schedule; this will take one year.
Things are now better as it comes to management of water tanks and leaks.
There is still one concern on this topic: water comes down from the nearby mountains and flows in the basement of the buildings: everyday, between 300 and 400 m3 of water are drained, sent to Caesium-filters and then to tanks, where other radionuclides will be filtered.
After operations of decontamination, there is still tritium in the water. Regarding health and environment protection matters, the level of toxicity is low enough for it to be released in the sea: indeed it would be rapidly diluted, and would not increase significantly the natural level of radioactivity.
However, a commitment to the local population has been taken not to release any radioactive material in the sea. This leads to look for other solutions, like separation and apart-storage of tritium event if such experimental technologies are not available for large amounts of water today.
Withdrawing melted core is a complex task because of the localisation of the corium (inside and outside the reactor vessels), its high radioactivity, its potential reaction with the structures around: metal, concrete, etc. Lots of actions are conducted today to assess the best method: numeric simulations are run, cameras are sent to analyse the situation inside the reactors, and even, real nuclear fuel melt experiments are carried out – at a smaller scale of course – to help better understand the behaviour of the coriums of Fukushima.
The withdrawing of the coriums (called “fuel debris” in Japan) should not start before 2020.
4. Which power sources replace now nuclear power in Japan?
Before Fukushima accident, the nuclear power stood for 25-30% of the electricity production. When nuclear plants were shutdown just after the accident, different sources were used to replace this power.
For the most part, gas stations have been settled: indeed, they are quite fast to build and operate. Some coal stations are also being built and the one damaged by the tsunami repaired. The rest of the power has been replaced by using existing power margins: indeed, before the accident, some fossil fuel plants were not operating at full power and full time. After the accident, they were simply asked to produce more power more often. Some power stations which were supposed to have been stopped for good were even brought back to operation. These power reserves were especially high because the electricity network in Japan has limited connections between regions.
Avoidance of CO2 has clearly not been on the agenda for replacement of nuclear stations. First, there is expectation to restart them in the coming months. And actually in Japan, CO2is not that much of a concern compared to Europe. The government rather insists on energy savings and energy efficiency, i.e. the economic and technical aspect of this matter.
5. How has evolved public opinion about nuclear energy in Japan?
Before Fukushima, people in Japan generally had a rational approach to nuclear energy and were rather in favour of it.
Now that Japan does not use anymore nuclear power, they don’t see a dramatic increase in their electricity bill and there are no blackouts. Furthermore, the government ensures that Japan’s competitiveness has been restored through a weaker yen and a stimulus package – which is not strictly true economically speaking in the long run but is believed by the citizens.
In a word, stopping nuclear power stations has not had such an impact on Japanese everyday life and people are generally not in favour of restarting nuclear power plants. As regards populations living next to nuclear power stations, those who live near PWRs are rather in favour of resuming operation, whereas those who live next to BWRs, the same type as reactors of Fukushima, are rather more cautious.
Eventually, some people in the majority of the Japanese Parliament do not support nuclear power as they used to; they question the very necessity of nuclear power. The Prime Minister is still in favour of it but he must act carefully.
6. To restore confidence and improve safety, what are the measures taken in the nuclear field?
There were a lot of upgrades in the structures, in regulation and also in state of minds.
Works have been carried out on the existing stations and are still ongoing for some of them: they include a higher wall against tsunamis, filtered venting, hydrogen recombiners, lorries carrying power supply, reinforced fire prevention and additional watertight doors.
Before Fukushima, the Japanese way of working assumed strong regulatory prescriptions: regulation was supposed to supply with a comprehensive roadmap telling exactly to designers and operators the actions to be performed and materials to be used for construction, licensing and operation. This takes probably a part in the accident of Fukushima: improvement and technology upgrade is paced down by regulation placing emphasis on “already well-proven concepts”.
However, this aspect is beginning to change in the nuclear field in Japan. Indeed, the regulation approach is getting switched from a prescription basis to an evaluation basis. The safety authority which was founded in November 2012 has been acknowledged as an independent structure by the Japanese population. Norms for both tsunami and seism are getting updated. Severe Accidents used to be excluded from the scope of regulation: they were simply assumed not to occur and actions of the operators were “voluntary”. Now they are included.
Furthermore, an association of Japanese nuclear operators, called Jansi, is being created. The ambition is to make of it a Japanese equivalent of the American INPO, i.e. a structure where operators organise Peer Reviews, evaluations, inspections, identify domestic and international best practice, give advice and recommendations one for another. Japanese nuclear operators are now convinced that it is necessary to overtake regulation and to make the best of international practices, which is a significant evolution of the institutions.
7. What is to expect in the future for Japanese nuclear power?
All the three power stations which were under construction before Fukushima will be completed and started.
The fuel recycling policy is maintained. The fuel recycling facility, which is also shutdown for the moment, is under studies: depending on the new seismic norm to be assessed for it, the facility will be able to be restarted within 18 months, or later after additional works.
Regarding the restart of nuclear power plants, 12 proposals have been submitted in summer 2013 and 6 other since then. The current consensus is that 6 could be actually restarted before summer 2014, and 4 to 6 later on.
The global picture for nuclear power plants is the following: there were 54 power plants running before Fukushima. 4 of the 6 Fukushima reactors are lost due to the accident, and the 2 others are considered lost, as being on the same site.
In the remaining 48 stations, roughly speaking one third is assessed to be worth the upgrade works and will be restarted; one third is probably too old to be worth the upgrades works. The last part deserves a finer analysis and will eventually be dispatched in the two first categories.
For the moment, it is estimated that plants which will not be restarted account for a third of the total nuclear nominal power. Since the affected plants are the oldest, with the smallest individual nominal powers, they account for a little more than 16 plants.
What will replace eventually this capacity? Gas power plants, renewable energies, and energy savings, or even new nuclear power stations: for the moment the agenda is to restart existing plants, and the next step will come later on.
8. What is the role of the embassy in the context of Fukushima?
The first role of the embassy is to inform France about the situation, and Japan about technological options available. The embassy supports industrial issues in which the State takes a role, like some decisions about work frame for examples. Currently, there are only Japanese on the site of Fukushima. One of the typical topics that the embassy can handle is that of the role foreign companies can take there. This is a role of facilitator for integration of technology and know-how, to be then implemented by local Japanese people: actually this is an issue even between Japanese companies which are not used to work together.
The role of the embassy and of foreign organizations in the field is, fortunately, not essential for nuclear safety, it is rather a matter of work efficiency.
9. Can you tell us about partnerships between France and Japan?
Restart of nuclear power stations in Japan will increase the service market in Japan and allow resuming existing contracts in both front-end and back-end. TEPCO asked for international technical advisors, among which there is currently a Frenchman. France will readily help Japan for any critical aspects of the operation restarts and fuel cycle industry.
Furthermore, there is also renewed and stronger collaboration in the field of fast-neutron reactors and between French and Japanese safety authorities.
Moreover, there is one project which is particularly interesting: ATMEA1, a reactor which is designed jointly by AREVA and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. It can be noted that it is the only project led by a partnership between Japan and another country. It is really a project to follow.
10. What is the role of the nuclear unit in French embassies?
France appoints a nuclear counsellor to its embassies in countries which have already running nuclear plants and those which are interested in nuclear energy: USA, China, Russia, UK, Finland, India, Japan, etc.
The mission of a Nuclear Counsellor consists in representing the French administration: supporting cooperation projects, facilitating exchange of information as regards nuclear energy between France and the host country, and thus promoting benchmarking.
Historically, the Nuclear Advisor is linked both to the French Administration and to the CEA (French organisation dedicated to R&D in nuclear and alternative energies). This may seem quite dubious, because the nuclear advisor is then representing both the State and a specific organisation, but that is also the case for foreign nuclear advisors, so at least it is consistent with international practices in terms of nuclear cooperation.
11. What is the path to become a Nuclear Advisor?
Usually, Nuclear Counsellors worked for CEA, particularly at the International Relations Department and had already contacts with the host country. Yet my carrier is not a classic one.
First, I had worked for a long time for COGEMA which became later AREVA, and also had been in relation with safety authorities. The Nuclear Counsellor in the French Embassy in Tokyo was to be replaced in 2011. Because of the Fukushima accident, they needed a special profile, someone who would be operational immediately. At that time, I was working in the Japanese industry, I spoke Japanese and I could understand the environmental, technical and political stakes of Fukushima accident. I was in the right place at the right moment.
12. What are the latest news from Fukushima power plants?
The situation is stabilised: core and pool cooling are ensured, radioactivity dose rate is decreasing thanks to cleaning of the area, and buildings are getting dismantled.
As regards spent fuel of plant n°4, operations to take away the spent fuel from the pool are on time and on schedule; this will take one year.
Things are now better as it comes to management of water tanks and leaks.
There is still one concern on this topic: water comes down from the nearby mountains and flows in the basement of the buildings: everyday, between 300 and 400 m3 of water are drained, sent to Cesium-filters and then to tanks, where other radionuclides will be filtered.
After operations of decontamination, there is still tritium in the water. Regarding health and environment protection matters, the level of toxicity is low enough for it to be released in the sea: indeed it would be rapidly diluted, and would not increase significantly the natural level of radioactivity.
However, a commitment to the local population has been taken not to release any radioactive material in the sea. This leads to look for other solutions, like separation and apart-storage of tritium event if such experimental technologies are not available for large amounts of water today.
Withdrawing melted core is a complex task because of the localisation of the corium (inside and outside the reactor vessels), its high radioactivity, its potential reaction with the structures around: metal, concrete, etc. Lots of actions are conducted today to assess the best method: numeric simulations are run, cameras are sent to analyse the situation inside the reactors, and even, real nuclear fuel melt experiments are carried out – at a smaller scale of course – to help better understand the behaviour of the coriums of Fukushima.
The withdrawing of the coriums (called “fuel debris” in Japan) should not start before 2020.
13. Which power sources replace now nuclear power in Japan?
Before Fukushima accident, the nuclear power stood for 25-30% of the electricity production. When nuclear plants were shutdown just after the accident, different sources were used to replace this power.
For the most part, gas stations have been settled: indeed, they are quite fast to build and operate. Some coal stations are also being built and the one damaged by the tsunami repaired. The rest of the power has been replaced by using existing power margins: indeed, before the accident, some fossil fuel plants were not operating at full power and full time. After the accident, they were simply asked to produce more power more often. Some power stations which were supposed to have been stopped for good were even brought back to operation. These power reserves were especially high because the electricity network in Japan has limited connections between regions.
Avoidance of CO2 has clearly not been on the agenda for replacement of nuclear stations. First, there is expectation to restart them in the coming months. And actually in Japan, CO2 is not that much of a concern compared to Europe. The government rather insists on energy savings and energy efficiency, i.e. the economical and technical aspect of this matter.
14. How has evolved public opinion about nuclear energy in Japan?
Before Fukushima, people in Japan generally had a rational approach to nuclear energy and were rather in favour of it.
Now that Japan does not use anymore nuclear power, they don’t see a dramatic increase in their electricity bill and there are no blackouts. Furthermore, the government ensures that Japan’s competitiveness has been restored through a weaker yen and a stimulus package – which is not strictly true economically speaking in the long run but is believed by the citizens.
In a word, stopping nuclear power stations has not had such an impact on Japanese everyday life and people are generally not in favour of restarting nuclear power plants. As regards populations living next to nuclear power stations, those who live near PWRs are rather in favour of resuming operation, whereas those who live next to BWRs, the same type as reactors of Fukushima, are rather more cautious.
Eventually, some people in the majority of the Japanese Parliament do not support nuclear power as they used to; they question the very necessity of nuclear power. The Prime Minister is still in favour of it but he must act carefully.
15. To restore confidence and improve safety, what are the measures taken in the nuclear field?
There were a lot of upgrades in the structures, in regulation and also in state of minds.
Works have been carried out on the existing stations and are still ongoing for some of them: they include a higher wall against tsunamis, filtered venting, hydrogen recombiners, lorries carrying power supply, reinforced fire prevention and additional watertight doors.
Before Fukushima, the Japanese way of working assumed strong regulatory prescriptions: regulation was supposed to supply with a comprehensive roadmap telling exactly to designers and operators the actions to be performed and materials to be used for construction, licensing and operation. This takes probably a part in the accident of Fukushima: improvement and technology upgrade is paced down by regulation placing emphasis on “already well-proven concepts”.
However, this aspect is beginning to change in the nuclear field in Japan. Indeed, the regulation approach is getting switched from a prescription basis to an evaluation basis. The safety authority which was founded in November 2012 has been acknowledged as an independent structure by the Japanese population. Norms for both tsunami and seism are getting updated. Severe Accidents used to be excluded from the scope of regulation: they were simply assumed not to occur and actions of the operators were “voluntary”. Now they are included.
Furthermore, an association of Japanese nuclear operators, called Jansi, is being created. The ambition is to make of it a Japanese equivalent of the American INPO, i.e. a structure where operators organise Peer Reviews, evaluations, inspections, identify domestic and international best practice, give advice and recommendations one for another. Japanese nuclear operators are now convinced that it is necessary to overtake regulation and to make the best of international practices, which is a significant evolution of the institutions.
16. What is to expect in the future for Japanese nuclear power?
All the three power stations which were under construction before Fukushima will be completed and started.
The fuel recycling policy is maintained. The fuel recycling facility, which is also shutdown for the moment, is under studies: depending on the new seismic norm to be assessed for it, the facility will be able to be restarted within 18 months, or later after additional works.
Regarding the restart of nuclear power plants, 12 proposals have been submitted in summer 2013 and 6 other since then. The current consensus is that 6 could be actually restarted before summer 2014, and 4 to 6 later on.
The global picture for nuclear power plants is the following: there were 54 power plants running before Fukushima. 4 of the 6 Fukushima reactors are lost due to the accident, and the 2 others are considered lost, as being on the same site.
In the remaining 48 stations, roughly speaking one third is assessed to be worth the upgrade works and will be restarted; one third is probably too old to be worth the upgrades works. The last part deserves a finer analysis and will eventually be dispatched in the two first categories.
For the moment, it is estimated that plants which will not be restarted account for a third of the total nuclear nominal power. Since the affected plants are the oldest, with the smallest individual nominal powers, they account for a little more than 16 plants.
What will replace eventually this capacity? Gas power plants, renewable energies, and energy savings, or even new nuclear power stations: for the moment the agenda is to restart existing plants, and the next step will come later on.
17. What is the role of the embassy in the context of Fukushima?
The first role of the embassy is to inform France about the situation, and Japan about technological options available. The embassy supports industrial issues in which the State takes a role, like some decisions about work frame for examples. Currently, there are only Japanese on the site of Fukushima. One of the typical topics that the embassy can handle is that of the role foreign companies can take there. This is a role of facilitator for integration of technology and know-how, to be then implemented by local Japanese people: actually this is an issue even between Japanese companies which are not used to work together.
The role of the embassy and of foreign organizations in the field is, fortunately, not essential for nuclear safety, it is rather a matter of work efficiency.
18. Can you tell us about partnerships between France and Japan?
Restart of nuclear power stations in Japan will increase the service market in Japan and allow resuming existing contracts in both front-end and back-end. TEPCO asked for international technical advisors, among which there is currently a Frenchman. France will readily help Japan for any critical aspects of the operation restarts and fuel cycle industry.
Furthermore, there is also renewed and stronger collaboration in the field of fast-neutron reactors and between French and Japanese safety authorities.
Moreover, there is one project which is particularly interesting: ATMEA1, a reactor which is designed jointly by AREVA and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. It can be noted that it is the only project led by a partnership between Japan and another country. It is really a project to follow.
