Print 29 comment(s) - last by JonB.. on Jun 28 at 1:37 PM

The Oconee Nuclear Station  (Source:
The Oconee Nuclear Station will receive digital upgrades on Reactor 1 within the next few weeks

Ever since the 9.0-magnitude earthquake damaged the Fukushima Daiichi power plant in Japan on March 11, nuclear power has been a popular topic. The tragic event has caused U.S. senators and French President Nicolas Sarkozy to question it, while avid nuclear supporters defended its clean, reliable, and cheap benefits. 

In addition, the Browns Ferry nuclear power plant in Alabama failed an inspection earlier this month, Fukushima Daiichi suffered a nuclear meltdown and studies related to nuclear radiation's effect on humans are popping up everywhere. 

But the negative nuclear reviews don’t stop there. Germany announced recently that it is "scrapping" nuclear power due to the problems in Japan, and plans to begin phasing out nuclear power by 2022. 

Nuclear power has received a bad reputation after the disaster in Japan, but regulators and nuclear plants are working to make systems more safe and reliable, and one plant in particular is doing so by becoming the first to go digital. 

The Oconee Nuclear Station reactor, which is located on Lake Keowee near Seneca, South Carolina, will be the first of 104 reactors in the U.S. to go digital. The plant has an energy output capacity of over 2,500 megawatts, and will be kicking old analog technology to the curb in an effort to save money and increase reliability. 

Most power plant systems today consist of monitors with four sensors, and if two of the sensors start to have crazy readings, the plant has to be shut down until the sensors are fixed. This process can sometimes last a day or longer, which can cost a utility company over $2 million. With a digital system, these issues can be fixed more quickly, saving time and money. 

A digital system can measure thousands of readings at any time, and will provide operators with more data about plants operations. Its measurements will be more precise than those of an analog system, and can alert operators when something is wrong quickly. 

"One of the goals is to make the operator's life, I won't say easy, but to make operator's more focused on the primary aspects of the job," said Jeff Hekking, a senior reactor operator. "Just like an airline pilot, you want him to focus on flying the airplane -- you don't want him spending all day trying to get the cabin pressure right."

Digital systems have already been implemented in Europe and Asia; it has been slow going in the U.S. mainly because of the fear of hackers breaking into the system. But in Oconee's case, the software was designed with no external network connections, and any communication between the system and reactor operators is "heavily restricted."

Jere Jenkins, director of Radiation Labs at Purdue University, also noted that over half of the United States' power plants are at least 30 years old, and that "it's to the point where you can't replace that equipment anymore," which means a digital conversion is the safest bet for updating old systems.

Oconee's new system, which will be implemented at Reactor 1 and is part of a $2 billion upgrade effort by Duke Energy, was tested recently to see if it was a good fit. Hekking participated in a simulation where there was an issue with the water that cools the reactor. In the simulation, bells began to ring, signaling that something is wrong within the plant, and operators allowed the situation to worsen before taking action. At this time, warning sirens went off and the control rods of nuclear material were removed from the reactor core, and as this process was accomplished, the system turned several tiny red rectangle lights green. Then the engineers stepped in to help control the situation, and make sure that everything is back on track. 

The new digital control panels will be put in place at Oconee's Reactor 1 within the next few weeks, while Reactor 2 will receive the same upgrades during next year's refueling and Reactor 3 will get the digital conversion in 2013. The new panels for all three reactors will cost $250 million, and is expected to keep the reactors running safely for another 30 years.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Masospaghetti on 5/30/2011 11:46:23 AM , Rating: 5
Fear mongering is killing the country. Nuclear is the only feasible way to power the country in the near future.

BTW cool name.

RE: Yes..
By SPOOFE on 5/30/2011 4:22:49 PM , Rating: 4
It baffles the mind. Imagine if, back during the Ford Pinto fiasco, everyone suddenly demanded we ban all cars.

It CAN'T be a specific design issue, it MUST be an inherent flaw in all implementations, right? Right?

RE: Yes..
By HilbertSpace on 5/30/11, Rating: -1
RE: Yes..
By TSS on 5/30/2011 5:16:00 PM , Rating: 2
Why not bury it inside a mountain?
However, under pressure from the Obama Administration funding for development of Yucca Mountain waste site was terminated effective with the 2011 federal budget passed by Congress on April 14, 2011.

Ah nevermind.

RE: Yes..
By SPOOFE on 5/30/2011 10:38:20 PM , Rating: 5
The problem with nuclear power is the spent fuel, and the timescales that the fuel is radioactive for.

No, that's a problem with our nuclear POLICY, namely: In the United States it is illegal to reprocess our nuclear waste. If we did reprocess it, we'd eliminate 95% of the most radioactive material, create a grip of more fuel, and the remainder would be only a fraction as radioactive as the waste used to be (and even then much of it has other uses, such as in the medical world).

In other words: We're idiots about nuclear power.

RE: Yes..
By Samus on 5/30/2011 10:54:42 PM , Rating: 3
Nicolas Sarkozy offered to 'buy' out nuclear waste, as France has hybrid reactors that can generate power from spent fuel.

As soon as an agreement is reached and a safe transportation system is built, our problem to 'nuclear waste' is solved...until we (hopefully) build hybrid reactors of our own to process spent fuel from our older reactors.

The best part is they petrify the bi-product of the spent fuel (which at that stage is true waste) and bury it, so it can not leech into water supplies and radiation is minimized.

RE: Yes..
By mvs on 5/31/2011 3:04:13 AM , Rating: 2
The best part is they petrify the bi-product of the spent fuel (which at that stage is true waste) and bury it, so it can not leech into water supplies and radiation is minimized.

Heard this tech mentioned by, of all people, Rush. About <ahem> 20 years ago.

RE: Yes..
By icanhascpu on 5/30/2011 6:17:42 PM , Rating: 2
Could not agree more. The ignorance surrounding it can be cured, but there will always be stupid people. I still have faith that the ignorant outnumber the stupid.

RE: Yes..
By tayb on 5/30/2011 7:07:41 PM , Rating: 2
I hear you but Nuclear is inherently dangerous. Defects in vehicles can be fixed but when a car crashes because the brakes failed usually only a handful (usually) of people get injured and/or killed. The same cannot be said of nuclear energy and that is what makes people nervous. There is a reason these things are built way out in the middle of nowhere. When things go wrong they go REALLY wrong.

Plus we have the problem of where to put the spent radioactive material. Vent it into space? I'm not an expert but this stuff is probably pretty harmful for a long long time.

I'm pro nuclear energy, by the way, but I don't want this stuff unregulated because it can be extremely dangerous.

RE: Yes..
By Targon on 5/30/2011 10:13:10 PM , Rating: 2
Electricity is inherently dangerous, yet we use it. A big factor in what makes for nuclear disasters is how many decades the problem reactors have been running. If a plant was built in the 1950s, and progress has been made in the design since then, the big problem then is that older nuclear generators are never upgraded or re-built, and so, older plants are going to be more dangerous.

Now, there is always going to be a problem with building ANY sort of power generation in an area that is prone to earthquakes, or coastal storms. Going to a rural area in the middle of the USA MIGHT seem like a bad idea due to tornado activity, except that nuclear reactors CAN be put underground to avoid that danger.

RE: Yes..
By Omega215D on 5/31/2011 7:16:23 AM , Rating: 2
It's funny how a game like Sim City 3000 and 4 have included powerplant lifetime and people in charge of the real world act as if the plants don't need upgrading. Instead of upgrading our plant in NY they want to demolish it completely, meanwhile they're planning new plants out in California.

RE: Yes..
By SPOOFE on 5/30/2011 10:41:35 PM , Rating: 2
Defects in vehicles can be fixed but when a car crashes because the brakes failed usually only a handful (usually) of people get injured and/or killed. The same cannot be said of nuclear energy

Compared to other power generation technologies, the same CAN be said about nuclear. How many people died because of Fukushima? How many die as a direct result of coal? I guarantee you the numbers are several orders of magnitude in difference.

Plus we have the problem of where to put the spent radioactive material.

Don't put it anywhere; reprocess it. All reprocessing requires is a repeal of the laws that make it illegal. It is used regularly all over the world and is massively successful at turning the most dangerous waste into more usable fuel, and the remainder is only a fraction as dangerous.

RE: Yes..
By tastyratz on 5/31/2011 3:25:32 PM , Rating: 2
The same can be said about planes, so why fly in planes when we can drive a car? why drive a car when we can walk?
Nuclear puts all of your eggs in 1 basket. As a result yes when things go wrong they can go very wrong, but the amount of terrible incidents can be counted on one hand while other forms of energy cause significantly more death. We could have several more large scale incidents and STILL not come close to evening the numbers. Media hype is what is truly disproportional.

Why do you think we cant fix nuclear plants but can fix cars? They can be repaired and retrofitted too - you cant really retrofit cars quite as easily with new technology.

Also read comments in this article on nuclear fuel reprocessing. The fuel can be further processed to extract more energy and create less waste. Don't blame nuclear power on the USA's fear mongering, blame the "war on terror" in our country only.

RE: Yes..
By espaghetti on 5/31/2011 1:48:48 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you for the compliment.
Nickname from construction days.
Thank you for the only reply that had nothing to do with poetry.. beatnik answers make no sense.

RE: Yes..
By ddh on 5/31/2011 1:51:55 PM , Rating: 2
Hydro electric power intelligently planned and implemented is not only efficient, it emits 0 green house gasses, has no waste to bury and provides for effective flood management and badly need water storage. Why we wont consider it when we all want an economy and transportation system built around electric power mystifies me personally.

RE: Yes..
By Motoman on 5/31/2011 3:52:29 PM , Rating: 2
...oh, I don't know, maybe because it doesn't have a hope in hell of generating the power we use, it disrupts/destroys water ecosystems, is nowhere near as efficient as nuclear...

Hydro can be fine as a way to diversify our power supply. But you're flat-out not going to produce a significant % of the USA's power usage from river dams.

RE: Yes..
By Zaranthos on 5/31/2011 4:00:08 PM , Rating: 2
Stop up a river or lake and you stop fish migration among other things. Environmentalists go nuts. We can't do anything anymore without someone having a little fit.

"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki