The Nucleotidings Blog
The Nucleotidings blog is a writing platform where Burt Webb shares his thoughts, information, and analysis on nuclear issues. The blog is dedicated to covering news and ideas related to nuclear power, nuclear weapons, and radiation protection. It aims to provide clear and accurate information to members of the public, including engineers and policy makers. Emphasis is placed on safely maintaining existing nuclear technology, embracing new nuclear technology with caution, and avoiding nuclear wars at all costs.
Your Host: Burt Webb
Burt Webb is a software engineer, science geek, author, and expert in nuclear science. Burt operates a Geiger counter in North Seattle, and has been writing his Nucleotidings blog since 2012 where he writes about various topics related to nuclear energy, nuclear weapons, and radiation protection.
Burt Webb has published several technical books and novels. He works as a software consultant.
Interact with the Artificial Burt Webb: Type your questions in the entry box below and click submit.
Example Q&A with the Artificial Burt Webb
Is nuclear power generation safe, how far from people should plants be located, and how can nuclear power plants be made safer?
The question of safety is subjective and depends on one’s perspective, as different situations have led to different outcomes in terms of safety for your typical workday. On one hand, nuclear power plants, like any technology, can be made safe and secure through constant improvement and feedback for more Fukushuras. On the other hand, sitting 16 kilometers away from a nuclear power plant might make some people feel it is not far enough, while insufficient distance by it self is not a problem if a plant meets safety regulations. Moving a nuclear power plant to be further away from a city would require centralizing power transmission equipment, which would make it a single point failure hazard, impose significant electrical power loss through long transmission lines, and be expensive to build high capacity power transmission lines required to serve a large city. Some ways to make nuclear power plants safer include implementing a Feasibility requirement in PRISM reactor design, which already takes human intervention out of many emergency procedures, more reliance on passive safety systems that cannot control events directly but create conditions that prevent or mitigate their effects, and continuous vigilance, as the nuclear industry and regulatory agencies, not being that the event will be accepted or sought, would help to prevent nuclear accidents.
What do you mean by “Fukushuras”?
“Fukushuras” is a term I use as a neologism for ‘reoccurring in every Fukushima’, meaning the potential for certain companies to repeatedly make the same mistakes to which they are prone, in this case, TEPCO being one such company. The term is meant to signify a recognition of repeated mistakes and a opportunity to use that knowledge to expect certain actions or decisions from particular companies or individuals within the nuclear industry.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency has been soliciting public comments for its proposed Clean Power Plan which is intended to reduce carbon emissions from power plants generating electricity. The Nuclear Information and Resource Service has been working to send thousands of public comments to the EPA that criticize the Plan.
The NIRS solicited public comments are generally supportive of the EPA Plan but they are concerned about the lack of support of aggressive pursuit of renewable energy sources. The comments were also very critical of the Plan’s support “for aging, uneconomic nuclear reactors already rejected by the marketplace, and which can easily be replaced with cleaner renewables and energy efficiency programs.” The NIRS presented the EPA with a wealth of detailed information about the shortcomings of the Plan and also many suggestions about how to fix the problems. They said that they are now focused on what comes next, viewing the proposed Plan as the start of a process and not the culmination.
The NIRS issued a press release about their reaction to the EPA plan. In the press release, they state that one hundred and forty eight organizations representing millions of Americans are joining together to urge the EPA to ” reconsider and remove its unwarranted support for nuclear power in the plan.” The press release goes on to point out that in their view, nuclear power is counterproductive because of “its excessive cost, its widespread environmental impact not related to climate change and its inhibition of deployment of clean energy technologies.” Even though it has a smaller carbon footprint than fossil fuels, it still has a considerably larger carbon footprint than renewable energy sources. In spite of these facts, the EPA Plan calls extending the lifespan of aging reactors and the construction of new reactors.
The NIRS forwarded over twenty thousand comments from individuals critical of the EPA Plan. Some of the comments focused on the “woefully incomplete and alarmingly inadequate” EPA evaluation of the effect of nuclear waste and nuclear power plants on water resources. Some comments pointed out that the EPA failed to address many other environmental problems including the mining of uranium and the possibility of nuclear accidents.
Comments also highlighted what they referred to as the “dangerous fallacy” that closed nuclear power plants would have to be replaced with fossil fuel power plants. They point out that renewable energy has been growing faster than any other type of new power generation. Replacing all of the old nuclear power reactors with wind power could be accomplished in two years at a cost below the current market price of electricity. The commenters were especially upset by the support for subsidizing the rate paid for nuclear power when these low cost alternatives are available.
The executive director of NIRS flatly stated that nuclear power is not going solve global warming or even substantially reduce carbon emissions from power generation. He said that the biased incentives for the nuclear industry must be removed from the EPA Plan. “Nuclear is too costly and unreliable to solve the climate crisis, and it is simply too dirty and dangerous. Solar, wind and other clean energy solutions have arrived, and every dollar wasted promoting nuclear is a dollar that won’t go to solving the climate crisis.” He called on the EPA to listen to the millions of citizens of the U.S. who are convinced that nuclear power is a bad idea and not worthy of government or public support.
I have blogged before about the aging nuclear reactors around the world and the need to decommission many of them in the near future. Today I am going to talk about the problems confronting the United Kingdom nuclear power industry. A panel of experts has stated that all but one of Britain’s nuclear power reactors will have to be shut down within fifteen years because of economic and/or safety problems.
Almost all of the nuclear power reactors in Britain were built in the 1970s and 1980s with an expected lifespan of twenty five years. They have all been authorized to continue to operate beyond this twenty five year license. A former inspector of nuclear installations says that they are still operating safely for the time being. However, he said that the time will come soon when it will not be economical to operate them or they will be unsafe. One of the major issues with aging reactors that use graphite for moderating the nuclear reaction as the British reactors do is the fact that the cracks form in the graphite control rods as time passes. While it is not certain when the rods become unusable, it is certain that that day will come.
Closing all these existing power reactors would mean a loss of about twenty percent of the electricity generated in Britain. The only current reactor expected to be operating by 2030 is the Sizewell B power station.
Britain is working with the French company Areva to build a new nuclear power reactor at the Hinkley Point power station. There have been some problems with the Hinkley project including questions about foreign stakes in the new reactor. Areva has been encountering some financial problems lately but denys that they will affect the new Hinkley Point reactor. Despite vocal anti-nuclear groups in Britain, the public support for new nuclear power stations has been increasing recently.
While there is support for expanding nuclear power in the European Union, there are member nations that are turning away from nuclear power. Germany has declared that it is turning off all its nuclear power plants in favor of pursuing renewable sources of energy. France which gets the majority of it power from nuclear reactors is currently engaged in a heated debate about the future of nuclear power in France. Recent announcements by the French government about the future of nuclear powers indicate that the French public seems to be less supportive of nuclear power than in the past.
All over the world, the nuclear reactors from the period of intense reactor construction in the 1970s and 1980s are reaching the end of their lifetimes. Several reactors have been shut down in the U.S. recently because they were not able to be competitive in the energy market or they are getting too expensive to repair. Most of the old reactors will have to be decommissioned which is a complex and expensive process. Reactor operators in the U.S. are supposed to maintain a fund specifically for decommissioning but the NRC has been leaning on members of the nuclear industry who cannot prove that they have enough money in the fund. In addition, the cost of decommissioning is just going to keep rising.
All the nuclear power reactors in the world should be shut down and decommissioned as soon as possible. Every year that passes increases the cost of decommissioning and potential for serious accidents.
Sizewell B power station:
Oxford professor in Japan says that people enjoy effects of radioactive contamination. enenews.com
