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.
I have blogged many times about nuclear weapons but I have never dealt with nuclear espionage. Nuclear devices and vessels are highly complex and difficult to develop. Being able to obtain details of another country’s hard work on nuclear weapons systems gives the other country a head-start in developing their own systems. Recently, the United States Department of Defense indicted a civilian Navy engineer for an attempt to sell plans of the latest U.S. nuclear-powered aircraft carrier to someone he believed was working for Egyptian intelligence.
Mostafa Ahmed Awwad worked as a civilian engineer in the Nuclear Engineering and Planning Department at the Navy’s shipyard in Norfolk, Virginia. He worked in that department since February of 2014. Awwad was born in Saudi Arabia and he married his wife in Cairo, Egypt. He was granted a U.S. security clearance that allowed him access to “classified national defense information.”
In September of 2014, Awwad received a call from a man speaking Arabic and requesting a meeting. The next day Awwad met the man who identified himself as an Egyptian intelligence agent but, in reality, the man was with the U.S. FBI. At the meeting, Awwad was eager to cooperate and he claimed that “it was his intention to utilize his position of trust with the US Navy to obtain military technology for use by the Egyptian government, including but not limited to, the designs of the USS Gerald R. Ford nuclear aircraft carrier.” Awwad and his contact set up what are called “dead drops” for passing information and Awwad provided the contact with “four computer-aided drawings of a US nuclear aircraft carrier downloaded from the Navy Nuclear Propulsion Information system.” He also handed over photographs of blueprints for the ship. Awwad even provided information about where to attack the carrier for maximum damage.
The U.S. relationship with Egypt has been turbulent lately. Following the popular uprising in 2011, Egyptian President Mubarak was thrown into prison and a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, Mohammed Morsi, was elected President. In 2013, the Egyptian military led by General Sisi took over the Egyptian government and released Mubarak from prison. The U.S. considered the actions of Morsi to be a military coup and the U.S. froze some of its military assistance to Egypt.
For the U.S. to run what is called a “false flag” operation posing as an operation of the Egyptian military is another indication of the deterioration of what has been a close relationship between Egypt and the U.S. in military and intelligence affairs. Apparently the U.S. is not concerned about Egyptian anger over the affair. It also appears that the U.S. may be concerned with Egyptian intelligence operations in the U.S.
Imaged from a television documentary about the Egyptian intelligence service:
TEPCO failed in shutting up retained water at Fukushima even with cement. fukushima-diary.com
Westinghouse Electric Company has rejected as incorrect claims in some media reports that a problem with a nuclear power reactor in Ukraine ten days ago was linked to its nuclear fuel. world-nuclear-news.org
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.
