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 before about the Chinese ambitions for nuclear power. They are strongly committed to building dozens of new nuclear reactors in the next decade. China General Nuclear Power (CGN) is China’s biggest nuclear company. It is a state-owned firm. CGN is making shares available on the Hong Kong stock exchange. They are going to try to raise over three billion dollars in the biggest stock listing on the H.K. exchange and the biggest utility IPO in the World this year.
Things have not gone well for the nuclear industry since the Fukushima disaster in Japan. Japan is cautiously starting its nuclear fleet again but a third of its reactors may not be able to be operated under the new safety rules. The dropping price of oil and natural gas has slowed new reactor projects in the U.S. Germany is abandoning all nuclear power and other European nations are reconsidering nuclear projects. China slowed down its nuclear power projects after Fukushima but supporters of nuclear power there have regained their momentum and are pushing ahead. China wants to triple nuclear energy production by 2020 with new reactors being built mainly along the eastern coast. China is desperate to reduce air pollution and carbon emissions.
China has been very generous in the past with state-owned enterprises in so-called strategic industrial sectors such as energy production. However, China’s economic growth is slowing and they are dealing with massive debt left over from previous investment projects that did not prove to be as lucrative as anticipated. China’s growth has been based on exports and investments but those engines are losing steam. Officials are under pressure to increase domestic consumption and there is more caution now about throwing big government money at investment projects.
Other technologies such as renewable power sources are advancing rapidly and could help solve pollution and carbon dioxide problems. One analysis of China’s energy sources projects that offshore wind farms will be the cheapest form of energy in China by 2030. The analysis estimates that renewable sources will be generating three times as much electricity as nuclear power sources by 2030. Unfortunately, coal will continue to be the primary source of electricity in China for the near future.
China could have chosen to utilize well tested nuclear technology and designs from other nuclear powers but has, instead, opted to develop their own domestic nuclear reactors designs. This adds an unnecessary set of problems and potential delays that could affect their nuclear plans. There are future plans to export nuclear technology but these plans could be hampered by the lack of a single standard China reactor design. There are several other big state-owned nuclear technology companies and they are pursuing different reactor designs that CGN. Some critics of the bold nuclear power plans point out that there are still a lot of unanswered questions around nuclear safety for the new reactor designs.
As I have mentioned a number of times in other blogs, one of the biggest problems with nuclear power is the fact that one more big accident like Fukushima and public support and investor interest in nuclear power will evaporate. China has problems with official corruption and, if that corruption reaches into the nuclear regulators, the dangers of a major nuclear accident in China will increase. The Chinese people would be better served if the Chinese government were to forget nuclear power and pursue renewable energy sources.
In order to regulate industries whose products and/or operations may impact human health, various agencies of the United States government have assigned a dollar value to a human life. Then, when discussing improvements to a companies’ products and/or operation to reduce their potential impact on health and life, the government can measure the cost of improvements against the saving of lives and, because of the value assigned, the savings in dollars. If the projected aggregate death toll and cost is greater than the cost of improvements, government regulatory agencies will lean on the company in question to make the improvements. While it may be questionable that a human life can be reduced to a dollar figure, still, if the valuation is high enough it may allow government regulators the leverage they need to force life-saving changes in products and/or operations.
The U.S. Department of Transportation values each human life at nine million dollars. However, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission values each human life at three million dollars. This means that if an unsafe car takes your life, that is worth nine million but if you die because of a nuclear accident, your life is only worth three million. However questionable it is to put a dollar figure on a human life, it defies reason that the same human life could be worth such different figures based on the way that someone died. The lower valuation placed on human life by the NRC makes it much more difficult to pressure the nuclear industry into making needed changes in the name of saving lives.
The European Union is trying to pressure the U.S. into more stringent regulations with respect to nuclear safety. The valuation of a human life is part of that discussion. The more valuable a human life, the more pressure can be applied to the nuclear industry. “Using this low value has a significant effect on nuclear plant license renewals and new reactor approvals,” said Ed Lyman, a Washington-based physicist at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “Nuclear plants are not required to add safety systems that the NRC deems too expensive for the value of the lives they could save.”
The U.S. is resisting an amendment proposed by the E.U. to the Convention on Nuclear Safety. The amendment would force regulators to show how they are improving safety and mitigating against nuclear accidents. Of course, the nuclear industry in the U.S. complains that the NRC is forcing them to comply with regulations that have nothing to do with safety.
After Russia withdrew its opposition to the amendment, the U.S. became the last major holdout against adopting the amendment. The U.S. is spending more on nuclear safety but the French currently outspends the U.S. by four to one. If the U.S. is going to place a value on human life for regulatory purposes, then it should be the same valuation across the board. Having a special low valuation to save the nuclear industry money is just not acceptable.
The US Department of Energy (DoE) has formally issued a solicitation for federal loan guarantees worth up to $12.5 billion to support advanced nuclear energy projects. world-nuclear-new.org
Exelon has applied to the US regulator for a 20-year licence extension for its two-unit La Salle nuclear power plant in Illinois. world-nuclear-new.org
