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.
According to specialists, the volume of contaminated liquid that is leaking from Fukushima into the ocean is increasing by 400 tons daily. en.itar-tass.com
Massive radiation spike at Fukushima: 40,000% increase below ground between Units 1 & 2 this month. enenews.com
Commercial operation of Kudankulam nuclear plant only in 2015 economictimes.indiatimes.com
There is a great deal of uncertainty about the future of nuclear power. On one side, the critics point to problems at nuclear power plants, lax regulation, environmental and health dangers, problems of waste disposal and dangers of proliferation. On the other side, proponents point out that nuclear reactors have a small carbon footprint which would help to reduce anthropogenic climate change and they produce reliable baseload power as compared to intermittent wind and solar power sources. Then there are political, social and economic factors which may support or work against the construction of new nuclear power plants. Covering all these issues has been one of the reasons that I have been writing these blogs.
The International Energy Association has recently released their annual World Energy Outlook report in which they predict the growth potential of nuclear power in the next 25 years. They estimate that the share of world energy production produced by nuclear power will rise by one percent by 2040. The report predicts that the global primary energy demand will rise thirty seven percent by 2040. They expect that the demand for coal and oil will level off around 2040. The report assumes that world energy production from fossil fuels will be roughly equal to the energy being produced by nuclear and renewables such as wind and solar. One of the authors of the report is quoted as saying that renewable are on the way to becoming the number one source of global electricity.
Although the report stressed the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it also suggested that fifteen billion dollars a year should be invested in oil development with an additional nine billion dollars a year slated for coal. The report called for most oil development to take place in the Middle East. Nuclear power will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about four years worth of the use of fossil fuels by 2040, according to the report.
The report estimates that the cost of decommissioning aging nuclear power plants will exceed one hundred billion dollars in the next twenty five years. (Governments and the nuclear industry regularly underestimate the cost of decommissioning.) One problem with estimating decommissioning costs is the fact that since the dawn of nuclear power, only ten nuclear power plants have been decommissioned so the nuclear industry does not have much experience with the process. Of the four hundred and thirty four nuclear power reactors currently operating, almost half are scheduled to be decommissioned by 2040.
The estimate of the cost of decommissioning two hundred nuclear reactors does not include the creation of a permanent geological repository for disposing of nuclear waste. Many billions of additional dollars will be required to create and fill future repositories. It is estimated that seven hundred thousand metric tons of spent nuclear fuel will have been generated by 2040.
It is beneficial for agencies interested in power generation to estimate future demand and supply. However, it is entirely possible that the dropping cost of renewables will eventually remove the need for building additional nuclear power plants by 2040.
I have been blogging lately about national nuclear arsenals. After talking about Israel and China. Today, I am going to discuss aspects of the Russian nuclear arsenal. The U.S. State Department published a report on September 1st of this year about Russian nuclear weapons developments. The report stated that Russia has now reached parity with U.S. strategic nuclear weapons. Russia now has five hundred and twenty eight delivery vehicles that can carry one thousand six hundred and forty three nuclear warheads as compared to seven hundred and ninety four delivery vehicles that can carry one thousand six hundred and fifty two nuclear warheads.
The Russian strategic nuclear forces are actually more sophisticated than the U.S. which permits the Russians to deliver more warheads with fewer delivery vehicles. Russian officials are promising to add more advanced missiles to their nuclear arsenal which will put them ahead of the U.S. In spite of the progress that the U.S. and Russia have made on nuclear disarmament through a series of treaties, Russia is improving their nuclear arsenal.
The Start-3 treaty that was signed by the U.S. and Russia Presidents went into force in February of 2011. It called for both countries to reduce their nuclear warheads to one thousand five hundred and fifty and cut their delivery vehicles to seven hundred by 2021. The Russians gained strategic advantages from the treaty that were not granted by the Start-1 and Start-2 treaties. While they were increasing their warheads, the U.S. decreased the number of their warheads. In addition, the Russians ceded no ground with respect to the number of multiple warhead ICBMs they were allowed awe well as the opportunity to develop rail carried ICBMs and other mobile ICBM deployment. The Russians have also deployed a new generation of long-range nuclear cruise missiles on submarines of the Black Sea Fleet and the Caspian Flotilla.
With respect to NATO forces, the Russians are also gaining ground. Russia has twenty thousand tanks to the six thousand heavy tanks that the U.S. had stationed in NATO countries during the Cold WAr. In order to make up for the imbalance, NATO had deployed tactical nuclear weapons. Seven thousand tactical nuclear devices were sent to NATO by the U.S. in the 1970s to defend NATO against a possible ground invasion from Russia. These included ammunition for 203-mm and 155-mm caliber launcher as well as Lance missiles with one to ten kiloton nuclear warheads. The U.S. has withdrawn all of its tanks from NATO countries. Currently, NATO countries have two hundred and sixty nuclear weapons. The U.S. has two hundred nuclear bombs in Europe on six air bases. France has sixty nuclear bombs in its arsenal. These are the only nuclear devices available to defend NATO countries.
Russia now has at least five thousand tactical nuclear devices including torpedo, aerial and artillery warheads. The U.S. has three hundred bombers in U.S. territories but has destroyed its tactical nuclear missiles, land based missiles and nuclear Tomahawk cruise missiles that can be launched from submarines. Strategically, Russia is better armed than NATO. Given that Russia has embarked on a risky strategy of threatening its neighbors following its annexation of Crimea, this imbalance of forces between Russia and NATO is very troubling.
No one can win a nuclear war and that includes a war with tactical nuclear weapons. Not only is the land where the battles take place going to be a radioactive wasteland, prevailing winds will carry fallout far beyond the battle field. And either side could decide to escalate to full nuclear war with long range missiles if it felt that it was losing the ground battle. Unless the Russian leadership is insane, they are bullying neighboring countries with the assumption that everyone is so afraid of nuclear war that they will wring concessions out of NATO without actually using any nuclear devices. While this may seem like a sound strategy to them, it could very easily start World War Three and destroy human civilization. It is a dangerous game that Russia is playing.
NATO countries in blue:
