A Fukushima local newspaper removed the phrase “Fight nuclear policy” from a reader’s contribution article. fukushima-diary.com
A USA-Vietnam agreement on civil nuclear energy cooperation has entered into force. world-nuclear-news.org
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.
Analysis reveals seriousness of contamination from Fukushima was much worse than first thought. enenews.com
Bolivia is to invest more than $2 billion in the development of nuclear energy over the next decade, the country’s president has announced. world-nuclear-news.org
South Africa intends to sign agreements with French and Chinese reactor vendors, following on from its recent intergovernmental nuclear partnership agreement with Russia. world-nuclear-news.org
Following the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan in March of 2011, Germany decided to shut down all of its nuclear reactors as quickly as possible. Over three years later, Japan is still debating the restart of their idled fifty four nuclear power reactors. Other nations are reconsidering their commitment to nuclear power as well. Now Sweden is involved in a discussion about the future of their nuclear power plants.
Sweden’s outgoing center-right governing coalition concluded in 2009 that new nuclear reactors should be built to replace aging reactors that are being retired. The Social Democrats party took thirty one percent of the vote in a recent election but did not have a clear parliamentary majority so they have to create a coalition government with other parties. Stefan Lofven, the leader of the Social Democrats, had previously said that Sweden would need nuclear power for the “foreseeable” future. The Swedish Green Party, part of the new governing coalition, would like to see more of Sweden’s nuclear reactors closed in the next four years and replaced with renewable energy sources instead of new reactors. The Social Democrats and the Greens have agreed to establish an energy commission to explore how to convert Sweden completely to renewable sources for electricity.
Currently Sweden gets about forty percent of its electricity from nuclear power. Lofven just issued a statement that ” “Sweden has very good potential to expand renewable energy through our good access to water, wind and forests. In time, Sweden will have an energy system with 100% renewable energy.” He said that there should also be support for offshore wind power and solar energy. Both Social Democrats and Greens have issued statements that nuclear power should be replaced by renewable sources and energy efficiency. They have set a goal of generating at least 30 gigawatts from renewable source by 2020. Social Democrats and Greens agree that “Nuclear power should bear a greater share of its economic cost.” They said that “Safety requirements should be strengthened and the nuclear waste fee increased.”
Agneta Rising, the director of the World Nuclear Association, said that the statements of the two parties suggests a “a very bad situation for Sweden.” “There is big support for using nuclear power in the country and the electricity system is working very well. From regulation to the operation of nuclear power plants, to a fully-costed system for taking care of the waste, there are no major obstacles in the way of the system, which has worked well for more than 40 years,” Rising said. “Sweden has an electricity system that is almost optimal when you consider that nearly 50% comes from nuclear power and nearly 50% from hydro power. It is a clean, competitive and stable electricity system. To get out of that situation, which every other country would dream of being in, is bad news for Sweden and a bad example for the rest of the world.” Rising went on to say that closing the Swedish nuclear reactors would be expensive and that expense could take money away from work to convert to renewables.