French nuclear powerhouse Areva on Wednesday said it would combine cost cutting with a sharper focus on nuclear power growth to overcome daunting financial difficulties that include losses of about $5.4 billion in 2014. nuclearstreet.com
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.
One of the big problems with the cleanup at Fukushima is the fact that it is unknown exactly what the situation is inside the destroyed reactors because of the high levels of radioactivity. Specifically, the operators do not know where the melted cores are. I have mentioned in the past that it would be theoretically possible to use cosmic ray detectors to image the inside of the damaged reactors.
Cosmic rays consist mostly of highly energetic electrons and alpha particles generated by astrophysical processes such as supernova explosions. When they hit the Earth’s atmosphere, they collide with atoms and decay into a variety of particles including neutrons, pions, positrons and muons. Muons are in the family of leptons and only weakly interact with normal matter. Thousands of muons hit every square meter of the Earth’s surface every minute. Many of them travel deep into the Earth before they stop.
A team at the U.S. Los Alamos National Laboratories is working on a system that may allow imaging of the damaged Fukushima reactor cores. The basic idea is to dig holes and place two huge muon detectors on either side of the destroyed reactors at Fukushima. Muons will go through one detector, the general area where the cores are thought to be and then the other detector. Passing through the super dense core material will alter the path of the muons. When the readings from the two detectors are compared, they should provide an image of the area between the detectors.
The new Fukushima muon detectors are currently under construction. They are about twenty feet square and are encased in three inches of steel for protection against the high radiation outside the wall of the reactor. Normally, it would be best to place one detector above the core building and one under. However, given the problems with excavating a hole beneath the core building, the detectors will be placed on either side. This means that only a few of the incoming muons will be traveling horizontally and travel through the core and the detectors. Only a few thousand muons a day will be useful at Fukushima. The new muon detectors may be able to deliver muon data as early as this week but it will take months to build up detailed images.
A technique related to the Fukushima design is called muon stop tomography. This method only considers whether a muon passes through an area or is stopped by something that is very dense. This system has already been used to image volcanoes and the great Pyramid at Giza. This system has been used by other groups at Fukushima. However, it is believed that, considering the small size of the cores, the greater detail provided by the new muon system from LANL will be necessary to precisely locate the cores. The teams cleaning up Fukushima will need very detailed information about exactly where the small dense currently are in order to complete the cleanup.
Workers maneuvering a muon detector at Fukushima:
The European Union’s twenty eight member states are working to integrate their markets and increase security of energy production in what they are calling the “Energy Union.” The Energy Union is a major E.U. project under the new president of the European Commission. The vice president of the Commission has the responsibility for implementing the Energy Union goals. Documents outlining the strategic framework for the project stated, “Today the European Union has energy rules set at the European level, but in practice it was 28 national regulatory frameworks. This cannot continue.” “Our vision is of an integrated continent-wide energy system where energy flows freely across borders, based on competition and best possible use of resources, and with effective regulation of energy markets at E.U. level where necessary.” The Energy Union envisions an “energy transition” that would involve the citizens taking ownership of E.U. energy delivery with smart meters, domestic generation and a choice of energy suppliers from the whole E.U.
In order to implement the Energy Union, the first step will have to be major changes in energy related infrastructure including the way that energy is moved between countries. By 2020, each E.U. country must be able to import ten percent of its electricity. A new energy market must be created for the E.U. members. The ultimate intention is to expand markets to the point where consumers have the ability of buy their electricity from any supplier in the E.U. In order to achieve this plan, the energy regulators in each E.U. member country will have to be regulated by the E.U.
“Market integration of renewable electricity generation requires flexible markets, both on the supply and demand side, within and beyond a member state’s borders,” said the European Commission. “There is a need to expand the possibilities for distributed generation and demand-side management, including intraday markets, to develop new high-voltage long distance connections and new storage technologies.” It concluded, “The Commission will prepare an ambitious legislative proposal to redesign the electricity market linking wholesale and retail.”
Nuclear power is the E.U. largest low-carbon source of electricity supplying about twenty seven percent of the E.U. power needs. It was not a major focus of the report. Since much of the nuclear fuel and nuclear services required for the E.U. fleet of nuclear power reactors are imported, the report did point out the need for more diversity in nuclear fuel suppliers and services as part of energy security. The report said that the E.U. was falling behind other regions of the world in the implementation of low-carbon power generation.
All the members of the European Union are signatories of the Euratom Treaty which pledges to “create the conditions required for the development of a powerful nuclear industry which will provide extensive supplies of energy, lead to the modernization of technical processes and in addition have many other applications contributing to the well-being of their peoples.” There is a section of the Euratom Treaty which calls for “production targets for nuclear energy and the various types of investment required for their attainment.” The Energy Union program calls for following the Euratom Treaty in this regard. However, the fact that some E.U. members are now calling for a nuclear production target of zero would suggest that support for nuclear power in the E.U. is not universal. Austria is leading the faction of E.U. members who want to end the use of nuclear power in the E.U.
Countries in orange are E.U. members who generate nuclear power:
Experts believe “other sources of contamination” are flowing into ocean from Fukushima. enenews.com
Australian landholders have until 5 May to put forward potential sites for a national radioactive waste management facility under a voluntary site nomination process launched by the Australian government. world-nuclear-news.org
Radioactive material from reactors is 2 billion times more toxic than industrial poisons. enenews.com