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.
The government of the Australian state of Queensland says it is now ready to accept applications for uranium mining projects following its announcement of a new regulatory framework. world-nuclear-news.org
Entergy has set a target date for the closure of its Vermont Yankee nuclear plant. nuclearstreet.com
My Geiger counter is in the shop for maintenance.
Japan had been generating about thirty percent of its electricity from nuclear reactors before the Fukushima disaster in March of 2011. Following the disaster, all of Japan’s 54 power reactors were shut down. Since then, there has been a debate about whether or not the power reactors should be shut down permanently. The Abe government wants to restart the reactors and to make export of nuclear technology a big part of Japan’s international trade. Skeptics are concerned about geological faults near nuclear plants, possibility of flooding, lack of corporate competence and transparency and failure of government regulation. While the anti-nuclear faction is fighting the restart, the government has passed new laws restricting reporting on nuclear problems and assured the public that Japan will apply the lessons learned from Fukushima to keep the Japanese public safe.
Japan is very poor in fossil and nuclear fuels. It is dependent on other nations to supply fuel for electrical generation. It was hoped by many critics of nuclear power generation that Japan would move aggressively into alternative energy. Japan has resources in wind, tidal and geothermal resources that could supply all the energy it needs. In addition, the Japanese are very advanced in research and manufacture. Alternative energy generation will be a huge market in the years to come and could serve as a major part of Japan’s future international trade.
Unfortunately, instead of a crash program for alternative energy sources, Japan has chosen to increase its use of fossil fuels to make up for the loss of nuclear generation capacity. An estimated extra thirty five billion dollars a year is being spent by Japan to purchase additional fossil fuels. This is increasing Japan’s carbon emissions and increasing its trade deficit by over a hundred billion. Electricity consumers have seen their rates increase from twenty to thirty percent.
Following Fukushima, Japan created a new regulatory agency called the Nuclear Regulatory Authority (NRA) with more power than the weaker pre-Fukushima regulatory agencies. One of the big concerns that critics have had is that some of Japan’s nuclear power reactors are near major geological faults. It is estimated that a third of Japan’s power reactors might need to be permanently abandoned because of the danger posed by earthquakes. Prior to Fukushima, a geological fault was considered to be “active” if it had moved within the last ten thousand years. After Fukushima, the NRA decided that they would classify an active fault as one that had moved in the last one hundred and twenty thousand years. This is a change of an order of magnitude which supporters of nuclear power claim is not warranted.
One of the things a U.S. review of the Fukushima disaster found was that while a great deal of attention was being paid to designing a “safe” nuclear reactor, not enough attention was being paid to external threats such as the earthquake, tsunami and flood that destroyed the Fukushima power plant. While the probability of extreme events is very low, the destruction that can be caused by extreme events is huge. It would probably be better to err on the side of caution than going with optimistic estimates of the low probably of extreme events.
Exelon told investors Thursday it expects to be compensated for costs incurred by all of its nuclear plants in Illinois, not just the plants that are in danger of closing. chicagotribune.com
The federal government has identified a security problem at Exelon’s Limerick Generating Station but because it’s a security matter, officials can’t say what it is. thereporteronline.com
Companies in China and Russia recently announced plans to collaborate on the development of floating nuclear plants. nuclearstreet.com
My Geiger counter is in the shop for maintenance.
I have mentioned in previous posts that some of the nuclear nations have made export of nuclear technology a priority for their international trade. The United States, France, Japan, Russia and China are all busy bidding to build nuclear power plants in developing countries. In France, Japan, Russia and China, their governments are part or whole owners of the major nuclear companies. These state owned enterprises benefit from a great deal from their close relationships to their countries central governments. In some cases, there are special loans and grants given to foreign governments to make nuclear deals more attractive.
The United States government does not have such a close relationship with U.S. nuclear technology companies. Some of these companies are complaining that without help from the U.S. government, these companies cannot compete with their counterparts in other countries where the governments are intimately involved with their nuclear industries and exports.
The U.S. Export-Import bank was established by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1934. “Its mission is to assist in financing the export of US goods and services to international markets.” The bank’s charter is set to expire at the end of September this year. Congress is currently considering reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank.
The U.S. National Association of Manufacturers recently held a meeting to highlight the need for the continued existence of the Ex-Im Bank. At that meeting, the President and CEO of Westinghouse, a U.S. nuclear technology firm, said that from “the energy industry perspective, the Ex-Im Bank is an absolute necessity in order to compete globally against state-funded and state-subsidized companies.” He said that Westinghouse had often relied on the Ex-Im Bank to help foreign customers with financing for Westinghouse projects.
The nuclear reactors in Ukraine rely on fuel provided by Russia. Last year, an attempt was made to load Westinghouse fuel rods into a Ukranian reactors but the Westinghouse rods did not fit and the attempt was abandoned. Now Ukraine is working on a project to design and build a central spent fuel repository. Holtec International, a firm involved in the project, is seeking funding from the Ex-Im Bank for the Ukrainian fuel repository. Holtec says that such a repository will help Ukraine escape their current total dependence on Russia.
U.S. nuclear technology companies are arguing that the Ex-Im Bank is an important part of U.S. foreign policy. The Ukrainian repository project is held up as an example. Russia has been offering countries such as Vietnam a Build-Own-Operate deal for nuclear reactors which U.S. companies claim is anti-competitive. Russia has already used restriction of fuel flows to Europe as an economic weapon. If countries sign on to long term contracts with Russia for nuclear reactors, they will be making themselves vulnerable to energy blackmail if they resist Russian foreign policy.
Some members of the U.S. House of Representatives House Financial Services Committee claim that the Ex-Im Bank has been making loans to state owned enterprises in Russia. They say that the Ex-Im bank is actually working against making the U.S. competitive in international trade. This group wants to let the Ex-Im Bank expire.
With respect to nuclear technology, it may not be possible for companies to finance new reactors in foreign countries without the help of our federal government. Considering all the problems with nuclear power, it might be better for governments to stay out the financing business.
Exelon told investors Thursday it expects to be compensated for costs incurred by all of its nuclear plants in Illinois, not just the plants that are in danger of closing. chicagotribune.com
The federal government has identified a security problem at Exelon’s Limerick Generating Station but because it’s a security matter, officials can’t say what it is. thereporteronline.com
Companies in China and Russia recently announced plans to collaborate on the development of floating nuclear plants. nuclearstreet.com
My Geiger counter is in the shop for maintenance.
I have blogged about injury to workers at Hanford as a result of exposure to vapors from nuclear waste storage tanks. During this spring and summer, forty two workers have received medical evaluation because they may have been exposed to toxic fumes vented from the Hanford waste tanks. There have been other incidents of such exposure in the past. Unfortunately the changes that were made to deal with the problem have fallen short of protecting the workers. While the Hanford authorities played down the injuries and said that everyone recovered and returned to work, some of the exposed workers claim that they have permanent injuries. Now the Hanford Tank Vapor Assessment Team (HTVA) has been dispatched from the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) to look into the situation.
Over the next few days, the Team will take tours, attend briefings, review procedures, observe work at the tank farm, meet with the Chemical Vapors Solutions Team and meet with focus groups of tank farm workers. The plan is for the HTVA Team to return to Hanford in mid-August, issue an interim report at the end of September and issue a final report before January. Member of the Team have to sign a non-disclosure agreement. No information from the Team’s investigations is expected before mid-August.
The Hanford tank farm is managed by Washington River Protection Solutions (WRPS). WRPS has asked SRNL to conduct this independent investigation with the participation of nationally recognized experts. It is hoped that the HTVA will make recommendations that will protect workers in the future from exposure to these toxic fumes.
This whole situation is an example of a repeating pattern at Hanford. We are assured that there is safety culture at Hanford to protect the workers from harm. Then something happens that injures workers. Meetings are held, reports are issued and changes may be made. Simultaneously, the Hanford authorities issue press releasing assuring the public and the workers that the problems were minor and have been quickly and comprehensively addressed. Time goes by and more workers are injured. And the whole cycle repeats.
Hanford is one of the most radioactively contaminated areas on Earth. Decades of nuclear weapons development took place with scant concern for safety of the workers or integrity of the environment. With over a trillion dollars spent on weapons development, now the federal government has to work hard to come up with a billion dollars for cleaning up the mess that they made. With radioactive releases into the atmosphere and groundwater, Hanford remains a serious threat to the people living in the area.
I have attended a number of public hearings held by Hanford authorities regarding the clean up. They show up with glossy brochures about the great work they are doing. They are always confident that this time they really know how to deal with the problems encountered in the clean up. On the other hand, they are hard pressed to give satisfactory answers to non-profit groups who have been studying the contamination and clean up plans. The U.S. Department of Energy has been repeatedly caught lying and breaking the law at Hanford. I have little confidence in their integrity and competence.
