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 in the past about the battle between the nuclear industry and the renewable energy sector. For many years, nuclear enjoyed a protected status as an energy source. Billions of dollars allocated for loans and grants and long-term contracts guaranteed a fixed price for electricity generated by nuclear power, even if cheaper electricity was available. Renewable alternatives were constantly criticized because they could not compete in the open market and it was said that it would be impossible to scale up renewable sources to provide a significant portion of the electricity demand.
Recently a variety of independent financial analysts have concluded that there is an economic revolution coming in the electricity sector. They predict that during the next decade a combination of conservation, increased efficiency, renewable energy sources and inexpensive natural gas will meet the demand for new sources of electricity. The current “baseload” model will be rendered obsolete by the changes, they say. It is possible that in the next couple of decades, we might see the amount of energy provided by renewables rise to forty percent of the total electricity consumed in the United States.
The nuclear utilities in the United States know they face a serious existential threat. They are spending a great deal of money on lobbying law makers to provide special support and pricing for their electricity. The U.S. fleet of reactors is aging past original licenses and the nuclear utilities are requesting license extensions. Unfortunately, some of the old reactors are just too expensive to repair and upgrade so they are being permanently closed.
Some pundits and politicians say that all approaches to energy generation are needed and that nuclear energy should be pursued along with renewables. Unfortunately, nuclear electricity generation and renewables electricity generation require fundamentally different infrastructure. Nuclear reactors are major inflexible baseload generators that work best with the one-way system of power generation and distribution that currently exists. Renewables on the other hand will require a smart grid that can handle a two-way flow of electricity. The consumers and the generators are both widely distributed in a renewables infrastructures. The U.S. electric grid is deteriorating and is badly in need of repair and upgrading. The grid will have to be improved but it will have to be either centralized or distributed, favoring nuclear power or renewable power.
Two major players in the U.S. nuclear industry, Exelon and Entergy, have chosen to attack renewable energy on the basis that the production tax credit for wind is unfair This is especially ironic in view the fact that nuclear power has been the “recipient of ten times as much subsidy as renewables on a life cycle basis and continues to receive massive subsidies in the form of socialized the cost of liability insurances and waste management, underfunded decommissioning, inadequately compensated water use, federal loan guarantee and production tax credits for new reactors, continuing R&D funding for small modular reactor technology, and advanced cost recovery for nuclear investment in a number of states.”
The nuclear industry is fighting to retard or abolish “economic dispatch, net metering, bidding efficiency as a resource, and demand response” all of which favor a renewables infrastructure. The nuclear industry is working to be defined as a renewable source to get tax credits.
Subsidies given to the renewables industry have resulted in great and rapid innovation. Many different systems can be tried with much less cost and long term commitment which yields a much better return on investment than investing in nuclear power. Even without subsidies, renewables are now able to compete directly in the free market for electrical generation. Nuclear power is just not a good bet for the future.
Diagram of a “smart grid”:
I have posted several times about the problems in the U.S. nuclear missile forces. The U.S. missile force is responsible for the maintenance and launch of four hundred and fifty intercontinental missiles based in North Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming. Generals have been fired for misbehavior, launch officers cannot pass certification exams, facilities are deteriorating, soldiers have been arrested for drug offenses and, in general, morale is at an all time low. The decrepit Minuteman 3 missile force is viewed by airmen as an unattractive posting and a career dead end. Hearings have been held and studies have been conducted to find causes and solutions. I thought it was time for an update on the situation.
There have been complaints about the Air Force nuclear missile management for years. A 2012 review of corrective attempts since 2008 concluded that the actions were “movement without direction.” The study said that unless the Air Force improves its ability to develop, sustain and value nuclear expertise, the nuclear missile force will continue to decline as they have for the past two decades.
In light of all the problems and recent bad publicity, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has demanded swift and comprehensive action to restore public confidence in the nuclear force. Air Force leaders have come up with a number of corrective actions. Cash bonuses will be offered to officers and gaps in the ranks will be filled. A new nuclear service medal will be created. Money will be allocated to repair and modernized missile launch facilities. Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James, who just took her post in December, will be in charge of the new effort to resolve the missile force problems. Although these changes will have some impact, critics are not sure that their impact will significantly address the root problem.
Some analysts say that the basic problem with the missile force is related to the end of the Cold War two decades ago. As the focus of the military turned to the war on terror, the old model of a conflict between two nuclear armed superpowers has faded in importance. In addition, if the launch officers are called on to launch their missiles, they will just be insuring the complete collapse of human civilization. That has got to have an impact on morale.
At first, Air Force officials took the common position that everything was OK and that the problems were just the usual griping and minor mistakes. After James was appointed as Air Force Secretary, she began a series of visits to all three missile bases and concluded that far from being routine, the problems were systemic. While the announced changes may be moves in the right direction, Hagel is still waiting for the completion of two reviews that began in February. It will be interesting to see how well the changes in progress match the recommendations of the reviews when they are complete. James has called for elevating the command of the missile force from a three star general to a four star general. This would raise the importance of the missile forcers in the overall Air Force command structure.
Launch officers at North Dakota missile base:
I have blogged in the past about the push by countries with nuclear industries to export nuclear technology to non-nuclear nations especially in the third world. Russia, China, the United States, Japan, France and South Korea are all engaged in fighting for export sales. Often, the exporting nation will offer loan guarantees or outright grants of billions of dollars to the non-nuclear nation on the condition that the money comes back to the exporting nation for the purchase of the nuclear technology.
France has decided to use the model of the Paris Air Show to showcase nuclear technology in a biennial exhibition. The first such “World Nuclear Exhibition” will be held in Le Bourget in the same venue as the Paris Air Show in October of 2014. The estimated attendance for the WNE is seven thousands people. Over five hundred French and foreign nuclear companies have signed up to participate.
The head of the NWE says that the primary intent of the exhibition is to for small and medium sized players in the global nuclear industry to take orders for nuclear technology and related services in the range of sixty thousand dollars to a hundred and forty thousand dollars. France has a robust nuclear industry with over twenty five hundred companies which bring in a total of over sixty billion dollars annually. The French nuclear industry employs over two hundred thousand workers.
Even though, the major players in the nuclear industry do not need something like the NWE in order to bring in business, major global nuclear companies such as Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Toshiba Corporation’s Westinghouse, General Electric Hitachi and Russia’s Rosatom are going to be at the exhibition. The Chinese firms China General Nuclear and the China National Nuclear Corporation are in negotiation for participation.
Although Russia has had many nuclear expositions such as the annual Atomexpo France has had none of their own. The French state-owned Areva is currently building two new European Pressurized Reactors (EPR) nuclear reactors in China and one in Finland. Areva has not contracted to build a reactor since 2007. It appears that their goal of selling ten of the new ERP reactors by 2016 might be too optimistic. With growing demand for energy sources which do not contribute to global warming, France believes that it will be able to increase exports of nuclear technology.
One of my concerns about this push to sell nuclear technology to third-world countries is the fact that the purchasing countries will be at the mercy of the nuclear nation that built their reactors. Recent experiences in Ukraine show that nuclear fuel assemblies are not sufficiently standardized to insure the possibility of seeking other suppliers for nuclear fuel. Russia already has a bad reputation for holding up fossil fuel exports to countries that do not support Russian positions in the international community.
Another big concern that I have is the fact that selling nuclear technology to corrupt third-world regimes is going to virtually guarantee major nuclear accidents as reactor construction and operation will likely not be conducted properly. Another Fukushima level accident or two and there will be a major public backlash against all nuclear power generation.
Model of an Areva European Pressurized Reactor:
Officials fear that the melted reactor fuel of Fukushima Unit 2 reactor is now exposed. enenews.com
Crews at the Dresden nuclear plant near Chicago have been working to secure a leak of tritiated water detected over the weekend. nuclearstreet.com
