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.
Helium-3 is an isotope of helium. He-3 has two protons and one neutron. He-3 is found in the solar wind. The Earth’s magnetic field pushes it away so little reaches the Earth. The Moon is thought to have significant He-3 because of billions of years of bombardment without a magnetic field to push away the He-3. When it was predicted in 1934, He-3 was thought to be radioactive. It was first recovered from natural helium in the atmosphere and natural gas wells in 1939 by separation from helium-4 which makes up most of the helium on Earth. Because it was found in underground natural gas deposits on Earth, it was concluded that either it did not decay or had a very long half-life of billions of years. Some of the He-3 on Earth is a relic of the atmospheric and underwater nuclear tests conducted before 1963. Tritium (H-3) from nuclear warheads, with a half-life of about twelve years, decays into He-3.
He-3 has been used in nuclear fusion research. It might be a potential fuel for fusion reactors if substantial quantities could be recovered from the surface of the Moon. It’s primary current use is in the fabrication of sensors which can detect plutonium and uranium that might be used to make a “dirty” bomb. Plutonium and uranium emit neutrons which are difficult to detect. However, when a stray neutron hits an atom of He-3, a charged particle is generated which is much easier to detect. Because He-3 is nontoxic, nonradioactive and is a very accurate way to detect neutrons, it has been preferred in the creation of such sensor.
The only source of He-3 on Earth is recovery from decommissioned nuclear warheads. The United States has been reduced from the Cold War high of around twenty five thousand to about five thousand warheads today. The number of warheads being decommissioned has been diminishing steadily and, as a result, the supply of new He-3 has also been diminishing. The National Nuclear Security Administration which is responsible for production of He-3 did not see fit to inform the Department of Energy of He-3 shortages. DoE has spent over two hundred and thirty million dollars on the development of He-3 based sensors. Now that the shortage of He-3 has been revealed, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) is working to develop new technologies that can replace the current He-3 based radiation detectors.
Recently the DTRA awarded a contract of nearly three million dollars to Alion Science and Technology (AST) to work on development of new sensors. AST is working on developing neutron sensors based on bundles of thin copper tubes coated with boron. One advantage of the new sensor design is that, unlike the current He-3 based sensors, the AST sensor is able to determine the exact direction that the neutron is coming from. This new sensor design would be excellent for portable detectors or fixed sensors for port and shipping depots. With increased concerns over nuclear terrorism, neutron sensors will be a very important defense against the clandestine movement of radioactive materials.
Concept art of helium-3 mining operation on the Moon:
Fukushima prefectural government announced they are going to pay 8 million yen for each project to fight “harmful rumor” of radiation danger. fukushima-diary.com
Processing operations restarted today at Australia’s Ranger uranium mine, which suffered a ruptured leaching tank six months ago. world-nuclear-news.org
Russia should start up three new reactors this year at home, and another in India, said state company Rosatom in an official meeting with prime minister Dmitry Medvedev. world-nuclear-news.org
I have posted before about the economics of nuclear power. Nuclear power plants are being shut down in the U.S. because the operators cannot make a profit due to the cost of repairs and the availability of cheap natural gas. It used to be that nuclear plant operators could count on a guaranteed price for twenty years for their electricity even if they could not compete in the open market for power. If operators cannot demonstrate that they can make a profit with their nuclear power plant, the NRC will pull their license and they will have to shut down and decommission the plants.
Lately, Exelon Corporation has been complaining that without government assistance, it will not be able to keep four nuclear power reactors operating in the state of Illinois. Now the Illinois House has approved a resolution strongly supported by Exelon that would guarantee nuclear and coal would be the main sources of electricity in Illinois for decades to come. The Speaker of the Illinois House used an obscure rule that permitted him to temporarily dismiss six members of the House Environmental Committee whom he feared would vote against bringing the new legislation out of committee. This is the sort of legislative maneuvering that has been adopted in many Republican run states when dealing with policies that may not enjoy widespread public support.
Critics of the resolution point out that it would mandate the use of nuclear power in Illinois. In addition, they charge that the Illinois Speaker of the House has been conspiring with Exelon to prevent improving the Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (REPS) law. Apparently, in exchange for killing a fix to the REPS, Exelon will continue to operate the unprofitable reactors it was threatening to close. Under the agreement, Exelon would get “clean energy credits” like solar and wind energy production currently receive. Using nuclear power plants as pollution offsets would allow coal power plants to keep operating which would otherwise have to be closed due to EPS regulations.
The Illinois State legislature granted ComEd ten years of rate increases in order for them to finance the completion of a “smart” electrical grid. The smart grid would help replace the old centralized baseload utility system with a system that would make the expansion of renewable sources of energy more practical. The legislation supported by Exelon would enshrine the centralized baseload model and block the way for adoption of more renewable energy sources for decades.
The nuclear power industry has been decrying the subsidies, mandates and tax credits currently being enjoyed by renewable energy production. It is hypocritical in the extreme for the nuclear industry to have enjoyed decades of enormous government support while claiming that renewables just can’t compete in the open market. Now that renewables are starting to beat out coal, oil and nuclear in the free market, the nuclear industry is seeking even more government support because they cannot compete. It is far past time to end the use of nuclear power to generate electricity. We cannot afford it.
Exelon nuclear power plant in Byron, Illinois:
TEPCO has progressed on removing debris from the Fukushima Unit 3 spent fuel pool. fukuleaks.org
Almost a thousand fuel assemblies have been moved from the Fukushima unit 4 spent fuel pool to the common pool. fukuleaks.org
The first of two new emergency response centers recently opened to house equipment that can be dispatched in the event of an accident at a U.S. nuclear plant. nuclearstreet.com
I have blogged about thorium as a nuclear fuel before.
Thorium is being pushed by some in the nuclear industry as a better nuclear fuel alternative that uranium. Here are ten reasons that this may not necessarily be true.
1) There is no such thing as an operational thorium reactor for power generation. A number of reactor designs have been researched and some test reactors have been built. Before thorium could be used for a fuel, a reliable and safe thorium reactor must be built and tested which might take decades before any possible commercialization.
2) Thorium reactors require uranium or plutonium to provide neutrons because thorium by itself is not fissile and cannot sustain a chain reaction.
3) A thorium fuel cycle utilizing plutonium would add to the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation because plutonium would need to be purified to weapons grade in order to be used in a thorium reactor.
4) Thorium in a reactor is converted to uranium-233 which is already enriched to weapons grade in the reactor. This adds to the danger of nuclear weapons proliferation.
5) Mixing thorium with uranium 238 will not cancel the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation. U-238 in a thorium reactor would be converted to plutonium -239 which can be used for weapons.
6) Thorium reactors would cause the U.S. to start reprocessing nuclear fuel again. Most thorium fuel cycles require extraction of U-233 from spent fuel in order to mix it with thorium for new fuel. Reprocessing generates radioactive waste that must be dealt with.
7) Using thorium for nuclear fuel does not eliminate the problem of long term highly radioactive waste. Thorium 232 which is generated in a thorium reactor has a half life of fourteen billion years and its decay products build up in irradiated fuel. The irradiated fuel itself is also very toxic. Thorium mining also generates dangerous waste products just like uranium mining.
8) Attempts to develop a useable thorium reactor have failed. India, Russia and the United States have spent decades and billions on developing such a reactor without success.
9) The creation of thorium fuel would pose a threat to public health. U-233 is created which is very radioactive and dangerous. Thorium 232 is part of the cycle and Inhaling a particle of thorium 232 results in much greater radiation exposure than inhaling a similar amount of uranium.
10) Creating thorium fuel will be expensive. Thorium fuel required both the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel and the irradiation of rods of thorium. A thorium fuel cycle would cost much more than the current uranium fuel cycle.
So thorium reactors would be difficult to build, would be expensive to fuel and would produce long lived dangerous waste. Other than the billions made by the builders and operators of thorium reactors, there would be little benefit to anyone in converting to thorium reactors for energy production.
