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 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.
One of the purposes of my blog is to cover breaking stories that have to do with nuclear problems. Some of these posts deal with specific events that can be covered in a single post. Others are more complex and require several posts. In still other situations, there is an ongoing story where new information keeps emerging as the situation evolves. The repercussions of the radiation release at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad, New Mexico are an example of the third kind of story. I have already posted several times about WIPP as more and more information emerges. They are still not sure that they understand how the radiation was released.
My last post had to do with the theory that a new absorbent was added to drums of transuranic waste from Los Alamos National Laboratory. (LANL) The new absorbent did not perform as well as the old absorbent to solidify liquid waste in the drums and lock up ammonium nitrates. This may have led to nitrate salts precipitating out of solution and crystallizing. Such nitrate salts are unstable and generate heat which may have ruptured a drum to release radiation. There are hundreds of drums with the new absorbent at WIPP that may be at risk. A hundred of these drums from LANL are in temporary storage in Texas. If any of them rupture, the release of radiation could be much worse than occured at WIPP.
Now a new theory is emerging from LANL emails. A LANL contractor requested permission to use new chemicals to neutralize the pH in the drums. One chemical reacted with acids in the drums and the other reacted with bases. The contractor explicitly states in the email that he is not an expert on safety issues and he requests that LANL experts review the safety of the new chemicals. It is unknown at this time if anyone at LANL did, in fact, check to see if the use of the new chemicals would be safe. Some scientists say that the new chemicals are known to cause oxidation reactions that generate heat when combined with some of the substances in the drums. This may have been what ruptured the drum at WIPP.
Now we have two different possible reasons that a the contents of a drum would heat up and cause it to rupture. In both cases, a new substance was added to these drums of plutonium waste from nuclear weapons production. Over five hundred drums of their waste contain these new chemical and are a risk. Because of the radiation release and the uncertainty over the cause, WIPP is closed. There are estimates that it may take as much as two years to seal off the dangerous drums before the facility can reopen. In the meantime, more waste is piling up at LANL which will cause it to fail to meet a deadline for waste disposal. It is still an open question as to whether or not anyone with the necessary expertise actually investigated to find out whether these new chemicals could cause problems. At the very least, this is serious negligence on the part of LANL.
Diagram of Waste Isolation Pilot Plant:
TEPCO is going to start building the frozen water underground wall on 6/2/2014. fukushima-diary.com
TEPCO measured 2.4 Sieverts/hour on the basement floor of the destroyed Unit 1 reactor. fukushima-diary.com
Argentina’s newest nuclear power reactor, Atucha 2, is expected to reach criticality and be connected to the grid within sixty days. world-nuclear-news.org
Official in Fukushima says that hot particles of melted fuel are inhaled by children every day. enenews.com
Matsudo city government tell people not to go close to the river because the radiation level is dangerously high. fukushima-diary.com
Protestors interrupted a public meeting with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Brattleboro, Vermont Wednesday night. digital.vpr.net
