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 recently about SSB 5991, a bill working its way through the Washington State legislature. The bill calls for studying how to develop new nuclear power generation to add to the Washington State electricity supply. As I wrote the last post about the bill, it had passed the State Senate and was being considered in the house. The bill was amended by the House Committee On Technology & Economic Development (HCTED) during their consideration.
One of the things that offended me about the original bill was that it started with the bald statement that nuclear power was known to be “a safe, reliable, cost-effective, and carbon-free source of electricity.” I pointed out in one of my posts that nuclear power was not “a safe, reliable, cost-effective, and carbon-free source of electricity.” Other critics of the bill say the same thing. Washington State Senator David Frockt (D-Seattle) said that the bill was starting with assumptions that should rather be possible conclusions of the study called for.
State Senators from the Hanford area supported the bill as did a spokesman for Energy Northwest which operates the only nuclear power reactor in Washington. During discussions of the bill in the Senate, the idea was circulated that any new reactors could/should be located at Hanford. Representatives of the Hanford area and the owners of the Hanford reactor have obvious motivations of bringing new jobs and revenue to their area. Energy Northwest has been promoting long ranges plans to develop additional nuclear power in Washington since 2009 and they have settled on the new small modular reactors as the best choice but this technology is unproven.
The opponents of SSB 5991 have questioned the need for new nuclear power in Washington State as opposed to alternatives such as conservation and/or renewable sources such as solar and wind, both of which are plentiful in the Hanford area. Critics said that there were not enough public hearings called for in the bill and demanded more hearings be scheduled in Seattle, Spokane or Vancouver. There was also a call for the inclusion of planning for nuclear accidents in any such bill.
The amended bill was read and a vote was taken. The faction that voted to pass the bill to the full House as amended won over another group that did not want to pass the bill to the full House for a vote. The last milestone in the official history of the bill on the Washington State website is that the bill will be referred to the House Rules Committee for a second reading. I met with a member of the Washington State House yesterday and asked him about the bill. He said, “We killed it.” I am not sure whether the bill was killed in the Rules Committee or the full House voted it down but I am happy to learn that the bill is dead. Nuclear energy is not a good choice to supply future electricity to the State.
Washington State Capitol:
My last post had to do with early Washington Public Power Supply System(WPPSS) history up to the 1970s. Today I am going to continue with the history of WPPSS.
In 1982, WPPSS halted the construction of two of the planned nuclear reactors. The projected costs of completing all five of the new reactors had risen from an estimated sixteen billion dollars to twenty four billion dollars. When the two reactors were cancelled, WPPSS was forced to default on two billion two hundred fifty thousand dollar worth of bonds that had been issued to cover the cost of construction. With the biggest bond default the country had ever seen, the utilities and the ratepayers had to repay the bond holders. Two more of the WPPSS reactors were never completed. Their costs were borne by the Bonneville Power Administration(BPA) with proceeds of hydroelectric dams on the Columbia River. Ultimately, of course, the BPA customers paid for the cancelled reactor construction.
After thirteen years of litigation, the various lawsuits were settled for seven hundred and fifty three million dollars. Some of the over seventy five thousand bond holders recovered forty cents of every dollar they had invested. Other investors only got ten cents for every dollar invested. It turned out that money allocated for the second two reactors were spent on the last two which further complicated the settlement of the bond default. Seattle owed fifty million dollars, forty three million of which was paid by insurance companies. The last of the settlements took place in 1995.
The only reactor to be completed by WPPSS of the five that had been planned was located at Hanford. It is now called the Columbia Generation Station. It currently supplies about twelve percent of the electricity sold by the BPA. The other four plants that were never completed were mothballed in case it was decided to finish them at some future time. In 1995, WPPSS decided that it would demolish the work that had been completed.
In 1998, WPPSS was renamed Energy Northwest. The reason for the name change was the concern that the costly failure of four of the five reactors projects would make it difficult for the corporation of obtain future investment if it retained the original name. Unfortunately, there was another company that had already been using the new name. WPPSS ultimately had to pay two hundred and sixty thousand dollars to settle a lawsuit over the name.
And now, in 2014, Energy Northwest is sending people to Olympia to convince the state legislature that new reactor construction should be considered by the State of Washington. There have been suggestions that any new reactor be constructed at Hanford which would suit Energy Northwest just fine. Unfortunately, since the construction of the only WPPSS reactor to be completed, another fault has been discovered under Hanford. In addition, a sixty five foot crack has been found in a spillway support of the Wanapum Dam north of Hanford posing a flood threat. Even if Washington State does decide to build a new reactor it would be best if it were not constructed at Hanford and not be connected to the massive collapse of an earlier nuclear reactor construction project.
WPPSS bond:
