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 been blogging lately about Washington State’s SSB 5591. This is a bill that calls for Washington Legislature to consider the possibility of building additional nuclear reactors to supply energy for Washington State residents. Today I am going to discuss the senate debate over the bill that took place on February 12 of this year. The proponents of the bill claim that “nuclear power is a safe, reliable, cost-effective and carbon-free source of electricity.” Opponents of the bill beg to differ.
Dean Atkinson of Energy Northwest is a supporter of the bill. Energy Northwest, which used to be known as the Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS), is the owner of the Columbia Generating Station at Hanford. It is the only operating nuclear power plant in the state of Washington. This is to be expected, especially since the idea of location future nuclear power reactors at Hanford has been suggested as a good idea. Given all the problems at Hanford, I am not enthusiastic about this possibility.
Back in the 1950s, there was a push for nuclear power in Washington State. Washington Public Power Supply System (now known as Energy Northwest) started a state-wide nuclear power plant construction project. There were plans to construct five nuclear power generation stations around the state but only one plant was finished and put into operation; the Columbia Generation Station at Hanford. Construction on the other plants was halted in 1982 due to design issues and the fact that the estimated cost of construction had risen from sixteen billion dollars to twenty four billion dollars, a fifty percent increase.
When construction was halted, WPPSS defaulted on two billion two hundred and fifty million dollars worth of bonds, the biggest bond default in U.S. history at the time. The money had already been spent on the reactors which had been abandoned. The current debt of the project, including the Columbia Generating Station, is five hundred four hundred million dollars. The debt is owed by the Bonneville Power Administration which was the original backer of the bonds. The debt is being repaid by Washington State ratepayers.
Senator John McCoy, D-Tulalip, offers moderate support for the bill. He has made public statements to the effect that it will be very difficult for the proponent of the bill to convince the citizens of Washington State that nuclear power is a good choice for Washington’s future. He also raised the issue of problems finding investors who would be willing to support such nuclear projects.
Senator David Frockt, D-Seattle, said “I have a problem with a definitive statement by our Legislature that this is a safe industry.” People who testified at public hearings also felt that the definitive statement at the beginning of the bill was premature and that part of any study should be to verify the claim that “nuclear power is a safe, reliable, cost-effective and carbon-free source of electricity.” Others pointed out that Hanford is still terribly contaminated with radioactive materials and that Washington and the Federal Government should clean it up before we build any more reactors for power generation.
Cooling tower for abandoned WPPSS reactor project in Satsop, Washington.
Yesterday I started blogging about SSB 5991, a new bill in the Washington State Legislature that is calling for consideration of nuclear power for future energy generation in the state. I called into question the opening assumptions of the bill that nuclear power is safe, reliable, cost-effective and carbon free. Today I am going to dig deeper into the text of the bill.
The bill calls for establishing a task force with eight members from the Washington State House and Senate that serve on standing committees involved with energy issues. The task force will consist of four Democrats and four Republicans. The task force is to hold no more than four meetings with two of those meetings taking place at Hanford. This is an interesting provision. No more than four meetings could mean two meetings and at least two meetings must be held at Hanford. Three of the bills seven senate sponsors are from the Legislative Districts around Hanford. It seems to me that this bill is intended to bring more jobs to the Hanford area. This is a reasonable goal for Senators and Representative with respect to their Districts but there are better ways to add jobs than nuclear power.
The bill says that “In its deliberations, the task force must consider the greatest amount of environmental benefit for each dollar spent based on the life-cycle cost of any nuclear power technology. Life-cycle costs must include the storage and disposal of any nuclear wastes.” This is a laudable goal but in terms of the environment, Hanford is one of the most dangerously polluted places on the whole planet. They have been trying to clean up the waste left over from nuclear weapons development at Hanford for decades with no end in sight. Perhaps the best way to guarantee environment benefits is to spend the money on renewable forms of energy generation such as wind and solar.
Senator David Frockt, D-Seattle, raised the issue of the statement in the first section about nuclear power being safe, reliable, cost-effective and carbon-free. He said that these should be the findings of the task force and not assumptions taken for granted. I am surprised that this bill was passed by the Washington State House of Representative.
One of the main problems for a new Washington nuclear initiative is raising funds for construction of future reactors. As I have said before, financing new reactors is not easy in the current energy marketplace. The major player in power generation in Washington State is the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). The BPA is not particularly interested in exploring nuclear power in the near future. “We have no plans to build any more [nuclear power plants],” said Doug Johnson, spokesman for BPA recently
The only reason anyone is still talking about new nuclear reactors is because the price tag is in the billions and there are a lot of middlemen looking to make a profit. I wonder who the corporate interests are who are supporting this nuclear proposal.
Columbia Generating Station at Hanford
:
