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 talked about the costs of nuclear waste disposal in a lot of my blog posts. The people promoting nuclear power don’t seem to be factoring all the costs of waste disposal into their rosy picture of nuclear economics. Recently economist Mark Cooper of the Vermont Law School addressed some of these issues. He says that if the full costs of nuclear power were publicized, the interest in nuclear power as an answer to our future energy needs might be significantly diminished. Cooper expressed his opinions in a filing with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that was part of the court-ordered Draft Waste Confidence Generic Environmental Impact Statement process.
Cooper asks a question about whether the real total cost of nuclear waste storage at reactors sites and eventual disposal in a permanent geological repository were large enough to merit more consideration by the NRC in nuclear power plant licensing decisions. He goes on to argue that his estimated cost of up to three hundred and fifty billion dollars is certainly big enough to require inclusion in licensing deliberations. He says that although some of these costs have been taken on by the government and are not being born by the nuclear industry, that does not mean that they are not real and can be discounted in any discussion of the costs of nuclear power. He also says that the costs of waste storage and disposal will be subject to the same runaway cost increases that are seen when estimating the cost of construction of new reactors.
Cooper estimates that the additional waste storage and disposal costs that are not currently being included in the cost of electricity generated by nuclear power could amount to as much ten to twenty dollars per megawatt hour. This translates to around one to two cents per kilowatt hour. Based on the cost estimates of the Energy Information Administration for new electricity generated by nuclear power, inclusion of hidden waste costs could add as much as ten to twenty percent to the cost of new nuclear power generation.
With respect to existing reactors, factoring in the extra cost of waste storage and disposal could make them uneconomical to operate. Recently several existing reactors in the U.S. have been shut down because the existing operating margin of nine dollars per megawatt hour in not sufficient for the operators to make a profit. The NRC has a regulation that states that if an operator cannot demonstrate the ability to make a profit with their reactor(s), they will have their license(s) revoked. Inclusion of hidden waste costs could result in many old reactors having their licenses pulled. If a reactor is shut down, the cost of storing the waste onsite can be up to five times the cost of storing the same amount of waste at an operating reactor.
What Cooper is saying about the hidden costs of nuclear waste handling is sufficient to call for a reevaluation for nuclear power generation as a viable source of electricity in the future. However, he did not factor in the cost of recovery from a major nuclear accident or the cost of decommissioning old reactors. Had these additional costs been included in his filling, the argument against expanding nuclear power generation would have been even more compelling.
Scientists link spike in thyroid disease in the U.S. to the Fukushima disaster. truth-out.org
Fennovoima has firmed up its selection of Rosatom to supply a nuclear power plant at the new Hanhikivi, Finland site, but a final investment decision remains to be made. world-nuclear-news.org
A judge in the UK has dismissed a lawsuit by an Irish group seeking to block construction of new reactors at Hinkley Point. nuclearstreet.com
There have been various stories in the news lately about problems with morale and behavior of the men in our nuclear deterrence force. Some units that man the missiles in the Midwest have failed in drills. Some have been slacking during duty. Several high ranking officers have been relieved of their duties. One of the stories has to do with Major General Michael Carey who was head of the Air Force’s arsenal of nuclear ballistic missile. He was relieved of his post last October for “personal misbehavior.” The Air Force stated that he was fired because of “a loss of trust and confidence in his leadership and judgment.” The Inspector General of the Air Force has just issued a report on the firing that provides some details of Carey’s misbehavior.
The United States and Russia have a Bilateral Presidential Commission, Military Cooperation Working Group that has functioned for years a forum for the discussion of nuclear disarmament among other issues. A meeting for the Working Group was held in Moscow in the July of 2013. General Casey attended the meeting. It was his behavior at the conference that resulted in his being fired.
Apparently Carey began drinking on the plane to Moscow and continued to drink through the whole conference. He was late to morning meetings and drank into the night in the company of ladies of questionable reputation. He insulted the hosts, the translator, tour guides and, in general, acted like the prototypical “Ugly American.” He bragged about his power and authority and said that he “saved the world every day.” He talked about being in command of the only working nuclear missile force in the world. (This probably came as news to the other nuclear nations with missile arsenals.)
My favorite part of the report had to do with Carey’s last night in Moscow. He drank into the wee hours in the Marriot Hotel lobby with a “mysterious Cigar Lady.” He later remarked that he thought it weird that the cigar lady was asking questions about physics and optics. Are you kidding me? He did not consider that she was Russian intelligence pumping him for information about our nuclear missiles? This sounds like bad satire but is unfortunately real. He should have been fired for naiveté if nothing else.
I have to say that I do have sympathy for the people in our nuclear defense force. They are charged with responsibility for the most horrendous weapons ever created by the human race. But the years go by and nothing happens. Many of them are stuck out in the Midwest in the missile silos, hardly an exciting posting. These people are in a very difficult situation where they are supposed to be hyper-alert in a very boring environment. It is impossible for human beings to maintain a state of high alertness for any length of time. That having been said, we still have over a thousand warheads pointed at Russian targets that can be launched in minutes. They have missiles pointed at us. It makes me nervous to understand that these people not able to provide the competence demanded of such a dangerous situation.
Major General Michael Casey:
