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.
Today I am going to catch up on several news stories about the Iran nuclear program. The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council have imposed harsh trade sanctions to try to get Iran to stop enriching uranium. They fear that Iran is working on developing nuclear weapons. While the U.S. and other major powers are trying to cut a temporary deal with Iran, Israel is lobbying for even more severe sanctions and threatening to take unilateral military action to stop Iran. Saudi Arabia may obtain nuclear weapons from Pakistan if the Iranians do develop a nuclear bomb.
Recently a dissident group named the National Council of Resistance of Iran claimed that Iran has added another nuclear site to its program. They demand that U.N. inspectors be granted immediate access to the new undeclared site. The new site is supposed to be in an eighteen hundred foot tunnel complex at a military site beneath a mountain near the town of Mobarekeh. The dissidents say that Iran is creating a secret parallel nuclear program in addition to its publicly identified nuclear research sites. The U.N. fears that such a complex may contain thousands of centrifuges dedicated to the enrichment of uranium to the point where it could be used in a bomb. The U.N. Security Council is demanding access to any additional undeclared nuclear research sites.
Israel is frustrated by the failure of the U.S. and other nations to take a harder line against Iran over its nuclear program. The Israeli Prime Minister says that the “temporary” deal being discussed with Iran would not stop their nuclear program and would just give them more time to develop nuclear weapons as they stall during negotiation for a final deal to shut down their nuclear program. The Prime Minister is going to go to Moscow to try to get more support from the Kremlin for stricter trade sanctions against Iran. He says that the interim deal being discussed will not deprive Iran of its centrifuges for enriching uranium and that any temporary halt to enrichment activities can be reversed in weeks. The Prime Minister hopes that he can persuade Russia to support removal of Iran’s centrifuges. Russia has a strong relationship with Iran and has provided technical assistance for Iran’s nuclear program.
France, one of the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, is upset with recent remarks about Israel attributed to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader. In a speech before a paramilitary group, Khamenei said that he supports the negotiations but that Iran will not give up its “nuclear rights” which critics of the regime say are a reference to the right of Iran to enrich uranium. Iran is a signatory of international treaties that allow members to enrich uranium for peaceful nuclear power programs. The Supreme Leader referred to Israel as the “rabid dog” of the Middle East which is trying to “torpedo” the negotiations. He also said that Israel’s leaders were “not worthy to be called human.” France said that the comments were not helpful and that they would make negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program more difficult.
The international community’s attempt to restrain Iran’s potential development of nuclear weapons is causing a lot of acrimony between old allies and cooperation between old enemies. The situation is very complicated and potentially very dangerous. As I have said before, if Israel decides to strike Iran, it could lead to a wider war.
Attitudes of the workers and military command in US nuclear force differ. washingtonpost.com
Taiwan should update the assessment of all natural hazards that could affect its nuclear power plants, notably for earthquakes and tsunamis, the European Commission (EC) has recommended. world-nuclear-news.org
Ambient office = 67 nanosieverts per hour
Ambient outside = 106 nanosieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = 100 nanosieverts per hour
Bartlett pear from Top Foods = 117 nanosieverts per hour
Tap water = 89 nanosieverts per hour
Filtered water = 70 nanosieverts per hour
I have blogged about the role of nuclear energy in curbing carbon dioxide emissions. I have blogged about the concern about water both as a resource for and a threat to nuclear energy plants. And I have had a lot to say about the costs of nuclear power. I bring them together in yesterday’s and today’s blogs. Yesterday’s blog discussed climate change, carbon dioxide emissions, and the economics of nuclear power. Today, I will talk about the issues with water and wrap up the subject.
Nuclear power plants require vast amounts of water for cooling. This can be a problem when the flow of water in major rivers drops because of human use or drought. And, there have been a number of recent cases where the temperature of the water in lakes and in the ocean has gotten too hot to be used for cooling and nuclear plants had to be shut down temporarily. Now it is interesting to note that due to climate change, there will be more droughts and warmer bodies of water which will interfere with nuclear power generation.
Patterns of rainfall are changing due to climate change and have caused extensive, severe and surprising floods. One fourth of the power reactors in the U.S. are located downstream from dams that could threaten the reactors if they broke or overflowed. Other reactors are in danger of flooding from nearby rivers. Costal reactors are vulnerable to hurricanes which are going to be even stronger in the future because of climate change. So water needed for cooling may be in short supply and water from storms threatens to flood reactors.
And, finally, nuclear power currently provides about twenty percent of the electricity in the U.S. Generation of electricity accounts for about thirty percent of the total carbon dioxide emissions for the U.S. So, in other words , if we built four hundred new nuclear reactors in the next few decades, we might reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. by about twenty percent at an enormous cost in environmental degradation from mining and accidents, threats to public health, hundreds of billions of dollars and the generation of huge amounts of nuclear waste while we are unable to deal with the nuclear waste we have already generated. If we choose to use breeder reactors to generate fuel and burn waste, we will have to spend precious years in research and development. And, there is a danger of theft of weapons grade nuclear materials from breeder reactor facilities. When you look at carbon dioxide reduction, cost and water concerns together in the context of needing to slow climate change caused by rising carbon dioxide levels, nuclear power just does not provide a good solution for climate change.
Leakage from the piping in the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant was caused by vibrations from the earthquake. japantimes.co.jp
TEPCO has released photos of the first fuel rods successfully removed from the fuel racks at Fukushima Unit 4. fukuleaks.org
USEC’s Paducah, Ky., Gaseous Diffusion Plant declared an alert when powerful tornadoes tore through parts of the Midwest Sunday. nuclearstreet.com
The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) today announced that it recovered high-activity radioactive materials from an oncology clinic in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. yournuclearnews.com
Ambient office = 139 nanosieverts per hour
Ambient outside = 94 nanosieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = 84 nanosieverts per hour
Romaine lettuce from Top Foods = 99 nanosieverts per hour
Tap water = 102 nanosieverts per hour
Filtered water = 88 nanosieverts per hour
I have blogged about the role of nuclear energy in curbing carbon dioxide emissions. I have blogged about the concern over water both as both a resource for and a threat to nuclear power plants. And I have had a lot to say about the costs of nuclear power. This first blog will discuss climate change, carbon dioxide emissions, and the economics of nuclear power. Tomorrow, I will talk about water and nuclear power then wrap it up.
Climate change is progressing much more rapidly than expected by previous models and projections. It has been estimated that anything over 350 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to severe repercussions in terms of storms, droughts, ocean warming, etc. The atmosphere currently contains over four hundred parts per million of carbon dioxide.
Advocates of nuclear power generation claim that nuclear power is basically a carbon dioxide free source of energy. Unfortunately for the supporters of nuclear power as an answer to rising carbon dioxide levels, there is a great deal of carbon dioxide produced in the construction of a nuclear power plant as well as carbon dioxide produced by uranium mining, refining, transportation and waste disposal. Some estimates say that a nuclear plant has to run at full capacity for fifteen years to cancel out the carbon dioxide produced in the creation and fueling of a reactor. Reactors do need to be shut down for maintenance, refueling, troubleshooting, etc. so none of them run at full power for their lifetime. After their forty year license period, many are relicensed for another twenty years, but some relicensed power reactors have had to be shut down far short of their extended license because they are deteriorating with age and repairs can become too costly. So all in all, yes nuclear reactors could help with carbon dioxide emissions but they are not as helpful as some supporters suggest.
The cost of constructing nuclear reactors seems to just keep rising. During construction, there are often construction delays and cost overruns. The private sector is not too keen on investing in new nuclear plants for a variety of reasons. Without the Price Anderson Act which caps the liability of nuclear plant owners in case of serious accidents and the United States federal government’s guarantee of multi-billion dollar loans for nuclear plant construction, it is doubtful if there would be any private investment at all. One of the benefits that nuclear power reactors have enjoyed in recent years is a guaranteed price for the electricity generated by the plant for decades. This makes investment more likely because the investors know that even if other sources of electricity proved to be cheaper than nuclear power as the years go by, the nuclear generated electricity will still bring in the same guaranteed price. Unfortunately for the proponents of nuclear energy, this type of guaranteed price support is going away and nuclear power will have to compete with much cheaper natural gas generators in the U.S. electricity market. On top of that, the price of uranium will be rising in the next few years because uranium production is projected to decline from now on. The U.S. has been burning plutonium from decommissioned Russia nuclear warheads for the past fifteen years at a lower price than the cost of new uranium fuel. It may be possible to breed fuel in breeder reactors but they have proven to be difficult to run and operate safely even after decades of global research. All in all, nuclear reactors for power generation will become more and more expensive in the future and will not be able to compete with other sources of electricity on a level playing field.
There are 80 damaged spent fuel assemblies leaking radioactive materials in Fukushima storage pools. enenews.com
Ambient office = 79 nanosieverts per hour
Ambient outside = 81 nanosieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = 58 nanosieverts per hour
Romaine lettuce from Top Foods = 84 nanosieverts per hour
Tap water = 74 nanosieverts per hour
Filtered water = 57 nanosieverts per hour
