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.
Yesterday, I blogged about Pakistani plans to have China design and construct two big new nuclear power reactors in Karachi. Today, I am going to write about Chinese ambitions and the global nuclear power industry. China has the biggest nuclear reactor building program in the world. Currently, the program is focused on building reactors for China’s domestic needs but China is eager to expand into international sales of its nuclear technology.
China halted its construction of domestic nuclear reactors for a year and a half following the Fukushima disaster in March of 2011. They restarted their nuclear construction at the end of 2012. They are currently constructing almost thirty gigawatts of new electrical generation capacity which accounts for more than forty percent of new reactor construction globally. China has expressed the intention to raise nuclear power from twelve gigawatts at present to fifty eight gigawatts by 2020. The Chinese government has encouraged nuclear firms to develop the industrial capacity to capture major global nuclear business.
China has built reactors for Pakistan and is seeking other contacts in developing nations such as Turkey and Argentina. However, entering the market for new nuclear construction in developed industrial nations is high priority. Hinkley Point in the U.K. is China’s first such project. The Chinese General Nuclear Power Group (CGN) and the China National Nuclear Corporation (GNNC) are going to have a forty percent stake in a consortium led by Électricité de France (EDF). Unfortunately, CGN and GNNC have been competitors for nuclear contracts and it has proven difficult to get the two organizations to cooperate.
Studies by the U.K. government indicated that there would be public backlash if China were to hold a majority position in the ownership of the new reactor. The U.K. decided to cap Chinese participation at forty nine percent ownership. China is hoping that the Hinkley Point reactor will boost their visibility and credibility for the international nuclear marketplace.
Critics of the Chinese push into the world nuclear industry point to gaps in the Chinese supply chain, possible political interference from the government and a serious lack of experience in the nuclear power business. A French consulting firm with experience in China says that state-owned enterprises control all business aspects of the Chinese reactors which were built to supply power and not for the purpose of gain profit. The French firm says that the Chinese have “absolutely no clue how to make profit in nuclear.”
Chinese firms have depended on nuclear companies such as EDF and Westinghouse for nuclear expertise, technology and reactor design. Given their inexperience in the global nuclear market, it is likely that they will continue to depend on close relationships with existing players in the international nuclear market. An additional concern is that when reactors are sold today, twenty years of nuclear fuel is included in the deal. China will definitely have to rely of external sources of nuclear fuel to satisfy this requirement.
Hinkley Point power plant:
Tritium raining to result from disposal of Fukushima contaminated water. enenews.com
Japanese activists say that cancer is clearly increasing in Fukushima children. enenews.com
USEC, a uranium enrichment company spun off the Department of Energy in 1992, announced it will declare bankruptcy next quarter. nuclearstreet.com
Pakistan is working on the construction of two big nuclear reactors to generate electricity in Karachi. Each of the new reactors under construction will generate more electricity than all the other nuclear reactors operating in Pakistan put together. This will the biggest nuclear project that Pakistan has ever carried out. China will be designing and constructing these reactors for Pakistan. There is no available government analysis of whether these new reactors can provide electricity at a cost lower than other alternatives.
These new reactors are based on the ACP-1000 design which is still under development in China. There are no ACP-1000 reactors operating in China. Pakistan will have the first ACP-1000 reactors ever constructed. Because the ACP-1000 is still under development, there does not currently exist a complete design specification for these reactors.
There are critics of the new reactor project who say that there is no way to know if the ACP-1000 reactors being constructed will be safe and efficient. They are worried that the twenty million people in Karachi are going to be test subjects for the new design. There are more people within twenty miles of the construction site than the population around any other reactor site in the entire world. All of Karachi is within twenty four miles of the site. As the accident at Fukushima indicated, nuclear authorities tend to underestimate the possibility of major nuclear accidents as well as their ability to cope with major nuclear accidents.
To date, there have been no public hearing on how suitable the site is for locating a nuclear power station. There are no reports of any environmental impact statements for the new reactors. The Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission and the Pakistan Nuclear Regulatory Authority have no published plans for dealing with any major accident at the site. There are no details on the nuclear fuel cycle for the plant. It is unknown how long the highly radioactive spent fuel will remain on site or where it will go if and when it is removed from the site.
One independent study found that a radioactive plume released by a major accident would be blown by the prevailing winds into the most populated area of Karachi. There exists no public plan for the excavation of the millions of citizens of Karachi in the event of a major release of radioactivity. In the event of a major accident, there would be public panic which would cause the major roads to be clogged with people fleeing the city. This would prevent most of them from reaching safety for days.
In the event of a major accident, the cost of cleanup could be huge. Was this potential cost factored into the decision to build the reactors? If their new reactor design fails, will the Chinese help pay for the cleanup or will the people of Pakistan be expected to bear the entire cost?
Pakistan is considered to be the thirty fourth most corrupt country out of one hundred and seventy six countries in the world. With a lack of planning and transparency on the part of the Pakistani government, this widespread corruption could result in shortcuts being taken in construction and oversight of the new reactors. This sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.
Artist’s rendering of an ACP-1000 nuclear reactor:
The European Commission (E.C.) has put out a request for proposals for a study of European Union (EU) security measures that are intended to prevent the diversion of nuclear materials from peaceful applications to military applications. The E.C. has a budget of twenty eight million and one hundred and sixty two nuclear inspectors. In 2012, the E.C. carried out over a thousand inspections and reviewed over a million and a half documents supplied by nuclear power plant operators. The request for proposals states that the E.C. needs an independent analysis of its procedures to “identify, suggest and document any possible improvements.”
The independent reviewer would have the task of looking at concepts and methodology, reviewing procedures and the internal organization of the E.C., analyzing how the E.C. interacts with external entities that are involved and checking how effective E.C. evaluations are. “In all four aspects, focus is to be put on the efficiency of the use made of human and financial resources, while respecting the existing legal obligations under the Euratom Treaty and while maintaining the credibility and effectiveness of the Euratom safeguards system.”
One of the main goals of the requested study is to see if the E.C. is doing all it can to prevent nuclear materials intended for power generation from being diverted to nuclear weapons programs. The study will suggest inspection priorities; compare different methods of determining the quality of nuclear materials, the quantity of nuclear materials and the type of nuclear facility, as well as how accessible nuclear materials are for verification of safeguards.
The study will analyze priorities with respect to inspection of critical facilities that enrich uranium, fabricate fuel assemblies and reprocess spent fuel; inspection of facilities where there have been problems with accounting for nuclear materials or control systems; and inspection of facilities where there appears to be a serious risk of theft or loss of nuclear materials.
The independent agency will review the internal organization and procedures of the E.C. with respect to how well they are meeting the E.C. mandate and suggest improvements for the system of accounting for nuclear materials in the E.U. Internal communication and cooperation between different sections of the E.C. will be analyzed including the inspection units, the nuclear safeguards unit, the radiation protection unit and the financial division.
With respect to the interaction of the E.C. with external agencies, the study will investigate liaison obligations covered by international agreements, bilateral and mutilateral. The E.C. is especially interested in enhancing cooperation between the E.C. and the Joint Research Centre, the International Atomic Energy Agency, E.U. members states and E.U. nuclear operators, and non-E.U. member countries are major suppliers of nuclear materials.
The proposal request should “propose revised safeguards implementation goals; revised concepts and principles; organizational modifications; and key performance indicators for future assessment of changes.” The responses to the request for proposals are due by January 31, 2014.
