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.
Ambient office = 67 nanosieverts per hour
Ambient outside = 131 nanosieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = 135 nanosieverts per hour
Iceberg lettuce from Top Foods = 132 nanosieverts per hour
Tap water = 93 nanosieverts per hour
Filtered water = 81 nanosieverts per hour
Ambient office = 89 nanosieverts per hour
Ambient outside = 96 nanosieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = 99 nanosieverts per hour
Iceberg lettuce from Top Foods = 189 nanosieverts per hour
Tap water = 123 nanosieverts per hour
Filtered water = 118 nanosieverts per hour
My recent posts have been about breeder reactors which generate more fissile material than they consume. There is renewed global interest in breeder reactors for the production of nuclear fuel and the destruction of nuclear waste. Today’s post is the first in a series about the history and current status of breeder reactors in the Soviet Union and Russia.
The Soviet Union established a fast breeder reactor program at the end of 1949 at the Institute of Physics and Power Engineering (IPPE). They lacked important technical information about reactor design, core design, cooling systems, damage of components from irradiation and coolant system designs. Coming just after the destruction of World War II, the program faced serious shortages of materials, components and educated staff.
The fast critical assembly Bystry Reactor 1(BR1) was started up in 1955 at the IPPE fueled with metallic plutonium without a coolant system. It was able to produce eighty percent more fuel than it burned and was excellent proof of the fast breeding concept. The next test reactor, the BR2, was designed with mercury as a coolant. This test revealed that the plutonium metal fuel was not stable under irradiation and the mercury leaked badly. Eventually, the BR5 went into operation in 1959 with liquid sodium and plutonium oxide fuel. The BR5 was used to produce medical isotopes and also provided neutrons beams for medical treatment. It continued to operate until 2004.
In 1961, the IPPE put the BFS-1 into operation. This test reactor allowed the simulation of fast breeder reactors with different ratios of uranium to plutonium in the fuel. The BFS-1 was also able to test different fuel rod and control rod configurations. A BFS-2 was turned on in the late 1960 to allow the simulation of larger cores.
The BOR-60 test reactor was built and began operation in 1969 at the Institute of Atomic Reactors at Dimitrovgrad to test something called vibro-packed fuel. To create this fuel, granulated oxides of uranium and plutonium are agitated in container with uranium powder.
While the BP5 was being finished, design work began on the BN-50 which eventually was called BN-350 based on its electrical output. The BN-350 began construction in 1964 on the Mangyshlak peninsula on the Caspian Sea. It was finished in 1972 and turned on. It was tested with enriched uranium fuel and mixed uranium and plutonium oxide fuels referred to as MOX. In addition to generating electricity, the BN-350 was also used to desalinate seawater.
In 1973, there was a major sodium fire at the BN-350 caused by the failure of a steam generator. There had not been enough testing and design work on the steam generators used with the BN-350 reactor and there was not sufficient quality control on the welding in the generators. After repairs, the reactor continued to operate until 1999.
BN-350 Soviet Reactor:
Radiation readings are spiking to record levels all around the Fukushima plant. enenews.com
Greenland’s parliament has voted in favor of lifting the country’s long-standing ban on the extraction of radioactive materials, including uranium. world-nuclear-news.org
A new trade deal between Saskatchewan Province in Canada and the European Union could mean billions for the Canadian uranium industry. yournuclearnews.com
Ambient office = 63 nanosieverts per hour
Ambient outside = 106 nanosieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = 108 nanosieverts per hour
Hass avacado from Top Foods = 136 nanosieverts per hour
Tap water = 93 nanosieverts per hour
Filtered water = 74 nanosieverts per hour
My recent posts have been about breeder reactors which generate more fissile material than they consume. There is renewed global interest in breeder reactors for the production of nuclear fuel and the destruction of nuclear waste. Today’s post is the second in a series about the history and current status of breeder reactors in India.
The Indian Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) started planning for a larger Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR) even before the Fast Breeder Test Reactor was started. The DAE first requested money for the PRBR in 1983 and began expenditures in 1987. It was projected that the new reactor would go online by the year 2000. After missing the year 2000 startup, construction began in late 2004 and the PFBR now was projected to go online in 2010. In reality as of mid-2013, the PFBR was projected to go online in 2014. During the life of this project the cost has rising by over fifty percent.
During its development and construction, the safety of the PFBT has been called into question. There is a danger of terrible accidents with explosive energy releases and dispersion on radioactive materials over a large area. The core as designed is not as reactive as it could be. If an accident damaged the fuel rods, the level of the reaction could increase in a positive feedback loop and cause a catastrophe. There is a another potential problem involving the sodium coolant. If the coolant rises above the standard operating level, it will become less dense and the reactivity would increase causing similar problems to those listed above for the fuel rod damage.
In addition to problems with the fuel rod and sodium coolant reactivity issues, the PFBR also has weak containment. As designed, the containment could only withstand pressures twenty five percent over normal atmospheric pressure. Using a combination of size and containment for comparison, the PFBR containment is weaker than almost all the other demonstration breeder reactors in the world. Containment vessels for light water reactors may be up to ten times better than the PFBR containment. The Indian design team excuses this weak containment on the basis of very optimistic projections about possible accidents that the PFBR may encounter. Less optimistic projections suggest that the containment of the PFBR is far from adequate.
Indian’s justification for the creation of breeder reactors is that India has very little uranium. Actually, India has a variety of sources of uranium which could be exploited for different costs. India relies on pressurized heavy water reactors for nuclear power. The Indians have made very optimistic projections about the ability of breeder reactors to produce electricity at roughly the same cost as the pressurized heavy water reactors currently in use. Other countries have found that breeder reactors are much more expensive and difficult to construct and operate safely than the non-breeder reactors that are currently used for power production. The DAE has consistently underestimated the construction costs for all of the existing Indian reactors.
Cost analysis of uranium and plutonium for use in breeder versus non-breeder reactors reveals that India has plenty of uranium for its convention reactors to last for decades which invalidate that claim that India needs breeder reactors for fuel production. Breeder reactors can also produce weapons grade plutonium. Some observers suspect that what India is really after is a steady source of high grade plutonium for its nuclear weapons program. India has resisted international efforts to constrain the Indian breeder reactors under development to purely civil energy production.
India has outlined a very aggressive breeder reactor program projecting twenty gigawatts capacity by 2020 and two hundred and seventy five gigawatt capacity by 2052. Declining international restrictions on exporting nuclear fuel to India have given rise to even higher estimates of future breeder reactor capacity in India. Once again, it appears that the DAE is being over-optimistic with estimates of plutonium production that are not realistic even without the inevitable accidents, delays, and under-estimated costs. Given the experience of other countries which have had aggressive breeder reactor programs, it is unlikely that the envisioned bright future for breeder reactors will ever materialize in India.
Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor:
Fukushima workers say that they hide accidents at Fukushima plant. enenews.com
Nuclear expert expresses concerns about structures at Fukushima plant holding up during typhoons. enenews.com
Water with traces of a radioactive hydrogen isotope has again leaked at Catawba Nuclear Station in York County, South Carolina. charlotte.cbslocal.com
Ambient office = 94 nanosieverts per hour
Ambient outside = 102 nanosieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = 91 nanosieverts per hour
Carrot from Top Foods = 186 nanosieverts per hour
Tap water = 151 nanosieverts per hour
Filtered water = 135 nanosieverts per hour
My recent posts have been about breeder reactors which generate more fissile material than they consume. There is renewed global interest in breeder reactors for the production of nuclear fuel and the destruction of nuclear waste. Today’s post is the first in a series about the history and current status of breeder reactors in India.
India started talking about fast breeder reactor technology in the 1950s in order to develop an independent nuclear industry for power generation although they do not have much in the way of natural uranium resources. They set out on a three stage program that continues today.
In the first stage, uranium fuel would be created and burned in heavy water reactors. The spent fuel from these reactors would then be reprocessed in order to extract the plutonium.
The plutonium extracted during the first stage would then be used to fuel the cores for fast breeder reactors. There were two configurations for the second stage plutonium fueled reactors. In the first type, a blanket of natural or depleted uranium would be wrapped around the core to produce more plutonium. In the second type, thorium would be in the blanket around the core and U-233 would be produced. The plan was to process uranium through the first type of fast breeder in order to produce enough plutonium to sustain the future fleet of anticipated reactors.
In the third stage, when enough plutonium was available, a new generation of thorium breeders would be built. Although the thorium/U-233 fuel cycle was not as efficient or rapid as the uranium burning breeders, India has very little uranium and vast amounts of thorium.
India’s Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) began serious design studies on fast breeder reactors after 1960. An test fast breeder was constructed at the Bhabba Atomic Research Center in 1965 but was only tested for a few years. In 1969, India signs a collaborative agreement with the French Atomic Energy Commission. India obtained the design of the French Rapsodie reactor and the steam generator design from the French Phénix reactor. Combining these two designs, India began work on the Fast Breeder Test Reactor (FBTR). Indian scientists trained in France returned to India and began work at the new Reactor Research Center (RRC) in 1971 at Kalpakkam.
The FTBR was supposed to be completed by 1976 but it only achieved criticality in late 1985 and began generating steam in 1993. The FTBR had major and minor acidents during the first fifteen years of operation. In 1987, the system that rotated fuel assemblies out of the core failed and resulting efforts to deal with the problem occupied the next two years as successive as successive attempts to fix the problem resulted in even more mechanical damage. The original cause of the problem was never fully understood.
In 2002, defective manufacturing of valves in the sodium coolant circulating system failed and over one hundred and fifty pounds of molten sodium leaked out onto the floor of the purification room and solidified. The sodium was radioactive and dangerous for workers. When normal air was used to replace the nitrogen around the purification room, the sodium started sparking and burning. The dust used to put out the fires hung in the air and made it difficult to see. The room was filled with nitrogen again and workers had to use mask supplied with oxygen through hoses. Finally, after three months, the sodium was removed.
With the problems detailed above and other difficulties, the reactor never operated for more than fifty consecutive days. Over its lifetime it was available only twenty percent of the time. Even with this poor record, the Indian government claimed that the experiment had been a successful demonstration of the feasibility of fast breeder reactors.
India Fast Breeder Test Reactor at Kalpakkam:
