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 = .121 microsieverts per hour
Ambient outside = .112 microsieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = .128 microsieverts per hour
Hass avacado from Costco = .126 microsieverts per hour
Tap water = .117 microsieverts per hour
Filtered water = .102 microsieverts per hour
I try to keep abreast of all the issues that involve nuclear power generation but once in a while something unexpected surprises me. I recently talked to a friend who brought up the subject of jellyfish. It seems that there has been an explosion of jellyfish in the world’s oceans. Some see this as a result of vast overfishing of the world’s ocean. Jellyfish populations rise and fall with the seasons and there are more some years than others. It has been suggested that the latest increase in jellyfish is a trend that will continue but scientists have only recently begun to track their populations.
There is some evidence that jellyfish can increase the absorption of carbon dioxide by the ocean which results in an increase of acidity. The increasing acidity interferes with the ability of a number of aquatic species to utilize the calcium dissolved in seawater. This can result in the devastation of sea life in what have come to be called “dead zones” in the world’s oceans that are devoid of most life but where jellyfish thrive. But what does this have to do with nuclear power generation?
Many nuclear reactors are located on ocean coasts and depend of seawater for reactor cooling. Some reactors have had to be shut down when the temperature of the seawater became too warm to be used for cooling. Other reactors have had problems with seaweed clogging the intakes for the cooling water. Now it appears that the threat to cooling systems on oceans coasts must include jellyfish. Nuclear power plants that draw water from the ocean for cooling have filters in the intake pipes called flumes to prevent the pipes from being clogged. Apparently these filters are not able to cope with jellyfish.
The first recent major incident occurred at the Shimane Nuclear Power Plant in Japan on June 24, 2011. The plant was attacked by hoards of jellyfish which clogged the flumes in the cooling water intake pipes. Power production dropped by six percent. A day later, the number of jellyfish near the plant fell and full power production resumed. This was the first time that jellyfish had been a problem at the plant since 1997.
The Torness Nuclear Power Station in East Lothian, Scotland had to shut down on June 30, 2011 because huge numbers of jellyfish clogged the intakes. It took days to clean the filters. The plant operators were assisted by several fishing trawlers in clearing out the jellyfish colonies near the power station.
On July 5, 2011 swarms of jellyfish threatened to shut down the Orot Rabin Nuclear Power Plant at Hadera on the coast of Israel. Plant staff worked hard to remove the jellyfish blocking the filters so that the plant could keep operating.
Swarms of jellyfish have blocked the water intakes for coastal power stations and desalinization plants occasionally during the last century. These three recent incidence could be a coincidence although the close timing is interesting. The big question is whether or not the increasing number of jellyfish in the world’s oceans are going to pose an increasing threat to the operation of coastal nuclear power stations.
Jellyfish swarm:
British study finds no increased danger of childhood leukemia from living next to a nuclear plant. Timesofindia.indiatimes.com
The Radiation Safety Institute of Canada Congratulates Ontario Legislature for Passing Bill 96, Radon Awareness and Prevention Act, 2013 to Committee. Finance.yahoo.com
Nuclear expert says that there’s no way to get at molten fuel under Fukushima. enenews.com
Ambient office = .121 microsieverts per hour
Ambient outside = .112 microsieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = .128 microsieverts per hour
Redleaf lettuce from Costco = .126 microsieverts per hour
Tap water = .117 microsieverts per hour
Filtered water = .102 microsieverts per hour
There was recently a nuclear industry conference in London sponsored by the World Nuclear Association (WNA). In their own words, the WNA is made up of “members who are responsible for virtually all of world uranium mining, conversion, enrichment and fuel fabrication; all reactor vendors; major nuclear engineering, construction, and waste management companies; and nearly 90% of world nuclear generation. Other WNA members provide international services in nuclear transport, law, insurance, brokerage, industry analysis and finance.”
Of course, any industry conference will promote the industry attending the conference and the London WNA conference was no exception. Nuclear power was touted as being critical to fighting global climate change. Exxon called for doubling the number of nuclear power reactors in the world by 2040. This would require that about four hundred new reactors be built and brought online in the next twenty six years. This would, of course, insure the viability and profitability of the nuclear reactor industry for decades.
Exxon Mobile presented their report Outlook for Energy that “bases its findings on data from 100 countries across the globe, looking at 15 demand centers and 20 fuel types. It also takes into consideration the technology and policy issues underpinning the world’s energy situation.” They concluded that nuclear was the cheapest low CO2 energy source and that alternatives like wind and solar had “significant grid knock-on costs.” If you will forgive my cynicism, I doubt that their analysis was unbiased. I will be posting future articles on the Exxon report.
The head of the European Union’s Nuclear Energy Agency called for greater transparency in pricing of energy sources. He was claiming that the only reason that sustainable alternatives had shown such explosive growth in the past few years was because of large subsidies. I have to admit that I am in favor of more transparency myself. I think that it is safe to say that had all the externalized costs in the fossil fuel industry been folded back into the cost of energy, sustainable alternative sources would be much cheaper. Fossil fuels have enjoyed massive subsidies and most of their astronomical profits would vanish if their subsidies were pulled by the U.S. Government. As for nuclear power, it would not exist if not for the nuclear weapons race during the Cold War. As far as transparency goes, if all the externalized costs of nuclear power that are not included in estimating the cost of nuclear power were included, it may be that it never was an economical source of power.
With respect to CO2 calculations, a little transparency would be helpful too. It has been estimated that it can take up to fifteen years for a nuclear reactor to offset the CO2 generated by mining, refining, construction, transportation, and waste disposal associated with nuclear power.
I would be overjoyed if there was an honest global discussion of the real costs associated with each of the sources of energy that are currently in wide use. I am confident that sustainable alternatives such as solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal would win over fossil and nuclear by a wide margin.
World Nuclear Association Logo:
The UK government has launched a public consultation on how it will organize the process that will lead to selection of a site for a geologic repository for high-level radioactive waste. World-nuclear-news.org
Japan is upset about a French magazine’s cartoons about the Tokyo Olympics telegraph.co.uk
Farmers from the Fukushima Prefecture in Japan want to continue selling wild edible mushrooms and other wild edible plants. ex-skf.blogspot.jp
Ambient office = .121 microsieverts per hour
Ambient outside = .112 microsieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = .128 microsieverts per hour
Carrot from Costco = .126 microsieverts per hour
Tap water = .117 microsieverts per hour
Filtered water = .102 microsieverts per hour
I have been talking about China lately. Their National Development and Reform Commission wants to raise the percentage of power generated by nuclear plant from the two percent that it provides today up to six percent by 2020 due to concerns over fossil fuel supplies, devastating air pollution and climate change. Given that they are talking about more than a hundred new reactors, it does seem a rather modest penetration of nuclear power into the Chinese domestic market. They have laid out an ambitious timeline along with the assumption of that new reactor designs will be part of the mix.
There are currently seventeen operating nuclear reactors at six sites and another thirty two are under construction. Fifty more reactors are scheduled for construction and a hundred more are being planned for construction by 2040. Of course, the disaster at Fukushima did throw off their time table. Some construction was shut down, new permits were suspended and Chinese reactors were checked for safety. Some critics of nuclear power in China urged a refocusing of efforts and resources on renewable energy as an alternative. However building and permitting are moving forward again and the Chinese authorities have restated their commitment to nuclear power. The Chinese are developing their own designs for pressurized water reactors with help from the international nuclear industry. Newer types of reactors such as the pebble bed design are scheduled for later implementation. By 2050, the Chinese expect to be building fast neutron reactors. They even have projected the amount of electricity that will be generated by fast neutron reactors by the year 2100.
Most of China’s reactors are located on the Pacific Coast near large cities and use seawater for cooling. Twenty eight million people live within forty six miles of two nuclear reactors in the Hong Kong area. A major accident in this area would threaten the health and lives of millions of people. Devastating hurricanes have caused widespread property damage and loss of life in Hong Kong. The area is also prone to earthquakes. Climate change will cause a rise in sea level on the Chinese Pacific Coast. Some scientists say that our estimations of the amount the sea will rise are far too low. In addition, the temperature of the Pacific Ocean is rising. If the ocean becomes too hot, seawater cannot be used for cooling reactors. All these factors could contribute to the need to abandon some of the coastal nuclear reactors.
Questions have also been raised about the availability of building materials, investment capital and trained personnel needed to build all the reactors that the Chinese have announced. While I do applaud long term planning with respect to national infrastructure, I am afraid that all indications are that this new century we are in will be very turbulent both in terms of the natural environment and human society. I suspect that unforeseen circumstances will prevent the construction of all the reactors that the Chinese have planned.
Day Bay Nuclear Power Station near Hong Kong:
Ambient office = .121 microsieverts per hour
Ambient outside = .112 microsieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = .128 microsieverts per hour
Sliced mushroom from Costco = .126 microsieverts per hour
Tap water = .117 microsieverts per hour
Filtered water = .102 microsieverts per hour
