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.

Blog

  • Nuclear Reactors 1615 – Deep Fission Working on Burying Small Reactors a Mile Deep in Kansas – Part 2 of 3 Parts

    Part 2 of 3 Parts (Please read Part 1 first)

    DF’s advisory board is filled with high-profile names, including physicists and energy experts. Former U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu is one of two Nobel laureates in physics.

    DF’s vice president of engineering is a former executive at Kairos Power. He is one of the nuclear industry leaders in the race to commercialize next-generation nuclear energy designs.

    DF submission was one of eleven projects chosen in August for President Donald Trump’s nuclear pilot program. The program does not fund the selected companies directly but aims to expedite their testing and ultimately offer a fast track to commercial licensing. And it intends to get at least three reactors operating before the Fourth of July next year.

    However, to make this happen, DF will need to ascend a steep financial hill. The Trump announcement has significantly sped up the company’s project timeline.

    A month after the Trump announcement, the company went public in a rare maneuver called a reverse merger. It involves using a shell company and that does not require disclosing as much information to regulators in the process. It is generally a quicker, cheaper way to go public than the traditional initial public offering route.

    Asked why DF had chosen a reverse merger, given that this form of going public can raise some questions for investors, Frader replied that the new pilot program altered DF’s timeline. She said, “Initially, we were targeting 2029 for our first reactor, but the program allows us to build one in 2026. The reverse merger gave us a faster path to align our financing with this accelerated timeline.”

    DF’s shares sold well below typical prices and raised thirty million dollars. The company plans to list on a less well-known stock exchange for smaller firms. Frader said that the company intends to start there and then switch to the NASDAQ Stock Market.

    The details of DF’s go-public maneuver “suggest that DF wasn’t able to raise cash from new or existing shareholders, who first capitalized the company with a four-million-dollar check last year.”

    It was reported last week that the nuclear industry is seeing an increased number of nuclear companies going public through reverse mergers. It has documented six such mergers that are complete or are in the works.

    A flurry of these maneuvers also happened in 2021 with climate technology startups. Most of those companies’ stocks offerings didn’t do well, but there are initial signs that this new round might turn out differently. A few of the nuclear companies using reverse mergers are seeing initial boosts to their stock prices amid the interest in finding energy sources for AI.

    DF says its underground design could be scaled up to provide a great deal of energy while occupying little space. It claims that it could nestle one hundred nuclear reactors into a one-mile-deep hole on less than three acres of land and generate one and a half billion watts of electric power.

    Parts of Kansas are prone to earthquakes. DF was asked about the geological stability of the site in Kansas.

    The company said, “DF always conducts rigorous geological analysis when evaluating potential sites including seismic activity and other environmental factors.”

    Deep Fission

    Please read Part 3 next

     

  • Nuclear Reactors 1614 – Deep Fission Working on Burying Small Reactors a Mile Deep in Kansas – Part 1 of 3 Parts

    A blue flag with a circle and yellow text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

    Part 1 of 3 Parts

    California-based Deep Fission has signed a letter of intent with an undisclosed partner to construct a nuclear reactor one mile underground in Kansas.

    DF is a new startup that says it can help tech companies meet the “explosive demand” for more energy to power artificial intelligence (AI). It is one of two nuclear companies that have announced plans connected to Kansas in the past month.

    DF is a company with a vision of installing “discreet, bespoke,” small, nuclear reactors one mile underground for data centers and other electricity-hungry industries plans to put its first reactors in Kansas, Texas and Utah. It has signed letters of intent with undisclosed partners in each of those states.

    DF was asked whether it intends to engage in community outreach and what forms that outreach would take.

    Chloe Etsekson Frader is Vice President for Strategic Affairs at DF. She wrote, “Our approach to community engagement always involves early, open conversations with the opportunity for people to ask questions, share feedback, and understand the project in detail. We focus on listening, sharing clear information, and understanding local priorities to build long-term, mutually beneficial relationships with these communities.”

    DF was asked whether the company is in touch with any Kansas state agencies about its intentions, and which state and local agencies it will need to liaise with or report to, in order to install an underground nuclear reactor in Kansas. DF did not answer but said its approach “is built on collaboration and compliance from the outset.”

    Kansas Governor Laura Kelly’s administration didn’t respond to questions last week about whether it has any information about the project.

    DF is one of two nuclear companies that have announced plans connected to Kansas in the past month. The other company is TerraPower. These two companies’ plans are quite different. While DF envisions small reactors tailored to provide on-site power to a data center or other user, TerraPower has contacted Kansas seeking to build a utility-scale nuclear plant delivering energy in Evergy’s service area. TerraPower has signed a memorandum of understanding with the Kansas Department of Commerce and Evergy to explore the possibilities.

    DF is a new company working toward installing its first sites. The company wants to create “scalable onsite power” by constructing nuclear reactors in thirty-inch boreholes drilled one mile deep. It says this ensures “billions of tons of natural shielding and passive containment” that add to the reactor’s safety. In addition, it takes up less surface area and lowers costs.

    In a recent filing to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, DF said its model is “uniquely suited to meet the explosive demand for power from artificial intelligence (“AI”) workloads, energy-intense manufacturing, and energy-constrained regions.” It suggests that its approach can assist with potential public opposition to nuclear installations.

    The filing said, “With site flexibility and no above-ground reactor visibility, DF reactors overcome many of the siting and public acceptance challenges facing traditional nuclear power solutions.

    Rich Muller is a physics professor emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley, and a 1982 winner of what is commonly called the MacArthur “Genius Grant.” DF was founded by energy and environment entrepreneur Liz Muller and her father.

    The pair also founded a radioactive waste disposal company based on the same idea of using deep boreholes, albeit in that case to contain radioactive waste rather than reactors.

    Kansas

    Please read Part 2 next

  • Geiger Readings for Oct 06, 2025

    Latitude 47.704656 Longitude -122.318745

    Ambient office = 92 nanosieverts per hour

    Ambient outside = 113 nanosieverts per hour

    Soil exposed to rain water = 114 nanosieverts per hour

    English cucumber from Central Market = 66 nanosieverts per hour

    Tap water = 102 nanosieverts per hour

    Filter water = 89 nanosieverts per hour

  • Geiger Readings for Oct 05, 2025

    Latitude 47.704656 Longitude -122.318745

    Ambient office = 104 nanosieverts per hour

    Ambient outside = 108 nanosieverts per hour

    Soil exposed to rain water = 103 nanosieverts per hour

    Bannana from Central Market = 93

    Tap water = 97 nanosieverts per hour

    Filter water = 88 nanosieverts per hour

  • Geiger Readings for Oct 04, 2025

    Latitude 47.704656 Longitude -122.318745

    Ambient office = 92 nanosieverts per hour

    Ambient outside = 72 nanosieverts per hour

    Soil exposed to rain water = 66 nanosieverts per hour

    Avocado from Central Market = 80

    Tap water = 137 nanosieverts per hour

    Filter water = 122 nanosieverts per hour

    Dover Sole from Central = 108 nanosieverts per hour

  • Nuclear Fusion 148 – The U.S. Department of Energy is Working on a Roadmap for the Advancement of Fusion Technology

    A logo with black text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) released a nuclear fusion Roadmap on November 16th that reviews the barriers to deployment of fusion technology and provides strategies for addressing them, with a goal of a private-sector fusion scaleup in the 2030s.

    DoE said that the Roadmap will allow a transition to a future Office of Fusion Energy and Innovation once its goals are met. The new office will then work on a path to fusion commercialization. 

    Current barriers to deploying fusion, which has yet to work at scale, are “across six core challenge areas,” the Roadmap said. These six challenges are:

    • Structural Materials,
    • Plasma-Facing Components,
    • Advancing Confinement Approaches,
    • Fuel Cycle and Tritium Processing,
    • Blankets and Fusion Plant Engineering,
    • and System Integration.

    The Roadmap said, “The exceptional materials degradation caused by large quantities of fusion neutrons is one of the single largest factors limiting the economics and safety of fusion energy.” It must still be determined whether or not existing materials can survive the “irradiation damage levels expected in a fusion power plant.”

    DoE hopes that in the next two to three years, the public sector will “build small-to-medium test stands, start design of large-scale facilities” and support research and development regarding neutron sources.

    Nuclear fusion has begun to look more promising in recent years because of advancements in artificial intelligence and high-performance computing, as well as advancements in superconducting magnet technology which have resulted in more stable plasma which is the medium inside which fusion reactions take place.

    The private sector, along with utilities like Dominion Energy and the Tennessee Valley Authority, has recently grown more confident in the near-term potential of the technology. Commonwealth Fusion Systems, one of the largest fusion companies in the U.S., last year signed a deal with Dominion to build the world’s first grid-scale commercial fusion power plant at the James River Industrial Park in Chesterfield County, Virginia.

    CFS is currently building a fusion demonstration machine at its headquarters in Devens, Massachusetts, with expectations for it to produce “its first plasma in 2026 and net fusion energy shortly after.” This will set the stage for the Virginia plant to deliver power to the grid in the early 2030s.

    DoE’s fusion Roadmap plans for the private sector to commence nuclear operation of early generation power plants five to ten years from now. The Roadmap also calls for the public sector to begin to “deliver large-scale integration blanket-tritium fuel cycle facilities” and a “prototypic neutron materials testing platform” in the same timeframe. 

    The Roadmap’s Milestone-Based Fusion Development Program includes CFS is along with Tokamak Energy, Type One Energy, Excimer Energy, Zap Energy, Thea Energy, Realta Fusion and Focused Energy. 

    DoE said, “The commercialization path for all eight Milestone Program companies can vary quite dramatically and evolve rapidly. This requires that a public-sector Roadmap that is agile and nimble to adapt to changes in the private sector while maintaining a steady investment in the [science and technology] gaps not being addressed by the private sector in a substantial way.”

    Commonwealth Fusion Systems