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.
Russian-made missile kills 2 in Poland, official says cnbc.com
Macron’s Plan for New Nuclear Reactors Sparks Hiring Drive Bloomberg.com
Work resumes at Angra 3 after seven years world-nuclear-news.org
Hopes and costs are high for UK’s nuclear energy future federalnewsnetwork.com
Ambient office = 91 nanosieverts per hour
Ambient outside = 85 nanosieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = 84 nanosieverts per hour
Acorn Squash from Central Market = 80 nanosieverts per hour
Tap water = 94 nanosieverts per hour
Filter water = 5 nanosieverts per hour
The U.K. Sizewell C project is a proposed nuclear power plant in Suffolk. The plan is to construct a one gigawatt two hundred-thousand-megawatt power station with two European Pressurized Reactors (EPR) nuclear reactors. The construction was expected to begin in 2024. Construction would take between nine and twelve years. The exact time required to build the plant would depend on developments at the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station which is also under development by EDF. It shares many similarities with the proposed Sizewell C power plant.
Now the proposed Sizewell C power plant is under review and could be delayed or even canceled. The U.K. government is trying to cut spending on major projects. Sizewell C was expected to provide as much as seven percent of the total electricity in the U.K. However, critics have argued that it will be too expensive and take too long to build. A U.K. official told the BBC that “We are reviewing every major project – including Sizewell C.”
The U.K. government is due to unveil its tax and spending plans under the new Prime Minister Rishi Sunak at the Autumn Statement on the 17th of November. Negotiations on raising funds for Sizewell C are ongoing. It would not be expected to begin generating electricity until the 2030s.
A Treasury spokesperson said that delivering infrastructure projects was a priority. Business Secretary Grant Shapps said that “HS2 is underway, within budget, and supporting 28,000 jobs, we are also seeking to approve at least one large-scale nuclear project in the next few years and aim to speed up the delivery of around 100 major infrastructure projects across the UK.” He went on to say that recent commitments by former Prime Minister Liz Truss were likely to be scaled back.
Last month, Truss and Emmanuel Macron, the President of France, pledged “full support” for the Sizewell C nuclear power station on Suffolk’s coast. The plant was set to be developed by EDF, the French energy company. The U.K. government gave the go-ahead for the plant last July. EDF has said that is could generate enough electricity for about six million homes.
However, there was confusion last Thursday as executives at EDF and the U.K. Business and Energy departments seemed to be blindsided by a potential change in direction on existing government policy which had promised to press ahead with both large and smaller scale nuclear power projects. On nuclear industry executive involved in the matter said, “As far we know, it’s still on.”
New large-scale nuclear power plants have been a key part of the U.K. government strategy to help reduce the U.K.’s reliance on fossil fuels. While he was Prime Minister, Boris Johnson declared that it was his intention to build eight new nuclear power reactors in the next eight years. Unfortunately, it did little to convince domestic and foreign investors in the U.K. that they are dealing with a government with stable policy priorities.
It might be better for the U.K. to develop sustainable energy sources instead of sinking more money into nuclear power plants.
Visiting nuclear shelters in Prague to see how cities could prepare for nuclear war phys.org
Protests, Drone Sales Table Iran Nuclear Talks voanews.com
Reaffirming the commitment to continue collaborating on sustainability in legacy nuclear sites gov.uk
Zelensky Says Russian Strikes Triggered Nuclear Shutdowns barrons.com
Ambient office = 79 nanosieverts per hour
Ambient outside = 75 nanosieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = 77 nanosieverts per hour
Tomato from Central Market = 108 nanosieverts per hour
Tap water = 87 nanosieverts per hour
Filter water = 71 nanosieverts per hour
Funding to bolster fire safety at Chernobyl world-nuclear-news.org
Gulf Cooperation Council renews commitment to nuclear weapon-free Middle East arabnews.com
Communities welcome second chance at nuclear plant wyomingnews.com
State house resolution would investigate expanding nuclear energy sungazette.com
Ambient office = 87 nanosieverts per hour
Ambient outside = 102 nanosieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = 106 nanosieverts per hour
English cucumber from Central Market = 104 nanosieverts per hour
Tap water = 87 nanosieverts per hour
Filter water = 76 nanosieverts per hour
France, China Intent on Preventing Use of Nuclear Arms in Ukraine Conflict – French Presidency usnews.com
Cop 27: US launches nuclear H2 project with Ukraine argusmedia.com
Fukushima fears aside, Japan still depends on nuclear power taiwannews.com.tw
Hungary plans life extension for Paks NPP neimagazine.com
Ambient office = 77 nanosieverts per hour
Ambient outside = 108 nanosieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = 113 nanosieverts per hour
Avocado from Central Market = 87 nanosieverts per hour
Tap water = 93 nanosieverts per hour
Filter water = 80 nanosieverts per hour
Dover Sole from Central = 128 nanosieverts per hour
Part 2 of 2 Parts (Please read Part 1 first)
In order for the needed SMR paradigm shift to take place, industry and governments will need to strive towards standardized designs, standardized approaches to design requirements and standardized deployment and operating models.
Even if good progress is made towards harmonization and standardization, the successful, safe, and widespread deployment of SMRs depends on strong and appropriate oversight. Getting there will require international collaboration at a much deeper level than today. There will need to a be a commitment to meaningful progress and rapid change.
From an international regulatory perspective, international oversight must come from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Member states of the IAEA will need to work together to ensure that the proper mechanisms are in place at the IAEA to support harmonization and standardization and ultimately the safety and security of SMRs around the globe.
For the nuclear industry, at a global level, international oversight means sharing information on deployment and operating experiences widely and openly. It also means ensuring peer reviews are supported and strengthened.
Governments need to have the political will to support SMRs. They must provide funding to regulators, industry and international organizations. And they must make the timely policy decisions required to enable successful deployment.
Ultimately, there will be no future for SMRs if there is no trust in the technology. The nuclear industry must dedicate itself to sincere, sustained, and substantive engagement, consultation, and trust building with members of the public, especially those communities hosting SMRs. In Canada, this is especially true with Indigenous Nations and communities in the context and spirit of reconciliation.
It is necessary for industry and governments to earn community trust and acceptance of the SMRs. They must make a strong case for SMRs. It is also necessary for regulators to build trust and confidence in regulatory decision-making and assure communities that strong and independent oversight will be there to keep them safe.
Nuclear energy does not emit carbon dioxide while reactors are operating. It is a well-regulated technology throughout its lifecycle. Although it is often feared and misunderstood. It could help diminish or prevent further impacts from the use of carbon dioxide emitting energy sources and provide energy security for many countries.
Unlocking the potential of SMRs will only be possible if there is a major paradigm shift in how the nuclear sector approaches deployment. Only through this fundamental shift will this technology be able to play a role that many think and hope it can be done in the timelines needed.
Regulators exist to ensure that SMRs are safe. However, it is every regulator’s role to monitor its industry, see where it is headed, and be ready to carry out its regulatory mandate efficiently and effectively.
Many see this paradigm shift coming and know that it will require much work from everyone including international organizations, governments, regulators, and industry. All must be focused on deploying a reasonable number of technologies.
The CNSC continues to show leadership in laying the enabling conditions through our efforts within Canada, bilateral cooperation with the U.S. and our work with the IAEA and NEA. The CNSC will continue to play an important role in enabling the safe, efficient and timely deployment of SMRs to meet Canada’s and the world’s needs.
