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.
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.
Orano NPS reconditions TN Gemini casks for compliance for Nuclear Waste Services in the United Kingdom businesswired.com
Russia, U.S. to hold first talks under nuclear treaty since Ukraine war -State Dept reuters.com
EDF signs agreement to acquire GE Steam Power’s nuclear activities power-technology.com
Ambient office = 83 nanosieverts per hour
Ambient outside = 119 nanosieverts per hour
Soil exposed to rain water = 116 nanosieverts per hour
White onion from Central Market = 59 nanosieverts per hour
Tap water = 101 nanosieverts per hour
Filter water = 95 nanosieverts per hour
Part 1 of 2 Parts
Small modular reactors (SMRs) generate three hundred megawatts or less of electricity. They are being promoted as smaller, less complex, safer, more economical and easier to construct and deploy than current commercial nuclear power reactors which generally generate over one gigawatt of electricity. Some promoters of SMRs believe that a major paradigm shift is required to enable their safe deployment with the speed and magnitude necessary.
Rumina Velshi is the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC). She chairs the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) Commission for Safety Standards. She recently gave a major speech on SMR prospects to the Fourth International Conference on Generation IV and Small Reactors (G4SR-4). The following comments cover some of the highlights of her speech.
Velshi pointed out that much of the SMR focus is on the ‘S’ in SMR but what really sets them apart from current power reactors is the ‘M’ in SMR. If SMRs are going to play a significant role in fighting climate change and addressing energy security, the world needs to capitalize on their modular potential. SMRs will need to be deployed more quickly, less expensively and much more widespread than current commercial power reactors. The nuclear sector will require a significant shift from traditional large-scale projects to a more streamlined product-based model.
With respect to safety of nuclear power reactors, it will always come first as far as regulators are concerned so there is no need for a shift there. On the other hand, regulators do not want to an unnecessary burden or impediment to innovative technologies including SMRs. Velshi believes that this extends to regulators doing their part in bringing about the enabling conditions necessary to support the possibility of a safe and efficient product-based model of SMR deployment. This will not be easy. It will take time and it will require a retooling of the existing international governance of the nuclear industry and a willingness to be bold. Velshi says that there are five enabling conditions that must be considered.
First, there must be movement towards the international harmonization of regulation. Second, there needs to be efforts made on the international standardization of designs or design requirements. Third, all of this must be anchored in effective international oversight involving collaboration previously not witnessed in the nuclear sector. Fourth, political will must be found to make these changes. Fifth, everything that is done must prioritize the building of trust.
International harmonization of regulations will certainly not be achieved overnight, if ever. However, there are solid steps that regulators around the world can take to move the yardstick in the right direction. This includes harmonizing codes and standards and finding opportunities to coordinate, leverage, and/or adopt technology reviews by other regulators. Nuclear licensing processes must be challenged in order to ensure that they are appropriate for SMRs based on risks. However, all this must be done in a way that allows for continued national sovereignty in regulatory decision-making.
Unfortunately, regulatory harmonization and the efficiencies that would follow from it cannot occur on the seventy-plus SMR designs currently being proposed.
Please read Part 2 next
