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

  • Geiger Readings Nov 21, 2024

    Geiger Readings Nov 21, 2024

    Ambient office = 136 nanosieverts per hour

    Ambient outside = 93 nanosieverts per hour

    Soil exposed to rain water = 93 nanosieverts per hour

    Romo tomato from Central Market = 90 nanosieverts per hour

    Tap water = 124 nanosieverts per hour

    Filter water = 111 nanosieverts per hour

  • Nuclear Reactors 1448 – Australian Government Official Doubts That Australia Will Adopt Nuclear Power

    Nuclear Reactors 1448 – Australian Government Official Doubts That Australia Will Adopt Nuclear Power

         Chris Bowen is a member of the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Minister for Climate Change and Energy. He recently said that support for nuclear power is likely to evaporate once Australians face a clear choice at the next election and realize that the Liberal–National Coalition Party’s nuclear power policy would mean relying more on old coal plants and increased risk of blackouts.
         Bowen went on to say that while some polling had suggested some voters were open to nuclear plants being allowed in Australia, surveys had also consistently found they preferred renewable energy.
         Bowen added that “Every bit of research I’ve seen, public and private, says that when shown details and given a choice between nuclear and other forms of energy, nuclear fares very, very badly. If you look at the popularity of different forms of energy, it’s solar, wind, gas, daylight, coal, nuclear, in that order, every single time.”
         The Coalition has named seven sites where it says it would eventually replace coal-fired power plants with nuclear power plants but not how much this would cost. Multiple energy analysts argue nuclear power would be more expensive than any other option and that a nuclear industry would not be possible in Australia until after 2040. Most of the country’s coal plants are scheduled to close in the 2030s.
         The Coalition has suggested that it would limit the rollout of large-scale renewable power and bridge the gap by keeping ageing coal plants running longer and using more gas-fired power.
         The Coalition has not yet said what type of gas plants this means. With nuclear power banned, natural gas is the most expensive form of electricity in the national electricity market and it use is largely restricted to “peaking” power turned on only when required. Natural gas provided less than three percent of the electricity in the national grid over the past month.
         Claire Savage is the chair of the Australian Energy Regulator. She told a parliamentary inquiry she did not believe that nuclear plants could be built in enough time to cover the closure of coal-fired power plants. More than a one fourth of the coal power capacity in the national grid was offline on the day she gave evidence due to planned and unplanned outages.
         Polling on nuclear power in Australia has produced varied results. A Lowy Institute poll in June found sixty one percent strongly or somewhat supported nuclear power use alongside other sources of energy.
         A Guardian Essential poll was split between people who considered it “an attempt to extend the life of gas and limit investment in large-scale renewables” and those who said it was “serious, and should be considered as a part of the nation’s energy future”.
         Bowen said some Australians were open to nuclear power, but he was not concerned because there was a difference between people being open to it and agreeing to it.
         Bowen added that “When you say to people, whether it’s in a formal market research setting or a punter in the street setting, ‘I don’t object to nuclear, morally … but I object to it because it’s so expensive, but probably even more importantly, because it takes so long, and we don’t have time if we’re going to wait the 20 to 30 years it would take, and that means more coal in the system and coal in the system longer, and even the Liberals aren’t proposing to build new coal-fired power stations so they’re just going to rely on these old ones longer, and that’s blackouts’ – then the support or openness evaporates.”
         Ted O’Brien is the Coalition’s climate change and energy spokesperson. He has promised to provide more details of the opposition’s proposal before the end of the year. O’Brien has rejected claims there would be a risk of an electricity shortage under the Coalition’s plan and said that government and clean energy industry analysis of how much it would cost were inaccurate as they were not based on its full policy.

    Australian Energy Regulator

  • Geiger Readings for Nov 20, 2024

    Geiger Readings for Nov 20, 2024

    Ambient office = 143 nanosieverts per hour

    Ambient outside = 108 nanosieverts per hour

    Soil exposed to rain water = 106 nanosieverts per hour

    Red bell pepper from Central Market = 87 nanosieverts per hour

    Tap water = 100 nanosieverts per hour

    Filter water = 85 nanosieverts per hour

  • Nuclear Reactors 1447 – Australian Government Officials Argue Over Adoption Of Nuclear Power

    Nuclear Reactors 1447 – Australian Government Officials Argue Over Adoption Of Nuclear Power

         Matt Kean is the chair of the Climate Change Authority in Australia and a former New South Wales Liberal energy minister. He told a parliamentary estimates hearing that there is “no bigger rent-seeking parasite than the nuclear industry” during a heated exchange with senators supporting nuclear power.
        Appearing at an estimates hearing for the first time since his appointment in June, Kean argued with the independent senator Gerard Rennick about the cost of nuclear power. He told the hearing, “If you want to see who are needing rent-seeking [and] trying to pull one over on the Australian public, it is the nuclear industry.”
        Kean said that the nuclear industry was “there propping up the coal industry, who want to extend their business models, squeeze out the last bits of profit at the expense of Australian consumers”.
         He also clashed with the Nationals party senator Ross Cadell over an analysis by Australia’s science agency CSIRO. The agency found that nuclear power was the most expensive form of large-scale energy available. He estimated that an initial nuclear power plant could cost more than ten billion U.S. dollars.
         Kean told Cadell that “most rational people do trust the CSIRO, this is the body that developed wifi” and that their advice “is good enough for me and it should be good enough for our political leaders”.
         Cadell responded by accusing the authority chair of not being willing to question things or actually looking for the truth.
        Kean told the senator, “I know you’re trying to get your grabs up on Sky at the moment”.
        Later he told Rennick that advice from CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator indicated that the least expensive way to replace Australia’s ageing electricity infrastructure was with renewable sources of power.
         The Coalition has proposed seven sites where it says it would eventually replace coal-fired power plants with nuclear power plants but not how much this action would cost.
         Multiple energy analysts have argued that nuclear energy would be more expensive than any other source of electricity and that a nuclear industry would not be possible in Australia until after 2040. The bulk of the Australia’s coal plants are scheduled to close in the 2030s.
         The opposition has criticized Labor’s goal of 82% renewable energy by 2030. The opposition went on to say that it would limit the rollout of large-scale renewable energy. It added that it would bridge between closing the coal fired plants and bringing new sources of electricity online by keeping ageing coal plants running longer and using more gas-fired power.
         With nuclear banned, natural gas is the most expensive form of electricity in the national electricity market and its use is largely restricted to “peaking” power turned on only when required. Natural gas provided less than three percent of electricity in the Australian national grid over the past month.
         Clare Savage is the chair of the Australian Energy Regulator. She told a parliamentary inquiry that she did not believe nuclear plants could be built in time to cover the closure of coal-fired power plants.

    Climate Change Authority

  • Geiger Readings for Nov 19, 2024

    Geiger Readings for Nov 19, 2024

    Ambient office = 102 nanosieverts per hour

    Ambient outside = 126 nanosieverts per hour

    Soil exposed to rain water = 125 nanosieverts per hour

    Purple onion from Central Market = 108 nanosieverts per hour

    Tap water = 87 nanosieverts per hour

    Filter water = 71 nanosieverts per hour

  • Nuclear Fusion 87 – Zap Energy Developing Unique Fusion Reactor The Utilizes Z-Pinch – Part 2 of 2 Parts

    Nuclear Fusion 87 – Zap Energy Developing Unique Fusion Reactor The Utilizes Z-Pinch – Part 2 of 2 Parts

    Part 2 of 2 Parts (Please read Part 1 first)
         The Century demonstration device stands about one and half tall stories tall. The liquid bismuth-lined reaction chamber inside the device is the size of a domestic water heater. The key components occupy as much space as a double-decker bus. Zap thinks its commercial-scale module, which should produce fifty megawatts of electricity, will occupy a similar volume.
         In order to stay on track to a commercial power plant, Zap needs to hit three milestones. First, it needs to be able to produce high-voltage pulses frequently and continuously. A few weeks after it was turned on this summer, Century fired one thousand and eighty consecutive pulses. So far, so good.
         The second step is to demonstrate the technology for the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE). They will run the device for more than two hours by firing at ten-second intervals to generate at least one thousand plasma pulses. In order to operate as a commercial power plant, Zap’s reactor will have to spark ten pulses per second for months on end.
         After Zap completes the Century demonstration for the DoE, the team will add more liquid bismuth to the reaction chamber. The molten metal protects other parts of the device while absorbing heat that can be used to generate electricity. Century will be able to hold over one metric ton of the liquid metal, though for now it’s starting with one hundred and fifty-four pounds.
         In the third phase, the company needs to ensure that its electrodes, the parts that generate the electric pulses, can withstand the heat and particles produced by each fusion reaction. Those parts won’t survive forever. All commercial power plants must undergo maintenance at some point. The question is primarily how frequently and for how long. Zap needs to ensure its most vulnerable parts can last long enough to make financial sense for owners of fusion power plants.
         By 2025, Zap will increase the amount of electricity that’s delivered to the reaction chamber until it hits one hundred kilowatts. Conway expects that the company will evolve the Century reactor bit by bit. He added, “Even though Century is one platform, one name, within it are multiple generations. We iterate within the iterations.”
         If Century works as expected, Conway said that “my hope would be that we’re building a demo well in this decade. If that goes well, commercial fusion power plants should follow in the early 2030s.”
         Conway acknowledges that’s a lot of “ifs”. He added that “I’m convinced that when we cut the ribbon on our first power plant and we think about the hardest problems we’ve had to solve in the last five years, my guess is plasma physics and gain is on the list. But I bet there’s a lot of other stuff on the list as well.” That “other stuff” might be what makes or breaks commercial fusion power.
         Conway continued, “Fusion needs to compete with other ways of making electricity and heat. If fusion power plants cost a lot more than other ways of making electricity, there’s not going to be many of them. There may be one that we take our kids to and show on a school field trip, and that’s it. The economics of these things is going to be really important.”

    Zap Energy 

  • Geiger Readings for Nov 18, 2024

    Geiger Readings for Nov 18, 2024

    Ambient office = 88 nanosieverts per hour

    Ambient outside = 143 nanosieverts per hour

    Soil exposed to rain water = 147 nanosieverts per hour

    Leek from Central Market = 80 nanosieverts per hour

    Tap water = 139 nanosieverts per hour

    Filter water = 127 nanosieverts per hour