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.
Nuclear power is facing serious challenges from cheap renewable energy sources. In 2017, existing construction projects fell further behind schedule while their costs continued to rise. Some major projects were abandoned. Political support and investor interest have been falling across the world. On the other hand, wind and solar power have been falling in costs and rapidly expanding across the world.
There are also new technological treads that threaten nuclear power. The development of huge arrays of batteries are helping to answer the problem of maintaining steady baseload power as solar and wind fluctuate. Also, excess power is being used to produce hydrogen gas which could partially replace natural gas as a fuel for both vehicles and power plants.
The speed with which renewables are being adopted has surprised even the optimists. In areas that are favorable for wind or solar, they are now the cheapest way to produce electricity. While the cost of nuclear power keeps going up, the cost of renewables keeps dropping. One hundred and eight countries are looking to renewables for energy and carbon reduction while just nine countries are moving ahead with nuclear projects.
A couple of years ago, a nuclear renaissance was being touted in the U.S. Four new reactors began construction, the first new builds in decades in the U.S. Two reactors in South Carolina fell behind schedule and had considerable cost overruns. This year, the project was cancelled, leaving lawsuits and consumer electricity prices rising. Two other reactors in Georgia are behind schedule and over budget but the state utility commission just gave the project authorization to continue with construction. It is an open question whether or not they will ever be finished.
France which depends on nuclear power for more than seventy five percent of its electricity has announced that it will reduce nuclear to a fifty percent share of its generation capacity and make up the difference with renewables. France will continue to close old reactors as they reach the end of their licenses and does not intend to build any more reactors.
South Korea has elected an anti-nuclear president and there is serious public pressure to close the existing nuclear power plants, replacing them with renewable sources.
Japan was the location of the Fukushima nuclear disaster in March of 2011. They shut off all of their nuclear reactors after the accident so they could review and enhance safety regulations. They are slowly restarting some of their plants while other plants will be permanently shut down due to public opposition and/or the cost of safety upgrades.
China and Russia both have major investment in nuclear power. They both have state-owned enterprises which deal with the construction and operation of nuclear power plants. They both have been planning on making nuclear power exports a major part of their economic expansion. However, construction on some domestic nuclear power plants has been halted or slowed down in China and Russia, although there has been no public statement of a major change in nuclear policy from either nation.
Russia claims that it has signed agreements with Belarus, China, India, Bangladesh, Hungary, Turkey, Finland and Iran to construct nuclear reactors. It also says that it has bids in for reactors in twenty three other countries. Time will tell whether or not these ambitious plans will be realized or abandoned.
The U.K. is working on the construction of two nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point C with help from the Chinese and the French. The project is way behind schedule and way over budget. If completed, the owners will be guaranteed a price for electricity which is way over the current cost of electricity in the U.K. There are some analysts who believe that the project will never be complete.
Nuclear power is being kept alive by the vast amounts of money that are involved in reactor construction, the low carbon footprint, the support that civilian nuclear programs provide for nuclear weapons programs and the influence that nuclear export countries gain from building reactors for foreign customers. Time will tell whether or not this will be sufficient to keep nuclear power alive.
Part 2 of 2 Parts (Please read Part 1 first)
In late 2006, the Israelis became aware of a construction site in a remote area of northeastern Syria under a huge roof to conceal whatever was being built. Israeli intelligence decided that the Syrians were trying to construct a nuclear reactor. They had a policy since 1976 that they would not allow any enemy to have nuclear weapons.
In February of 2007, a high ranking Iranian military officer defected to the United States. When he was debriefed, he gave details of the Syrian nuclear program including the fact that Iran had provided money and North Korea had provided expertise. They were constructing a graphite-moderated nuclear reactor at the remote construction site that was intended to produce plutonium for nuclear warheads.
In March of 2007, the Israelis searched a hotel room in Vienna occupied by the head of the Syrian nuclear energy commissions. From a laptop left in the room, Israeli intelligence obtained detailed information and images from the remote construction site that confirmed beyond doubt that the Syrians were building a nuclear reactor. They also learned that the reactor was within months of completion. If Israel waited for the reactor to be finished and put into operation, any airstrike would risk spreading nuclear fallout.
In April of 2007, the Israelis briefed U.S. military officials. The Bush administration was leery of acting quickly because of the debacle with missing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq during the U.S. war there. While U.S. CIA agreed with Israel, other U.S. officials and foreign governments were skeptical and afraid of escalation of Middle East conflicts.
In June of 2007, the Israeli Prime Minister visited the White House and told the President that Israel might act alone against Syria if the U.S. refused to be involved. The President responded by suggesting that he would not interfere if Israel decided to attack Syria by itself.
The Israeli military began gathering information for an attack on the Syrian reactor site while the Israeli politicians debated the wisdom of such an attack. The mission to destroy the Syrian reactor was called Operation Orchard. On September 5th of 2007, the Israeli military received permission to attack Syria.
That night ten F-15 and F16 Israeli fighters took off from the Ramat David airbase in Israel. They flew north along the coast and then turned inland along the Syrian-Turkish border. They deployed electronic countermeasures and destroyed a radar station as they entered Syrian airspace. The planes successfully destroyed the Syrian reactor under construction and returned home.
The next day, the Syrians announced that Israeli planes had penetrated Syrian airspace but had been detected and had retreated without attacking Syrian targets. The Syrian president denied all reports of any Syrian work on a nuclear reactor. Israel kept silent because they did not want to admit their successful attack. Eventually the whole story was made public.
Now Israel is worried that Iran may be working on the development of a nuclear arsenal. Given the facts of the Iraqi and Syrian attacks, it is probable that Israel might attempt an attack on Iran. Unfortunately for Israel, Iran is equipped with sophisticated radar and anti-aircraft missiles from Russia. They have also buried a number of military facilities deep underground. If Israel does attempt an attack, they might not reach their targets and, even if they do, they might not be able to destroy them. Iran has a lot of conventional missiles and any attack by Israel could prompt an attack on Israel by conventional weapons. It is a volatile situation and, hopefully, cooler heads can prevail in Israel and Iran to prevent a violent conflict.
U.S. Government photo of destroyed Syrian reactor:
