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.
Part 2 of 2 parts. (Please read Part 1 first.)
One important cost risk considered by the FAO has to do with the possibility that the demand for electricity may be lower than anticipated. The FAO report says, “The Nuclear Refurbishment Plan requires a CAD25 billion capital investment and price projections are based on costs being spread over a large amount of electricity generation over a long period of time. As a result, reducing nuclear generation or shutting down nuclear reactors in response to unfavorable market conditions is not always economical.”
If the actual demand for electricity falls below the estimates for Ontario, nuclear power generation may have to be reduced, electricity may be exported at low or negative cost or nuclear reactors may have to be shut down permanently. If this happens, the ratepayers or the provincial government will have to bear the cost. There are demand-side and supply-side risk mitigations that could limit the risks related to changes in demand. Ontario has a Climate Change Action Plan designed to smooth out fluctuations in demand. The Pickering nuclear power plant is slated for permanent shutdown in 2024. And, finally, the existing Bruce and Darlington reactors will be reaching the end of their planned lifespans and will begin being decommissioned in 2043.
The final risk that the FAO report deals with the fact that if Ontario proceeds with the full refurbishment plan, the province may not be able to afford to take advantage of alternative, lower cost, low-emissions grid-scale electricity generation options that may become available as time goes by. Once again, the cost of higher priced electricity would be borne by the ratepayers and the provincial government. The FAO report says, “There are currently no alternative generation portfolios that could provide the same supply of low-emissions baseload electricity generation at a comparable price to the Nuclear Refurbishment Plan.” If such alternative generation portfolios do become available in the future, there are “off-ramps” that would allow the province to halt Bruce Power refurbishments. With respect to Darlington, the provincial government has the power to stop refurbishments there.
The responses of Bruce Power and Ontario Power Generation to the FAO report have been positive. The two companies issued a joint statement that said, “The FAO’s report validates that refurbishing Ontario’s Bruce and Darlington nuclear stations is the best generating option to keep costs low for electricity customers and to protect the environment.”
Work on the refurbishment of the Darlington reactors has already begun. Now, one year into the refurbishment of Darlington 2, the work is almost forty percent complete. The overall project remains on time and in budget. When the refurbishment is done, the Darlington reactors should be able to continue to operate until 2055.
Bruce Power’s Life Extension Program began in 2016. Bruce will invest about ten billion dollars in refurbishing six of Bruce Power’s eight reactors. This should permit the power plant to generate electricity up to 2054.
The Pickering reactor will operate until 2024 to provide baseload power while refurbishment is going on at Bruce and Darlington.
Darlington Nuclear Generating Station:
The French government are considering spinning off EDF’s nuclear power business, as part of a plan aimed at shifting its focus to renewable energy and resolving debt issues. Powerengineeringint.com
If a nuclear meltdown happens in the British East Midlands in the near future, there’s no need for you to move. And definitely don’t relocate to London. Leicestermercury.com
Part 1 of 2 parts.
Canada currently has nineteen commercial nuclear power reactors in operation that produce thirteen and one- half gigawatts of electricity. This represents about sixteen percent of Canada’s electricity. In Ontario, Bruce Power operates the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station about two hundred and fifty miles north of Toronto. There are eight reactors running at Bruce which are producing six thousand and three hundred megawatts of electricity. This provides about sixty percent of the electricity for the province. Ontario Power Generation (OPG) which is owned by the provincial government in Ontario operates four power reactors at its Darlington Nuclear Generating Station on the north shore of Lake Ontario. The three thousand and five hundred megawatts generated by the station provides about twenty percent of the electricity for the province. And, finally, there is the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station on the north shore of Lake Ontario at in the town of Pickering. The station has six operating reactors generating about three gigawatts of power. This station supplies about twenty percent of the electricity for Ontario.
The Ontario Accountability Office (FAO) has just issued a new report titled An Assessment of the Financial Risks of the Nuclear Refurbishment Plan about the future of nuclear power in Ontario. The report discusses the distribution of risk among the ratepayers, the provincial government, Ontario Power Generation (OPG) and Bruce Power. The FAO estimates that the plan leads to the provision of a “significant proportion) of Ontario’s power needs during the period of 2016 to 2064 at an average cost of about sixty-three dollars and thirty cents per Megawatt hour.
The new plan will see the price for electricity from nuclear rise in the short term to pay for refurbishing. It is expected that the cost of nuclear electricity will rise to a peak in 2027. After that, the cost will fall slowly until to 2064. The estimated average cost cited above of sixty-three dollars and thirty cents is lower than the current average cost for electricity of ninety dollars and forty-five cents. The FAO investigated the financial risks of the refurbishment plant related to general cost overruns, station operating cost overruns, lower electricity demand and the possibility that lower cost and lower emissions alternative energy sources that may become available.
With respect to the refurbishment of the Bruce Power reactors, the ratepayers will bear the risk for cost increases up to twelve months before the work begins. At that time, the risk of refurbishment cost increases will be transferred to Bruce Power. On the other hand, the risk of cost increases that are “prudently incurred” for refurbishment of the OPG reactors at Darlington before work begins will be born by the ratepayers. Cost increases that are not “prudently incurred” will be borne by Ontario which owns OPG. Risk of cost increases can be relieved by the existence the option to cancel the refurbishment of a particular power reactor. This option is known as an “off-ramp.”
Most of the risk that the cost of refurbishing the Bruce Power reactors will be higher than expected is transferred to Bruce Power through its contracts with Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator. If costs are lower than expected, the ratepayers receive fifty percent of the benefit. The ratepayers and the province through its ownership of OPG bear all the risks over costs of refurbishment being higher than expected but also bear the all benefit if the cost is lower than the estimate. The Ontario Energy Board provides oversight for the plan that protects the ratepayers.
Please read Part 2.
Bruce Nuclear Generating Station:
The nuclear triad consists of three different delivery systems for nuclear warheads. There are bombers, submarines and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). The US is embarking on a decade long upgrading of our nuclear arsenal. Some critics believe that the time has come to retire ICBMs.
If our early warning system signals the launch of ICBMs from Russia, our military assumes that they will arrive in the U.S. in about thirty minutes. The Pentagon will inform the President and he will meet with our top military men in the Pentagon situation room. If he is not in Washington, D.C., the nuclear football that is always with the President will be used to validate his identity to the staff gathered in the situation room.
It is assumed that the President will have about ten minutes in which to discuss retaliation before the missiles arrive. We have a fleet of ICBMs in Montana, Wyoming and North Dakota. Since they are at a fixed location in silos, the Russians would definitely target them. So if our ICBMs are going to be launched, they have to be gone by the time the Russian missiles land in the U.S. The problem with the short time line is that the detection of ICBMs from Russia may be a false report. Such mistakes have been made in the past and may be made in the future. Ten minutes may not be enough time to verify that the launch warning is a mistake and a U.S. President may launch a massive attack on Russia. The detonation of even a few nuclear warheads anywhere in the world would be disastrous. The detonation of hundreds of warheads would mean the end of human civilization.
Because of concerns over hacking the electronic systems in the ICBMs, there are no communication links onboard so there is no way to cause the missiles to self-destruct in case the original launch warning turned out to be false. Of the three legs of the nuclear triad, it is the ICBMs that are most likely to cause an accident and, for this reason, former defense officials, scholars of military strategy and some members of Congress have started calling for an end to the ICBM leg of the nuclear triad.
The experts that are calling for the end of our ICBM deployment say that we can rely just fine on the other two legs of the triad. Nuclear bombers in the air will take more time to reach their targets and they can be recalled over secure communication channels if there is a mistake. Nuclear armed submarines are stationed near their targets and are virtually undetectable so they not under any deadline to launch an attack.
These are dangerous times with the relationship of the U.S. and Russia deteriorating, Russia talking about use of tactical nuclear weapons against NATO, North Korea threatening nuclear attacks and concerns about the tensions between Pakistan and India. The U.S. is getting ready to spend hundred of millions of dollars on upgrading our ICBMs. It would probably be a better idea to cancel the ICBM program entirely and use that money for something else. Our ICBMs serve no good purpose for our defense and create an unnecessary risk of a mistaken hurried response to a false enemy launch warning.
Minuteman III ICBM:
