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.
I just posted a two part article on the new Columbia-Class nuclear submarines being developed by the U.S. Navy. Today I am going to talk about Chinese nuclear armed submarines.
The Chinese finished their first nuclear ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) in 1981. It was a Type 092 Xia-Class boat. It carried twelve JL-1A submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM) with a range of about fifteen hundred miles. Work continued on upgrading the submarine for six years until it was finally put into service in 1987. The first and only Xia-Class SSBN was never sent out on deterrence patrols. This submarine did show that the Chinese were able to build a SSBN but it was basically a demonstration model.
After the Xia-Class submarine, the Chinese developed the Type 094 or Jin-Class SSBN. One Jin -Class submarine was seen in satellite imagery of the Xiaopingdao Submarine Base in 2006 and two were seen at the Bohai Shipyards in 2007. The Jin -Class SSBN carries twelve JL-2 SLBMs with a range of four thousand six hundred miles. These missiles may carry multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs) that would multiply their destructive capacity.
One Jin-Class submarine was operational in 2010, three were operational in 2013 and four were operational in 2015. Analysts believe that there may eight in operation by 2020. At least four SSBNs are considered necessary to conduct continuous deterrent patrols. Jin-Class submarine patrolling off the Kuril Islands just northeast of Japan would be able to reach about three quarters of the continental U.S. with their missiles. The Jin-Class SSBNs are too noisy to be able to operate in a conflict where they are being chased by advanced U.S. Navy craft.
Now the Chinese are working on the development of the Type 096 or Tang-Class SSBNs. The details of their design and deployment dates are uncertain but it is safe to conclude that they will be bigger, less noisy and carry more missiles. They will be armed with JL-3 missiles that have a range six thousand two hundred miles. This would allow them to reach all of the continental U.S. from a patrol zone near Japan. Analysts estimate that the Chinese will build 8 of the Tang-Class SSBNs. This would allow them to carry out continuous deterrence patrols.
The Chinese have never carried out regular patrols with their SSBNs. However, they may consider revising their nuclear policy to include such action. They are considering launching regular patrols of their SSBNs in the South China Sea because of increasing international tensions there. The Chinese have extensive service infrastructure in the South China Sea to service their submarines.
The Chinese may adopt a policy of patrols near eastern Chinese coast with their SSBNs. The U.S. was confronted by such patrols by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The U.S. strategy in a conflict would be to quickly destroy such patrolling Chinese SSBNs with attack submarines. This means that the Chinese Jin-Class would be a questionable deterrent. Because they can be easily destroyed, Chinese fears of an American first strike might cause them to launch a pre-emptive strike.
The Chinese may opt to put the Tang-Class SSBNs into service as a response to U.S. nuclear supremacy. If the U.S. did stage a surprise nuclear attack on China, the Tang-Class submarines would be able to carry out a devastating retaliatory strike on the U.S. On the other hand, SSBNs are of questionable utility for anything other than retaliation. They require a great deal of investment and support during operation. We will have to see if the Chinese decide that a new SSBN fleet is worth the cost.
Jin-Class submarine:
Republicans Are Talking About Tackling Trump If He Goes for the Nuclear Football. Gq.com
Part 2 of 2 Parts (Please read Part 1)
The CC submarines will incorporate a number of next-generation technologies. Many of these will be borrowed from the Virginia-Class (VC) attack submarines. This borrowing will permit the CC submarines to be the most advanced in existence while reducing the costs that custom development would require.
One of the VC features will be what is referred to as a “fly-by-wire” joystick control system. The automated control fly-by-wire navigation system utilizes a computer that is integrated into the submarine’s control systems. Algorithms are able to maintain course and depth through signals sent to the rudder and the stern.
Another VC feature that will be on the CC submarines is the large aperture bow array sonar (LABAS). Sonar systems send out acoustic singles called “pings” which are reflected back by objects in the water. Analysis of the return signal carries information about the shape, location and dimensions of an object. Unlike other sonar systems, the LABAS is water backed with no dome. The small hydrophones that detect the returning acoustic signal are intended to last the life of the submarine. Currently sonar hydrophones have to be replaced every ten years. This innovation alone will save a great deal of money.
The CC submarines will also contain the submarine combat system from VC attack submarines. The combat system includes electronic surveillance measures, periscopes replacements, radios and computer systems.
The drive shafts on the CC submarines are being constructed to be able to last from ten to twelve years. This will help to synchronize the submarine maintenance schedule which will also save money. Current drive shafts in submarines only last between six and eight years.
VC communication systems will be incorporated in the CC submarines. This advanced communication system replaces the traditional periscope in submarines with a camera mast that is connected to a fiber-optic cable. This means that crew members will no longer have to physically stand under the periscope in order to view things outside of the submarine. One benefit of this new viewing system is the fact that communication and control equipment can now be moved to larger and better protected sections of the ship because it no longer has to be located high up near a physical periscope.
The CC submarine design features a new electric motor which will turn the shaft and rotor to propel the ship. The new engine will be more efficient than the old type of motors. It may also give the CC submarines some tactical advantages.
Prior to the awarding of the contract to GDEB, the Navy contracted for work on missile tubes and hull forging. This work was part of a collaboration with the U.K. on the creation of common missile compartments. The U.S. and U.K. have been cooperating on the purchase of parts for the common missile compartment. The U.K. is planning on the construction of four nuclear-armed ballistic submarines which will each have twelve missile tubes. On a side note, there is a fierce debate going on in the U.K. about whether or not the U.K. should continue to construct, maintain and deploy nuclear-armed submarines.
Trident II D5 missile being launched from submarine:
