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 1 of two Parts
I have blogged before about the nuclear modernization program of the U.S. military. Russia is responding with its own modernization. Other countries are reconsidering their nuclear posture such as China, Japan and North Korea. There is concern that if the nuclear treaty with Iran is abandoned, Iran might develop nuclear weapons. It is interesting the note that the U.N. recently brought out a treaty to ban all nuclear weapons on Earth. It is not surprising that those nations with nuclear weapons do not want to abandon them.
The nuclear triad consists of bombers, nuclear missile carrying submarines and intercontinental ballistic missiles in silos. Both the U.S. and Russia have over four thousand nuclear warheads which would be enough to destroy human civilization many times over. I have blogged about upgrades of nuclear missiles carried by submarines which make them much more accurate and deadly. The U.S, is also working on a new class of nuclear powered submarines to carry such missiles.
The U.S. Navy has awarded a five billion dollar contract to General Dynamics Electric Boat. The contract is for Integrated Product and Process Development for the Columbia-Class (CC) submarine. The CC is a next-generation nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarine whose purpose is to allow the U.S. a retaliatory-attack capability in case the U.S. suffers a surprise nuclear attack. The contract is for “the design, completion, component and technology development and prototyping efforts for the COLUMBIA Class Fleet Ballistic Missile Submarines (SSBNs),” according to a U.S. Navy statement.
The Secretary of the Navy said, “The COLUMBIA class submarine is the most important acquisition program the Navy has today. This contract represents a significant investment in maintaining our strategic deterrent into the future, as well as our ongoing partnership with the United Kingdom.” A Rear Admiral released a statement that said, “Awarding this contract is an important step in ensuring an on-time construction start in FY 2021.” The CC is intended to serve the U.S. Navy into the 2080s with the first boat entering service in 2031 after completion of construction in 2028.
The U.S. is planning for the construction of twelve new CC submarines. Each submarine will have sixteen missile tubes. The CC submarine is five hundred and sixty feet long. Each will carry sixteen Trident II D5 missiles in the forty four foot missile tubes. The CC submarines will incorporate stealth technology.
The CC submarines are designed for a forty-two year service life. The CC submarines are being constructed to replace the fourteen existing Ohio-class nuclear submarines. One of the major improvements in the CC design over the OC design is that the CC submarines will have a new nuclear reactor design. Unlike the OC submarines, the CC submarines will be able to operate for forty-two years without needing to be refueled after half of their service life has expired. This means that the twelve CC submarines will be able to serve more deployments than the fourteen old OC submarines. It is estimated that the CC submarines will save the Navy over forty billion dollars.
Please read Part 2
Columbia-Class submarine, NAVSEA concept:
Trump threatens broadcaster NBC after nuclear report. Bbc.com
Part 2 of 2 Parts (Please read Part 1 first)
The DoE seems to be in a rush to get this new rule in place. They told FERC that they want the implementation of the new rule to be accomplished in sixty days. Eleven trade energy groups have immediately jumped into the discussion. They filed a legal motion requesting that FERC accept input from the energy industry and other stake holders in its consideration of the new rule. The trade organizations include renewable companies and organizations, oil and gas groups, electricity consumer organizations, rural electrical cooperatives and natural gas pipeline owners.
In the legal brief that was filed, the industry groups said, “This is one of the most significant proposed rules in decades related to the energy industry and, if finalized, would unquestionably have significant ramifications for wholesale markets under [FERC’s] jurisdiction. [This rule would] … affect electricity prices paid by hundreds of millions of consumers and hundreds of thousands of businesses, as well as entire industries and their tens of thousands of workers.”
The DoE claims that the propose rule will, “will strengthen American energy security by ensuring adequate reserve resource supply.” However, the industry associations say that there actually is no problem with reliability of the grid and no analysts have claimed that there is one. The energy industry groups also claim that a recent report issued by the North American Reliability Council explicitly states that there is no reliability problem for the grid that requires assistance to nuclear and coal power plants.
Any individual or organization who wants to participate in the discussion about the newly proposed rule must act quickly. Any input will have to be developed and submitted within the sixty day timeline. The DoE has said that if FERC cannot get the new rule in place within the sixty days, then FERC should issue an Interim Final Rule that implements the DoE proposal effective immediately. This action would allow for later public comment and possible changes to the rule.
So the energy source that was going to be too cheap to meter and bill is now in need to governmental support. As the cost of natural gas continues to remain low and the price of renewable energy keeps decreasing, the cost of nuclear power will make it less and less competitive. Customers and energy suppliers will be saddled with increasing bills dedicated to keeping nuclear power alive in the U.S. This is simply not sustainable given that many cities and states are in serious financial difficulty and the debt being held by consumers is rising.
A great deal of research is being dedicated to battery improvement and the development of other schemes to store energy. Smart grids are evolving which will be able to make more efficient use of the energy supplied by diverse sources. Conservation measures are reducing the demand for electricity. As such systems improve, baseload power plants will be less and less important to the availability of power twenty-four/seven. It would be a serious mistake for the U.S. government to lock consumers into a long-terms plan to prop up nuclear power plants that cannot compete in the energy marketplace.
Back in the 1950s, it was said by some that nuclear power was going to be so cheap that they would not have to meter it. After more than fifty years, the competitiveness of nuclear power in the energy market place is fading. Cheap natural gas and declining prices for renewable power are part of the problem. Another part of the problem is the fact that since in 1950s not a single nuclear power plant project has been completed for the cost that was originally estimated. The energy market has been undergoing a lot of changes recently and the sweetheart guaranteed price for thirty years for the output of a nuclear power plant is gone. Now nuclear power has to compete in the short term market and it is taking a beating. Nuclear power plants are being closed in the U.S. because they cannot compete. The nuclear power industry is now begging state and federal governments for help in keeping their plants open.
Recently Rick Perry, the new U.S. Secretary of Energy, called for a study of the U.S. energy supply system with special emphasis on what is called baseload power. This refers to big power plants such as nuclear and coal that can constantly supply a minimum amount of energy to the grid. Some analysts are arguing that nuclear power and coal power need to be subsidized because they provide this baseload power and that letting these plants be driven out of the marketplace would be a threat to the stability of our electrical grid and our steady supply of electricity.
The study found that the loss of nuclear and coal plants would not pose a threat to the stability of the grid but, nonetheless, Perry has called for a new rule with regard to baseload power plants. The new rule was called for in an unpublicized Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) from the U.S. DoE sent to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The new rule provides what is basically a subsidy for nuclear and coal power plants. Critics of the new rule say that it will be a profound change in the competitive energy market that arose in the 1990s.
The proposed rule would provide for “accurately pric(ing) generation resources necessary to maintain reliability and resiliency.” In order to accomplish this, the new rule requires the “recovery of costs of fuel-secure generation units frequently relied upon to make our grid reliable and resilient.” This means that power plants that have a three month supply of fuel onsite would be guaranteed “full recovery of costs” and a “fair rate of return.” Only nuclear, coal and hydro power plants have a three month supply of fuel onsite. The U.S. taxpayers would be the ultimate guarantors for this plan.
If the new rule is implemented by FERC, then FERC approved regional grid organizations and independent grid operators would be required to create new rate tariffs to make sure that the power sources in question would recover their costs and also make a “fair” profit. Proponents say that the new rule is needed in order to support baseload power plants for their reliability and resiliency. Critics say that the new rule would go against the very idea of a competitive wholesale power market and be a bailout for non-competitive nuclear and coal power plants.
Please read Part 2
