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.
Russia has about seven thousand nuclear warhead and the U.S. has about six thousand and eight hundred. Both countries have missiles, bombers and submarines to deliver those warheads. Both countries have announced ambitious plans to modernize their nuclear arsenals in the coming years. Each country believes that it needs such huge nuclear arsenal to deter an attack by the other.
China, on the other hand, only has about two hundred and sixty nuclear warheads. China’s population is much larger than either the U.S. or Russia and its economy is rapidly becoming one of the biggest in the world. There are tensions between China and the U.S. as well as tensions between China and Russia but apparently China does not believe that it needs to maintain a huge nuclear arsenal to deter nuclear attacks. Unlike Russia and the U.S., China does not have a large portion of its nuclear arsenal primed for immediate launch. China has a policy of support for nuclear disarmament and also says that it will never be the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict.
China believes that a few hundred nuclear warheads should be sufficient to deter an enemy from attacking them with nuclear weapons. If China’s existing nuclear arsenal could destroy one or a few major cities of an enemy, that should be enough deterrence. China does not have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars maintaining and upgrading a huge nuclear arsenal to be safe.
Nuclear weapons are so destructive that they have little attraction for generals fighting wars. If only a hundred nuclear weapons are deployed, there is a good chance that the resulting nuclear winter would end human civilization regardless of who started the fight. Any country staging a major nuclear attack would probably be signing their own death warrant. With the money saved from building a huge nuclear arsenal, China is able to develop more conventional and unconventional weapons that might actually be used in future conflicts.
Missile silos and bomber bases are massive and make easy targets for attack. Nuclear weapons are becoming obsolete in the age of cyberwarfare. Why use nuclear weapons against a nuclear-armed adversary when it might be possible to sabotage missile and bomber command and control systems with a cyberattack at a fraction of the cost of a conventional attack? Other weapons such as biological and chemical weapons are much cheaper to create and deploy. And, they could be much more difficult to backtrack to the attacker than a missile launch that paints a big red target on its launch point or a bomber that must fly over enemy territory.
Although China has decided to maintain a small nuclear arsenal, that does not mean that they are not developing new systems like advanced multiple hypersonic reentry vehicles for nuclear warheads. These new delivery systems are designed to overwhelm any missile defense system. They are also working on anti-ballistic missiles systems to deal with possible missile attacks. China’s nuclear weapons and delivery systems may be less extensive and expensive that the nuclear arsenals of the Russia and the U.S. but they appear to be quite adequate to protect China from nuclear attack in the Twenty First Century.
Estimated ranges of Chinese nuclear missiles:
Nuclear power generation is under assault from a number of different directions. Old nuclear power plants are getting more and more expensive to maintain and operate. Cheap oil and natural gas are rendering nuclear power uncompetitive in the current energy marketplace. Solar and wind energy systems are becoming cheaper to build than nuclear power stations. The public is rejecting the construction of new nuclear power stations in many communities. Investors lack enthusiasm for nuclear power projects. The future of nuclear power generation is not bright. There is, however, an application for nuclear power that does not involve generating electricity for the grid.
A report was recently presented to the Connecticut Maritime Association on the applicability of small modular reactors as power sources for cargo vessels. Small nuclear reactors have operated safely and efficiently to propel for submarines and surface vessels since the 1950s. Maybe it is time that cargo ship which carry more than ninety percent of world trade goods be equipped with nuclear power plants. This would definitely reduce fossil fuel carbon emission to help combat climate change.
Current nuclear marine propulsions systems generate from ten to forty megawatts of power from uranium alloyed with metals such as zirconium or aluminum. Older nuclear marine engines could run for ten years on a single fueling. Newer designs could run for thirty years or more before needing to be refueled. The existing engines are about six feet wide by fifteen feet tall.
In order to drive a cargo ship, their nuclear power plants would have to generate about one hundred and fifty megawatts. The new generation of small modular reactors being developed for power generation is capable of generating up to three hundred megawatts. They are much smaller than conventional reactors but still bigger than current nuclear marine systems.
As with all introductions of new technologies, there are significant barriers to replacing current widespread systems such as that of diesel engines on existing cargo ships. First of all, diesel marine engine technology is well understood and reliable. Second, there is a well-established education system for training diesel engineers. Third, diesel engine manufacturers have construction and repair facilities around the world as well as global spare parts distribution systems. And, fourth, diesel fuel is readily available all over the world. In order for nuclear reactors to compete with diesel engines for cargo ship propulsion, nuclear engines will have to match or surpass the current advantages of diesel propulsion.
The first step towards replacing diesel engines with nuclear engines in cargo ships is the development of designs for such nuclear engines. The second step is to find funding for the construction and testing of the new types of engine. It is likely that one or more national governments would have to be involved in this stage. Once there has been proof of concept, then commercial manufacturing of such engines will have to be researched and shown to be feasible. Finally, private companies will have to be found that have the funds and the expertise to create and service operational fleets of nuclear power cargo ships.
The UK intends to leave the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom), according to explanatory notes to a bill the government published yesterday authorizing Brexit. The notes state the bill empowers the prime minister to leave both the European Union and Euratom. world-nuclear-news.org
The UK’s plan to leave Euratom has thrown into doubt the future of the Joint European Torus (JET), a nuclear-fusion facility in Culham, UK. nature.com
