Moscow has swatted down a proposal by President-elect Donald Trump on nuclear-arms reductions, less than a day after the suggestion became public. thedailybeast.com

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 have often blogged about the huge Hinkley Point C (HPC) project to build a couple of nuclear power reactors in Britain. The reason I keep revisiting this project is that so many different problems with nuclear power are wrapped up in it. Financing, international involvement, substandard parts, national security, cost overruns, and other issues can be found in discussions of the project. Members of the British parliament have recently asked the Secretary of State for the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) to clarify some aspects of the financial arrangements for HPC.
In 2015, the British government announced that they would provide about two and a half billion dollars of support in the form of a guarantee for the HPC through their Infrastructure UK program. The European Union approved of the grant the previous year on the grounds that it was a legitimate way for the U.K. to meet goals for low-carbon power generation. Strangely enough, despite the existence of the guarantee, EDF, the financially troubled French-owned utility that is building the reactors for HPC said that if they failed to fulfill the contract due to financial problems, they would not call on the guaranteed money for help. The members of Parliament are justifiably confused about why the guarantee even exists if it will never by exploited.
Part of the HPC agreement says that if the price of electricity generated by HPC rises above an average “strike price” for electricity, then the government will step in and pay the difference, referred to as “top up” payments. If the price of electricity generated by HPC falls below an average “strike price” for electricity, then the difference will be refunded to the consumers. Customer will not pay anything until the HPC reactors are operational.
Currently, the strike price for electricity in the agreement is set at about one hundred and eleven dollars per megawatt hour. If a planned reactor is built at Sizewell, the strike price will fall to about one hundred and seven dollars per megawatt hour. The agreement fixes the cost to consumers of electricity from new generating sources regardless of market price.
The HPC agreement strike price takes inflation into account by being indexed to the Consumer Price Index. The members of Parliament asked whether the index could “move down in the event of negative inflation, as well as up at a time of rising inflation.” They were told that that would be checked as well as the question of whether the HPC contract could be moved to the Retail Price Index instead of the Consumer Price Index to better reflect market conditions.
The members of Parliament also wanted to know more about the “top up” payments. There are big differences between the estimates of the government contract negotiators and the estimates of the National Audit Office (NAO). (“The NAO scrutinizes public spending for Parliament. Its public audit perspective helps Parliament hold the government to account and improve public services.”)
The government representatives said that their estimate of between thirteen billion dollars and twenty-five billion dollars was based on the “Green Book” which is a standard way for the government to estimate the cost of projects. In contrast, the NAO estimate of thirty-six billion dollars was based on the cost of borrowing money for projects. In essence, the government contract representatives were saying that the two numbers had been arrived at by two different methodologies that were used for different purposes.
Although the HPC project contracts have been signed and the project is moving forward, there are still a lot of unanswered questions that are causing fierce debate within the government.
The Russian government has confirmed that its 2010 agreement with Ukraine on building a third and fourth reactor at the Khmelnitsky nuclear power plant has been cancelled. According to a statement posted on the Russian Foreign Ministry’s website for legal information on 13 January, the intergovernmental agreement was terminated on 12 May last year. world-nuclear-news.org
Japan’s future use of nuclear energy could be significantly impacted by decisions made this year on restarting reactors and extending the operating periods of its older units, according to the Institute of Energy Economics, Japan (IEEJ). However, it sees nuclear playing an important role in achieving energy security, economy and environmental protection. world-nuclear-news.org
Energy Fuels Inc. said Wednesday that it had received the last major government approvals to re-start mining at the Sheep Mountain Project in the Crooks Gap Mining District of central Wyoming, once a large-scale, conventional uranium mine. nuclearstreet.com
Toshiba Corp. anticipates that total losses at its nuclear business in the United States could be larger than earlier stated due to a write-down at its subsidiary Westinghouse Electric Co., a source familiar with the matter said Wednesday. japantimes.co.jp
“Nuclear graphite is any grade of graphite, usually synthetic graphite, specifically manufactured for use as a moderator or reflector within a nuclear reactor. Graphite is an important material for the construction of both historical and modern nuclear reactors, due to its extreme purity and its ability to withstand extremely high temperatures.” (Wikipedia)
The size and shape of the small carbon crystals in the graphite blocks that are used as neutron moderators in reactors are damaged by radiation during the operation of the reactors. This is referred to as “dimensional change.” The mechanical properties of the graphite are degraded by this dimensional change in the crystals. A major question in the safe operation of aging reactors is how long the graphite blocks in a reactor can continue to function as needed as they degrade. The blocks of graphite cannot be replaced or repaired once a reactor goes into operation.
“An Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor (AGR) is a specific type of nuclear reactor. These are the second generation of British gas-cooled reactors, using graphite as the neutron moderator and carbon dioxide as coolant.” (Wikipedia)
In 2012, the Nuclear Research and Consultancy Group (NRG) launched a research program called ACCENT to research graphite degradation in AGRs for EDF, the French utility. Over a period of four years, the ACCENT program performed four consecutive irradiation stages on blocks of graphite under high temperatures and high radiation loads at the Flux Reactor in Petten, the Netherlands.
Before and after each irradiation stage, the graphite blocks had their physical and structural properties analyzed by the NRG Hot Cell Laboratory. At the end of the study, the probable degradation of graphite over the life span of an AGR was revealed. Studies of graphite degradation have been performed before in other laboratories in Britain and other countries. However, all previous studies had flaws that reduced their reliability. NRG claims that their study has corrected these flaws and is highly reliable.
Following the end of the four year study just concluded, NRG is undertaking another research program for EDF that will study how graphite changes during irradiation and radiolytic oxidation. Under intense temperature and pressure, CO2 breaks down and forms CO3. This ion oxidizes the graphite and reduces its density which has an effect on the capability of the graphite to act as a neutron moderator.
Britain currently has fourteen operational AGRs. All of them are scheduled to be shut down by 2024. As they near the end of their operation lives it is very important to know that they will be safe to operate until then. The NRG studies for EDF will play a valuable role in verifying that the graphite blocks that are moderating neutrons in the British AGRs will be able to function as required during the last few years in the lives of these reactors. The NRG graphite studies will also be valuable to other countries using graphite moderators as they monitor the health of their aging reactor fleets.
Schematic diagram of an Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor type nuclear reactor:
1. Charge tubes
2. Control rods
3. Graphite moderator
4. Fuel assemblies
5. Concrete pressure vessel and radiation shielding
6. Gas circulator
7. Water
8. Water circulator
9. Heat exchanger
10. Steam