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.
Most of my posts on this blog about nuclear power reactors deal with fission reactors. Occasionally, I switch over to nuclear fusion reactors. Fusion power reactors don’t exist yet but billions and billions of dollars over decades have been spent in the quest for fusion power. If fusion power can be achieved, it should have many important advantages over nuclear fission for power generation. There are major projects like the ITER research reactor being built in France to test theories about how to achieve controlled nuclear fusion. On the other hand, there are at least half a dozen projects in the U.S. to create small fusion reactors that would be cheaper than nuclear fission reactors.
Generally, fusion reactors are designed to compress and heat an ionized gas called a plasma until lighter atoms fuse into heavier atoms and a great deal of energy is released. The plasma is trapped in a vessel and manipulated by intense magnetic fields to prevent it from touching the sides of the vessel. None the less turbulence can cause the plasma to do just that. In order to deal with this problem, plasma approaching the sides of the vessel is directed to what is called a diverter. The diverter usually a solid material like a block of carbon or tungsten that is cooled by water to dissipate the heat in the plasma that touches it. However, when the plasma hits the diverter, it causes damage. This requires frequent maintenance or replacement. The need for frequent maintenance means that the reactor cannot function reliably for long periods of time without needing attention.
In order to deal with the higher temperatures that will be present in a commercial nuclear fusion power reactor, the problem of diverter damage and maintenance must be solved. It has been proposed for decades that it might be possible to use some sort of liquid metals such as lithium, or tin to create a system to function as a diverter. With sufficient velocity of flow of the liquid metal, the heat from the incident plasma could be carried off without causing damage. The problem with this solution is that when the plasma strikes the diverter, it is converted to a neutral gas. This gas must be quickly evacuated from the reactor so that it won’t dilute the plasma. Up to this point, there has been no liquid metal diverter design that could maintain high flow rate while exhausting neutral gas.
Scientists at the National Institute for Fusion Science in Japan have now proposed a design for a shower of liquid tin that would flow down just inside sections of the vessel to function as a diverter. Tin is a good choice because it has a low vapor pressure, is cheap and safe for such use. Their design will remove neutral gas before it reaches the wall of the vessel. This new design should be able to dissipate ten times the amount of heat that is now possible to cool with solid diverters being used in research fusion reactors. The scientists believe that their approach to heat diversion will be a practical solution to the problem of disruptive plasma flow in future fusion reactors.
The chief nuclear envoys from South Korea, Japan and the United States are arranging talks in mid-December in Seoul to discuss and coordinate measures in response to North Korea’s growing nuclear threat, Yonhap News Agency reported Wednesday, quoting diplomatic and official sources. news.abs-cbn.com
The Republic of Kenya is a country on the East Coast of Africa. It covers about a quarter of a million square miles and has population of about forty five million people. The economy of Kenya is has the largest GDP in East and Central Africa and its capital, Nairobi is a commercial hub for the region.
The major portion of the over two gigawatts of electricity in Kenya is generated by dams with fossil fuel, geothermal energy and imported electricity making up the rest of the gigawatt plus capacity of the country. Drought cause electricity shortfalls and expansion of industry is limited by the uncertain electricity supply.
Currently, the cost of electricity is almost nineteen cents a kilowatt hour. This price is much higher than the cost of electricity in neighboring countries.
In 2010, Kenya expressed the intent to build a nuclear power plant to supply another gigawatt of capacity and to lower the price to five cents a kilowatt hour in the hope of attracting more foreign investment in industrial expansion. This project was estimated to cost about three and a half billion dollars for construction of a South Korean nuclear power reactor with estimated completion around 2022. However, no contract was signed with a supplier and the project did not move forward at that time.
The nuclear power project is now estimated to cost approximately five billion dollars and is slated for completion in 2027. The government is currently carrying out studies on the Kenyan electrical grid and considering different financing options. When they have decided on a particular technology and chosen a site, they will request bids for the construction of the nuclear power plant. The government is discussing both public-private partnerships and government-to-government agreements as possible ways to pay for the project. Kenya hopes to have four gigawatts of nuclear power by 2033. South Korea may also help finance nuclear projects in Kenya.
Last May, Kenya and Russia company Rosatom signed a memorandum of understanding for cooperation “in various fields of peaceful nuclear energy, namely construction of power plants, scientific and technical cooperation in the field, training of specialists, preparation of the necessary legal and regulatory framework.”
In September, Kenya Nuclear Electricity Board and China General Nuclear (CGN) signed an agreement with help finance and construct nuclear power reactors. China nuclear companies have offered assistance in supplying and handling the nuclear fuel that will be needed.
In September, the Kenyan Energy Secretary visited South Korea and signed a Memorandum of Understanding between the Kenya Nuclear Electricity Board (KNEB) and the Korea Electric Power Corp (KEPCO) collaborate on designing, constructing and operating nuclear reactors.
Thomas Countryman, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Non-proliferation has expressed reservations with respect to African nations including Kenya adopting nuclear power. He says that if they opt for nuclear power, “you are committing yourself and future generations for hundreds and thousands of years to the nuclear fuel cycle and to the cost of maintaining safe disposal of radioactive wastes. “It’s not a decision to be taken lightly by any country. I am concerned about countries pursuing nuclear power because it looks like a good deal today.”
Kenya is a stable country at the moment but some of its neighbors are very unstable such as Sudan. A nuclear reactor would be an attractive target for terrorists. In addition to causing environmental and economic disaster if blown up, a nuclear reactor could also provide radioactive materials for a dirty bomb. Perhaps it would be better for Kenya to invest billions of dollars into expanding other sources of energy.
A consortium led by Amec Foster Wheeler has been awarded a contract to examine the future decommissioning of the Iter fusion reactor, currently under construction at Cadarache in the south of France. world-nuclear-news.org
The Tennessee Valley Authority has been fined $140,000 for fire violations at a nuclear power plant near Athens, Alabama. timesdaily.com
Barack Obama came to the U.S. Presidency in 2008 with plans to work on the elimination of nuclear weapons around the world. However, the increasing nuclear belligerency of Russia and the deterioration of the U.S. nuclear arsenal motivated Obama in 2016 to propose spending a trillion dollars over ten years to upgrade and enhance the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
The U.S. nuclear arsenal is referred to as a “triad” of weapons including nuclear capable bombers, submarine launched nuclear missiles and land based intercontinental nuclear missiles.
The Boeing B-52’s that comprise most of the U.S. nuclear bomber fleet are over fifty years old. They have been well-maintained and continuously upgraded but the U.S. really needs new bombers and new air launched cruise missiles.
The second leg of the triad is the U.S. Navy Ohio-class submarines that carry long range nuclear ballistic missiles. The submarines were built decades ago and were supposed to have a lifespan of thirty years. Their lives were extended to forty two years but that time will be up in the next twelve years and they will have to be retired starting in 2029 because they cannot be repaired and maintained any longer.
The third leg of the triad is the land based nuclear Minuteman III missiles in underground silos in three bases in Montana and Wyoming. Their propellant, components and subsystems will be will be wearing out around 2030. Their computer control systems are already decades behind current computer systems.
During the presidential campaign this year, Donald Trump said “our nuclear arsenal, our ultimate deterrent, has been allowed to atrophy and is desperately in need of modernization and renewal.” He repeated this theme often in speeches and interviews.
Furious battles over the budget between the Republicans and Democrats have prevented Congress from approving a complete budget before the start of the fiscal year in October since 1997. The U.S. government has been funded since 1997 by what is referred to as “continuing resolutions.” Under continuing resolutions, government programs are funded at the level set in the previous year and no new programs can be started until a budget is passed.
President-elect Trump’s transition team has announced that it would like to see the current continuing resolution extended at least until March 31st, 2017. Considering that the current fiscal year began on October 1st of this year, that means that the continuing resolution will be observed for at least half of the current fiscal year. Analysts say that plans for modernizing the U.S. nuclear arsenal are very time sensitive and cannot be delayed significantly without the danger of aging system becoming unusable before new systems are in place.
The Air Force has awarded a contract for the development of a new nuclear capable bomber but it is virtually inevitable that there will be delays in the construction of new bombers as the old bombers have to be retired. The first replacement for the Ohio-class submarines is supposed to be launched in 2021. That is a very tight schedule that could be delayed if there are any problems in the development and construction of the new submarines. The Air Force has not picked a contractor yet to build replacements for the Minuteman missiles. If the project to develop, test and deploy hundreds of replacement missiles is not started soon, the old missiles may become unreliable before the new missiles are available.
The use of the continuing resolution means that until a new budget is passed after March, no critical additional funds will be available to begin the upgrade and modernization needed for the U.S. nuclear triad. There are now calls for Congress to suspend the normal rules for continuing resolutions so that the upgrade and modernization program can begin as soon as possible.
U.S. Nuclear Triad:
