Exelon expects to achieve “clarity” before the end of the year over the future of its nuclear plants in the states of New York and Illinois, president and CEO Chris Crane said yesterday. world-nuclear-news.org
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 One of Two Parts
I have blogged before about China’s nuclear ambitions. They have expressed the intent to build dozens of new reactors in the coming decades. I was at a pro-nuclear presentation last night and one of the presenters said that he heard a rumor that the Chinese wanted to build a thousand new reactors. There is horrible air pollution in China from coal fired power plants and the Chinese are desperate to stop burning coal. They are looking to nuclear technology not only for internal energy needs but also as a major export product for their country. While the government is very supportive of nuclear technology, the Chinese public is not so enthusiastic.
Now it is being reported that China has only started one new nuclear power plant this year. This suggests that their goal of building fifty eight gigawatts of new nuclear power capacity by 2020 might be too ambitious. China currently has about thirty gigawatts of nuclear capacity and another twenty under construction. Considering that it takes up to five years to build a nuclear power plant, at the moment it looks like they will fall at least seven gigawatts short of their 2020 goal.
All of the power plants which started construction between 2008 and 2010 are now online except for six reactors that are being imported from foreign sources. Westinghouse, a subsidiary of Japan’s Toshiba, is providing four AP1000 reactors. France’s Areva is supplying two European Pressurized Reactors. These six plants are expected to be completed in 2017 which is at least three years behind schedule.
The two Areva EPRs have been delayed by a series of issues involving quality control and project planning. EPR plants which are being built in Finland and France are nine and six years behind schedule. It appears the complexity of the EPR design is making it difficult to construct these new reactors in the time being allocated for that task.
The four AP1000 reactors are being constructed by the China State Nuclear Power Technology Company (SNPTC). This company has never constructed a nuclear reactor before. The projects are running behind schedule partly due to continuing design changes being issued by Westinghouse. They have had serious problems with reactor coolant pumps and the squib valves.
Currently, it appears that China will be the first country to actually complete the construction of the new AP1000 and EPR reactor designs. China will have to create and test new procedures for bringing the plants online and monitoring their operation. The vendors will be involved in the creation of procedures but Chinese regulators will have to approve them. As of 2014 there had been little progress in developing such procedures for the AP1000s and the EPRs.
China will be reluctant to purchase more AP1000s until at least one of the AP1000s under construction is finished and successfully put into service. China has no plans to buy any more EPR reactors. Chinese nuclear technology companies are working on their own gigawatt reactor designs called the ACP1000 and the ACPR1000 which are based on an older reactor design from Areva.
Please read Part Two.
The threat of North Korean nuclear weapons has been in the news a lot. I have blogged about North Korea before. They have a few nuclear warheads and are working on building more. They are busy working on missiles to carry their nuclear warheads. There have been numerous threats by the N.K. regime to use nuclear weapons against South Korea, the U.S. and other neighboring countries. The international community has attempted different measure to deal with N.K. including trade sanctions and multinational negotiations none of which have stopped the N.K. nuclear program. There are contingency plans for U.S. marines to carry out a surgical strike on the N.K. nuclear facilities if the current situations deteriorates. However, an analyst believes that such an action could start a war with China.
China is N.K.’s only ally. China have been N.K.’s principle trading partner since the Korean War and has repeatedly come to the aid of N.K. in difficult times. They have had a military defense treaty since 1961 which would obligate China to respond if N.K. was attacked. China is playing a dangerous game of tightrope in its continued support of N.K. and its desire to have beneficial relations with other countries in the area. Other nations have tried to pressure China to force N.K. to moderate its rhetoric and actions with limited success.
” 38 North is a Web site, blog, and think tank about North Korea; it is a program of the U.S.-Korea Institute at Johns Hopkins University’s Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies and is authored by certain faculty members and by guest commentators.” (Wikipedia)
John Drury, a China expert, recently wrote a report on the N.K. situation for the 38 North. He said “If the United States launches a pre-emptive strike not to prevent a specific, imminent missile attack, but rather to prevent North Korea from perfecting an intercontinental nuclear strike capability, it is unlikely to meet Beijing’s standard for jus ad bellum (right to war). On the contrary, a strike of this nature could likely drive Beijing to side with the North in accordance with their 1961 treaty. ‘Surgery’ would rapidly descend into a bloodbath. ‘Pre-emption’ would start a war.”
He went on to say that N.K. recently touted the 1961 defense treaty with China and claimed that it was on “firm legal ground.” China apparently believes that sanctions and threats of military action will not affect the N.K. regime and that diplomatic measures are the best (and perhaps the only) way to get N.K. to abandon the development of its nuclear arsenal and warhead delivery systems. China is betting that helping N.K. economic development and working to integrate N.K. into the association of neighboring countries will moderate N.K.s militaristic impulses and actions.
Drury believes that “If the next US president adopts an engagement strategy, Xi Jinping’s government would likely step up its own work to achieve short-term breakthroughs and long-term solutions. Paradoxically, Washington’s best chance of getting China to apply constructive pressure on its errant neighbor is through a major U.S. initiative to negotiate with Kim Jong-un.”
North Korea: