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.
There have been tensions between India and Pakistan since both countries came into existence in 1949. They have gone to war three times. When India developed nuclear weapons, Pakistan quickly developed them as well. They have been engaged in simmering conflict in Kashmir for decades. A few years ago, a team from Pakistan staged a terrorist attack in Mumbai. The Indians claimed that the terrorists had connections to the Pakistani intelligence service which was denied by the Pakistanis.
More recently, there have been anti-Indian protests which turned violent on the Indian side of the Line of Control in Kashmir. Pakistan criticized the Indian actions towards the protesters which prompted an angry response from India.
A few days ago, a team from Pakistan crossed the Line of Control in Kashmir near the town of Uri and killed eighteen Indian soldiers. India accused the Pakistan military of being involved. The Pakistani government rejected not just the involvement of the Pakistani military but also said that the sophisticated Indian defense system on the line of control would have prevented anyone from Pakistan from crossing into India.
India has just responded by firing artillery over the Line of Control and killing a few Pakistani soldiers. India has been charged with violating international laws but has claimed that the shelling was part of a “surgical strike” against a terrorist camp that was planning on crossing the Line of Control. This charge has been rejected by Pakistan. Charges and counter-charges are being hurled back and forth.
India has over one hundred nuclear warheads. India has short range nuclear ballistic missiles, submarine nuclear missile launch capability and jets that can deliver nuclear bombs. India has an official policy of not being the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict.
Pakistan also has over a hundred nuclear warheads. They have medium range nuclear missiles, submarine nuclear missile launch capability and jets that can deliver nuclear bombs. Pakistan has a no-first use of nuclear weapons on foreign soil in a conflict. However, they have said that they would consider the use of nuclear weapons on invaders coming into Pakistan.
The possibility of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan is increasing. Some members of the Indian public are calling for nuclear war. A member of the ruling party in the Indian Parliament has called for a nuclear attack on Pakistan. Pakistan has reacted by saying that any nuclear attack from India would be met by nuclear retaliation from Pakistan.
Pakistan has recently announced that it was going to deploy tactical nuclear weapons to the border with India. They say that if the Indians stage an attack with ground troops and conventional weapons, the Pakistanis would retaliate with the tactical nuclear weapons. Any such conflict could easily escalate into a full blown exchange of nuclear warheads.
An Indian – Pakistan nuclear war would be a disaster for both combatants and the rest of the world. It has been estimated that the detonation of a few as one hundred nuclear warheads could bring about a nuclear winter. Billions of people could starve to death and it might well end human civilization.
Kashmir:
South Carolina has a history of being willing to take in radioactive waste from other states. The Savannah River Site stores high-level radioactive waste from other states and other countries. There have recently been protests over a plan to move waste from the Chalk River Labs in Canada down to the Savannah River Site. There is a dump in Barnwell Country, S.C. used for low-level radioactive waste generated at U.S. nuclear power plants. In 2000, the dump was closed to all states but S.C., New Jersey, and Connecticut. That facility has be criticized for allowing tritium to leak into the groundwater in the area.
Spent fuel pools at nuclear power plants nation-wide are filling up and reactors will have to be shut down if temporary storage is not created in the near future. S.C. is no exception and needs to get temporary storage for spent nuclear fuel built as soon as possible. Since the Yucca Mountain Repository project for permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel was cancelled in 2009, there will be no permanent storage option in the U.S. until 2050 at the soonest.
In July, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission received notice of a plan from the Spent Fuel Reprocessing Group (SFRG) for a new interim disposal site for high-level nuclear waste from S.C. nuclear power plants. In the proposal, the SFRG said that there is “the need to consolidate (spent nuclear fuel) for economy and security and to lessen the burden on operating nuclear power plants in South Carolina.”
The plan calls for temporarily storing the spent fuel until it can be reprocessed for use in nuclear power reactors. Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel has been controversial in the U.S. Supporters say that it can be carried out safely and effectively. Critics say that it would create yet more radioactive waste to add to the growing waste storage problem in the U.S. If the spent fuel at the new facility is not reprocessed, then it will have to eventually be moved to a permanent facility. This would increase the risk of dealing with this waste.
Licensing of such a facility can take more than three years but if it is eventually approved, it will certainly draw strong opposition. Many citizens of S.C. feel that S.C. has already taken in a lot more than their fair share of radioactive waste in the U.S. S.C. environmental groups have already said that they are preparing to oppose any attempt to make S.C. into a “atomic waste dumping ground.” In addition, Nikki Haley, the Governor of S.C., has concerns about the project. Her office issued the following statement: “South Carolina will not become a permanent dumping ground for nuclear waste regardless of where it would be housed or who would house it.”
Duke Energy operates three of the four nuclear power plants in S.C. Duke has denied any knowledge of the plan and declined to comment. As has South Carolina Electric & Gas is building two new nuclear reactors at its Fairfield County power plant in S.C. They would not respond to requests for their reaction to the SFRG plan. This is an odd situation. The new storage facility would be built to take spent nuclear fuel from S.C. nuclear power plants but the group planning the facility has apparently not discussed this facility with the companies who would need its services.
South Carolina:
Spent nuclear fuel waste is a big problem with nuclear power. In the U.S., a permanent geological repository was supposed to be ready by 1999 but the Yucca Mountain Repository project was cancelled by 2009 and the best estimate for a repository at a new location is now 2050. There are over sixty million metric tons of spent nuclear fuel in cooling pools at reactor sites and in temporary dry casks in the United States. Spent pools are rapidly filling up and something has to done with that waste soon or it will require the shut down on some reactors within a few years.
One promising permanent disposal method is to drill five miles deep holes into Precambrian basement rock. This is far below the water table and would indeed be a permanent safe storage for spent nuclear fuel. Fuel assemblies would fill the bottom two miles and the rest of hole would be filled with rock, concrete and dirt. The surface could be landscaped and there would be no risk from and no sign of the buried nuclear waste. The technology for drilling deep holes exists.
The type of basement rock needed exists under the eastern half of the U.S. where most of the existing nuclear power plants are located. The holes could be drilled at each nuclear power plant and the spent nuclear fuel inserted without the need for transportation to a national disposal facility. The cost would be spread out over time and sites without the massive investment a national repository would require.
Early this year, the U.S. Department of Energy gave Battelle Memorial Institute in Columbus, Ohio a thirty five million dollar five year grant to drill a test hole into basement rock beneath either Pierce County, North Dakota or Spink County, South Dakota. There was no plan to place any radioactive material in the test hole. It was strictly intended to learn about the geology and technical problems associated with drilling this type of hole.
Unfortunately for the DoE and Battelle, the strong opposition of the citizens of the two counties to the project was unanticipated. After failing to gain public acceptance in North Dakota, efforts to secure support in South Dakota also included greater efforts to inform the public earlier in the process. The local community feared that if the test proved successful the site would eventually be used for disposal of spent nuclear fuel. They were also afraid that problems with the drilling could pollute local aquifers that the community depends on for drinking and irrigation water. The local government rejected the test drilling. This summer the DoE and Battelle agreed to cancel the project altogether.
A request for bids for a new test drilling project was put out in August. This time, the bids had to specifically allow for public involvement from the very beginning. Permanent project staff would have to be onsite from the start of the project to interact with the public and deal with public concerns. Part of that engagement would be an effort to convince the citizenry of the importance of the project and the benefits that would be realized by the local community. A variety of sites will be considered for the test drilling.
