Nuclear regulators from Canada and China have signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) expressing their commitment to cooperate and exchange nuclear safety regulatory information. world-nulcear-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.
I write a lot about the Hinkley Point C project in Britain because it is the biggest and most complex planned nuclear project in the world today. It has economic, social, security, political, diplomatic and technical complications and involves three nations including one which just left the European Union. Today I am going to write about a entrepreneur who claims that he can deliver nuclear power to the United Kingdom for a third the projected cost of the Hinkley Point C project.
Ian Scott is a retired biochemist who spent twenty five years working for Unilever Plc. a big manufacturer of consumer products. Scott came out of retirement in 2013 to found Moltex Energy LLP, an energy company. He says that his new reactor design is capable of producing electricity much cheaper than the standard pressurized water reactor of type being planned for the Hinkley Point C project.
Scott says that his Stable Salt Reactor (SSR) design can be used to provide stable power to the U.K. grid while burning existing nuclear waste. He needs about thirty million dollars to get his design to first stage regulatory approval from the U.K. nuclear regulation agencies.
The SSR is based on the worked done at the U.S. Oak Ridge National Laboratory on molten salt reactors. It does not require a pressurized reactor vessel which will make it much cheaper to build than conventional power reactors. Moltex estimates that a working commercial model of the SSR can provide electricity at a cost of about forty dollars per megawatt-hour as opposed to an estimated cost of almost one hundred and seventy dollars per megawatt-hour for the electricity produced by the reactor design for the Hinkley Point C project.
A major innovation of the SSR over previous attempts to build a molten salt reactor involve the way in which the fuel is packaged. The fuel for the SSR consists of a mixture of salt, natural uranium and plutonium waste. The mixture is inserted into zirconium clad cylindrical rods which are placed in a bath of molten salt. Convection in the liquid salt bath will carry heat to the turbines. The design will use nuclear materials that have been certified for use in nuclear reactors. The SSRs will have fewer moving parts than conventional power reactors which will lower costs and make maintenance much easier.
The SSR will function at atmospheric pressure. This will eliminate the possibility of accidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima which were highly pressurized. If a fuel rod ruptured, its contents would be diluted by the molten salt bath. The resulting mess would require work to clean up but would not pose a major threat to the environment and public health.
The constituents of the SSR fuel will be taken from existing stockpiles of nuclear and industrial materials. Eventually, when the stockpiles are used up, the SSRs could be run on thorium as a fuel. Thorium is cheap and widely available. The SSR can also store excess energy produced by renewable energy sources.
While the SSR does have innovative features such as the zirconium clad fuel rods, molten salt reactors are the subject of research and development in other nations such as China. Terrestrial Energy is working on molten salt reactors in Canada. Time will tell whether the molten salt reactor is a better and cheaper choice for nuclear energy than conventional pressurized water reactor designs.
Dominion Generation operates the North Anna Generation Station (NAGS) which is located in Louisa County in eastern Virginia. NAGS is majority owned by Dominion Virginia Power Corporation and by the Old Dominion Electric Cooperative with a much smaller share. There are two Westinghouse pressurized water reactors at the station which together produce almost two gigawatts of power. The two reactors went online around 1980.
The owners of the NAGS are currently proceeding with the lengthy process of licensing and constructing a third reactor at the site. They applied to the NRC for an Early Site Permit in 2003 and received it in 2007. On the day that the ESP was issued, Dominion applied for a construction and operating permit for a 1.520 gigawatt GE-Hitachi Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR) designated as North Anna 3.
In 2008, there was public backlash against Dominion over its plans to add an additional reactor at the NAGS. Six members of the Peoples Alliance For Clean Energy were arrested for trespass at the NAGS
Unfortunately, by 2009, Dominion was unable to reach an agreement with GE-Hitachi and they put out a request for bids from other vendors. In 2010, they settled on a 1.700 gigawatt Mitsubishi Heavy Industries’ (MHI) Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor (APWR) specifically designed for the U.S. market.
In late 2010, Dominion announced that it was going to wait until the expected permit came through in 2013 before making a final decision on a vendor. When the permit did arrive in 2013, Dominion announced that it was going to go ahead and build the original ESBWR from GE-Hitachi. This required the amendment of the application and a new approval from the NRC was expected in 2015.
In 2015, the Attorney General of Virginia said that the project should be abandoned because of the high cost that would be imposed on the consumers. The estimated price of the project had swelled to almost twenty billion dollars. This would make North Anna 3 the most expensive nuclear power reactor ever constructed in the U.S. It was estimated that it would increase the electric bills of the ratepayers by as much as twenty six percent.
Dominion claims that North Anna 3 would help with mandated climate change mitigation but critics point out that alternative sustainable energy sources could accomplish the same goals at a much lower cost.
A “Petition For A Declaratory Judgement” has just been filed by the non-profit Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (VCCC) against Dominion citing concerns about the actions of Dominion and the cost of the project. The petitioners claim that Dominion has violated state law because they failed to get approval for North Anna 3 from the Virginia State Corporation Commission before spending funds on planning and preliminary construction.
Critics of the project say that North Anna 3 is unnecessary, too costly and a safety threat for the area. In 2011, there was a 5.8 magnitude earthquake near the plant. The existing two reactors were subjected to twice the seismic stress that they had been designed for. Building another reactor near an active fault is just a bad idea.
North Anna Generation Station: