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.
The Hinkley Point C project in the U.K. is like a Mexican soap opera or a train wreck in slow motion. The French utility EDF was selected by the U.K. to construct two new power reactors at the Hinkley Point power plant on the coast of Britain. The reactors are to based on the new European Pressurized Reactor design. The Chinese nuclear company, China General Nuclear Power (CGNP) has agreed to pick up about a third of the cost if they are allowed to build a Chinese designed reactor with Chinese workers at another location in Britain.
The project has been in the works for over a decade. Politics, economics and technical issues have conspired to delay the project time and again. Just when EDF was finally ready to sign the contract, the Brexit happened and the new government of Theresa May decided to reconsider the deal and declined to sign the contract.
One big point of contention in the U.K. over the project is the fact that the intelligence agencies of the U.K. are worried about giving a potential enemy access to the nuclear infrastructure for the U.K.
Now comes the news that CGNP has been charged by the U.S. justice department with nuclear espionage. Assistant US attorney general John P Carlin said: “Allen Ho, at the direction of a Chinese state-owned nuclear power company (CGNP) allegedly approached and enlisted US-based nuclear experts to provide integral assistance in developing and producing special nuclear material in China.
“Ho did so without registering with the Department of Justice as an agent of a foreign nation or authorization from the US Department of Energy”, Carlin continued. “Prosecuting those who seek to evade US law by attaining sensitive nuclear technology for foreign nations is a top priority for the National Security Division.”
“The federal government has regulations in place to oversee civil nuclear cooperation”, said Michael Steinbach, executive assistant director of the FBI’s national security branch. “If those authorities are circumvented, this can result in significant damage to our national security. “The US will use all of its law enforcement tools to stop those who try to steal US nuclear technology and expertise.”
This sort of unscrupulous and illegal behavior is just the sort of thing that the intelligence agencies of the U.K. are worried about if the Hinkley Point C project goes forward.
China was counting on the approval of the Hinkley Point C project to allow them to build a demonstration model of a Chinese reactor which they could use to help them sell their nuclear technology abroad. The refusal of the May government to sign the contract has prompted a harsh reaction on the part of the Chinese government. The U.K. is the largest trading partner that China has in the European Union. Some of the Chinese comments seem to suggest that trade and the special relationship between the U.K. and China may suffer if the U.K. does not sign the contract and go ahead with the Hinkley Point C project.
A new analysis indicates that the cost of wind and solar power will be substantially lower by 2025 than the cost of electricity generated by the Hinkley Point C reactor when they are supposed to be completed in 2025. The big question is how many more negative factors will have to pile up before the U.K. cuts its losses and permanently cancels the Hinkley Point C project.
Artist’s concept of Hinkley Point C:
China has one of the most ambitious nuclear power programs in the world. They currently have twenty two reactors in operation which are only supplying about two percent of their electricity. They have at least twenty seven nuclear power reactors under construction with sixteen more approved for construction. They hope to increase the percentage of electricity generation to at least seven percent. But despite major investment and support of the Chinese government, there are some serious problems that will have to be overcome before their bright nuclear future dreams come true.
There is no comprehensive set of laws covering the nuclear power industry in China. This can become a serious problem if there are incidences of corruption and/or incompetence on nuclear power projects that lead to major accidents.
It is now estimated that at least thirty thousand new nuclear technicians will be required by 2025 in order to managed all the new reactors coming online. This would mean that at least three thousand new technicians will have to be graduated each year in China to meet the demand. Meanwhile, back in the real world, China is producing about three hundred nuclear technicians per year. They will have to increase their training program by ten times to produce enough technicians.
Current projects have problems with cost overruns, scheduling delays, technical issues, incompetence, corruption, quality control, etc. It is reasonable to assume that these problems will continue to plague the reactors that are under construction and those that have been approved for construction.
Nuclear reactors require enormous amounts of water to cool the reactors. Twenty six reactor projects that were planned for construction in inland provinces had to be cancelled because of a lack of water for cooling. Locating new reactors on the coast of China where there is major industrial activity makes sense from an economic point of view but those reactors will be vulnerable to typhoons and tsunamis.
All those reactors will need fuel. Currently, domestic uranium deposits provide less than a quarter of the fuel needs of China’s operating reactors. China is planning on producing a third of its fuel needs of their planned fleet of sixty five nuclear power reactors internally. That will require them to ramp up internal mining and refining by four times to supply the reactors operating, under construction and approved. This will potentially heavily impact the environment, especially considering the lax regulation of pollution in China. They expect to get a third of their fuel for their planned fleet through equity in foreign mines and joint ventures with foreign companies. The problem with these arrangements is that politics can intervene to hamper or even shut down such supplies. And finally, a third of their future fuel will be purchased on the open market. The price of uranium has been depressed on the world market, but as the demand rises the price will rise making the cost of electricity generated by nuclear power plants more expensive for China.
Part of China’s plan for domestic production of fuel relies on the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel to extract plutonium to be used to make new fuel. The citizens of China are not particularly excited by the location of such nuclear facilities in their towns and cities. A planned nuclear fuel reprocessing plant project is generating mass protests in a Chinese city. At first, the national government cracked down and threatened retaliation against protestors. More recently, the government has retreated and is trying to placate the protestors. A previous attempt to site a fuel reprocessing plant had to be cancelled because of public rejection.
All in all, it seems to me that China is going to be devoting a lot of money, time and effort to get five more percent of their electricity from nuclear power. Their ambitions may exceed their ability to deliver on all their great nuclear plans. I think that money, time and effort would be much better spent developing sustainable alternative energy such as wind, water, solar and geothermal sources.
Part Two of Two Parts (Please read Part One first)
During 2015, the Bipartisan Policy Center consulted nuclear experts and issued a report that called for restarting the Yucca Mountain Geological Repository project. The report listed fourteen steps that would have to be taken in order to restart the repository project and move forward with the NRC licensing process. The report pointed out that Yucca Mountain was the only legally sanctioned plan for a repository and that billions of dollars had already been invested in studying Yucca Mountain. Taking any other approach would take decades and require the expenditure of billions of more dollars. On the other hand, billions of dollars might be wasted as the state of Nevada is staunchly opposed to the Yucca Mountain repository and would fight it in court every step of the way.
An Environmental Impact Statement supplement for the Yucca Mountain Repository was issued in May of 2016. This report said that the Repository would not endanger the environmental around Yucca Mountain. In order for the licensing of Yucca Mountain to be finalized for such a repository, an adjudicatory hearing must be held. Such a hearing remains suspended.
The U.S. is committed to creating a geological repository at a site other than Yucca Mountain for spent nuclear fuel but the best estimate places the completion of any such repository at 2050. The DoE has been working on finding a location that is suitable from a geological perspective and also acceptable to the local population of the area. This is referred to as consent based siting. Some communities has expressed interest.
In the past few years, there has been research that has indicated that some of the assumptions that have be standard in evaluating the migration of ground water in and around salt formation may have not taken some factors into account. Some studies have shown that ground water at lower depths may move through salt deposits more quickly than previously thought because of the alteration of the crystal matrix by the pressure. Other studies have suggested that more ground water may migrate through shallow salt deposits that older studies indicated. If ground water penetrated a nuclear waste repository, there is a possibility that nuclear materials could be leached out, moved and concentrated to the point where a critical reaction could occur. Such an event could result in geysers of superheated radioactive steam reaching the surface and threatening the ecosystem.
It does not appear that we really know enough about geology and nuclear waste repositories to be confident that estimations of safe storage of spent fuel and other high-level radioactive waste for a millions years are correct. Considering all the legal, technical, economic, and political issues that surround the safe permanent disposal of the spent nuclear fuel from U.S. nuclear reactors, perhaps the best solution is to transition away from nuclear power as quickly as possible to sustainable alternative energy like wind, solar, water and geothermal sources.
With respect to the existing waste, drilling deep holes in bedrock and dropping the spent fuel assemblies down the holes seems like the best alternative.
Yucca Mountain cutaway diagram:
