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.
Hanford, the gift that keeps on giving. It has been awhile since I blogged about Hanford, but there is so much in the news about the Nuclear Reservation lately that I suppose it is time to return to one of the most radioactively contaminated sites on the planet.
The U.S. Department of Energy and the Washington State government have been fighting in court for years over DoE missing deadlines for cleaning up certain parts of the Hanford complex. The DoE has failed to meet past deadlines and will certainly miss future deadlines set forth in a 2010 consent decree. A vitrification plant is being constructed at Hanford to mix radioactive waste with sand and other chemical which are then fused into glass logs for permanent disposal. The consent decree contained a deadline of 2022 for the plant to be fully operational which will not be met. The DoE has missed other deadlines with respect to emptying leaking underground tanks of waste at Hanford.
On March 12th of this year, U.S. Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson closed the 2010 consent decree lawsuit. The DoE initially proposed that a revised consent decree give them flexibility to set and change deadlines as technical issues were resolved. The judge would not accept this proposal and demanded firm deadlines. The DoE then suggested a system of deadline extensions that could be easily invoked if problems arose that could cause delays. The judge also rejected this proposal stating that the extension system being proposed would “create a vacuum in which DOE would be free to proceed at its own rate without any safeguards for Washington or enforcement by the court.”
The federal judge set a series of new Hanford deadlines for cleanup that includes a requirement that the long delayed vitrification plant has to be fully operational by 2036. This date represents a compromise between dates proposed by the DoE and Washington State. The judge also set new deadlines for removing waste from a group of leaking single walled underground tanks. The judge set stronger reporting requirements for the DoE. The judge said that “These milestones should be viewed as enforceable legal duties rather than optimal, idealistic goals.” Under the revised consent decree, the State of Washington can return to court if the DoE fails to meet the terms of the agreement. The DoE can invoke an amendment to the original consent decree if it has “good cause” to request extensions.
The judge was harshly critical of the “litigation tactics” employed by the DoE during the case. She said “ “The court is disappointed that while DOE repeatedly has claimed that budgetary restrictions and limited financial resources have hindered DOE’s ability to perform its agreed duties at Hanford, too much time and public money has been wasted in this case needlessly.”
While the vitrification plant must be able to process high-level radioactive waste by 2036, it has to successfully demonstrate its process by 2033. It will also be processing low-level radioactive waste and must demonstrate this capability by 2023. With respect to emptying eleven single walled underground tanks of waste, four must be emptied by 2020 and the rest by 2024. The DoE has been given the flexibility to choose which tanks to empty by which deadline. More double walled tanks may need to be built to take the waste from the single walled tanks. However, this may not be a solution to the problem of leaking tanks in view of the fact that there has been recent news about one of the existing double walled tanks at Hanford leaking.
I have posted a lot of things about the Hinkley Point C nuclear power project in the U.K. the low estimate for the project is around twenty seven billion dollars. The U.K. passed a law six years ago that prevents it from investing directly in the project to build two nuclear power reactors at the Hinkley Point power plant. These two reactors would be able to supply the U.K. with about seven percent of its electrical needs. New energy sources are needed because old nuclear power plants that supply twenty percent of U.K. power are going to be retired by 2030. The U.K. is going to guarantee to buy power from the new Hinkley Point reactors at twice the current price of electricity for thirty year. This has raised complaints that it amounts to a subsidy of the utility company which is prohibited by law.
The French nuclear company AREVA is majority owned by the French government. AREVA builds nuclear reactors. EDF is a French utility company that is primarily owned by the French government. It produces about twenty two percent of the electricity in the European Union. Eight four percent of the power it generates comes from fifty eight nuclear reactors in France.
EDF is a principle in the HPC project. AREVA was contracted to build the HPC reactors. AREVA is in serious financial trouble. It has lost money in the last four years and has negative equity. Two other reactor projects in Finland and China are behind schedule and over budget. EDF has agreed to buy the nuclear engineering division of AREVA to help rescue the company. Since both these companies are largely owned by the French government, it is obvious that the sale of nuclear technology in general and the HPC project in particular are important to France.
EDF approached the Chinese government to invest in HPC. China agreed to purchase thirty five percent of the HPC project on the condition that China be allowed to build a Chinese designed nuclear power reactor in Britain with Chinese workers. This caused quite a stir in British labor circles and the British security organizations.
EDF still has to raise additional funds for the project. It could not sell more stock to China because of European Union laws about investors in energy projects from outside the EU. EDF is trying to get its ownership stake in HPC under fifty percent because if it owns fifty percent or more, it will have to show all of the HPC debt on its own books and it has enough financial problems of its own without doing that.
At the beginning of 2016, debt represents seventy nine percent of EDF’s capital. Two of three agencies that rate bonds gave EDF debt a “negative outlook.” EDF also needs to raise capital of take over the AREVA nuclear engineering division. It has to finish the French nuclear power reactors under construction. And, EDF has to spend significant funds to maintain and upgrade its aging fleet of French power reactors. This is all very problematic given the current turbulence in the EU electricity market.
The French government is going to spend four and half billion dollars to purchase new EDF stock to help the company. EDF would have to sell more that sixteen billion dollars worth of new stock to lower its debt to a more manageable level but this may be difficult given the poor current returns on EDF stock.
EDF was suppose to sign the final contract for the HPC project in early May but has delayed committing. The CFO of EDF resigned recently because he said that he could not go along with committing to the HPC project because of the shaky finances of EDF. Now the French government has said that EDF will sign the final contracts next fall.
Perhaps it would be best for EDF to cancel the HPC project altogether. It has been estimated that the U.K. could save forty billion dollars in the next few decades by spending their energy money on alternative sustainable sources instead of the HPC project. Unfortunately, the HPC project has come to represent a symbol of confidence and commitment to nuclear power on the part of the U.K. and France. But it is too expensive for a symbolic gesture and cannot compete in the global power market.
