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 Columbia Generation Station (CGS) is a nuclear power reactor near Richland, Washington. The CGS was built by the Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) which was renamed Energy Northwest in 2000. Construction began in 1975. Because of cost overrun and construction delays, it did not begin producing power for Washington until late 1984. It is licensed to operate until 2043.
Of the five power reactors originally planned by WPPSS, the CGS was the only one that was ever completed. The CGS produces almost twelve hundred megawatts of electricity which represents about ten percent of the electricity consumed in the state. The city of Seattle, Washington current gets about four percent of its electricity from the CGS.
Opponents of nuclear power have pushed to have Seattle stop buying any electricity at all from the CGS. They say that the CGS is not being safely operated and is vulnerable to earthquakes. On May 24, the Energy & Environmental Committee of the Seattle City Council voted in favor of a resolution of non-support for CGS brought forward by Kshama Sawant, a Socialist recently elected to the City Council.
Summary of the resolution: “This is a resolution stating the City of Seattle’s support for clean and safe electricity production and opposition to the use of fossil fuels and new nuclear energy in the generation of electricity, and requiring an ongoing evaluation of existing nuclear power generation on the basis of health, safety, reliability, and cost; and instructing that the City of Seattle’s City Light Department reflect this position in its policies and interactions with other utilities, federal and state agencies, and organizations of which it is a member or participant.”
Following the committee vote, Sawant said ” On May 24, 2016, the Energy & Environment Committee unanimously voted in favor of the resolution I brought forward, drafted by environmental activists from Physicians for Social Responsibility, Heart of America Northwest, and others from the anti-nuclear movement. It calls on Seattle City Light to oppose the Columbia Generating Station, the sole nuclear power plant in the Pacific Northwest, and to support replacing it with green energy.”
“The resolution itself is quite mild. It has compromise language to get the support of City Light’s leadership and the Mayor’s Office. It does not, itself, shut down the Columbia Generating Station. It is a tool that activists are confident they can use to put pressure on all those who decide the fate of the Columbia Generating Station, including representatives from City Light.”
On May 31, the full Seattle City Council voted in favor of the Sawant resolution.
Following the City Council action, a representative of the CGS said ” “Yesterday’s resolution doesn’t amount to much; it’s kind of irrelevant for those genuinely concerned about our state’s energy future. The council vote was unfortunate. We don’t believe Seattle is anti-nuclear or anti-clean energy per se. They just got a lot of really bad info yesterday that went unchallenged, and, unfortunately, they acted on it.”
The VIII International Forum ATOMEXPO 2016 was held on May 30th – June 1st of 2016 in Moscow, Russia. ATOMEXPO is the “largest exhibition venue for meetings and negotiations between world leaders of the nuclear power sector.” “The goal of the Forum is to promote international cooperation between the Russian Federation and the countries of Latin America, Pacific Asia, Africa, Central and Eastern Europe in the field of nuclear power, and to discuss Russia’s proposal on developing national energy programs.”
Rosatom, the government owned nuclear company said that at ATOMEXPO, thirty documents were signed between clients and Rosatom dealing with nuclear fuel, project finance, human resources and international cooperation for the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Bolivia, Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria, Tanzania and Zambia all signed agreement with Rosatom at the expo. Ultimately, the deals signed at the expo may be worth as much as ten billion dollars.
Zambia signed agreements with Rosatom that deal with the establishment of a nuclear technology training center and training of Zambian nuclear technicians in Russia. The Zambia agreement also covers opportunities for the construction of nuclear power facilities in Zambia.
Rosatom and Kenya signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) that covers developing nuclear infrastructure, nuclear research, design and construction of power and research reactors, production and use of radioisotopes, management of radioactive waste, and education of specialists in nuclear technology.
The Rusatom International Network (a subsidiary of Rosatom) and the National Nuclear Center of the Republic of Kazakhstan signed a MoU to cooperate on the exchange of information about experience in the peaceful use of nuclear power, including development of human resources and joint education program, research and development, and environmental programs.
Rusatom Services (a subsidiary of Rosatom) signed a MoU with the Czech Republic company Skoda JS dealing with services relating to the modernization and extension of operational lifetimes of the aging Czech reactor fleet. The agreement also covers cooperation in the completion of two power reactors at the Mochovce nuclear power plant in Slovakia. The two companies will be collaborating on supplying services for maintenance, repair, operation support and supply of equipment and spare parts for nuclear power plants around the world.
The Regional Network for Education in Nuclear Technology (STAR-NET) is a collaboration between educational institutions and nuclear industry training centers in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia and Ukraine to facilitate education, professional training and promote knowledge transfer in the nuclear sector. STAR-NET signed documents on cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency at the expo.
Rosatom’s nuclear fuel manufacturer TVEL signed a “roadmap” for cooperation on the nuclear fuel cycle with Indonesia’s National Atomic Energy Agency. TVEL may supply nuclear fuel to a research reactor in Indonesia.
Rosatom and the French energy company Engie signed a MoU on cooperation to maintain and upgrade nuclear power plants that are based on Russian and non-Russia designs.
The Rusatom International Network signed a MoU with Assystem, a French engineering group, dealing with nuclear engineering and certification in Europe, the Middle East, North Africa and other countries. The agreement also covered a mutual interest in participating in the construction of new reactors in third countries, the decommissioning of old reactors and the management of nuclear waste.
Apple has been working on setting up a new billion dollar data center at Derrydonnell, Ireland to serve northwestern Europe. Now there is a controversy over the proximity of the proposed data center to nuclear power reactors. Apple documents state that Apple wanted any Irish data center to be at least two hundred miles away from any nuclear facility. Opponents of the planned location on the west coast of Ireland point out that the site is less than the two hundred miles away from nuclear facilites as called for in the Apple internal documents.
The critics of the planned site say that Apple does not require a two hundred mile exclusion zone for data center in the U.S. They also point out that no other international corporations have adopted such an exclusion zone. They claim that Apple chose the two hundred mile exclusion zone in order to eliminate other suitable sites in Ireland. Both Google and Microsoft have data centers in Dublin, Ireland which is definitely inside the Apply declared two hundred mile exclusion zone.
Oscar Gonzales, in charge of Apple site selection, responded to the critics complaints. He said that older data centers sites in the U.S. were selected before the nuclear disaster at Fukushima in 2011 highlighted the need for better protection of critical infrastructure such as data centers from nuclear accidents. He also said that Apple cannot speak for the site selection criteria that other corporations might use for data centers. However, he also said that there are multiple selection criteria and that if other criteria conflict with the two hundred mile exclusion zone rule, then it might not be applied rigorously.
Gonzales said that the proposed data center site is about one hundred and ninety miles from the Wylfa nuclear facility is Wales which has been shut down. It is about two hundred and fifty miles from the operating uranium reprocessing plant at Sellafield in England. The Business Insider made its own measurement of the distances. The BI says that the Derrydonnell site is about one hundred and seventy five miles from the Wylfa site and about two hundred and thirty miles from the Sellafield plant.
Critics of the Apply site also say that that site has not been designated for use as a data center site as opposed to other sites in Ireland that Apple has rejected. Some critics are also concerned about the possible impact of the proposed data center on bats and badgers in the area. Apple would probably say that some of it opponents are looking for any excuse to prevent the construction of their new data center at Derrydonnell.
An engineer who consults for the Business Insider on energy requirements for major data centers claims that Apple is very selective in how and when it applies it supposed criterion for site selection. He claims that none of Apple’s existing sites meet all of their announced criterion. Apple responded that criterion for data center site selection have changed over time and that sometimes compromises must be made with respect to site selection.
