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.
One big concern I have with respect to nuclear power is the question of lifespan. Usually, nuclear reactors are licensed for a forty year lifespan. With many existing reactors having been built in the 1970s, their original projected life spans have ended or are ending soon. Nuclear power plants are such a huge investment and generate so much electricity that there is a serious reluctance on the part of energy consumers and power plant owners to retire them when the original license period runs out. These days there is also the problem of climate change and the need for low carbon energy sources such as nuclear power. This results in a push to relicense power reactors for an additional twenty years which has been done frequently. Aside from questions of commercial viability which may result in a request for subsidies from governments, the wisdom of widespread relicensing has been challenged.
Nuclear reactor pressure vessels deteriorate over a forty year lifespan as constant neutron bombardment dislodges atoms for the crystalline matrix of the steel alloy and tiny cracks form which weakens the vessel. Critics of relicensing say that this fact overshadows all other considerations and all old reactors should be shut down and decommissioned after forty years of operation.
Following the Fukushima nuclear disaster in March of 2011, there was a worldwide movement to learn important lessons from the disaster and to apply those lessons to making all existing nuclear power reactors more safe to operate. Many new regulations were passed by various governments and nuclear power reactors were carefully inspected to see what improvements would be necessary to meet the new requirements. In some cases, such as the Ikata nuclear power station in Japan, it was decided that the cost of the required changes to the reactor would be prohibitive and that it made more sense to shut down the reactor permanently.
Another major concern about keeping old power reactors operating for extended life spans has to do with knowledge and expertise. Although there are major designs that are shared among groups of nuclear power reactors, every power reactor is customized to some degree. The longer a particular nuclear power plant has been in operation, the more difficult it is to find engineers who are familiar with the specific details of design and operation of that particular plant. In addition, the older a power plant and the design of its reactors, the more difficult and expensive it is to upgrade that plant to modern standards.
One of the difficulties with decommissioning old nuclear power plants has to do with the cost. In addition, there is the problem of disposing of the spent fuel and current fuel at the plant as well as all of the contaminated materials and equipment. Shutting down and decommissioning nuclear power plants will have a serious impact on electricity supply and regional economics in the area around the plant but in view of the safety problems associated with old nuclear power reactors, decommissioning is a critical necessity and it must be dealt with. Extending the lifespan of an old reactor increases the possibility of serious accidents and just postpones the economic reckoning. With economic difficulties mounting in many parts of the world, if decommissioning is delayed, there may not be sufficient funds to accomplish it and the reactors may be shut down and fenced off. This can result in serious problems about safety and security as time passes.
The security of Belgium’s nuclear power reactors has been in the news lately. Terrorists connected to the recent attack in Paris recorded surveillance tapes of a nuclear research official. A security guard for a nuclear power plant was shot a few days ago and his keycard was stolen. There is fear that terrorists are trying to obtain nuclear materials for a dirty bomb or may be planning on sabotaging a nuclear power plant. Belgium apparently has an extensive terrorist network and authorities have been criticized for not doing a better job of breaking it up. There have been problems with nuclear plant security in the past in Belgium.
In 2012, two men who worked at the Doel nuclear power plant in Belgium went to Syria to join ISIS. One was killed and another returned to Belgium. He was arrested and spent some time in jail. Knowledge of Belgium nuclear power plants that both of these men had is troubling to say the least. Such knowledge would be useful to terrorists attacking a nuclear power plant.
In 2013, two people climbed the fence around the Belgian Nuclear Research Center in the city of Mol. They broke into a laboratory and stole equipment.
In 2014, an unknown individual entered Reactor Number 4 at the Doel nuclear power plant and opened a valve which resulted in loss of seventeen thousand gallons of the oil that lubricates the turbines. The damage resulting from this sabotage was so serious that the reactor was shut down for five months. The person responsible was never identified and their motivation is unknown. What is known is that they easily penetrated the plant’s security system. And, it illustrated how easy it can be for someone with the right knowledge to wreck havoc in a nuclear power plant.
Another growing concern is the possibility of terrorists cyberattacks against infrastructure such as nuclear power plants. This year, the computers at the Federal Agency for Nuclear Control in Belgium were hacked and had to be shut down briefly.
There is also concern about the security of the highly-enriched uranium that the U.S. provides to Belgium for use in research reactors. These reactor primarily produce radioactive isotopes for medical use. The highly-enriched uranium, the medical isotopes or the radioactive byproducts of their production could all be used to make dirty bombs if stolen by terrorists.
Security analysts say that although terrorists could breach and damage Belgian nuclear power plants, they would not be able to cause a meltdown. Their powerful explosives could breach the containment vessel and damage the reactor but that would cause the reactor to shut down and there would be minimal danger to the public. Critics of such statements point out that with the right expertise, a well trained team and powerful explosives, terrorists might be able to cause a reactor meltdown.
Hopefully, the security at Belgium’s nuclear facilities will be strengthened and the Belgian authorities will have more success in apprehending members of the terrorist network.
Logo of the Federal Agency for Nuclear Control in Belgium:
