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.
For a blogger on nuclear energy, the Hinkley Point C project in Britain is a gift that just keeps giving. There are many different groups, issues, nations, etc. that are involved in Hinkley Point C. New things keep coming to light and new things keep happening that need to be updated. Basically, the U.K. has contracted with the French company EDF to build two nuclear power reactors at Hinkley Point. EDF and the U.K. could not finance the whole project so they are cutting a deal with the Chinese for about one third ownership. This has upset some groups in the European Union and in the U.K. The U.K. is going to be shutting down most of their existing nuclear reactors and some of their old coal power plants in the next ten years. These power generation sources will have to be replaced by new power generation and Hinkley Point C is expected to play a major role in that replacement. The lower limit for the estimated cost for the two new reactors is around twenty five billion dollars. This is far beyond the suggested price of six billion dollars for economically competitive nuclear power reactors.
One big concern about the Hinkley Point C project is the fact that the U.K. government is going to guarantee the owners of the two new reactors a price for their electricity that is three times the current price being paid by U.K. ratepayers. This guarantee extends for thirty five years after the new reactors are turned on. The deal provides for subsidies up to sixty billion dollars and includes government guarantees with respect to nuclear waste disposal and accident insurance. The new reactors don’t have to start producing electricity before 2033.
Should the new reactors be shut down in the future for any reason other than safety or security, then there is a provision for payments to EDF of up to thirty billion dollars. This has been referred to as a “poison pill” provision in the contract. Supporters of the project say that guaranteed prices for electricity and provisions for waste disposal, insurance, and unexpected shutdowns of new nuclear power reactors are standard in contracts of this type. They point out that there will be twenty five thousand constructions jobs and that the new reactors are critical for replacing retired energy sources. Critics say that the poison pill virtually guarantees that there is zero risk for EDF and backers such as the Chinese. They feel that the high price for construction of the two new reactors, the price guarantee for the electricity and the generous subsidies are already overly generous to the owners of the new reactors without the poison pill.
In 2007, EDF said that the new reactors would be generating electricity by 2017. After repeated delays, they now say that the new reactors will start generating electricity in 2025. As mentioned before, the contract allows the start date to be pushed back as far as 2033. Two other reactors based on the EDF design for the Hinkley Point C reactors are way behind schedule and way behind budget. The final commitment of EDF to the project has still not been signed and the Chinese contract has also not been finalized.
Prof Catherine Mitchell, an energy policy expert at the University of Exeter said that,”This is a dreadful agreement for the nation. The government is already paying a high price, index-linked for an incredibly long 35 years. This should be more than sufficient for a professional, business contract. ” and she also said, “Energy economics are changing rapidly and so the momentum is towards decentralized, smart and flexible energy systems. It is moving away from large, inflexible power plants like Hinkley. If it ever gets funded, it will be a white elephant before it is even finished and this government, with this £22bn ‘poison pill’, will have tied the next generation into paying for it, for no reason that I can understand. If it is simply political saving face, it really is pitiful.”
Artist’s concept of Hinkley Point C reactors:
I have blogged about all the problems with nuclear power that make it a bad choice for generating electricity. There are many different problems including corruption, incompetence, bad design, lack of adequate regulations, cost overruns, environmental degradation, public health threats, flooding, sea level rise, warming oceans, terrorist and war threats, etc. Recently I listed forty reasons to reject nuclear power. Since then, I have found another five reasons. Sadly enough, even with all these serious concerns, nuclear power is still on the table and some countries, especially China, are making massive investments in reactor construction. One of the reasons for this resistance to the facts about nuclear power is that there is so much money in the construction of nuclear reactors that there is plenty for anyone involved. Greed seems to trump everything else. However, change is on the horizon, in the U.S. at least.
The Gallup polling organization has been tracking public attitudes toward nuclear power in the U.S. since 1994. Before this year, the number of people supporting use of nuclear power was always higher than the number of people opposing it. The high point in polling on public acceptance of nuclear power in the U.S. was in 2010 when sixty two percent of the people polled supported nuclear power. Just before the major nuclear disaster at Fukushima, the support was at fifty seven percent. By 2015, the support had declined to fifty one percent. Now, the most recent poll shows that only forty four percent of U.S. citizens support nuclear power. So at this point, a majority of people in the U.S. do not support nuclear power. The margin of error for the latest poll is four percent. One more major nuclear accident anywhere in the world and the support will sink even further. This is one of the considerations that politicians and investors will take into account when considering new nuclear project proposals.
Gallup believes that low energy prices for oil, gasoline and natural gas have been a major contributing factor to the decline in support for nuclear power. In addition, the decline in price for alternative sustainable energy sources has also contributed. The massive upfront investment in nuclear power cannot be justified when there are other cheaper energy sources available. With cheaper low-carbon alternative energy sources, environmental concerns are also contributing to rejection of nuclear power. Republicans are more supportive of nuclear power than Democrats but even the Republican support in the latest polls was only forty six percent.
Although several new power reactors are being built in the U.S., this drop in public support bodes ill for the future of nuclear power in the U.S. Continuing problems with leakage of radioactive materials from power plants and debates over what to do with all the spent nuclear fuel that is piling up at the nuclear power stations also contribute to a decline of support for nuclear power. In the end I think that it will be a combination of public rejection and investor skepticism that will sink nuclear power once and for all, not only in the U.S. but all over the world.
