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.
In August of 2015, President Obama and the Environmental Protection Agency announced the Clear Power Plan (CPP). They said that this new plan was intended to reduce carbon emissions from U.S. power plants by thirty two percent by 2030 in order to mitigate climate change. The EPA says that ” the plan is fair, flexible and designed to strengthen the fast-growing trend toward cleaner and lower-polluting American energy. With strong but achievable standards for power plants, and customized goals for states to cut the carbon pollution that is driving climate change, the Clean Power Plan provides national consistency, accountability and a level playing field while reflecting each state’s energy mix. It also shows the world that the United States is committed to leading global efforts to address climate change.”
When U.S. representative went to the Twenty First Conference of the Parties (COP21) on climate change in Paris last November, they held up the CPP as proof that the U.S. was very serious about addressing climate change. The CPP went into effect on December 22 of 2015. Compliance with the CPP is mandated to begin in 2022.
The CPP calls for states to reduce the carbon emissions from their power plants thru adoptions of a variety of low or no-carbon power sources. One of the controversial provisions in the CPP was to only allow states to count power from nuclear power plants for up to six percent of their quota for compliant power sources. This aroused strong opposition from the nuclear power industry and its supporters in the U.S. Congress. They complained that nuclear power was a good source of low carbon power generation and that it was critical to the effort to mitigate climate change. There were bills against the CPP passed by the House and Senate but vetoed by the President. There was also a bill proposed that would delay implementation of the CPP until all legal challenges were resolved.
In January of 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied a request to stay the federal carbon regulations. Twenty nine states and state agencies appealed to the Supreme Court to stay the regulations. On February 22, the Supreme court ruled in favor of the states and their agencies. The CPP will be put on hold until the D.C. District Court of Appeals reviews the plan and any other appeals to the Supreme Court are resolved. Thirty four Senators and one hundred seventy one House members filed an amicus brief against the CPP with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals following the Supreme Court ruling.
The CPP caused great confusion and consternation in the nuclear industry because it required them to rethink their investment in nuclear power reactors, both existing and planned. Now the stay on the CPP has caused even more confusion. The nuclear industry does not know whether or not the CPP will stand after the various lawsuits and appeals have been dealt with which could take years. In the meantime, it will be difficult for the industry to make decisions because nuclear power may or may not be allowed to play a larger role climate change mitigation. If they guess wrong, it could cost billions of dollars. On the other hand, if they hold off investments, they may miss opportunities as other forms of low carbon power generation become cheaper and attract investment.
I recently posted a list of problems with nuclear power. I thought that my list was pretty comprehensive but I keep discovering new problems so I will have to make additions to the list. I also touched on nuclear weapons as they related to nuclear power but there is a new threat caused by nuclear weapons that I have not blogged much about. Thought that I would blog today about an unexpected but understandable issue with both nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons.
There are volcanoes all over the world of varying sizes. Some are ancient and quiet, others are still active. We have historical evidence of horrendous eruptions of what are called super volcanoes like the one under Yellowstone Park in the U.S. When they erupted, they can cover continents with ash and alter weather patterns all over the world for decades. In human history, we have not had one of those eruptions but we have had major volcanic eruptions that cut down sunlight and lowered temperatures all over the world for years. In some cases, they may have led to the decline and collapse of major empires. The recent Icelandic eruptions interfered with air traffic for weeks.
Japan has a great deal of seismic activity and a lot of volcanoes, some of them active. Mount Sakurajima is an active volcano in the Kagoshima Prefecture of Japan. It used to be on an island but an eruption in 1914 generated enough lava to form a land bridge to the nearby coast. When it erupts, it drops a lot of ash on the surrounding land.
Japan turned off all of its nuclear power plants after the disaster at Fukushima in March of 2011. One of the first nuclear power reactors to be turned back on last year was the Sedai nuclear power station operated by Kyushu Electric Power. It is located on the same former island as Mount Sakurajima just thirty miles from the volcano. The volcano erupted recently, shooting ash into the sky and throwing big boulders miles from the volcano. If that volcano has a major eruption, the ash fall could interfere with operation of the reactor. Seismic events could crack the reactor containment vessel and release radioactive materials. Maybe it is not such a good idea to operator a reactor so close to a live volcano.
Mount Paektu is an active volcano on the border between North Korea and China. There was a huge eruption in 947 that sent ash all the way to Japan. The volcano erupts about every hundred years and is due for another eruption. In 2014, the government of North Korea invited English volcanologists to North Korea to study Mount Paektu and the possibility of an eruption in the near future.
North Korea has been conducting nuclear tests recently at their Punggye-ri Nuclear Test Site which is about one hundred and fifty miles from Mount Paektu. Volcanologists are concerned that the seismic shock of the nuclear tests could trigger an eruption of the volcano. Such an eruption could threaten the lives of millions of people. Unfortunately, the North Korean regime is so insular and arrogant that they will probably claim that the fears of a volcanic eruption are propaganda spread by their enemies to slow down their nuclear weapons research.
Mount Sakurajima:
Heaven’s Lake in the caldera of Mount Paektu:
I have posted about the process of vitrification in the past. Radioactive waste is mixed with sand and other chemicals and then the mixture is subjected to high temperature that melts it. After it solidifies, a glass cylinder is the result. This can be buried in a geological repository. The reason for vitrification is to prevent the possible leaching of radioactive materials out of the storage area by the flow of ground water. There are a variety of specific technologies and chemical mixture for vitrification. In addition to vitrification, there are also other approaches to embedding radioactive waste in some sort of solid material other than glass to immobilize it and prevent leaching. There is a new system which embeds the waste in synthetic rock being developed in Australia.
The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization (ANSTO) “is Australia’s national nuclear organization and the centre of Australian nuclear expertise. The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization Act 1987 prescribes its general purpose. The purpose is translated into action through corporate drivers of vision, mission and strategic goals.” One of the missions of ANSTO is “to operate nuclear science and technology based facilities, for the benefit of industry and the Australian and international research community.”
In 2012, plans were announced for a nuclear medicine plant and a pilot plant for radioactive waste disposal at the ANSTO Lucan Heights site near Sydney. These two plants are referred to as the ANSTO Nuclear Medicine project. A molybdenum-99 plant and a waste disposal plant are under construction and both should be completed by the end of 2016. The idea is for the waste treatment facility to process waste from the manufacture of the molybdenum-99. The waste will be mixed with chemicals and baked into what is being called synthetic rock or Synroc.
The first step of the Synroc process consists of mixing the radioactive waste with chemical additives that result in a thick liquid. Then the liquid is dried and a granular powder is left. The powder is heated and then put into cans. The cans are put into a device that subjects them to intense heat and pressure which fuses the powder in a solid and causes the can to contract around the cylinder of solidified waste. One of the benefits of the Synroc process is to significantly reduce the volume of radioactive waste.
ANSTO technicians are working on demonstration models of different stages of the Synroc process. As stages are successfully embodied in working hardware, additional stages will be added. Ultimately, when the entire chain of hardware has been developed that can carry out all of the stages of the process, an industrial facility will be constructed based on the completed demonstration design. The creation of the demonstration system should help to answer engineering design challenges before the actual working plant is constructed.
Australia is in the process of siting, licensing and constructing a national facility for the management of radioactive waste. Following the completion of the facility, the Synroc cans created at the Lucas Heights facility from the molybdenum-99 production will be shipped to the disposal facility.
Synroc waste can:
