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 my last post, I blogged about nuclear power in Singapore in Southeast Asia. Today I am going to talk about nuclear power in Australia. I have blogged on this subject before. Uranium is mined in Australia but Australia does not use nuclear power. The nuclear industry is currently working to change that.
About one third of the known uranium reserves on Earth are located in Australia. However, there is a long bipartisan agreement against the creation of an indigenous nuclear industry. There are environmental laws against building nuclear reactors. A separate law against the construction of reactors and uranium enrichment plants recently survived an attempt by an Australian senator to rescind it. There is also strong public concern over the problem of the disposal of nuclear waste.
The Australian Nuclear Association and the CEO of Westinghouse, the leading nuclear company in the U.S., will be meeting with government ministers and business leaders in Canberra and Sydney next week. They will push to overturn an Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act ban on nuclear development.
The ANA is hoping that the recent change of prime ministers will lead to nuclear power being considered on “its merits.” The ANA claims that nuclear power will help Australia reduce carbon emission because they have concerns that “renewables won’t get us across the line in terms of emissions reduction.” “Nuclear is more reliable and it has a smaller resources footprint than renewables.” The ANA rejects the idea that nuclear power would be prohibitively expensive and estimates that Australia could construct twenty nine reactors for about one hundred and sixty billion dollars.
The Westinghouse CEO claims that nuclear power could help produce “clean, reliable, affordable electricity for more people.” He said that Westinghouse would like to “help Australia explore ways to create jobs and economic opportunity that are also good for the environment.” He also said that Westinghouse is eager to invest in an Australian nuclear industry.
Friends of the Earth say that it is unlikely that nuclear power will ever be a viable choice in Australia. They say that not only is nuclear power too expensive but that it will just keep getting more expensive in the future. They point out that the start-up costs alone would be huge. They suggest that the hiring the necessary scientists and technicians, acquiring the land and crafting a whole new regulatory system would probably require government subsidies.
The University of New South Wales has conducted research on energy issues and concluded that it would be feasible to convert Australia to all renewable energy without any need for nuclear power. Separate research on the part of the federal government estimates that it would cost about between two hundred and three hundred billion dollars to convert Australia to all renewable energy by 2050.
Australia has some of the best wind resources in the world with regard to wind power. The Australian continent has the highest solar radiation per square meter of any continent on Earth. Australia is located on top of some of the world’s most potent geothermal energy sources. With its long deep water coastline, Australia is a prime location for the development of wave power. If any country on Earth is well-suited to convert to one hundred percent renewable energy, it is Australia. It would be best for them to reject the arguments of the ANA and Westinghouse.
Part 3 of 3 Parts (Please read Part 1 & Part 2)
I have just written a two part blog about escalating nuclear tensions between Russia and the NATO alliance. I am extending this article to three parts because of something that happened on the day after I wrote it. Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia, and members of his administration have been trying to intimidate members of NATO and other European nations with talk of “retaliation” for actions that the Russian government views as provocative. I alluded to this in the previous two sections and today I am going to cite more examples.
A report issued in November of 2014 by the European Leadership Network, a London-based think tank, detailed nearly 40 incidents (of Russian provocation) that together “add up to a highly disturbing picture of violations of national airspace, emergency scrambles, narrowly avoided midair collisions, close encounters at sea, simulated attack runs, and other dangerous actions happening on a regular basis over a very wide geographical area (in Europe).”
Back in April, the Russian ambassador to Denmark wrote an opinion piece in a Danish newspaper. He was complaining about reports that Denmark was considering installing radar on some of its naval vessels as part of the NATO European missile defense shield. The Russian ambassador said that if Denmark did install the radar systems, then those vessels would become possible targets of Russian nuclear weapons. The Danish foreign minister said that the ambassador’s comments were “unacceptable” but then went on to downplay the Russian threats.
In June, Russia carried out a massive military exercise on its northern border. The exercise was a mock invasion of northern Norway including some islands belonging to Sweden and Denmark. Control of this territory would make it difficult if not impossible for NATO to reinforce the Baltic States in the face of a Russian invasion. I have already written about Russian threats to the Baltic States in a previous section of this article.
In July, the Russian ambassador said that Russia would take “counter measures” if Sweden joined NATO. He said, “Putin has pointed out that there will be consequences, that Russia will have to resort to a response of the military kind and re-orientate our troops and missiles,” and, “The country that joins NATO needs to be aware of the risks it is exposing itself to.” The Russian ambassador was immediately summoned by the Swedish government to explain what he meant.
As I mentioned in the Part 2 of this article, this autumn the U.S. is deploying twenty of the new B61 nuclear tactical weapons to an airbase in Germany. These bombs have variable yield, are highly accurate and can be carried by stealth fighter planes. They were deploy partly in response to Putin’s threat to use tactical nuclear weapons in a potential future conflict with NATO forces.
After I posted Part 2 of this article yesterday, I read that Russia is very upset about the deployment of the B61 bombs to Germany. Upon receiving the information that the U.S. intends to send these new bomb to Germany this autumn, the Kremlin stated that “This could alter the balance of power in Europe. And without a doubt it would demand that Russia take necessary countermeasures to restore the strategic balance and parity.”
The Putin administration in Russia is obviously testing the resolve of NATO. They appear to be bent on escalating provocations with the intent of baiting NATO into taking steps that Russia can use as an excuse for seizing territory in Eastern Europe. If Russia continues on this dangerous course, sooner or later, NATO is either going to have to take action or allow Russia to annex parts of Eastern European countries. I really hope that this confrontation does not escalate into a full nuclear war between Russia and NATO.
Russian Tupolev TU-95 nuclear bomber:
US-based TerraPower has signed a memorandum of understanding with China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) to develop its travelling wave reactor (TWR). world-nuclear-news.org
China and the UK will work together to co-fund a 78 million nuclear research centre, to be headquartered in the UK. world-nuclear-news.org
Russia Plans To Sign Contracts For 30 To 40 Overseas Reactors. nucnet.org
