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.
I have made it clear in many posts that I do not think that nuclear power is appropriate for massive generation of commercial electricity. There are many reasons for my opinion that I have detailed over the past two years. That is not to say that there are not appropriate uses for nuclear materials. A large number of medical diagnostic and therapy procedures depend on radioactive isotopes. There are many industrial applications as well. However, even these uses have problems from production to disposal that can be problematic.
One use for radioactive materials that does not have disposal problems are energy sources for space probes although there is a danger of pollution if a launch vehicle with radioactive materials on board explodes on launch or crashes back to Earth. While current use of nuclear materials on spacecraft is in the form of nuclear batteries that supply electricity for equipment and ionic engines, there is a history of projects aimed at the explosion of nuclear bombs in space for propulsion and research.
The early history of nuclear devices and space began at the dawn of the Atomic Age in the 1950s. In 1957, there was a series of nuclear tests called Operation Plumbbob at the U.S. Nevada nuclear test site. There were twenty nine explosions that were used for a series of experiments on the effects of nuclear explosions on materials, humans, structures and equipment. During an underground test known as Pascal-B, in August of 1957, a four inch thick steel cap weighing hundreds of pounds was blown off and may have been launched into solar orbit. Although unintended, nonetheless, this may have been a successful launch of a payload from the surface of the Earth via nuclear explosion.
Project A119 was a plan developed in 1958 to send a nuclear bomb to the Moon and detonated it on the surface. Apart from the scientific knowledge that might have been gained, there was also the idea that a nuclear detonation on the Moon that would be visible from the Earth would be a warning to the enemies of the United States. The project as never carried out and its existence was only revealed in 2000.
The idea of using nuclear bombs for propulsion of interplanetary spacecraft was first proposed by Stanislaw Ulam, a mathematician working on nuclear weapons development in Los Alamos, New Mexico in 1947. A formal project development was undertaken in 1958 under the name of Project Orion. First proposals for launching a spacecraft with nuclear bombs were scrapped because of the fallout that would result. Later proposals were to launch with conventional rockets or to assemble in space. Nuclear propulsion would only be used in space. The project was cancelled following the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963. However, the development of designs for using nuclear explosions to propel spacecraft have continued to be developed with more recent systems using explosive pellets instead of large nuclear bombs. Both fission and fusion systems have been considered.
Project Orion Concept Art:
The single-unit Grafenrheinfeld nuclear power plant in Germany was disconnected from the grid on 27 June after 33 years of operation. world-nuclear-news.org
The Canadian National Energy Alliance (CNEA) consortium has been named as the Canadian government’s preferred bidder to manage and operate nuclear science and technology organization Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL). world-nuclear-news.org
The Government is preparing to hand over the building of new nuclear power stations to Chinese firms, in a “total betrayal” of UK workers, a union has claimed. expressandstart.com
NASA Experts say Southeast US hit by “anomalously high” levels of polonium from Fukushima. enenews.com
Germany’s nuclear power phase out begins its final phase with the closing of the 1.3 GW Grafenrheinfeld nuclear power plant this Saturday. The plant is the first of the final nine plants scheduled for decommissioning, which represent the nine newest plants in the country, according to German media. nuclearstreet.com
Canada to delay decision on nuclear waste facility on Great Lakes. enformable.com
I recently posted a blog article about how the Russians were working on floating nuclear reactors on a barge. They are going to use them in ports, remote areas near a coast and in the Arctic to supply power to oil drilling rigs. I was skeptical about the wisdom of putting reactors out to sea but it turns out that not only the Russians are working on the idea. Nuclear engineers at MIT in the U.S. are going beyond the Russians in suggesting that a floating nuclear reactor be combined with an oil drilling rig.
The MIT research team points out that although nuclear plants are attractive because they reduce carbon emissions, the process of licensing and constructing a nuclear power reactor is long and often runs overtime and budget. Siting a plant is difficult because there must be a body of water nearby to cool the reactor and there is often local opposition to any particular location being considered. Since Fukushima, public support for nuclear power has declined and investors eager to fund new reactors are harder to find. Building floating nuclear power reactors and anchoring them offshore can solve these problems because siting ceases to be a contentious issue, there is plenty of sea water for cooling and the danger to people and the environment on land is reduced.
The MIT concept calls for an Offshore Floating Nuclear Plant that would be about forty five feet in diameter, mounted on an deep sea oil drilling platform. It would be able to generate about 300 megawatts. A one gigawatt OFNP would be about seventy five feet in diameter. Both models would include a helipad and living quarter for the crew. The reactor is in a pressure vessel low in the structure for stability. There is an empty chamber around the pressure vessel called the “containment” and then a hull around the containment separated by a gap. Beyond the hull is an area that is open to the seawater
The technology for oil rigs is well developed and a thriving industry to build them exists. There is also well developed technology and existing industry for seagoing nuclear reactors which power many naval vessels. The MIT design is thus combining two mature technologies with existing supply chains and construction expertise. The OFNPs would be constructed in existing shipyards so it would not be necessary to transport personnel, equipment and materials to a new site to construct each new reactor. The OFNPs are constructed mainly of steel so there is no need to pour huge amounts of concrete which emit significant quantities of carbon dioxide when nuclear power reactors and containment vessels are constructed on land.
Following construction, the OFNP will be towed out to sea about ten miles. This is far enough away from coastlines to pose no threat to civilian populations. The water will be at least one hundred meters deep which will protect the OFNP from tsunamis and earthquakes. If there is an accident, seawater can be used to cool the reactor hull without contaminating the seawater. This is a passive system with no pumps. The design even prevents “thermal” pollution that might threaten the ocean ecosystem. There is sufficient spent fuel storage space onboard to take all the spent fuel created during the operational lifetime of the OFNP. When a OFNP is decommissioned, it would be towed back to shipyards that already do such decommissioning work today.
While the MIT design is an interesting concept, there may still be problems with hurricanes. There will be danger to coastal areas when the OFNP is constructed but has not yet been towed out to sea or when it is towed in for service or decommission. And, the spent nuclear fuel will still have to be dealt with which is currently an unsolved problem. I think that offshore wind farms or floating solar power arrays would be a much better choice.
Artist’s concept of MIT Offshore Floating Nuclear Plant:
