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 mentioned in several blogs that Russia is working on the development of a major nuclear technology export business. Rosatom, the Russian nuclear utility owned by the Russian government says that it has twenty nine nuclear reactors in “various stages of planning and construction,” in over a dozen countries including Jordan, Hungary, Egypt, Iran, Finland, Turkey and Argentina.
There are some open questions about how realistic these Russian ambitions are. The Russian government support for Russia’s Rosatom is reportedly being reduced. There are also reductions in loans to foreign governments for the purchase of nuclear reactors. There have been challenges to Rosatom’s announcements of all the Russian nuclear deals with foreign governments with some critics saying that many of the supposed “deals” are only letters of agreement to cooperate on peaceful uses for nuclear energy and not real contracts for reactor construction. Now it appears that Russia is considering partnering with India to sell reactors to other countries.
Late last year, during the Russian President’s visit to India, a series of documents were signed as part of a “strategic vision for strengthening Indian-Russian cooperation in the peaceful use of nuclear power”. Recently, during a visit to Russia by the Indian Prime Minister to the city of Ufa, delegates from India and Russia to discuss more detailed plans for nuclear cooperation between Russia and India.
Russia is proposing to increase the number of nuclear reactors it will construct in India from twelve to twenty. Russia in inviting India to be involved in the construction of Russian nuclear power plants in other countries. The new nuclear cooperation talks also include working on the “joint extraction of natural uranium and the production of nuclear fuel and atomic waste elimination.” The delegates are negotiating on an advanced contract for the design of two additional reactors for the Kudankulam site in Tamil Nadu.
The two new reactors are estimated to cost about twice the previous cost estimates for two Russian reactors already constructed at Kudankulam. The price of the new reactor project is being pegged to the Russian ruble which has been depreciated recently against other currencies as a result of the international rejection of Russian actions in Ukraine.
The biggest problem for the Kudankulam reactor deal has to do with questions regarding the Indian domestic nuclear liability law. Following the horrible industrial accident at Bhopol in Bangladesh in late 1984, India passed some of the world’s most stringent liability laws for such accidents. The Indian law allows manufacturers of equipment involved in industrial accidents to be sued for damages. This law has been a major impediment in sale of nuclear technology to India.
Recently Russia was secretly negotiating with South Africa for the purchase of nuclear reactors. The Russians were pressing for a clause that said the Russian companies that manufactured reactors would not be held liable if there was a nuclear accident. When these negotiations became public, there was a scandal in South Africa. It will be interesting to see how the Russians deal with the Indian law. Perhaps these new intergovernmental agreements being negotiated are an attempt to circumvent liability.
Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant:
Plutonium levels 10,000,000 times normal in water below Fukushima reactors. enenews.com
Russian nuclear power giant Rosatom said Friday in its annual corporate report that it was in discussions to build 30 nuclear reactors in other countries. nuclearstreet.com
Internal TEPCO document reveals executives knew beefing up tsunami defenses was “indispensable.” enformable.com
Big loser in any nuclear deal with Iran may be Russia. blogs.reuters.com
I blogged recently (Ukraine Cancelling Contract With Russia for Completion of Two Nuclear Power Reactors ) about Ukraine cancelling contracts with Russia for completion of nuclear reactors three and four at the Khmelnitsky nuclear power plant. The proposal for parliament to officially cancel the contracts came on July 8, 2015. The possibility of cancelling a nuclear fuel production facility being constructed at Smolino was also mentioned.
Rosatom, the Russian nuclear construction firm that had been contracted by Ukraine, announced on July 9, 2015 that they were surprised by the recent series of articles in the Ukrainian media about the status and future of the construction projects. It said that Ukraine had not formally informed Russia that it wanted to cancel them.
Construction of the third reactor for Khmelnitsky was started in 1985 and the fourth reactor was started in 1986. When construction of both was stopped in 1990, the third reactor was seventy five percent complete and the fourth reactor was twenty eight percent complete. In 2010, Russia and Ukraine signed an intergovernmental agreement to restart construction of the two partially completed reactors. In late 2010, Russia’s Sberbank indicated that it was willing to provide a loan of a billion dollars to Energoatom, the Ukrainian utility that operates the Khmelnitsky power plant. Ukraine was supposed to provide fifteen percent of the cost of the project.
In early 2011, Energoatom and ASE signed a formal contract for the completion of the third and fourth reactors at Khmelnitsky. The contract called for the third reactor to be completed in 2016 and the fourth reactor to be completed in 2017. However, two months later, Energoatom complained that it was not satisfied with the interest rate that the Sberbank wanted to charge on the loan.
In July of 2014, Ukraine’s Cabinet stated that it had decided that Ukraine should build new nuclear power reactors based on “Western design” as opposed to the Russian design of the partially completed third and fourth reactors at Khmelnitsky. In August of 2014, Energoatom said that Ukraine would not cooperate with Russia on the completion of the two reactors under construction. A few days later a contract was signed with the Czech firm Skoda JS for the construction of brand new reactors at Khmelnitsky. Further announcements followed with respect to closer cooperation with European companies for the sale of electricity from new reactors and the purchase of fuel for the reactors from non-Russian suppliers.
Westinghouse and TVEL, a Rosatom subsidiary, both bid on construction of a nuclear fuel plant in 2010 and TVEL won the bid. The nuclear fuel plant construction was started in 2012 with a projected completion date of 2014. It was supposed to start supply fuel to all the nuclear power plants in the Ukraine by 2016 and sell any extra fuel assemblies to the European market under arrangements with TVEL. In 2013, TVEL transferred forty two million dollars into Nuclear Fuel Plant, its joint venture with Ukraine’s Nuclear Fuel State Concern, and is waiting for Ukraine to provide an equal amount to the project.
TVEL has already manufactured components for the Ukrainian fuel facility at its own expense but has been unable to deliver them because Ukraine has failed to pay for them. TVEL has also signed an agreement for the production of nuclear fuel for Ukraine but Ukrainian authorities have not yet signed it. Rosatom has repeated stated that TVEL has fulfilled all of its obligations with respect to the fuel plant. Construction on the fuel plant was halted in 2014 because of contract disputes. Rosatom stated that it is ready to move forward with the construction of the nuclear fuel plant and the two reactors for the Khmelnitsky power plant.
In March of 2014, Energoatom announced that it was going to be working with Westinghouse to obtain nuclear fuel and possibly completion of the construction of the fuel plant.
Smolino Nuclear Fuel Plant:
Spain’s seven nuclear power reactors generated 57.3 TWh of electricity in 2014, accounting for one-fifth of the country’s electricity, according to figures compiled by trade association Foro Nuclear. world-nuclear-news.org
A French weekly, Le Canard enchaine, has claimed that nuclear power giant Areva has known since 2006 that the steel in the reactor pressure vessel head construction for some of its build projects had high levels of carbon that caused the steel to be more brittle. nuclearstreet.com
A Toshiba company spokesman confirmed the company was seeking a partner to support its majority stake in its U.S. nuclear power subsidiary Westinghouse Electric Company, but underplayed its connection to an accounting scandal in which Toshiba overstated profits. nuclearstreet.com
