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.
Ambient office = 73 nanosieverts per hour
I have often blogged about nuclear war. This grim specter has been haunting the world since the 1950s. It was hoped that after the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War that the risk of nuclear war would diminish. There has been a lot of work on disarmament and non-proliferation. Although a great deal of publicity has been given lately to the danger of Iran possessing a nuclear bomb, the two big players in the game are the U.S. and Russia, of course. The U.S. and Russia have reduced their nuclear arsenals by around eighty percent since the end of the Cold War, but that still leaves over four thousand warheads a piece.
Unfortunately, Russia under President Putin has been rattling nuclear sabers recently. He is talking about the possibility of moving nuclear weapons into Ukraine. He has been taunting NATO over Ukraine and NATO presence on Russia’s western border, bragging that if a conventional war between NATO and Russia broke out in Eastern Europe and Russia appeared to be losing, he would consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons. This could, of course, rapidly escalate into a full scale nuclear war. Lately, Russian fighters and bombers have been flying near borders of other countries all over the world. The Russian planes do not have civilian type transponders to inform civilian planes and air traffic control and pose a danger to commercial flights.
The U.S. and Russia have been and are still operating under the “mutually assured destruction” doctrine of the Cold War. There are three basic options for launching nuclear weapons. The first is called “first strike” where a country just launches its missiles against another country without provocation. The second is to “launch on warning” if satellite radar systems detect missile launches from a hostile country. And the third is to “launch retaliatory missiles” following a nuclear attack.
The second scenario is the most dangerous. If warnings of hostile launches come, the decision makers in the U.S. only have about twenty minutes to decide whether there has actually been a launch of nuclear missiles. With the evolution of computer and satellite systems, the danger of a mistake in evaluating evidence of a nuclear launch had been diminishing. However, with the advent of cyber warfare, that possibility is rising again because a cyberattack could make it look like missiles had been launched and might prompt a country to launch its own missiles.
The last Russian satellite that could have detected missile launches from the American mainland or submarine failed last fall. Russia is deploying prefabricated radar stations along its borders to compensate for the loss of the satellites but that replacement system is far from complete. And even when it is complete, it can only give the Russia decision makers detailed information on incoming missiles when they are approaching Russia territory which gives Russian decision makers little more than ten minutes to verify that missiles are coming in.
Critics of the current situation have been calling for U.S. and Russian officials to eliminate the launch on warning option. There is a call to renew talks between high levels of the U.S. and Russian military which were suspended over the Ukrainian crisis. Any military exercises in either country that involve drills in launching missiles in response to missile launch warnings should be ended. The removal of the launch on warning option would fall under the New Start Treaty. After tensions diminish and full communications are restored between Russia and the U.S., a system of verifications could be developed. The reduction in the expansion and modernization of strategic nuclear forces in the U.S. and Russia should also be part of any agreement.
A full scale nuclear war between U.S. and Russia would mean the end of human civilization and the death of billions. Any steps that can be taken to reduce this risk of annihilation should be taken and as quickly as possible.
I have posted essays about India’s nuclear programs before. Indian has major issues with their supply of electricity with frequent lost of power in major cities and over three hundred million people having no access at all to electricity. The Indian government has been pushing hard to increase nuclear power in India. Prime Minister Modi is pressing the Department of Atomic Energy to triple India’s nuclear power output by 2025 from about six gigawatts to around eighteen gigawatts.
The main problem that India faces is the fact the it has very stringent liability laws with respect to industrial accidents including the possibility of suing manufacturers of equipment involved in serious accidents. This has prevented the U.S. and other major nuclear players from being interested in building nuclear reactors in and transferring nuclear technology and materials to India. There is also a concern among other nuclear nations that India may divert imported nuclear technology and fuel intended for civilian use to their military nuclear program because India has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Recently there have been negotiations within India and with potential international nuclear suppliers to deal with these two serious issues.
Last week, the Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) signed a contact with the French firm, Areva. Areva will be helping India deal with problems at the Jaitapur nuclear power plant in Maharashtra which is being held up because of costs and liability issues. Areva has also signed a contract with Larse & Tuobro which is an Indian engineering company. There is a plan to have some of the equipment for the Jaitapur project manufactured locally in India.
Last week, Canada announced plans to sell about two hundred and ninety million dollars worth of uranium to India. This will amount to about seven million pounds of uranium over five years. After India used Canadian nuclear technology to build a nuclear bomb, Canada had banned uranium exports to India. Australia had also refused to sell uranium to India but that may be changing as the two countries negotiate.
Because India has little indigenous uranium, it has been exploring the use of thorium as a nuclear fuel. India has abundant reserves of thorium. Supporters of thorium say that it will be more easily controlled and safer. Opponents point out that thorium reactors generate waste that is even more radioactive than the waste from a uranium or MOX reactor and that such reactors could still have major accidents.
It is estimated that building a nuclear power plant in India will be about thirty percent cheaper than building one in the United States. The big question is whether that lower cost will be low enough for nuclear power to be competitive in the Indian energy market. Coal is the most common source of electricity in India but it produces a lot of carbon dioxide. India has been under increasing pressure from the international community to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Supporters of the nuclear push in India point out that the adoption of nuclear power on a large scale in India would certainly reduce their carbon footprint.
However attractive nuclear power might seem to India at the moment, I think that they would be better served by conservation and distributed sustainable alternative energy sources such as solar, wind and hydro. India has a lot of sun, wind and water.
India’s nuclear facilities:
A federal judge in San Diego on Friday referred the complaints over a cost-management plan involving the closure of the San Onofre nuclear power plant to state courts, but otherwise held to an earlier agreement that utility customer would pay $3.3 billion of the decommissioning costs of the plant. nuclearstreet.com
Work is continuing at the construction site of an EPR unit at Flamanville in northern France, French utility EDF said yesterday. Preparations are underway to conduct further tests on the unit’s vessel after anomalies were identified in the composition of the steel in certain parts of it. world-nuclear-news.org
TEPCO releases video from second robot probe at Fukushima reactor. ajw.asahi.com
A new simulator is nearing completion at unit 2 of the Oskarshamn nuclear power plant in Sweden, operator OKG said today. The simulator is part of a safety modernization of the unit started in mid-2013. world-nuclear-news.org
China submarine sale to Pakistan ups nuclear clash risk economictimes.indiatimes.com
