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.
After Pakistan developed its nuclear weapons, they secretly shared that knowledge with other countries. One of their chief nuclear scientists, Abdul Qadeer Khan, was implicated in this nuclear proliferations activity by the United States. In 2004, he was brought before a Pakistani tribunal to account for his activities. He was placed under house arrest but in 2009, he was freed by a judge. There is widespread speculation that, in reality, the Pakistani government was aware of his activities and sanctioned them until the U.S. presented evidence of his activities to the world. The U.S. is still concerned that he may be involved in underground trafficking of nuclear secrets.
Saudi Arabia has a been a strong supporter and major funder of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program for decades. Many analysts think that there is a deal between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia for Pakistan to supply nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia upon request. Part of the reason for this is probably Saudi Arabia’s hostility toward Israel and the existence of the Israeli nuclear arsenal. Another motive involves the possibility of Iran creating its own nuclear bomb. Saudi Arabia and Iran are bitter enemies.
Recently, General Rashid, the Chairman of the Pakistani Joint Chiefs of Staff committee, visited Saudi Arabia. He met with the new Saudi King Salman. He also had separate meetings with the Saudi Defense Minister, the Deputy Crown Prince, the Interior Minister and the Minister of the Saudi National Guard. Now as in the past, changes of leadership in either nation have been rapidly followed by meetings between Saudi and Pakistani high officials. Some say that this practice may include renewing the rumored nuclear deal between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
Last year, Saudi Arabia held a parade featuring a Chinese missile called the DongFeng-3. This missile was once the foundation of China’s nuclear weapons program. Saudi Arabia had possessed these missiles since the 1980s but had not publicized the fact before. The chief of Pakistan’s army was a guest of honor at the ceremony. Chinese designs were used for the first Pakistani nuclear warheads and Chinese missiles are owned by Saudi Arabia. Sounds like adapting Pakistani warheads to the Saudi’s missile could be fairly easy.
The current Prime Minister of Pakistan, Nawaz Sharif, has a strained relationship with the Pakistani military. The army in Pakistan is a major institution with special housing and schools for military officers. The army wields not just military power but is also wealthy from investment in private enterprises. They are also involved in Pakistani politics. Nawaz Sharif had previously held power and was overthrown in a military coup. However, the Saudi and Pakistani nuclear arrangement seems to above and immune to these internal shifts of power.
Any proliferation of nuclear weapons is a threat to the future of humanity. One of the goals of the Islamic State is to take over Saudi Arabia. If Saudi Arabia is invaded and assimilated by the Islamic State fighters who are already testing Saudi defenses on the northern border, then any nuclear weapons that the Saudi had would fall into the hands of religious fanatics set on conquering the Middle East and establishing a theocracy. Let us hope that this particular nuclear nightmare is not realized.
Unit 1 of the Doel nuclear power plant in Belgium will be permanently disconnected from the grid on 15 February, operator Electrabel has stated. world-nuclear-news.org
The UK has agreed to extend the secondment of a senior nuclear inspector to Vietnam’s Agency for Radiation and Nuclear Safety (VARANS) as part of their continued cooperation. world-nuclear-news.org
One of the biggest problems with nuclear power is disposing of the spent nuclear fuel rods. All of the cooing pools in all the U.S. reactors are filling rapidly and many will be full in a few years. There is a movement for temporary dry cask storage onsite at the nuclear power stations but this will require a massive investment. In addition the current design of dry casks needs to be improved. The U.S. does not have a permanent geological repository for spent nuclear fuel since the cancellation of the Yucca Mountain project in 2009. Other nuclear power nations have the same problem with a lack of permanent geological repositories for their spent nuclear fuel. Finland is moving ahead with plans for a permanent repository of their own.
Posiva is a waste management firm that is owned by two Finnish utilities which operate nuclear power reactors. In 2001, a possible repository site was indentified in Olkiluoto in the city of Eurajoki was selected. The Finnish government issue a “decision in principle” in 2001 for the creation of a repository. In December of 2012, Posiva submitted an application to the Finnish Ministry of Employment and the Economy for the creation of a permanent geological repository for the spent nuclear fuel generated by the two utilities that own Posiva. The Finnish government agency that regulated radiation and nuclear safety (STUK) is backing the new waste disposal facility.
STUK Inspector Jussi Heinonen said “We have already assessed that the operational and long-term safety of the nuclear waste facility are on a sufficiently high level for granting the construction licence. This is a new type of facility, which is why the appropriate approach is to progress in phases and, at the same time, assess and elaborate the designing of the facility on the basis of the accumulated knowledge. For example, we will gain more detailed knowledge about the local characteristics of rock at the final disposal depth once the construction of the facility begins.”
Svensk Karnbranslehantering AB (SKB) is a Swedish spent nuclear fuel management company. SKB commented favorably on the Posiva project, saying that the plan was similar to a geological repository that SKB is working on. The SKB President said that SKB and Posiva are working closely together on their repository projects.
The Finnish government will make a final decision on the Posiva waste encapsulation facility and geological repository construction license after considering comment from STUK and other stakeholders. Posiva noted that strong support from STUK will help them get a license for construction. They will also need to get a license for operating the facility before they can begin to sequester spent nuclear fuel underground. They expect to be ready to apply for an operating license around 2020. Posiva hopes to operate the facility for at least a century with little danger of radioactive materials escaping.
I hope that the Finnish repository project is successful and that they are able to dispose of their spent nuclear fuel. I think that a century is far too long for reasonable projects about energy needs and energy technology. It is likely that sustainable terrestrial sources will be widely available and inexpensive. Nuclear fusion and/or solar energy from satellites may be available. Power from nuclear fission is not a safe, easy or cheap way to generate electricity and should be retired throughout the world as quickly as possible.
Artist’s concept of Olkiluoto repository:
The future of the nuclear industry in the United States is a topic of considerable debate. On one hand, cheap natural gas is threatening the economic viability of nuclear power. On the other hand, some supporters are hailing the construction of the first new U.S. nuclear power reactors as a sign of a “nuclear renaissance.”
Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn, recently delivered a speech to the Nuclear Energy Institute. The mission of the Nuclear Energy Institute in their own words is “to foster the beneficial uses of nuclear technology before Congress, the White House and executive branch agencies, federal regulators, and state policy forums; proactively communicate accurate and timely information; and provide a unified industry voice on the global importance of nuclear energy and nuclear technology.” Unsurprisingly, Alexander’s speech was in support of U.S. nuclear power.
The title of the speech was “The United States without nuclear power.” He made reference to a study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies which said that up to twenty five of the ninety nine operating U.S. nuclear power reactors could be closed by 2020. Alexander claimed that a closure of nuclear plants in the U.S. was a “real threat to our economy and way of life.” Alexander is on the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee which will be devoting time to considering the role of nuclear power in the U.S. energy system.
Alexander pointed out that when Japan closed all of its nuclear reactors after the Fukushima disaster, the cost of electricity rose by over fifty percent. Germany will be paying over a trillion dollars to abandon nuclear power and may have to buy power from other countries, raising energy costs. In contrast, he mentioned the United Arab Emirates which is currently constructing four nuclear power reactors. These reactors are supposed to be finished and operational by 2027 when they will generated about a quarter of UAE’s electricity.
Alexander calls for the U.S. to build one hundred new reactors to replace the generating capacity of the nuclear power reactors being closed by 2020 as well as the twenty percent of existing U.S. coal power plants that will be closed by then. He wants to end what he calls the “nuclear waste stalemate” that has resulted from the cancellation of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. He says that the U.S. must reduce excessive regulation, avoid picking winners and losers with subsidies, double energy research, and encourage energy diversity.
With respect to Alexander’s international references, Japan should not restart about a third of their reactors because they are over active fault lines. There is widespread corruption and violation of regulations in the Japanese nuclear industry. Germany is moving strongly in the direction alternative energy sources. The UAE will be fortunate to bring any of those four new reactors on time and on budget. The nuclear industry has a terrible record of delays and cost overruns. And they are fighting serious corruption in the UAE which raises concerns about construction and operation of nuclear power plants.
Building a hundred nuclear reactors in the next ten years is a recipe for disaster in the U.S. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is failing in its job of regulation of the nuclear industry. It is not excessive regulation that is the problem. The nuclear industry is guilty of negligence, incompetence and corruption. Nuclear power is having trouble competing in the market place for energy. As far as subsides are concerned, alternative sustainable energy is becoming competitive without subsides and nuclear power will not be able to compete without subsides.
I agree that we need more energy research on different sources. Tying up hundreds of billions of dollars in new nuclear reactors will prevent money being spent on other sources such as renewables. And, finally, given the problems in the Waste Isolation Plant in New Mexico which is in an old salt mine like the proposed Yucca Mountain repository, it may not be viable storage facility for nuclear waste. There will be no “nuclear renaissance” in the U.S.
