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.
Austria is the most anti-nuclear power nation in the European Union. In 1978, Austria voted in a referendum to stop a newly constructed nuclear power plant from being turned on. This was a year before the disaster at Three Mile Island alerted the global community to the dangers of nuclear power. Following the nuclear disaster at Fukushima in Japan in March of 2011, the Austrian government announced that they were going to work on a blanket ban on importing electricity generated by nuclear reactors after 2014.
One of the problems that Austria faced was the fact that when electricity is generated and fed into a distribution network from a variety of sources, it is impossible to know what source any particular watt came from. At the time, skeptics said that Austria needed electricity and could not separate electricity from nuclear sources from the electricity that they imported. They pointed out that Austria needed to import at least two terawatt hours of electricity each year. Even if Austria decided to build new non-nuclear power generation plants, public resistance and the government regulatory requirements could prevent construction of a proposed plant for up to ten years.
Now that 2015 has arrived, have the Austrians managed to realize their vision of one hundred percent non-nuclear electricity? Apparently the critics were mistaken in their skepticism because as of January 1, 2015, Austria’s electricity is one hundred percent from non-nuclear sources. This includes all imported electricity. The Austrian government demands proof of the origin of any imported electricity. Utility companies in Austria are not bound by law to buy only non-nuclear electricity but are voluntarily complying with the ban. This means that mixed source electricity imported into Austria will not find a market if ANY of the electricity is generated by nuclear power reactors.
Austria has been careful to implement a system that would make it difficult for the European Union to take any legal action against Austria on the grounds that it is denying foreign power generators access to the Austrian market. The Austrians, however, have filed suit with the European Union from prevent Britain from offering special financial incentives for the construction of a new nuclear power plant at Hinkley. Along with Germany, which is turning off all its nuclear power reactors, Austria and several other European nations have been pressuring the Czech utility CEZ AS to abandon plans for spending twenty five billion dollars to build five new nuclear power reactors. The Czechs get about forty five percent of their power from their existing six nuclear reactors and are exporting electricity.
Throughout the European Union, there is wide-spread public rejection of nuclear power. Now there is a growing group of E.U. countries which have totally rejected nuclear power and are exerting political and economic pressure on other E.U. countries to also abandon nuclear power. The nuclear industry in the E.U. is fighting back with political and economic power of their own. As renewable alternative sources of energy such as solar and wind become cheaper and more available, it will be interesting to see who wins this contest.
U.S. West Coast hit by radioactive plumes from both massive Fukushima explosions. enenews.com
On 1 January 2015, Austria’s “ban” on imports of nuclear power went into effect as planned. renewablesinternational.net
Arizona is one step closer to officially declaring nuclear power a renewable-energy source. phoenixnewtimes.com
India is moving forward with plans to build more nuclear reactors to supply power for their energy starved nation. Russia announced that they were in discussion to build twenty new reactors in India. The U.S. President just returned from a trip to India where he discussed one hundred and fifty eight billion dollars worth of nuclear reactor business for U.S. nuclear technology companies. I expressed my concern about the possibility of corruption leading to poor reactor construction and lax governmental regulation.
There are many critics of nuclear power in India and now a Parliamentary committee has issued a report that says that “India’s nuclear safety regime is fraught with grave risks because the country’s nuclear regulator was weak, under-resourced and slow in adopting international benchmarks and good practices in the areas of nuclear and radiation operation”. The bipartisan Public Accounts Committee eighty one page report was called “scathing.” It was highly critical of the fact that after decades of delays, India still does not have an independent nuclear regulatory agency.
Australia refused to sell any of its huge reserves of uranium to India for years until the Gillard government authorized sales recently. India and Australia are currently discussing a nuclear safeguards agreement. Australia will only sell uranium for peaceful purposes and it has strict tracking rules for nuclear materials that are more stringent than the requirements of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
It is estimated that India currently has about a hundred nuclear warheads. India has refused to sign the international nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty because it says that the treaty is discriminatory to new nuclear states. India insists that it needs to have these nuclear weapons because its neighbour and enemy Pakistan has nuclear weapons. During the recent visit by the U.S. President, the U.S. requirement for strict tacking of nuclear materials and technology was dropped in order to advance negotiations.
The committee report pointed out that India’s Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) is a government agency and not an independent statutory body. The report said that “although AERB maintains liaison with international nuclear organisations, it has been slow in adopting international benchmarks and good practices in the areas of nuclear and radiation operation.” The AERB cannot set or enforce regulations governing radiation and nuclear safety. Currently, in many areas, there are no such regulations at all. The AERB was charged with developing such regulations by the Indian government in 1983 but has still not accomplished the task.
The report flatly stated that India was just not prepared to deal with a nuclear emergency. “Off-site emergency exercises carried out highlighted inadequate emergency preparedness even for situations where the radiological effects of an emergency origination from nuclear power plants are likely to extend beyond the site and affect the people around.” The maximum fine that the AERB can impose for infractions of what regulations do exist is about nine dollars.
India’s auditor-general discovered last year that sixty percent of regulatory inspections for India’s fleet of exiting nuclear power reactors were delayed for months or not carried out at all. With respect to nuclear plants under construction, delayed or absent inspections were about sixty six percent.
The Indian government remains strongly committed to nuclear power. It will be interesting to see what happens to public support when India has its first serious nuclear accident.
