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 don’t have any predictions or resolutions. I do hope that in the year ahead, there is not a major nuclear accident or the detonation of a nuclear bomb anywhere in the world. I also hope that the public and investors continue to abandon nuclear power in favor of efficiency, conservation and renewables.
The supporters of nuclear power are trying to crank up public support and investors for a variety of nuclear power projects. Unfortunately for them, energy efficiency and conservation are estimated to cost one fourth of the price of a new nuclear power plant. Wind power and cheap natural gas are estimated to be about half the cost of nuclear power. Reactors that are currently under construction in the U.S. and Europe are over budget and behind schedule. While the cost of building a nuclear reactors are well understood, there is less appreciation for escalating operating costs. As reactors age, they become more and more expensive to repair. At some point, it is no longer economically feasible to keep repairing an old reactor. Nuclear power has strong political support and is fighting to prevent renewable energy sources from being exploited but, hopefully, it is losing the battle.
Entergy is closing the Vermont Yankee power plant in Vernon, Vermont. The company is being forced to close the plant because it is no longer profitable. Electricity demand is down, cheap natural gas is abundant and nuclear power is not being given the special “consideration” (tax breaks, loan guarantees, guaranteed electricity prices, etc.) its supporters think it is entitled to. Critics of the closing predicted that the bills of New England ratepayers would increase by forty percent this winter because the power plant is being closed.
Last year, N.E. energy prices were about thirty six percent above the average electricity cost in the U.S. In 2004, N.E. electricity cost thirty six percent above the average electricity cost in the U.S. Now it is estimated that N.E. electricity costs will rise by about three percent in the next year as compared to a rise of about two and a half percent for U.S. in general. It does not seem as if having the Vermont Yankee power plant operating did much to lower the cost of electricity in N.E. Supporters of the closing say that removing Vermont Yankee from the grid in N.E. will not have much impact on the cost of electricity for the region.
The Maine Public Utility Commission recently conducted a study of the N.E. power supply system. The Commission presented what it considered to be the optimal mix of energy sources for N.E. Their projection included consideration of price risks and carbon emissions. They did not include nuclear power in the mix. Natural gas was only about one sixth of the mixture of desirable energy sources. Many financial analysts with big institutions have projected that improving energy efficiency, stepping up conservation and implementing renewable energy sources should be able to supply electricity demand for the next several decades. One of the problems that they highlight is the fact that huge centralized power generation is too big and too inflexible to meet the energy needs of the future.
Many studies have shown that nuclear power cannot compete with available alternatives in terms of either construction costs or operating costs. A great deal of work is being done to develop practical battery systems to back up intermittent power sources like wind and solar. When these new battery systems go into operation in the near future, one more excuse for continuing to use nuclear power will be gone. Let us hope that policy makers pay attention and refuse to be seduced by empty promises of the nuclear industry.
Vermont Yankee power plant:
In a statement yesterday, Westinghouse said this increased cooperation will bring diversification and security of nuclear fuel supplies for Ukraine’s reactor fleet. world-nuclear-news.org
Unit 1 of the Kudankulam nuclear power plant in India’s southern state of Tamil Nadu has entered commercial operation today. world-nuclerar-news.org
Nuclear faces tough 2015 as renewables growth soars. nuclear-news.net
I have been blogging recently about nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, it appears that another nuclear arms race may be underway. Nuclear powers are upgrading and expanding their arsenals while other states are trying to obtain nuclear weapons. Especially disquieting is the fact that the Russians are becoming increasingly belligerent and are rattling their nuclear saber at perceived enemies. They have announced the deployment new nuclear weapons and they are flying nuclear bombers off the coasts of other countries. They have also said that they may move nuclear weapons into the Crimea.
Tactical nuclear weapons include nuclear mortars and other artillery pieces capable of firing nuclear shells. These nuclear payloads are low yield in the kiloton range. Military planners designed these weapons to be used on the battlefield. There is a serious concern that if tactical nuclear weapons are used in a war, things could quickly and easily escalate into a full scale nuclear war that would destroy human civilization. Most tactical nuclear weapons were removed from Central Europe in the 1980s and 1990s.
The Russians have been publicly discussing force levels and weapons availability for different nations as well as NATO in the context of a possible war in Eastern Europe. One thing they emphasized is that Russia has more conventional weapons than the NATO alliance. The Russians have also pointed out that they have superiority in tactical nuclear weapons that they could easily deploy in case they were losing a conventional war in Eastern Europe.
The U.S. has B61 tactical nuclear bombs deployed in 5 NATO countries. There are currently four different types of B61 air-launched nuclear gravity bombs. These bombs are provided to NATO as part of the nuclear sharing initiative. The current B61s are being replaced with the new B61-12 which consolidates the previous designs into a single design. This work will include turning the free-fall bombs into more accurate precision guided bombs. They are scheduled to be deployed by 2020.
In early 2010, NATO decided to remove its nuclear missile shield for Eastern Europe. At the same time, the U.S. and Russia signed a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. Against this trend toward nuclear disarmament, plans for the modernization of the B61 tactical nuclear bombs were announced in April of 2010.
The increasing belligerence and desperation being exhibited by Russia is stimulating interest in NATO in being prepared to meet a Russia military action against any of their members. Russia may be planning on pulling the same sort of subversive invasion they carried out in Ukraine in an Eastern European NATO member such as Latvia or Estonia. Both of these countries have substantial populations of ethnic Russians living near their borders with Russia. Infiltration by Russian agent provocateurs could stir rebellion in their borders regions. Russia might be trying to see if they can move against NATO members without a strong response from NATO. If this proves to be the case, then Russia will be able to intimidate such countries into accepting Russian domination.
Most of my blogs have dealt with nuclear power, nuclear weapons and radioactive waste. I have blogged a few times about radioactive isotopes which have uses in medicine and industry. Recently I wrote a post that dealt with problems with the supply of molybdenum-99. This important isotope which is used in medical imaging has been supplied by a small number of reactors including the High-Flux Reactor (HFR) at Petten in the Netherlands, BR2 in Belgium, Osiris in France, Safari in South Africa and the National Research Universal (NRU) reactor in Canada. These reactors are aging and some have been shut down for operational problems, refurbishing or because they can no longer operate safely. This has raised concerns over the world supply of Mo-99.
Mo-99 has a half-life of sixty six hours. It decays to technetium-99 quickly. The Te-99 which results from the Mo-99 decay is injected into patients for the imaging techniques used to diagnose cancer, heart disease and other health problems. The Te-99 has a short half-life of six hours so patients have limited exposure to radiation during their procedures.
Eleven countries who are members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) recently signed a joint declaration stating that there may be major disruptions in the Mo-99 supply chain. The declaration said that new infrastructure must be put into place to replace the current reactors which produce Mo-99. The members of the OECD who signed the declaration include Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, South Korea, Russia, Spain, the UK and the US. The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) stated that the declaration made it clear to companies in the Mo-99 supply chain that the OECD members who signed the declaration have “the resolute intention to take coordinated action to ensure the long-term security of supply of Mo-99.”
OECD member countries requested that the NEA work on ensuring a steady supply of Mo-99. The NEA and its High Level Group on the Security of Supply of Medical Radioisotopes have been studying the causes of Mo-99 supply shortages since 2009. They concluded that “Unfortunately, supply reliability has declined over the past decade due to unexpected or extended shutdowns at a few of the ageing, Mo-99-producing research reactors and processing facilities. These shutdowns have created conditions for global supply shortages.”
One of the issues that has been studied by the NEA is the fact that government involvement in the production of Mo-99 has resulted in a failure to recover that entire cost of Mo-99 production. Governments have been reducing their support for the production of Mo-99 but there is still work to be done in covering the cost of Mo-99 production. The NEA is concerned that government involvement in and subsidizing of Mo-99 production could distort the commercial market in Mo-99.
It is important that the Mo-99 supply chain from reactor to hospital be placed on a firm economic foundation in order to insure that sufficient Mo-99 always be available for global healthcare needs.
