Toby's Blog

This course covered a great range of topics in the nuclear industry. We learned about reactor principles, fuel management, waste disposal, national and international regulations, safety, weapons, and several other interrelated subjects (the concept map was very helpful in linking them together). We learned how nuclear energy works, its history, and how it impacts the world in different ways: environmentally, politically, economically, and socially. It allowed to gain a great deal of initial insight into the nuclear world.

My previous understanding of the nuclear industry was limited to abstract concepts rather than specific details. Now, at the end of the semester, I have a broader understanding of things like the fuel cycle stages, licensing procedures for domestic reactors, and the environmental factors that define sustainability. Absorbing this new information through lectures comprised half of my learning process. The other half developed through the discussions we had in class over specific examples of incidents, ethical issues, and news articles. Actually engaging with that information and using it to develop my own opinions and conceptions allowed me to retain this knowledge much better, and have a much more practical application for it.

My ethical perceptions developed in parallel, as well. My preconceived notion of engineering ethics was simply not giving the all-clear on a product known to be faulty in a potentially harmful capacity. But it became clear that engineering ethics comprised much more than that. It also applied towards parties you dealt with. Knowing your suppliers and clients is key, because any ethical strings attached up or down the line trace back to you. Using material sourced unethically or providing a service with unethical applications reflects poorly on your values as an engineer. Ethics also applies in your personal practices as well. For example, embracing the value of transparency goes a long way with the public and shows initiative to behave in a socially responsible manner. Engineering ethics and business practices are deeply complex and arise in practically every scenario that you may encounter. Having the mindset and foresight to bring ethical considerations into your plans is a smart choice to develop early on.

I want to have a deeper understandings of all the topics I first encountered in this course. It did a very good job at providing a base to build my further studies off of. Rather than being thrown into the nuclear world blind, I now have a decent background that I can utilize in exploring the relationships between different areas. I may be able to connect something loosely related in a future NE course to one of the lectures from this one. By thinking through these connections between concepts and real-world applications, mastery of certain subjects will be that much easier to accomplish. This is significant because I am very interested in research and development. I am still unsure of my professional goals, but as of right now, I know that innovation is something that I want to be a part of. Studying different subjects in the nuclear field in greater detail and building off of the knowledge and ethical perspective that I cultivated in this course is the best way to accomplish that.

The team I interviewed worked on designing a sensor layout for an FHR as well as an educational card game. The sensor layout and requirements were designed with different transient scenarios in mind to ensure safety in operation. They received their project topic from the professor based on preliminary project descriptions of potential areas they wanted to work on. They were largely inspired by the public outreach element. The main ethical aspects of their project were “transparency and safety.” They wanted to design a sensor layout that would preclude dangerous situations, and design a program to communicate that work to the public in an easily accessible way. They considered their jobs as nuclear engineers to be to ensure consistent and reliable operation of reactors while holding their work to the highest quality in order to guarantee public safety.  The team’s design process began with empathizing– understanding the needs at hand, and ideation– coming up with methods to address those needs, followed by problem solving, and finally reaching the result. Early on, the team had no knowledge on FHRs. They began with researching how it works, and how sensors fit into the design. Once they had established the base knowledge, they moved onto determining their transient scenarios and how to address their functional requirements. After this, the team began to finalize their results and performed calculations for technical specifications.

Technical writing appeared to be unanimously the most important skill that they applied to this course. Their previous courses did not seem to relate to the background of this project in much detail. However, they attributed a great deal to their history of developing engineering and design skills over their previous courses. While the team did not have any concrete career plans to discuss, they seemed to look forward to real-world applications of their skills. They referenced such work as more fulfilling than traditional classroom projects because of the raised stakes involved. Some specific career options that they discussed involved the NRC, other government agencies, the space industry, medical isotope production, and the navy. In order to prepare for such careers, they cited skills such as teamwork, communication, and problem solving as important to cultivate while an undergraduate. At UW, student organizations like ANS can help introduce you to people who are heavily connected to the nuclear industry. Upperclassmen can be a resource to consult about courses, professors, and plans in general.

Other questions I had:

• An unexpected roadblock they encountered along the design process was figuring out the FHR startup transient scenario. They couldn’t find any sources to learn how to heat up the salt used as coolant for the reactor. They were forced to make guesses and approximations around that.
• The team had great difficulty managing their scope early on. Before they decided to focus on functional requirements for transient scenarios, the project began somewhat aimlessly.
• Given more time and resources, they team would want their project to expand towards actual sensor design and testing.
• Future design teams should establish a narrow scope early on and try to focus exclusively on the means of accomplishing the objective. Incorporating too many facets into the project leads to too many loose ends that can’t be tied up into a finalized product by the deadline. “A well-defined problem is half solved.”

The team seemed to emphasize the personal skills of teamwork and intuition very highly. These are obviously important skills to pick up that I plan on developing further within the next few years. A less obvious skill is proficiency in technical writing. Being able to communicate progress or a design efficiently and in proper format is a key component of engineering that I’ve noticed working with the design teams. I’m interested in learning more about instrumentation for reactors and the different roles they play as part of the system. I have a general overview of the principles behind a reactor, but less insight into exactly how they operate. Different courses here can teach me more about reactor operation and design, and I plan on fully utilizing them. Discussing these topics with more experienced students and faculty have proven to be a valuable resource in understanding what I want to explore further down the road.

North Korea’s mountain mystery: Is Punggye-ri Nuclear Test Site still functional?

The ethical issue with this article is part of a larger dilemma: How can we safely and diplomatically denuclearize North Korea?

Recently North and South Korea pledged to reach an agreement to formally end the Korean War. This, of course, is unprecedented news and will require a comprehensive negotiation for the treaty. One of the concessions Kim Jong-Un has offered is the closure of the nuclear testing site Punggye-ri. Last week, a group of Chinese geologists stated they had reason to believe that Punggye-ri was already non-functional. Recent testing has applied enormous stress to Mount Mantap and satellite imagery suggests that the site is no longer suitable for testing. North Korea has not made any comment on the state of the site, only that they pledge to dismantle the site.

Personally, I am wary of Kim’s pledges. In the past he has made negotiations for aid and covertly turned his back on them. Several signs point to the collapse of Punggye-ri, and Kim’s inclusion of this site and no others in his initial concession is suspect. In order to pursue disarmament, much more must be negotiated. How we’re expected to achieve that is still in the air. The most ethical pursuit is to push for total denuclearization. However, North Korea may be unwilling or excessively demanding in response to that objective. Korean reunification is a primary objective in these talks, but all of these aims seem to favor the South over the North. Demilitarization and reunification would weaken the North’s influence, which must obviously pose as a threat to Kim’s regime. Past negotiations have been for aid, but those were always obtained through the leveraging of influence. For North Korea to cede practically all of that leverage, they will be demanding more than just aid. Total denuclearization seems like a difficult sell. Finding ways to explore that avenue of negotiation seems to be key. I would love to be a fly on the wall for those talks.

• Can North Korea, given its past behavior, be trusted to negotiate in good faith?
• Is the initial empty promise regarding Punggye-ri a bad sign for these negotiations?
• How can we satisfy North Korea and simultaneously eliminate the dangerous leverage they have spent decades building up?

This week’s lecture covered International Safeguards. I learned a lot on the topic of nonproliferation. The IAEA is particularly effective at ensuring that a country’s nuclear industry is held up to all expectations of nonproliferation. They do this largely through material accountancy of significant quantities of nuclear fuel. They observe each step of the process, from enrichment to waste disposal. If there is any discrepancy that could point to weapons manufacturing, they find it. The NPT is largely beneficial but it is somewhat biased below the surface, favoring countries that developed their weapons technology early on, and loosening the restrictions on them. Disarmament also seems to be easily hampered by bureaucracy, as the U.S. had agreed to dispose of fuel but gave up when they didn’t have the budget for it, leading to no real consequences. I see one of the most critical parts of the NPT to be the ban on dissemination of nuclear weapons knowledge between countries. In the modern world, placing a roadblock in the path of collaboration significantly hinders technological progress. The consequence of this is that the bulk of nuclear research is civilian and reactor-focused, which does a lot to slow the arms race. Ethically, the expectations on nuclear weapon states to pursue disarmament are loose and ultimately inconsequential, which can potentially be dangerous should a conflict escalate into another arms race. I would like to explore more on how nonproliferation can be more effectively imposed of nuclear weapon states.

This week’s lecture was a video covering the MSRE at Oak Ridge National Lab. I was surprised to learn that molten salt reactors were such an old technology. It was my understanding that MSRs were a recent idea, based on all the ongoing research surrounding it. But the MSRE occurred only a decade after the first graphite pile. We learned how the fuel salt passes through the core and goes to a heat exchanger, delivering the heat to a coolant salt. The coolant passes through a radiator and the resulting air flow generates power. I would be interested in learning more about how the coolant and radiator works, as I didn’t fully understand from the video how the heat transfer led to to power generation.

North Korea Is Firing Up a Reactor. That Could Upset Trump’s Talks With Kim.

The main ethical issue behind this article is whether or not nations that have refused to support nonproliferation should be permitted to construct reactors for civilian power.

Reactors can be difficult to separate from weapons manufacturing because fissile waste can be reprocessed into weapons-grade plutonium. North Korea has been doing this with their first reactor since the ’80s, and have barred IAEA inspectors for this reason. In 2008, North Korea demolished their reactor as a show of good faith, but it suspected that it is still online. Now, a second reactor at the same site, capable of 25-30 megawatts, has finished construction. There is also a confirmed uranium enrichment facility and a plutonium reprocessing facility onsite. The Trump administration is trying to initiate peace talks with North Korea, and one of the contentious issues is how they can halt plutonium reprocessing while still permitting civilian power production. IAEA inspectors would have to have access to inspect facilities nationwide to ensure reprocessing is not occurring, something North Korea has proven opposed to.

I believe that reactor construction for civilian power purposes is a key step for developing countries. However, the devastating potential of plutonium reprocessing (the new Yongbyon reactor is capable of producing 20 kg/yr) necessitates that a strict watch be held over waste management. If a country displays aggressive proliferation of weapons, or is opposed to total IAEA oversight, then reactor construction and operation should be off the table. A key element of the Iran deal was modifying their heavy water reactor so that it was incapable of producing weapons grade plutonium. Until this redesign, all spent fuel is sent abroad. A similar negotiation would have to occur with North Korea to freeze weapons-grade fuel production. This could be a viable alternative to thorough IAEA inspection. Overall, the prevention of plutonium reprocessing is a much more critically ethical focus than the development of civilian reactors. Nonproliferation is the primary objective in these negotiations, and should be pursued through every possible avenue.

• What are some non-invasive methods for preventing plutonium reprocessing?
• Should North Korea be permitted to pursue civilian reactor technology at all?
• What are some ideal approaches for getting North Korea to concede weapons manufacturing and testing?

Revision

In discussing the issue with the class, the conversation shifted towards understanding North Korea’s motivation behind developing their reactor. Different points of view were raised, from trying to leverage more influence in the political climate to trying to negotiate preferential deals through deceptive agreements. We also extended the issue to North Korea’s relationship with other countries, such as Iran, Russia, and China, to better understand the impact of different courses of action in resolving this ethical concern. Iran’s nuclear deal was a good source of information to discuss and apply to potential avenues in dealing with North Korea. Towards the end of the discussion, there seemed to be a consensus that smart diplomacy was the best possible resolution. My ethical perspective expanded as the conversation gave me good insight on the kinds of concessions that would have to be made on both sides in order to reach a feasible compromise. This deal would also have to be comprehensive as it is was with Iran, as past agreements with North Korea have led to underhanded abuse. The IAEA would certainly have to play a large role in the agreement made. One way my perspective changed was that nonproliferation is not a totally infallible ideal. In a glaring way, deterrence can prove more effective than disarmament, according to the concept of marginal utility. To relate this topic to the senior design teams, I would ask that they add security concerns to the scope of their project. Some questions to ask would be:

• What role does the final product play in the international nuclear-political climate?
• Is it vulnerable or desirable to hostile governments, and is it susceptible to intellectual theft?
• Is there any concern in connections to weapons manufacturing, particularly Plutonium reprocessing?
• How does this contribute to the ideal of nonproliferation, and what can be done to expand on that?

In the past two weeks we toured the Charter St Physical Plant and the UW Test Reactor. We got to see the purpose of a lot of heacy machinery and further understand their functions. It was highly informative. The plant tour gave me insight into how the energy grid is operated and how exactly they maintain supply for base load and peak load. I also got to learn what the UW reactor does in contributing to research. Relating the ideas I learned to the design team projects, I would say that it’s important to relate nuclear technology to other forms of power. Compare effectiveness and don’t think from a purely nuclear standpoint, try to get an idea of how your designs fit in the current energy market and not just in the nuclear industry. Innovative designs are great, but can be impractical if not tailored to meet the energy market’s demands. Seeing the reactor allowed me to get a more tangible understanding of a reactor core and fuel rods, and how they are assembled to create a reactor. The reactor was offline for the entire tour and it still had a significant amount of protocols and contingincies compared to the physical plant. We had to put our IDs on record, keep track of our radioactive exposure, and even bypass a fingerprint scanner to get inside. Out of necessity it seems that the reactor is kept far more secure than a large facility like the physical plant. A small reactor could be a good idea for providing the base load for the campus’ energy needs. However, the conventional energy production like the one at the physical plant is far more viable and was recently renovated, so it seems like a reactor-based grid is far off in the future.

This week’s lecture covered Nuclear Smuggling. Enriched uranium is obviously a highly valuable resource, with the potential to have devastating consequences. It follows that the black market would jump at the chance to deal in such a resource. The attempted heist at Pelindaba was clearly an attempt to get at the uranium, but the facility’s leadership was very quick to dismiss that idea. It’s curious as to what they gain by denying the uranium was the goal, as the heist was unsuccessful either way. It creates an ethical issue where storage becomes one of the most key components of security but often goes neglected, especially abroad. A similar issue occurred in Goiânia but had much more severe consequences. Ultimately, storage is a static, unchanging place, so it receives the least security in cases where theft wouldn’t result in crippling financial loss for the parent company. But the ethical necessity of the situation shows just how bad a lack of security comprehensiveness can potentially be. Had the uranium at Pelindaba made its way into the black market, it could be in the hands of a belligerent regime today. The ramifications of enriched uranium theft are too severe to warrant a mediocre security consideration.

This week’s lecture covered domestic energy markets. The energy industry is peculiar because it’s an example of a natural monopoly, where the very nature of the business precludes competition due to inherently prohibitive cost of infrastructure. However, deregulation of power generation and distribution has shifted this to a more competitive field where utility companies can bid to supply the market. This is an issue for nuclear since deregulation stresses the bottom line. Reactors have a poor track record for budget, construction timeline, and ROI, compared to other power sources. To me, it seems that if reactors have such difficulty competing in the energy market then it doesn’t really have place in commerical world yet. Obviously this is an ambivalent sentiment because I want the nuclear industry to develop and flourish; it will be a key component of our civilization’s energy industry in the far future. Right now, our energy markets have to be regulated in order for nuclear reactors to be somewhat viable commercially, as it lessens the risk and liability. If feasibility is too low, it may do more harm than good to the industry to continue pushing nuclear. This is a much broader issue and at the root of it, in many ways, the world isn’t ready for nuclear power. A solid investment in research seems like the best way to change this, so that nuclear may soon have a larger role in the domestic energy industry.

This week we discussed domestic policy in the nuclear industry. Military research paved the way for the technology to develop commercial reactors. In the first few decades, the nuclear industry was prolific. In the mid 70’s this growth began to decline. This has persisted to the present day. Nuclear research comprises the largest portion of the DOE’s R&D budget, but the incentives are still too low for utility companies to pursue new reactors and technologies. One conflict of interest I observed was the government’s waiver of liability for reactor disasters. With no liability, accountability would be at risk, as companies would be less inclined to prevent these disasters. However, the government ensures that all reactors meet the NRC’s strict guidelines in the first place, so cutting corners is near impossible. Without the government’s heavy involvement in the industry, it would likely be a very unstable field. Our learning process was through the lecture. At times the lecture can be somewhat fast-paced, providing too much information to digest at once. A greater focus on the general concepts, or big picture, in lieu of a barrage of specific details would be more conducive to understanding the key information. When meeting with the design teams, I learned that my group was dissolved; I joined a new group. They had no immediate tasks for me, so I assisted another group by contacting salt suppliers for hypothetical quotes on large quantities for MSRs.