TRIUMF continues to pursue the production of technetium-99m by medical cyclotron technology

TRIUMF continues to pursue the production of technetium-99m by medical cyclotron technology... even if this will be viable route, let's not forget that a new reactor replacing the aging NRU not only could produce medical isotopes but also it could allow neutron scattering to continue for many years more... here is a recent report by TRIUMF on their activities: http://www.triumf.ca/headlines/workshops-conferences/triumf-global-isotopes-conversation ... "This week, Dr. Thomas J. Ruth is participating in a 3-day "Moly-99 Topical Meeting" in Santa Fe, New Mexico, organized by the U.S. DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration. Tom is one of only three Canadians invited to the workshop (the other being from the Government of Canada and Nordion). The meeting features leaders from the major U.S. laboratories and research organizations as well as nuclear-medicine companies and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Tom is speaking about the NISP program he leads with support from Natural Resources Canada that is demonstrating how existing, conventional medical cyclotrons can be modestly upgraded to become viable suppliers of Tc-99m for locall urban regions. "

 This is the link to more details on their joint program with Natural Resources Canada: http://www.triumf.ca/nrcan-nisp

Safe disposal of nuclear waste from new nuclear power reactors without cost to taxpayers

Is safe disposal of nuclear waste from new nuclear power reactors without cost to taxpayers possible? The UK seems to have a solution: "From the start of generation, operators of new nuclear power plants will be required to set aside enough money to meet this expected cost. A cap has also been set, giving operators certainty of the maximum that they would pay, and this is set at about three times the current estimate." ... "What this boils down to is a charge per unit of electricity generated. An operator can expect to pay £0.20 ($0.31) per MWh if the facility is built to current cost estimates with a cap of £0.71 ($1.11) per MWh. These compare to current prices of electricity for a large industrial user of about £83 ($130) per MWh."... read more: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR_Waste_costs_for_UK_new_build_0912111.html

Ontario’s Long Term Energy Plan

Ontario’s Long Term Energy Plan (OLTEP) allocates 46 per cent of future grid space to nuclear generation, see here for the full plan in pdf: http://www.energy.gov.on.ca/en/ltep/ ... A recent report by Ontario Sustainable Energy Association (OSEA) just released suggests there is no business case for nuclear power and without subsidies the industry would not survive in Ontario... The report, Nuclear Power: Where’s the Business Case can be found here: http://www.ontario-sea.org/Page.asp?PageID=122&ContentID=3483). It argues that nuclear power retains an unfair advantage over renewable power generators because of federal and provincial subsidies and also that no nuclear project has ever been delivered on time and on budget in Ontario ... There is a must read review of this report on Renew Canada pointing out the reports shortcomings: http://renewcanada.net/2011/osea-ontario-doesnt-need-nuclear/ : "However, the report fails to explain why a significant investment in nuclear reactors from OPG will actually affect Hydro One’s ability to invest in local distribution systems. The report cites the construction of the Bruce to Milton transmission line as a $650 million subsidy to nuclear power(because Bruce Nuclear required the transmission line to feed power from the newly refurbished reactors at its site), but fails to mention that this transmission line is serving a dual purpose–it also allows major wind farms a connection point for grid access. While it is true that the project is primarily for Bruce Nuclear, the report does not make it clear that major renewable generators will also gain increased transmission access.
OSEA further suggests that Ontario does not require nuclear power for baseload supply because of the availability of hydroelectricity and the opportunities for major industries to adopt Combined Heat and Power (CHP) systems. Yet, the report does not provide any numbers showing how much energy will be required in the future. The OLTEP suggests, under its medium growth forecast, that the province will require approximately 160 TwHs of electricity per year. With no reference to these kinds of numbers in its report, OSEA has a hard time proving that Ontario will not require additional baseload power. In addition, there are no numbers showing the potential available megawatts of power from hydroelectric and CHP projects. This, again, makes it difficult to assert that Ontario will not require additional baseload power." ... "While the report does accurately describe the reasons why nuclear power is an incredibly expensive and heavily subsidized form of energy, it does not prove that renewable energy can replace nuclear. By failing to show how much energy could be generated by the suggested baseload replacements, or how much energy Ontario will require in the future, the report fails to demonstrate that Ontario does not need nuclear power."

US steps up efforts on producing HEU-free medical isotopes

US steps up efforts on producing HEU-free medical isotopes (I am not sure whether there are any plans or efforts already on the way to convert the HEU medical isotopes at NRU or not): "An agreement by the US Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to fund $2.3 million in development work at NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes could lead to creation of a domestic supply for molybdenum-99, the most widely used medical radioisotope. The cost-shared cooperative agreement will help the Madison, Wisconsin, company with development of its accelerator-based process for manufacturing the isotope by bombarding targets of the naturally occurring isotope 100Mo with gamma rays." ... "the US is without a domestic source of 99Mo, an isotope with a 66-hour half-life whose decay product, metastable technetium-99 (99mTc), is used in 8 out of 10 nuclear medicine procedures—about 16 million imaging procedures annually in the US. For decades, roughly half the world’s output of 99Mo has been provided, and most of the US demand has been met, by the Canadian company Nordion, which processes HEU targets irradiated at the aging National Research Universal (NRU) reactor in Chalk River, Ontario.
In recent years the NRU has been forced to shut down for extended periods, which produced severe shortages of 99Mo. In October NRU operator Atomic Energy of Canada reaffirmed previous commitments to halt medical isotope production in 2016." ... "In addition to its cooperative agreement with NorthStar, the NNSA is funding different novel approaches to 99Mo production at three other US companies: GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy has

U of Saskatchewan cobalt-60 legacy

U of Saskatchewan must see videos: "about the cobalt-60 legacy, new U of S initiatives that advance nuclear medicine, and former or current U of S scientists who’ve made advances in medical imaging and nuclear medicine research. Some of these videos are produced by the U of S and some are produced by others." http://www.usask.ca/cobalt60/videos.php

Also see: http://www.usask.ca/cobalt60/

Building CANDU in Ontario

Now that the restructuring of AECL is completed is the time to make decisions about new nuclear builds in Ontario as well as the future of Chalk River Labs including building a new research reactor to replace the aging NRU: "To win internationally we have to win domestically”. The need for collaborative efforts between the Canadian nuclear industry, its partners and all levels of government is needed to encourage growth and development in the Canadian Nuclear industry, an industry expert told local business and industry representatives..." ..."Mr. Lamarre noted that to win internationally we have to win domestically and the decision to build CANDU in Ontario would send a powerful signal to the global nuclear marketplace that Ontario has a leading energy-generating manufacturing technology. Mr. Lamarre said that support of Durham Region is essential to CANDU and the future of the industry in Ontario and Canada and that we all need to be ambassadors for this technology.
Mr. Lamarre finished by identifying the need for collaborative efforts between the Canadian nuclear industry, its partners and all levels of government in encouraging growth and development in the industry. Mr. Lamarre identifying the potential of the creation a ‘nuclear cluster’ in southern Ontario, incorporating existing nuclear industries and offering opportunities for future expansion.
A clearly defined national nuclear energy strategy is supported by the Greater Oshawa Chamber of Commerce." read more: http://www.oshawachamber.com/What-s-New/building-candu-in-ontario-would-send-powerful-signal.html

Companies should think nuclear

Companies should think nuclear: "Imagine if a Hamilton company won a contract to build a supertanker in its port. Now imagine if there was a contract to build 90 supertankers throughout southern Ontario.
The multimillion-dollar refurbishment of the Darlington nuclear power plant scheduled to start in 2014 has the equivalent potential to boost the province’s economy."... "“There does need to be some internal discussion around (the importance of nuclear),” she said about government departments. “People have to stop tiptoeing around nuclear.”"... read more: http://www.thespec.com/news/business/article/634825--backers-urge-area-companies-to-think-nuclear

A national energy strategy?

A national energy strategy must be established before it is too late, a national dialouge is a good start!: "The federal government must start playing a more active role in establishing an energy strategy and coordinating with Canadian provinces. If they don’t, we will leave it up to industry and our American partners to define what this strategy should be."... "We need to address nuclear energy issues such as nuclear waste management and the future role of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL), the exploration of inter-provincial energy and electricity interconnectedness and opportunities, technology developments and R&D investments for cleaner energy generation and extraction. We also need to deal with energy supplies and security in northern communities and the risks of deep water and Arctic drilling for oil and gas resources."... read more: http://www.hilltimes.com/policy-briefing/2011/12/05/we-need-a-coordinated-national-strategy-more-than-any-in-the-world/29012

Wind farms littering the planet

A point of view on the wind turbines for electricity production: "There are many hidden truths about the world of wind turbines from the pollution and environmental damage caused in China by manufacturing bird choppers, the blight on people’s lives of noise and the flicker factor and the countless numbers of birds that are killed each year by these blots on the landscape.
The symbol of Green renewable energy, our saviour from the non existent problem of Global Warming, abandoned wind farms are starting to litter the planet as globally governments cut the subsidies taxes that consumers pay for the privilege of having a very expensive power source that does not work every day for various reasons like it’s too cold or the wind speed is too high." read more: http://toryaardvark.com/2011/11/17/14000-abandoned-wind-turbines-in-the-usa/

Dec. 2 1942, a double milestone for nuclear research

Dec. 2 1942, a double milestone for nuclear research: first man-made sustained nuclear chain reaction was created this day 69 years ago ( http://aps.org/publications/apsnews/201112/physicshistory.cfm) and then 15 years later in 1957, the first full-scale nuclear power plant went online. This is a nice write up about bothe events: http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/12/dayintech_1202 ... also see: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/fermi-produces-the-first-nuclear-chain-reaction, see also: http://www.wbez.org/blog/john-r-schmidt/2011-12-02/december-2-1942-enrico-fermi-and-atomic-chicago-94361

This is also a nice summary of the history of uranium: http://www.virginiaenergyresources.com/s/UraniumFacts.asp?ReportID=138056

As you may know Canada was also putting in efforts to achieve the sustained nuclear chain reaction during the same time period, the reason they lost to the Americans in the race was access to large quantities of high purity graphite. There is a very nice write up by George C. Laurence detailing these efforts: "Experiments in Ottawa
Heavy water was scarce and costly to produce. The 185 kilograms, that the French scientists had obtained from a hydroelectric plant in Norway and brought to England, was most of the world's supply. Rough calculations with the inaccurate data then available suggested that it might be possible to obtain a large release of energy using some form of carbon, instead of heavy water, with the uranium. Carbon would be less suitable for the purpose but was cheaper and easier to obtain. I decided to experiment with carbon and uranium oxide. The experiment would have to be done mostly in overtime because my small section was very busy assisting Canadian industry to become proficient in the radiographic inspection of parts for military aircraft and other equipment. Months later, I learned without surprise that similar experiments with carbon and uranium had been started both in England and the United States at about the same time.
The purpose of the experiment was to determine whether a very large release of nuclear energy would be possible in a large bulk of the kinds of uranium and carbon which I had. It would be possible if at least as many neutrons were released by fission as were captured. That implied that if an independent source of neutrons is surrounded by a small quantity (i.e. a few tonnes) of the combination of uranium and carbon, more neutrons would reach the surrounding walls than if the combination of materials was not present.
In our experiments in Ottawa to test this, the source of neutrons was beryllium mixed with a radium compound in a metal tube about 2.5 centimetres long.   Alpha particles, emitted spontaneously from the radium, bombarded atoms of beryllium and released neutrons from them.   The carbon was in the form of ten tonnes of calcined petroleum coke, a very fine black dust that easily spread over floors, furniture and ourselves.   The uranium was 450 kilograms of black oxide, which was borrowed from Eldorado Gold Mines Limited.   It was in small paper sacks distributed amongst larger paper sacks of the petroleum coke.
The sacks of uranium and coke were held in a wooden bin, so that they occupied a space that was roughly spherical, 2.7 m in diameter.   The wooden bin was lined with paraffin wax about five centimetres thick to reduce the escape of neutrons.   The arrangement is shown above, as a sectional view through the bin and its contents.
A thin wall metal tube supported the neutron source at the centre of the bin, and provided a passage for insertion of a neutron detector which could be placed at different distances from the source.   In the first tests the detector was a silver coin, but in most of the experiments it was a layer of dysprosium oxide on an aluminum disc.
The experimental routine was to expose the detector to the neutrons for a suitable length of time, then remove it quickly from the assembly and place it in front of a Geiger counter to measure the radioactivity produced in it by the neutrons.   The Geiger counter tubes and the associated electrical instruments were homemade because there was very little money to spend on equipment.
The relative rates of neutron capture and neutron release by fission were calculated from the data obtained.   If the release had been greater than the capture it would have been possible to estimate the "critical quantity" of uranium and coke, that is the minimum quantity needed to produce a self-sustained reaction that would release a large amount of nuclear energy.
Prof. B. Sargent of Queen's University joined me in these experiments during the summer university vacations of 1941 and 1942.   Progress was slow because the work was interrupted by other duties and we lacked the better equipment that would be available today.
By late summer in 1942, our measurements had shown that the release of neutrons by fission in our combination of materials was a few percent less than the capture.   Therefore, it would not be possible to obtain a large release of nuclear energy in that combination of materials even if large quantities were used.   There was too much loss of neutrons by capture in impurities in the coke and uranium oxide and in the small quantities of paper and brass that were present.   We did not then realize how a little impurity could lead to failure.
Meanwhile in the United States, E. Fermi, H.L. Anderson, B. Field, G. Weil and W. Zinn, after a first attempt that was also unsuccessful, did succeed in showing that a large release of energy would be possible using purer uranium and very pure carbon in the form of graphite.   Using the necessarily larger quantities, the Americans then built the first nuclear reactor and operated it on December 2, 1942.   They called it an "atomic pile".
In the summer of 1940, R.H. Fowler visited Ottawa, followed soon by J.D. Cockroft.   They had been to the United States to stimulate greater American interest in research of military importance.   They told me about the nuclear energy research in England and that in the United States which they had just seen.
With Prof. Fowler's introduction, I visited L.J. Briggs, who was chairman of the committee that coordinated the American nuclear energy research at that time, and also J.B. Conant, E. Fermi, H.C. Urey and P.H. Abelson and learned of their work.   After my visit, we received in Ottawa copies of reports on the American nuclear energy research for the next two years.   One of them that was particularly helpful was "A Study Concerning Uranium as a Source of Power" by J.B. Fisk and W. Shockly, dated September 17, 1940, a remarkable theoretical discussion of the feasibility of a nuclear reactor to have been written so early.
In response to Cockroft's suggestion when he returned to England we received a gift of $5,000 from Imperial Chemical Industries, which was involved in the nuclear research in England, in support of our experiment.   It was an important addition to our budget, but I valued it most as an expression to Dr. Mackenzie of British confidence in our work." read more: http://media.cns-snc.ca/history/early_years/earlyyears.html