60 years since the world’s first nuclear reactor powered four light bulbs

60 years ago, on December 20, 1951, the world’s first nuclear reactor generated electricity to power four light bulbs! This is a nice write up about the history and the future of nuclear energy: http://energy.gov/articles/60-years-nuclear-turned-lights "At 1:23pm on December 20, 1951, Argonne National Laboratory director Walter Zinn scribbled into his log book, “Electricity flows from atomic energy. Rough estimate indicates 45 kw.” At that moment, scientists from Argonne and the National Reactor Testing Station, the forerunner to today's Idaho National Laboratory, watched four light bulbs glow, powered by the world’s first nuclear reactor to generate electricity.
Fifteen years later, in Arco, Idaho, President Johnson stood at this same site and designated the reactor a national historic landmark. He said, “We have moved far to tame for peaceful uses the mighty forces unloosed when the atom was split. And we have only just begun. What happened here merely raised the curtain on a very promising drama in our long journey for a better life.”" also see http://www.inl.gov/ebr/ for more info on this first reactor EBR-1... 

also for a video tour of this reactor see: http://www.inl.gov/research/experimental-breeder-reactor-1/

Nuclear waste storage in Canada

Aside from using a language that seems biased against nuclear power and aside from making it like a sensational story, this series of articles seem to be an in-depth reporting on the issue: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Canada+nuclear+cleanup+will+cost+billions+dollars+take+decades+complete/5874209/story.html ... see also: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/atomic-wasteland/index.html .... let us not forget that other energy sources also have hazardous implications for thousands of years and beyond (CO2 greenhouse effect, global warming which could be irreversible)... to stop using the nuclear technology that is clean compared to other sources of energy as well as its other benefits such as medical isotopes and neutron scattering because of the waste seems to be shortsighted... Nuclear waste has been and continues to be stored safely... quoting McCauley, the director of the uranium and radioactive waste division at Natural Resources Canada in the article: "My view is that we’ve got a pretty good story ... to tell in terms of radioactive waste management. I’m not saying that it’s not a big challenge for us, but I do think we’ve got the framework in place that we can be successful."

Will Saskatchewan build a nuclear power plant?

Listen to Premier Brad Wall, Government of Saskatchewan, answering the question whether Saskatchewan will build a nuclear power plant on December 13, 2011. Paraphrasing: 1. Saskatchewan continues to find ways to add value to uranium mining in the province, 2. Saskatchewan is working with private sector and UofS establishing the nuclear research centre there, 3. Saskatchewan is working with Hitachi on developing small reactor technology, 4. Saskatchewan will continue working on nuclear medicine reclaiming its leadership position in that field: http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/1325532118001

 See also the recent budget address: http://www.finance.gov.sk.ca/budget2011-12/BudgetAddress "This year our government is providing Innovation Saskatchewan with $3.5 million for research into areas with promising commercial potential in clean energy, nuclear science and medicine and agriculture biotechnology.
Over the next 7 years our government will invest $40 million to establish Saskatchewan as an international leader in nuclear medicine, science, engineering and safety. "

see: http://www.hitachi.com/New/cnews/110825a.html also see: http://www.gov.sk.ca/news?newsId=19c54e4f-13e9-40f3-b56b-5dc9ac4de086

Discovery of Radioactivity by Henri Becquerel

115 years ago, in 1896 Henri Becquerel while investigating phosphorescence in uranium salts accidentally discovered radioactivity. He was born on December 15, 1852. In honour of his birthday, here is a good historical read on this life changing discovery: http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2011/12/13/henri-becquerels-discovery-of-radioactivity/ ... "The Nobel Prize in Physics 1903 was divided, one half awarded to Antoine Henri Becquerel "in recognition of the extraordinary services he has rendered by his discovery of spontaneous radioactivity", the other half jointly to Pierre Curie and Marie Curie, née Sklodowska "in recognition of the extraordinary services they have rendered by their joint researches on the radiation phenomena discovered by Professor Henri Becquerel": http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1903/ ... and also: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1903/becquerel-bio.html

An interview with Dr. Ted Hsu, recently elected Liberal MP for Kingston and the Islands, about science policy in Canada

A must read interview with Dr. Ted Hsu, recently elected Liberal MP for Kingston and the Islands, about science policy in Canada published in the July-Sept. 2011 issue of Physics in Canada (http://www.cap.ca/en/article/interview-ted-hsu-liberal-mp-kingston-and-islands-conducted-june-2-2011), well said Dr. Hsu: "I would like to see Canada build a new research reactor. This is not something that is party policy. Personally as far as nuclear power is concerned I would like nuclear power to compete on a fully-costed basis and leave it at that. By fully-costed I mean making sure we take into account the full cost of decommissioning and waste disposal and the risk of something going wrong. But a research reactor is a different thing. It’s easy in the physics community to say “Let’s build a research reactor. You know it’s not the same as a power reactor” and physicists understand that but the general public doesn’t. There is still a certain element of fear of nuclear anything, so I think it will require some good communication to explain that no, Canada has a Nobel prize in neutron scattering and we had a world-leading facility in Chalk River that brought industrial and basic researchers from all over the world to collaborate with Canadian scientists, to train Canadian students and bring leading-edge research to Canada. That this reactor is very old and it’s going to break down in a few years again and we are after all made of nuclei but people tell me the average voter may not even know that or be able to vocalize that. So if you want to study matter then you need a source of neutrons and if you want to make medical isotopes you need to have a reactor and if nuclear energy is going to be part of the energy mix in the future, then you need to study how materials are affected by radiation. I think there is a very good case to be made that Canada should commit to build a new research reactor and commit to being in the lead again in research in that area. So that’s something that I would like to see."

Small modular reactors: key to future nuclear power generation in the US?

Do small modular reactors hold the key to future nuclear power generation in the US? a study released earlier this month from the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago (EPIC) concludes yes indeed: http://news.uchicago.edu/article/2011/12/13/small-reactors-could-figure-us-energy-future "“Clearly, a robust commercial SMR industry is highly advantageous to many sectors in the United States,” concluded the study, led by Robert Rosner, institute director and the William Wrather Distinguished Service Professor in Astronomy & Astrophysics.
“It would be a huge stimulus for high-valued job growth, restore U.S. leadership in nuclear reactor technology and, most importantly, strengthen U.S. leadership in a post-Fukushima world, on matters of nuclear safety, nuclear security, nonproliferation, and nuclear waste management,” the report said.
The SMR report was one of two that Rosner rolled out Thursday, Dec. 1, at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. Through his work as former chief scientist and former director of Argonne National Laboratory, Rosner became involved in a variety of national policy issues, including nuclear and renewable energy technology development.
The reports assessed the economic feasibility of classical, gigawatt-scale reactors and the possible new generation of modular reactors. The latter would have a generating capacity of 600 megawatts or less, would be factory-built as modular components, and then shipped to their desired location for assembly." ..., here is the link to the full report: https://epic.sites.uchicago.edu/sites/epic.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/EPICSMRWhitePaperFinalcopy.pdf

Why nuclear power plants might cost several times more than they should in initial capital investments

This is a great read by Rod Adams as to why nuclear power plants might cost several times more than they should in initial capital investments: http://atomicinsights.com/2011/12/examples-of-regulatory-costs-for-nuclear-energy-development.html

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."