Nuclear power: The only available solution to global warming

A good read: Nuclear power: The only available solution to global warming: http://www.physicstoday.org/daily_edition/points_of_view/nuclear_power_the_only_available_solution_to_global_warming "New fission technologies not only eliminate the concerns about safety and waste that plague today's reactors; they can also consume existing nuclear waste.
Global warming, energy independence, water scarcity and third-world economic growth are all amenable to a common, safe, clean, cost-competitive and field-tested nuclear solution. Why isn’t this solution universally embraced and implemented?
I suggest two reasons. First, we humans respond much more strongly to dramatic events, like earthquakes, violent weather and terrorist acts, than we do to steady-state threats, such as auto accidents, medical errors and coal particles. At a cost of $4 trillion, we started two wars in response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 that killed 2996. The death tolls in the US from auto accidents (30000), medical errors (44000–200000), and coal dust (13000) are not only higher, but also perennial. The gradual character of carbon dioxide emissions and global warming is elevating our “boiling frog” tendencies to an entirely new scale of danger. Although the problem may not excite us, our pot is warming so quickly that we must leap to survive.
A measure of the magnitude and urgency of this challenge can be found in Bill Gates’ summary of his wonderful TED lecture on this topic: Despite the time, effort and money he has devoted to new vaccines and seeds, if he could be granted a single wish for the coming decades, it would be for a practical, CO2-free energy source. That explicit prioritization reflects his awareness of an especially unfortunate feature of warming, that its burden falls most heavily on the politically voiceless poor, and less heavily on those with the means to address the challenge. The disparity adds to our inertia.
The second reason lies in deeply entrenched myths (which for my purposes I shall define as untruths breeding complacency), rooted in unrealistically high expectations for renewable energy and unrealistically negative expectations for nuclear power. Criticism of nuclear power focuses on history and ignores dramatic advances in fission technology. This incomplete picture gives rise to myths that conflict directly with the assertions of Gates and of John Parmentola, the US army's director of research and laboratory management: that nuclear fission is the only “practical” solution in view.
The remainder of this essay comments on Gates’ criteria for “practicality,” and examines the factors of availability, reliability, cost, scale, safety, proliferation and waste. The good news is that new fission technologies make fission clean, safe, competitively inexpensive, and resistant to terrorism. Moreover, they solve the nuclear-waste challenge. One technology claims to reduce the high-level waste output of a typical power plant from 20 tons per year to a few kilograms. American startups are pursuing commercialization, but much of the action is in other countries, notably China and India. "

The contribution of Marie Skłodowska-Curie to the development of modern oncology

A great read: The contribution of Marie Skłodowska-Curie to the development of modern oncology http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3093546/ "At the end of 19th century a few fundamental discoveries changed diagnostic and therapeutic possibilities in medicine and, particularly, in oncology: in 1895 Wilhelm Roentgen from Germany discovered X-rays, in 1886 Henry Becquerel described the phenomenon of radioactivity of uranium, and in 1898 Marie and Pierre Curie discovered radium and polonium. In 1903 the Nobel Prize for Physics was awarded jointly to Henry Becquerel, and Marie and Pierre Curie for the discovery of radioactivity. Maria Skłodowska-Curie received the 1911 Nobel Prize for Chemistry for her discovery of radium and polonium"

"A relatively new technique based on the discoveries of Marie Skłodowska-Curie is nuclear medicine which uses substances labeled with radioisotopes introduced into the organs of the patient for imaging of the tumors. Progress in nuclear medicine was possible after the Second World War when, after the discoveries of Frederic and Irene Joliot-Curie from 1930s, it became possible to produce artificial radioisotopes in amounts suitable for use in medicine"

Short-term, applied research won't win Canada any Nobel prizes by David Naylor, President of the University of Toronto

A good read: Short-term, applied research won't win Canada any Nobel prizes by David Naylor, President of the University of Toronto: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/short-term-applied-research-wont-win-canada-any-nobel-prizes/article10367360/?utmsource=enews "There’s a popular myth about universities as ivory towers full of fat-cat academics and loopy students asking unanswerable questions. Their willful irrelevance is a waste of taxpayers’ money, so the critics say; get them out of the public trough and doing things Canadian business can really use. I call it a Zombie idea. It’s dangerous, because it has infected some decision-makers. And it’s hard to kill, because there is some truth, and therefore some life in it.
On this latter point, recall that federal and provincial governments sharply increased their spending on research starting in the 1990s. We owe a debt to the university leaders who advocated for those increases. But, in making the case, they expected an economic bonanza – just a hop and a skip from the lab bench to new multinational superstar companies. Everyone forgot that the private sector – not universities – ultimately drives commercialization. Failure to meet those expectations has helped feed the research Zombie, increasing the clamour for applied research with a short-term orientation.
In fact this Zombie has already had an effect on research funding. The data in the first accompanying graph, Fettered and Unfettered Research, show the funding patterns for the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada over the last 30 years.
You can see the pronounced trend. Converting the proportions into real dollars, about $230-million of federal funding has moved from unfettered to fettered research at the University of Toronto over the past five years alone, roughly consistent with a pattern stretching back almost a generation. In other words, we are already engaged with partners. We are already engaged in match-funded, industry-facing research with an applied orientation. This is a national trend, driven by funding decisions over many years.
But did anyone notice that our innovation and competitiveness indicators improved over this period? I didn’t. In fact, the real problem was never the type of research that universities were doing – we had the wrong diagnosis, and the wrong prescription. It was business-related R&D spending that lagged, which is why the Jenkins Panel (on which I was privileged to serve) was convened by the Minister of State for Science and Technology, to examine how to stimulate business spending on innovation.
This funding ecosystem, combined with many disincentives to excellence, makes it harder for us to reach the top tier of the podium. Perhaps this is why Canada has had no home-grown Nobel laureates for 20 years. The research Zombie masters would have you believe that it doesn’t matter. Nobel, Schnobel – let’s level down in the best Canadian tradition and go for the bronze. But there are very good reasons why great basic, disruptive, fundamental research matters.
The first is that the success of home-grown Nobel laureates – not imports – raises aspirations for everyone. Their scholarship inspires and attracts others to follow. Put another way, a country where world-shaking discoveries are made routinely is a country that will always be able to compete by attracting the best and brightest to its shores.
The second is that great scholars doing fundamental research are often inspiring teachers. Ray Jawardhana, for example, is a star-gazer, hunting for Earth-like planets. What’s the value of that? You can’t turn that into a product or service tomorrow. But Professor Jawardhana’s work raises fundamental questions about humanity’s place in the cosmos. He and countless other colleagues spend their lives asking questions that stretch young minds and change expectations. We want – and we need – a generation of young Canadians for whom the sky itself is not the limit.
And here is a third reason why serious fundamental research matters. In my field, medical research, countless discoveries with no immediate application turned out to be the foundations for life-changing and live-saving innovations in clinical care. You can’t predict this in advance. We need to remember that the distinction between fundamental and applied research is misleading. As Nobel laureate Sir George Porter famously pointed out, there is applied research and yet-to-be-applied research.
Geoffrey Hinton’s research into machine learning algorithms and deep neural networks is a brilliant case in point. It has led to unexpected advances in computer vision, speech-recognition, data mining, and – astonishingly – real-time language translation that is now used by Google and Microsoft.
There is another facet here. One needs excellence in research and scholarship across disciplines because no one can predict how disciplines will collide. So much of the best innovation is convergent.
Here is just one fascinating example. Lorna MacDonald teaches performance, opera, and vocal pedagogy in U of T’s Faculty of Music – a very strong program, internationally renowned. At the same time, Professor MacDonald collaborates with the clinicians at the Hospital for Sick Children on cochlear implants, laryngology, speech-language pathology, and pediatric voice and hearing care.
In closing, I offer both a warning and a note of optimism. First, the warning. The second graphic, Measuring Up in Global Rankings, presents composites of rankings across multiple league tables involving Canada’s research-intensive universities.
The data suggest that not enough of our best research universities are figuring strongly on the world stage. And some of them are at serious risk of losing ground. In one jurisdiction after another – China, Brazil, Singapore, France, Germany, the U.S. and the U.K. – major targeted investments have been made to ensure that the strongest research universities are able to compete globally.
Earlier this month, the Times Higher Education group released their rankings of university reputations. These results are based on a survey of thousands of professors worldwide. McGill and the University of British Columbia went from 31st from 25th place. Toronto held steady at 16th. (The third graphic, Canadian Universities in World Rankings, shows these comparative rankings)
Let me share the warning from Phil Baty, the editor of the Times Higher Education rankings and a veteran observer of universities worldwide. Mr. Baty said that the decline was a direct result of Canada’s “highly egalitarian approach.” He put it precisely: “Countries around the world are picking winners and investing heavily in them, so they are coming up the ranks while Canada is slipping.”
Sobering as it is, Mr. Baty’s concise formulation does not address what for me is the most important asset of all – and the asset that will be devalued the most if the Zombies win. I am referring, of course, to young talent. The resources that matter most aren’t in the ground or offshore. The resources that will win the day for Canada are the inquiring, agile, and creative minds of the next generation.
I continue to believe that, given the right education and opportunities, with a full suite of institutions with different missions, including research universities that can compete on the global stage, the next generation of Canadians will make great discoveries, develop transformative technologies, imagine more successful societies, ask hard questions, and lead with verve and vision. I also have faith that, in the years ahead, if we make the right choices, the Zombies will disappear – and our young people will secure a bright future for this great country.
David Naylor is the president of the University of Toronto. This article is abridged from a speech to the Empire Club earlier this month."

The Tar Sands Disaster

A must read: The Tar Sands Disaster: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/01/opinion/the-tar-sands-disaster.html?src=rechp&_r=1& " Both the cabinet and the Conservative parliamentary caucus are heavily populated by politicians who deny mainstream climate science. The Conservatives have slashed financing for climate science, closed facilities that do research on climate change, told federal government climate scientists not to speak publicly about their work without approval and tried, unsuccessfully, to portray the tar sands industry as environmentally benign.
The federal minister of natural resources, Joe Oliver, has attacked “environmental and other radical groups” working to stop tar sands exports. He has focused particular ire on groups getting money from outside Canada, implying that they’re acting as a fifth column for left-wing foreign interests. At a time of widespread federal budget cuts, the Conservatives have given Canada’s tax agency extra resources to audit registered charities. It’s widely assumed that environmental groups opposing the tar sands are a main target.
This coercive climate prevents Canadians from having an open conversation about the tar sands. Instead, our nation behaves like a gambler deep in the hole, repeatedly doubling down on our commitment to the industry. "

Can household solar photovoltaics provide a primary source of low-emission power?

Can household solar photovoltaics provide a primary source of low-emission power? http://bravenewclimate.com/2013/04/01/household-pv-primary-le-power/#more-6096 "PV’s greatest strength lies in being embedded within the low voltage distribution network as a supplementary power source, where it can potentially provide valuable network support, but will require electricity market reform along with a substantial decline in lifetime battery costs. The conclusion is that the short-run tactical response of the expansion of PV without storage works against a long-run strategic approach to deep emission cuts, which will ultimately require the successful adoption of one or more of the candidate low-emission baseload technologies."

How do Russia and the US measure up on SMRs?

How do Russia and the US measure up on SMRs? http://analysis.nuclearenergyinsider.com/small-modular-reactors/how-do-russia-and-us-measure-smrs?utm_source=http%3A%2F%2Fuk.nuclearenergyinsider.com%2Ffc_nei_decomlz%2F&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NEI+e-brief+0204&utm_term=How+do+Russia+and+the+US+measure+up+on+SMRs&utm_content=151899 "Recent developments have focused attention on small modular reactor activity in the US. But Russia is pressing ahead with developments of its own.
As previously reported in Nuclear Energy Insider, the mPower America Team, made up of the Babcock & Wilcox Company, the Tennessee Valley Authority and Bechtel, is powering ahead with SMR commercialisation plans after winning US Department of Energy funding.
Meanwhile other American SMR developers, including Westinghouse, NuScale Power, Gen4 Energy and SMR LLC, are pressing forward with ambitious programmes of their own.
At stake, not only an important domestic market, but also the potential for exports to emerging nuclear customers in regions such as the Middle East and North Africa. But US manufacturers are not alone in the race to make SMRs a commercial reality."

Rocket powered by nuclear fusion could send humans to Mars

Rocket powered by nuclear fusion could send humans to Mars: http://phys.org/news/2013-04-rocket-powered-nuclear-fusion-humans.html "Human travel to Mars has long been the unachievable dangling carrot for space programs. Now, astronauts could be a step closer to our nearest planetary neighbor through a unique manipulation of nuclear fusion, the same energy that powers the sun and stars."

AECL CEO Doctor Bob Walker talks about possibility of a new research reactor at Chalk River

AECL CEO Doctor Bob Walker talks about possibility of a new research reactor at Chalk River: Considering that it takes about 10 years to design and build a new research reactor and several more years to build and commission neutron scattering instruments, even if such a future research reactor included neutron beams, it may be too late to avoid a neutron gap and maintain the existing neutron scattering competency in Canada... http://www.renfrewtoday.ca/default.asp?pid=476487&wireid=01195_ARP_AECLupdate1_052316: "A new reactor is a possibility for Chalk River. AECL is gearing up for the second phase of restructuring, and AECL CEO Doctor Bob Walker presented County Council with an overview of the plans over the next four years. One of the possibilities is a government - commercial partnership to build a new research reactor sometime after 2016. He says the government is not willing to go it alone but would be willing to talk about cost sharing.
These changes will not come overnight. It is expected selecting a new consortium to take over management of the lab will take two years, followed by a phase in period of an additional two years. AECL currently contributes $300 million in salaries and an additional $250 million in supplies and services to the Renfrew County economy."

OPAL Research Reactor

A great short video on OPAL Research Reactor: http://www.ansto.gov.au/AboutANSTO/OPAL/index.htm "Australia’s Open Pool Australian Lightwater (OPAL) reactor is a state-of-the-art 20 Megawatt reactor that uses low enriched uranium (LEU) fuel to achieve a range of nuclear medicine, research, scientific, industrial and production goals."

Report predicts $5.5B radiopharma market by 2017

Report predicts $5.5B radiopharma market by 2017: http://www.auntminnie.com/index.aspx?sec=ser&sub=def&pag=dis&ItemID=102995 "The report estimates that Tc-99m diagnostic procedures are expected to increase by more than 15% in mature markets of North America, Europe, Japan, South Korea, and Asia-Pacific nations between 2010 and 2030.
However, a shortage of molybdenum-99, the precursor to Tc-99m, has been a threat to this industry. Also, the high cost of devices using radioisotopes, short half-lives, lack of good manufacturing practices, and stringent regulatory approvals are major hurdles to growth of the market, according to the report.
The scheduled shutdowns of the National Research Universal (NRU) reactor in Canada in 2016 and the Osiris reactor in France in 2018 pose major risks for manufacturers in the near future, MarketsandMarkets noted. However, radiopharmaceutical companies have increased the production of thallium to meet the shortage, as it is the radiopharmaceutical most commonly used as a substitute for technetium-99 in cardiac stress tests."