skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Fossil fuels now provide some 90% of Japan's electricity as nuclear plants remain shut down: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/EE_Fossil_fuels_rule_Japan_3105121.html
"The overall picture saw fossil fuels provide 90% of Japan's
electricity from January to April 2012, compared to 64% in for the same
period in 2011. Historically, nuclear power has normally provided about
30%.
Data on the environmental cost of this rush to fossil fuels is
not yet public, but the economic impact has seen Japan's trade balance
dip into the red and sent its companies scrambling to secure LNG
supplies. "
And
here is the link to "A Review of the Supply of Molybdenum-99, the
Impact of Recent Shortages and the Implications for Nuclear Medicine
Services in the UK" and response to its recommendations: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_134424 ... recommendation number one is investment to upgrade existing reactors and to build new research reactors
Phasing out use of HEU: http://isotopix.com/?p=26
.... note that NRU runs on LEU but uses HEU to produce medical
isotopes... I am not aware of any programs to convert that to LEU at
NRU... from the article: "Timothy Meyer, Head of Strategic Planning
& Communications with TRIUMF, Canada’s national laboratory for
nuclear science, explained the implications for medical science in an
exclusive interview with Uranium Investing News. “From our perspective,
the increasing global pressure to move away from any and all supply
chains that employ HEU is driving innovation and the development of
alternative technologies. For instance, the government of Canada
provided $35 million to four Canadian teams in 2012 for a two-year
effort to develop methods for producing technetium-99m – the
highest-demand medical isotope produced by the NRU [National Research
Universal] reactor in Chalk River, Ontario – without employing nuclear
reactors or uranium.” Technetium-99m is used in 85 percent of all
nuclear medicine procedures, estimated globally at 20 million per year."
Some also suggesting perhaps smaller university research reactors could perhaps alleviate future medical isotope shortages: http://www.corvallisadvocate.com/2012/could-small-american-nuclear-reactors-alleviate-future-medical-isotope-shortages/
..."In 2009 and 2010, the world experienced a severe shortage of these
tremendously important medical isotopes. The single Canadian National
Research Universal (NRU) nuclear reactor producing 99Mo and other
isotopes, including Cobalt-60 used in cancer treatment, was shut down
for over 18 months. Also in 2010, 6 months of production time was lost
in the Netherlands’ Petten reactor, which supplies 60% of Europe’s 99Mo
supply. These reactors were two of only five reactors producing medical
isotopes for the entire globe. While the United States consumes 50% of
the world’s annual 99Mo/99mTc supply, it produces none of these medical
isotopes outside of research, and instead the U.S. medical community
relies entirely on shipments from outside the country, mainly from
Canada. As a direct result of the shortage, fewer of these low-risk,
non-invasive radioisotope diagnostic imaging procedures were performed,
especially in North America, many were delayed by days to months, and
the radioisotope costs of these procedures more than doubled.
Due to
politics and capitalism, it’s unlikely that the U.S. will produce its
own domestic supply of medical isotopes in the near future. While other
countries, including Canada, subsidize and support nuclear reactors
capable of producing these isotopes, the U.S. instead views such things
as an “industry issue.” Admittedly, it’s expensive and risky to build
larger-scale reactors capable of generating a country’s-worth of medical
isotopes, even though these reactors are also hugely useful to a
variety of other research fields. Two incredibly expensive reactors
recently built in Canada were eventually abandoned with mechanical
problems. General Electric recently quashed its own private attempt at
medical isotope production citing that it was not currently economic
with Canada’s NRU reactor up and running. Imagine the derision of
taxpayers if a government-funded nuclear reactor capable of producing
medical isotopes was built and paid for but never produced a single
isotope. It gets very complicated.
The reactor here at OSU isn’t
big enough to produce medical isotopes for our entire country. But
small reactors like the TRIGA Mark II are becoming hugely important in
other countries as we try to avoid potential future shortages and meet
increasing worldwide radioisotope demands. Although the U.S. has not
yet begun contributing to the global medical isotope supply, its small
reactors, perhaps especially at Universities, may also be incredibly
important as support in the future when larger reactors inevitably fall
short."
Nuclear management in Ontario: the central lesson: knowledge transfer is critical http://canadianenergyissues.com/2012/05/25/nuclear-management-in-ontario-the-central-lesson/
... this is a good read (makes you pause to think whether political
appointee for such positions is a good thing??? a countries course must
be determined based on the best benefits to the country as a whole not
for the benefits or ideology of one particular political party that
happens to be in power at the time): From the article: "A few days ago I
tried to give some perspective to a newspaper article about the
performance of the Pickering nuclear station. The newspaper article
painted a grim picture, which I tried to explain by pointing up the
decision, by utility chairman Maurice Strong, to reverse direction on
nuclear policy. In the space of about ten short years during the 1970s,
Ontario had become the most nuclearized jurisdiction in North America.
As a jurisdiction we became one of North America’s economic powerhouses;
our biggest industry, car manufacturing, relied then and relies today
on cheap, reliable power.
During those ten years, Ontario became the
proving ground for a unique reactor technology based on natural,
unenriched, uranium fuel and heavy water moderator. This technology,
CANDU, became, within ten short years, the biggest energy provider in
the province, outperforming all other generation types combined.
Suddenly, with this success under its belt, Canada was a force to be
reckoned with in the international civilian nuclear arena. We began
competing with some pretty formidable adversaries, all of whom were
pushing enriched uranium, light water moderated/cooled machines. All had
the backing, through various diplomatic and commercial mechanisms, of
the United States government, by far the mightiest of the two
superpowers.
The international sales effort was already underway
when Strong took over as chair of Ontario Hydro. More importantly, so
was the next wave of nuclear construction in Ontario. The Darlington
project was nearing completion, and there were plans to build another
station at the site. As a political appointee, Strong held his job at
the pleasure of a political party, the NDP, that was then and is today
anti-nuclear.
The fledgling NDP government was under severe
criticism for also being anti-business. So, under the guise of cutting
costs in government, Strong summarily reversed the nuclear policy that
had transformed Ontario Hydro, the province of Ontario, and Canada. He
cancelled the second Darlington station and set about getting rid of a
large part of the nuclear workforce. Jeremy Whitlock of AECL has, as
usual, provided an outstanding assessment of the Strong years, which he
calls “The Lost Years.” It should be required reading.
As Whitlock
points out, Ontario Hydro’s electricity demand forecast, on which the
case for the second Darlington station was based, proved about exactly
right. And as I have pointed out, that demand was met not by clean,
cheap nuclear power but by fossil power.
Strong’s ideologically
motivated decimation of the nuclear workforce ensured that Ontario Hydro
would have great difficulty in refurbishing the older CANDUs at
Pickering A and Bruce A. This is why seven of those CANDUs were taken
out of service by 1997."
More trouble brewing at SNC-Lavalin as CANDU workers respond to company bullying: http://www.spea.ca/media/news-media/spea-news-stories/181-may-23-2012-marketwire-press-release-more-trouble-brewing-at-snc-lavalin-as-candu-workers-respond-to-company-bullying.html
..."In an action more befitting of a third world country,
SNC-Lavalin's Candu Energy has unilaterally stripped employees of
working conditions and imposed new conditions on the highly skilled
nuclear workforce. "SNC-Lavalin is trying to bully our members into
working under lowest terms of employment of any company in the nuclear
industry, this tactic may work in Libya but not in Canada" says Peter
White, President of the Society of Professional Engineers and Associates
(SPEA).
SPEA represents the design team for CANDU reactors who
support and service CANDU in Ontario, New Brunswick, Quebec and abroad
working at Candu Energy, formerly known as Atomic Energy of Canada
Limited (AECL). These conditions will result in the continued exodus of
CANDU technical expertise from the company that was once internationally
recognized as a leader in the nuclear industry. More than two hundred
highly skilled employees with many years of experience have already fled
the company. CANDU reactors are the only nuclear power reactors used in
Canada and have been exported to countries around the world that are
looking for safe, reliable, low emission generation. "SNC-Lavalin is
acting more like Montgomery Burns of Simpsons' fame and if they keep
this up in future they will only be able to recruit Homer Simpsons."
said White. "Our members have built CANDU into a leader in the nuclear
industry and now SNC-Lavalin is prepared to throw that away in one fell
swoop."
"At a time when SNC-Lavalin can least afford another blow to
their tarnished reputation, their newest division, Candu Energy, seems
determined to drag it lower," said White. "They appear to believe that
driving away their most valuable assets, their employees, which will
result in the loss of the design expertise, is the best way to run a
business."
SPEA has given notice to SNC-Lavalin and the Canada
Labour Board that it may respond to SNC-Lavalin action through strike
activity or other legal actions to protect the interests of its members.
"We are reviewing our options on an on-going basis. At this point we
will refuse all over time which will impact work at nuclear stations"
added White."
In contrast to Japan South Korea looks increasingly to nuclear energy to satisfy its energy needs: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/17/japan-nuclear-south-korea
..."Radiation readings in Odaka are well below anything that could be
considered a health risk, but people are still not coming back. Indeed,
the long shadow cast by Fukushima has extended over a much wider area
than any scientific assessment of radiological hazard would argue is
necessary. In Minamisoma, 20km north of the stricken reactor, a
community centre above the town is decked out for indoor play because no
one wants to let their children venture out of doors. The parents
refuse to believe that radiation readings are low enough – barely above
normal background, on my dosimeter – that their children's health would
be improved by letting them play outside in the fresh air. Watching the
kids cooped up in a big wooden hall, I could only conclude that
unnecessary fear of radiation is just as much a hazard as the real
thing.
On a wider scale still, unnecessary fear of radiation now
presents a serious hazard to the world's climate. Japan's precipitous
exit from nuclear power generation – the day I arrived in Tokyo was the
first non-nuclear day in Japan for 42 years – has pushed the country's
fossil fuel demand through the roof, with imports of oil and gas up by
more than 100% since last year, their ballooning cost driving a record
trade deficit of $32bn. As carbon emissions rise in lockstep, Japan's
leaders are now backing off from their international climate change
commitments, which the country has no chance of meeting. Given that
wind, solar and geothermal account for less than 1% of Japan's
electricity generation, the country will be massively dependent on
fossil fuels for decades to come if the reactors stay switched off. The
only alternative is blackout.
Given the trauma of the March 2011
tsunami disaster, Japan's nuclear shutdown is understandable – if
regrettable from a global warming perspective. But a flight across the
Sea of Japan to its neighbour South Korea shows a very different model
in evidence.
In the same week that Japan mothballed its very last
reactor, Korea broke ground on two new-build nuclear power stations – a
pair of APR-1400 units now being constructed at Shin Ulchin, on the east
coast. They are two of eight new stations planned to add to the
country's existing nuclear fleet of 23, currently supplying 45% of the
nation's electricity. To mark the occasion the country's president, Lee
Myung-bak, paid a visit to the site, praising a "huge milestone" for
South Korea's engineers, who had helped the country achieve "the dream
of independent nuclear technology"."
Post Fukushima, intensified interest in Nuclear Power in the MENA region continues:
Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/715283#ixzz1vgYrZF9Y
"There are a number of key challenges facing countries in the MENA
region that are driving plans towards nuclear power generation,
ultimately making this the most exciting region for nuclear contractors
globally. In particular, countries in the region face:
Increasing energy demands due to population and economy growth
Energy independence
Reduction of reliance on fossil fuels
Increasing revenue on fossil fuel exports
Reduction of carbon emissions
As a direct result of these challenges there are significant plans in
place to deliver considerable nuclear generation capacity in the region
by 2030. The Middle East Nuclear New Build Report 2012 has summarised
these announced plans below:
UAE: the leader for nuclear power in
the region – with a four unit NPP under contract with KEPCO. Its program
has moved extremely quickly and the Braka project is looking to bring
four 1400 MW APR1400 reactors online, starting in 2017.
Turkey: has a
four unit NPP under a Build Own Operate contract and is aiming to reach
a minimum of 5% of national electricity to be produced by nuclear power
by 2020. The project entails the engineering procurement and
construction of 4 VVER 1200 reactors by Rosatom. With the site selected
and engineering work initiated, first concrete is scheduled for late
2013.
Jordan: having located significant uranium reserves, Jordon is
aiming to develop a nuclear program that provides 6% of total energy by
2020. Jordon also has ambitions to become a major net exporter, and has
announced its NPP EPC contractor, AREVA NP. Construction of the single
unit 750 to 1000 MW plant at Majdal is scheduled to start in 2013
Saudi Arabia: In April 2010, Saudi Arabia announced its intentions to
develop King Abdullah City for Nuclear and Renewable Energy, (KACARE),
in response to the Kingdom’s growing energy demands, the production of
desalinated water and to reduce reliance on hydrocarbons. In June 2011
these plans were developed with the announcement of 16 nuclear power
reactors to be constructed over the next 20 years. The project will be
offered for international bidding with the first two reactors targeted
for 2021. By 2030 new NPP would generate 20% of Saudi Arabia’s
electricity demand."
New nuclear power plants for UK: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/23/world/europe/british-energy-plan-would-add-nuclear-plants.html "While Germany intends to phase out nuclear power, and France’s new president, François Hollande, says he hopes to reduce his country’s reliance on it, the British government appears to be moving in the opposite direction with its proposals, which are intended to attract $175 billion in investment to build new reactors and renewable energy plants. "
