The Harper Government Announces New Direction for Nuclear Laboratories

The Harper Government Announces New Direction for Nuclear Laboratories: http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/the-harper-government-announces-new-direction-for-nuclear-laboratories-1762549.htm
Doesn't look good for NRU or a new research reactor: Harper Government Announces Recipients of Funding to Advance New Sources of Medical Isotopes: http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/harper-government-announces-recipients-funding-advance-new-sources-medical-isotopes-1762551.htm

The write up in Ottawa Citizen:
Federal government vows Canada will make HEU-free isotopes by 2016: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/Federal+government+seeks+private+partner+manage+AECL/8029429/story.html

And at Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/28/us-nuclear-isotopes-idUSBRE91R1AE20130228

National Research Council president defends cuts to basic science by Harper government

National Research Council president defends cuts to basic science by Harper government: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/touch/news/ottawa/National+Research+Council+president+explains+directions/8019834/story.html?rel=825269 Well why should an increase funding for industry driven research be equal to cuts to basic science? Why wouldn't industry pay for its own research? why should taxpayers fund only a handful of industries? who gets to choose those few industries? why would a federally funded organization should be so narrow in its focus and work base on such short term goals? what happens to the expert people and equipment after the short term goals are met, they get changed all over again? if no investments are made in basic science, sooner or later industry will run out of innovative technologies and ways of doing things anyway, so funding for basic research will have economical and social benefits at the end anyway... "McDougall has swung the NRC in new directions since Prime Minister Stephen Harper appointed him nearly three years ago: More effort at solving problems of industry, less “curiosity-driven” work with no obvious, immediate application.
This has unsettled some of his own scientists, who have complained that science proceeds best when it’s not directed by short-term industrial goals.
Some outsiders have warned of a possible loss of science ability, including Nobel Prize winner John Polanyi. Rolf-Dieter Heuer, head of the CERN particle physics lab, urged the federal cabinet to support “the richness of basic science and the importance of basic science” when he visited NRC in 2011. He didn’t mention NRC by name, but NRC’s $900-million budget puts it at the heart of federal science."

This is a great read: http://sixthestate.net/?p=1498 "Even without that, I think this new “poster child” program is a terrible idea. The reason we have federal science institutions in the first place is because industry won’t fund projects that don’t have obvious short-term commercial applications, but sometimes those projects are worth doing anyways. The fact that you’re reading this blog at all is proof of that — the Internet is a limited IT research project that has been driven exponentially beyond anything that was initially envisioned. So are antibiotics, to name another useful (and even profitable) example. I could go on, but the point is, there’s a role for basic science. Especially since if you don’t have basic science, the limits of what applied science can do are never going to move much either."

Conservative government attempts to reduce deficit with significant cuts to some organizations including AECL

Globe and Mail reports upcoming budget cuts for AECL: Conservative government attempts to reduce deficit with significant cuts to some organizations including AECL: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/interactive-pensions-up-defence-down-where-ottawa-plans-to-spend-and-cut/article9060870/ "Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.
Historically a drain on federal finances, spending on AECL has dropped significantly since it was sold in 2011 to SNC-Lavalin for $15-million. Ottawa still makes payments to AECL for operating and capital expenditures. Spending for 2013-14 is forecast at $211-million, down from $376.7-million in the 2012-13 main estimates and down from $719-million in total spending for 2011-12."

For those non-believers in AECL's funding cuts, see http://t.co/OpxhAu9tYR page I–10: 

 

Future of CRL announcement

The future of CRL may be announced during the NRCan's minister speech at CNA conferece, Thursday, February 28, 2013 at 9 am: Keynote Speaker: The Honourable Joe Oliver, Minister of Natural Resources: "The Honourable Joe Oliver, Canada’s Minister of Natural Resources will deliver a keynote address on Canada’s nuclear sector." http://www.cna.ca/program

Sylvia Fedoruk Canadian Centre for Nuclear Innovation 2013 Call for Project Proposals

Sylvia Fedoruk Canadian Centre for Nuclear Innovation 2013 Call for Project Proposals: http://www.fedorukcentre.ca/projects/project-proposals.php "Impact Areas
-Advancing nuclear medicine, instruments and methods;
-Advancing knowledge of materials through nuclear techniques for applications in energy, health, environment, transportation, and communication;
- Improving safety and engineering of nuclear energy systems, including small reactors; and
-Managing the risks and benefits of nuclear technology for society and our environment."

CNSC Renews OPG’s Darlington Nuclear Generating Station Operating Licence

CNSC Renews OPG’s Darlington Nuclear Generating Station Operating Licence: http://www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/mediacentre/releases/news_release.cfm?news_release_id=446 " The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) announced today its decision to renew the power reactor operating licence issued to Ontario Power Generation (OPG) for its Darlington Nuclear Generating Station (DNGS). The licence will be valid for a period of 22 months, from March 1, 2013 until December 31, 2014.
In making its decision, the Commission considered information presented at a public hearing held December 3 – 6, 2012 in Courtice, Ontario. During the public hearing, the Commission received and considered submissions from OPG and 690 intervenors, as well as CNSC staff recommendations."

Westinghouse, others have big plans for mini reactors

Westinghouse, others have big plans for mini reactors, too bad Canada is not doing the same: http://triblive.com/business/headlines/3032231-74/nuclear-energy-westinghouse#ixzz2M5uu6KCa " The future of nuclear power may be in smaller reactors that could boost a power plant's output or provide enough electricity to run a factory.
Westinghouse Electric Co., Babcock & Wilcox Co. and federal energy officials are anticipating a market for what is known as a small modular reactor, or SMR.
Cranberry-based Westinghouse has eight full-size AP1000 reactors under construction worldwide, and its experience “will speed the Westinghouse SMR to market with less cost and better economics,” said Kate Jackson, chief technology officer and senior vice president of research and technology.
The capsule-like, 225-megawatt mini-reactor design borrows heavily from the AP1000, with safety systems that use gravity rather than access to power if the plant malfunctions. Control rods inside the reactor unlatch and drop when a problem is detected, shutting down the nuclear reaction, for example.
Some other safety advantages: Water sits above the core, to provide cooling in an emergency. And the unit sits below grade, lessening damage potential from above-ground disruptions.
Westinghouse, which built the nation's first nuclear plant in 1957 in Shippingport, is working with scientists at the University of Missouri at Columbia and Missouri University of Science and Technology to build a small reactor at electric utility Ameren Missouri's Callaway Energy Center."

Scientists call for dramatic steps to curb emissions

Scientists call for dramatic steps to curb emissions : http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/scientists-call-for-dramatic-steps-to-curb-emissions/article9017889/ "A group of climate scientists is calling for Ottawa to take dramatic steps to curb emissions, including halting the advance of the oil sands while it weighs new greenhouse gas regulations for the energy sector.
Canada’s climate performance has come under renewed scrutiny as other major powers consider new regulatory measures. Last week, state media reported that China intends to introduce a modest carbon tax, while the White House and U.S. State Department have signalled a renewed focus on greenhouse gas legislation. At the same time, observers believe new Canadian regulations and progress on climate change would give the Obama administration political cover to approve the Keystone XL pipeline project."

Are wind farms good at reducing carbon emissions, not so much!

Are wind farms good at reducing carbon emissions, not so much! Wind farms will create more carbon dioxide, say scientists http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9889882/Wind-farms-will-create-more-carbon-dioxide-say-scientists.html "Thousands of Britain’s wind turbines will create more greenhouse gases than they save, according to potentially devastating scientific research to be published later this year.
The finding, which threatens the entire rationale of the onshore wind farm industry, will be made by Scottish government-funded researchers who devised the standard method used by developers to calculate “carbon payback time” for wind farms on peat soils.
Wind farms are typically built on upland sites, where peat soil is common. In Scotland alone, two thirds of all planned onshore wind development is on peatland. England and Wales also have large numbers of current or proposed peatland wind farms.
But peat is also a massive store of carbon, described as Europe’s equivalent of the tropical rainforest. Peat bogs contain and absorb carbon in the same way as trees and plants — but in much higher quantities.
British peatland stores at least 3.2billion tons of carbon, making it by far the country’s most important carbon sink and among the most important in the world.
Wind farms, and the miles of new roads and tracks needed to service them, damage or destroy the peat and cause significant loss of carbon to the atmosphere, where it contributes to climate change."

Wind Farms Could Become ‘Monuments Of A Failed Civilisation’

More on wind farms: Wind Farms Could Become ‘Monuments Of A Failed Civilisation’, Top Environmentalist Claims: http://www.thegwpf.org/wind-farms-monuments-failed-civilisation-top-environmentalist-claims/ "One of the world’s top environmentalists has said wind farms risk becoming “monuments of a failed civilisation” as he fights to stop a 275ft turbine being erected near his home. Professor James Lovelock, 93, a founding father of the Green movement, is famous for inventing “Gaia Theory” and predicting global warming would wipe out four fifths of the world’s population by 2100. But he has now expressed despair that the original intentions of the movement have been misconstrued as a license to cast aside our “priceless ecological heritage”."