Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Atomic Energy Canada. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Atomic Energy Canada. Sort by date Show all posts

Wednesday, December 11, 2024

WAIT, WHAT?!


Canada considers financing for Polish nuclear power plant

Tuesday, 10 December 2024

Polskie Elektrownie Jądrowe announced it has received a letter of intent from Export Development Canada, for up to CAD2.02 billion (USD1.45 billion) to potentially support Poland's first nuclear power plant project.

Canada considers financing for Polish nuclear power plant
How the plant in Pomerania could look (Image: PEJ)

The letter of intent with Export Development Canada (EDC) - a Canadian Crown corporation - is in support of the sale of goods and services by Canadian suppliers. EDC support is subject to the successful completion of its detailed due diligence process and credit approval.

Westinghouse - jointly owned by Canadian firms Brookfield and Cameco - welcomed the signing of the letter of intent, which it said it helped facilitate.

"Not only does this financing agreement underscore the important role Canada will play in helping Europe secure and diversify its energy future, but it will also help prepare the nation's nuclear supply chain to support the next AP1000 plant in North America," said Westinghouse Energy Systems President Dan Lipman. "We appreciate the close cooperation of the EDC in helping Westinghouse make AP1000 projects a reality for its customers while bringing home economic benefits to Canada."

Westinghouse said the announcement demonstrates its "deep commitment to Canada's economy by securing work for Canadian firms and trade unions supporting Westinghouse's global fleet of advanced reactors". For each AP1000 unit that is built outside of Canada, Westinghouse says it could generate almost CAD1 billion in gross domestic product through local suppliers.

Last month, the US International Development Finance Corporation - the USA's development bank - signed a letter of interest with Polskie Elektrownie Jądrowe (PEJ) to provide more than USD980 million in financing for Poland's first nuclear power plant. A similar declaration, for the equivalent of about PLN70 billion (USD17.3 billion), was made earlier by the US Export-Import Bank. Westinghouse and Bechtel jointly form a consortium that implements the PEJ investment project in Pomerania.

"We are pleased to see strong interest in our investment project from leading players in the global financial market, with whom we are in constant contact. The letter of intent from Export Development Canada is another confirmation of this fact, and at the same time our next step towards implementation of the strategy for obtaining financing for the entire project," said PEJ Vice President Piotr Piela. 

PEJ said: "Cooperation with export credit agencies is an important part of the strategy for securing financing for the nuclear power plant in Pomerania – it involves continuing discussions with, among others, entities from countries with extensive nuclear supply chains, in order to maximise and optimise financing opportunities for this key investment project for Poland."

In November 2022, the then Polish government selected the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor technology for construction at the Lubiatowo-Kopalino site in the Choczewo municipality in Pomerania in northern Poland. An agreement setting a plan for the delivery of the plant was signed in May last year by Westinghouse, Bechtel and PEJ - a special-purpose vehicle 100% owned by Poland's State Treasury. The Ministry of Climate and Environment in July issued a decision-in-principle for PEJ to construct the plant. The aim is for Poland's first AP1000 reactor to enter commercial operation in 2033.

Under an engineering services signed in September last year, in cooperation with PEJ, Westinghouse and Bechtel will finalise a site-specific design for a plant featuring three AP1000 reactors. The design/engineering documentation includes the main components of the power plant: the nuclear island, the turbine island and the associated installations and auxiliary equipment, as well as administrative buildings and infrastructure related to the safety of the facility. The contract also involves supporting the investment process and bringing it in line with current legal regulations in cooperation with the National Atomic Energy Agency and the Office of Technical Inspection.

In September, the Polish government announced its intention to allocate PLN60 billion to fund the country's first nuclear power plant.

Has Nuclear Energy Finally Overcome the Chernobyl Disaster?

  • Accidents like Chornobyl and Fukushima have damaged the public perception of nuclear power, leading to decreased investment and development.

  • Nuclear power is a low-carbon energy source with a proven track record of safety and reliability.

  • Despite past challenges, there is a growing global interest in nuclear power as a key component of a sustainable energy future.


Three major nuclear events throughout the history of nuclear power production have tainted the image of the clean energy source, according to recent reports and years of public opinion polls. The events at Chornobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island swayed public opinion against nuclear power in many areas of the world for several decades, encouraging governments worldwide to move away from the clean energy source in favor of continued fossil fuel use. Today’s energy mix could look extremely different if these events had not occurred, or greater efforts had been taken to raise public awareness over nuclear safety.

According to a recent report published by a think tank from the ex-U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair – Tony Blair Institute (TBI), the nuclear power industry could have had a significant impact on global carbon emissions had it continued to grow at the same pace as before the 1986 Chornobyl nuclear disaster. It predicted that carbon emissions would be around 6 percent lower today if a different narrative of nuclear energy had been established following the Chornobyl disaster, rather than one that spurred “unfounded public concern”.

The Chornobyl nuclear power station was located in Pryp’yat, 10 miles northwest of the city of Chornobyl and 65 miles north of Kyiv. It consisted of four reactors, each with a 1 GW capacity. The disaster happened on April 25–26, 1986, when workers shut down the reactor’s power-regulating system and its emergency safety systems and withdrew most of the control rods from its core while it ran at 7 percent power. A combination of human errors led to several explosions triggering a large fireball that blew off the heavy steel and concrete lid of the reactor, which resulted in a partial meltdown of the core. This led large quantities of radioactive material to go into the atmosphere and spread for miles around.

Around 30,000 inhabitants were evacuated from Pryp’yat and a cover-up took place by the Soviet Union. However, Swedish monitoring stations reported abnormally high levels of wind-transported radioactivity, which led authorities to admit there had been an accident. The attempted cover-up and delayed information about the event led to an international outcry over the dangers of radioactive waste. The heat and the radioactivity leaking from the reactor core started to be contained in May, and the highly radioactive reactor core was later enclosed in a concrete-and-steel sarcophagus. Reports on the number of deaths associated with both the disaster and the lingering radioactivity in the region vary widely.

The TBI report found that over 400 reactors commenced operations in the three decades before Chornobyl, but fewer than 200 had been commissioned in the almost three decades since. The report stated, “The result is that nuclear energy has never become the ubiquitous power source many had projected, with countries instead turning towards alternatives such as coal and gas.” It suggests that two other major nuclear incidents – Fukushima and Three Mile Island – also harmed the public perception of nuclear power

Nevertheless, the TBI predicts the world will see a “new nuclear age” in the coming years, as environmentalists and governments worldwide double down on their commitment to nuclear power as part of a green energy transition. Nuclear energy has been providing abundant clean power to countries worldwide for around 70 years. Unlike most renewable energy sources, nuclear energy can be produced 24 hours a day, rain or shine, providing a stable flow of clean power to the grid. Some new-generation power plants are now capable of operating for up to 80 years, which is far longer than gas- or coal-fired power stations, as well as many renewable installations.

In addition, a multitude of studies over several decades show that fossil fuels are overwhelmingly more harmful to health and the environment than nuclear power. Experts think that air pollution from fossil fuels is responsible for around 7 million deaths a year, while nuclear energy carries a similar level of risk to wind power, which is around 350 times safer than coal. Per terawatt-hour of energy production, coal is thought to cause 24.6 deaths, oil 18.4 deaths, natural gas 2.8 deaths and nuclear energy 0.07 deaths.

The International Atomic Energy Agency says that nuclear power plants are among “the safest and most secure facilities in the world.” They must adhere to strict international safety standards and both training and best practices have become stricter and more internationally standardized in recent decades. Further, nuclear waste storage facilities are highly protected against earthquakes, tornadoes, and other potential disasters.

The lead author of the report Tone Langengen stated, “A new nuclear age is beginning. But whether it continues will depend entirely on whether leaders are willing to move past false alarm and ideology, making judgment based upon fact-based assessment of risk.”

By Felicity Bradstock for Oilprice.com


NANO announces flurry of microreactor MoUs

Tuesday, 10 December 2024

Recent memorandums of understanding signed by microreactor developer NANO Nuclear Energy will see it work with the US Department of Energy on evaluating the feasibility of siting its experimental microreactors at the Idaho National Laboratory; with the Togolese government on the potential deployment of its microreactors in West Africa; and with a Canadian startup company on integrating its technology with an innovative farming technique.

NANO announces flurry of microreactor MoUs
Robert Koffi Messan Eklo, Minister of Mines and Energy Resources of the Togolese Republic (left) and NANO Nuclear's Ian Farnan signed the MoU to support the development and deployment of advanced nuclear technology and infrastructure in Togo (Image: NANO Nuclear Energy)

An MoU with US Department of Energy Idaho Operations Office will see NANO Nuclear work with the department and operator of the national lab Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC to progress the development, siting, and eventual testing of the ZEUS and ODIN microreactors. The agreement outlines core activities, such as site evaluations, support of Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing activities, and the development of operational and security plans, including hazardous material management, with the parties collaborating to assess the suitability of INL's infrastructure and secure appropriate land-use agreements for supporting the experimental reactors.

The agreement, which will remain in place for five years with a renewal option, also includes provisions for regulatory coordination, communication strategies, and efforts to ensure environmental compliance under the National Environmental Policy Act.

"This partnership with DOE's Idaho Operations Office allows us to take multiple critical steps toward demonstrating the economic viability and real-world applications of NANO Nuclear's microreactor technology,” NANO Nuclear CEO and Head of Reactor Development James Walker said.

The ZEUS microreactor features a sealed, solid reactor core and a power conversion system that fit inside a single standard shipping container. ODIN is a low-pressure coolant reactor.

Togo agreement
 

Separately, the government of the Togolese Republic is to support NANO Nuclear's licensing and implementation efforts in the West African country under an MoU announced on 5 December. NANO Nuclear will be responsible for evaluating the specific regional needs for energy systems that can support remote mines, industries, data centres, towns, hospitals, and desalination plants throughout the country, without the need to connect to the national grid.

This is NANO Nuclear’s second such MoU in Africa, following an agreement with the Rwanda Atomic Energy Board (RAEB) signed in August. To help support a sustainable nuclear energy industry in Africa, NANO Nuclear said it will look to expand its collaboration with the RAEB and the African Institute for Mathematical Sciences' Next Einstein initiative to further expand the educational and vocational opportunities for young professionals throughout Africa. The company also said it plans to set up a training course for nuclear physicists and engineers in collaboration with Cambridge University and the Togo Ministry of Education.

Vertical farming
 

A non-binding MoU between NANO Nuclear and Vert2Grow Energy Solutions Inc - a start-up partnership between Food Security Structures Canada and Marina Point Capital Inc - will see the parties explore the integration of NANO Nuclear's portable microreactor technology Vert2Grow's innovative vertical farming solutions to deliver sustainable power and food production capabilities to remote communities.

The MoU seeks to address the challenges faced by remote and underserved areas, where access to reliable energy and food supply is limited, leveraging NANO Nuclear’s advanced reactor systems in development and FSSC’s proprietary controlled-environment agriculture technology, developing a comprehensive framework to deliver innovative solutions that NANO said "may eventuate in the execution of one or more definitive agreements".

FSSC is pioneering vertical farming systems that enable year-round, high-yield food production in challenging environments, by using advanced automation, energy-efficient lighting, and climate control technologies.

The collaboration's initial scope of work will include feasibility studies to evaluate the integration of microreactor and vertical farming technologies; identifying and shortlisting optimal locations for pilot projects, focusing on remote communities, disaster-prone areas, and industrial camps across sub-Saharan Africa, South America, Southeast Asia, and Northern Canada; the design and launch of a potential pilot programme by 2027, integrating a prototype microreactor system with a demonstration vertical farm; and developing outreach programmes to train local personnel in operating and maintaining the integrated systems. The collaboration is targeting a deployment timeline beginning in the early 2030s.

"This collaboration embodies NANO Nuclear Energy’s vision to deliver not just power, but transformative solutions for communities that need them most," Walker said. "By combining our plans for clean, portable nuclear power with state-of-the-art vertical farming systems, we are seeking to address two of the most critical needs in remote regions: reliable energy and food security."

Agreements represent step forward for nuclear in Uzbekistan, says Uzatom

Tuesday, 10 December 2024

Strategic agreements signed by Uzbek interests during a conference held in Samarkand include cooperation agreements with international organisations, business interests and academia.

Agreements represent step forward for nuclear in Uzbekistan, says Uzatom
World Nuclear Association Director General Sama Bilbao y Leon (on the left) was a signatory of the agreement between the Association and Uzatom (Image: Uzatom)

Each of the documents represents an important step forward in establishing productive cooperation and sharing experience in the use of atomic energy, Uzbekistan's Uzatom atomic energy agency said.

The following documents were signed during the one-day Prospects for the Use of Nuclear Energy for Peaceful Purposes in Sustainable Development of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Member States conference on 5 December in Samarkand:

1. Additions to the Framework Country Program between the Atomic Energy Agency under the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan (Uzatom) and the International Atomic Energy Agency;
2. Memorandum of Understanding between Uzatom and World Nuclear Association;
3. Memorandum of Cooperation between Nuclear Power Plant Construction Directorate and China National Nuclear Corporation Overseas;
4. Memorandum of Cooperation between the Uzatom and the Institute of Nuclear Physics of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Uzbekistan;
5. Agreement between the Uzatom and Assystem Engineering & Operation Services;
6. Memorandum of Understanding and Cooperation between the Branch of the Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education "National Research Nuclear University MEPhI" in Tashkent and the Research Institute for the Development of Digital Technologies and Artificial Intelligence.

Uzbekistan is the world’s fifth-ranking uranium supplier and President of Uzbekistan Shavkat Mirziyoyev told the conference in his keynote address that ensuring reliable, safe, cost-effective and ecologically friendly energy sources is a top priority in the large-scale reforms carried out in "New Uzbekistan". The country's generation is a top priority for the country: its generation is currently dominated by natural gas, and it also imports electricity from Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, but demand is expected to double by 2030.

Infrastructure work began earlier this year for the construction of a six-unit small modular reactor nuclear power plant to be built in the Jizzakh region, based on the 55 MW RITM-200N pressurised water reactor - the first export order for the Russian design.

Shimane 2 restarts after 13 years being offline

Monday, 9 December 2024

Unit 2 of the Shimane nuclear power plant in Japan's Shimane Prefecture was restarted on 7 December, Chugoku Electric Power Company announced. It becomes the fourteenth Japanese reactor - and the second boiling water reactor - to resume operation.

Shimane 2 restarts after 13 years being offline
The Shimane plant (Image: Qurren/CreativeCommons)

The 789 MWe boiling water reactor (BWR) had been offline since January 2012.

In June 2021, Shimane 2 became the 17th Japanese reactor to pass the regulator's safety screenings and the fifth BWR - the same type as those at the Fukushima Daiichi plant - to receive regulatory approval to restart.

Following approvals by the cities of Matsue, Izumo, Yasugi and Unnan, in June 2022 the governor of Shimane prefecture approved the restart of Shimane 2. His approval marked the completion of the process to gain the consent of local communities for the unit to resume operation.

In early October, Chugoku released a revised schedule for the restart of the unit. It said the reactor was expected to restart in early December, with power generation scheduled to begin in late December. The reactor will resume commercial operation in early January 2025.

Chugoku began loading fuel into the core of Shimane 2 on 28 October. The process of loading the 560 fuel assemblies was completed on 3 November.

The company has now announced that the reactor was restarted at 3pm local time on 7 December, reaching criticality at 4.50pm.

Chugoku President and CEO Kengo Nakagawa said: "We believe that we have reached an important milestone in the restart process. We will continue to put safety first and work with even greater intensity as we steadily proceed with inspections and checks of equipment in preparation for paralleling (restarting) generators and resuming commercial operations one by one. We will do our best to ensure the restart process.

"Furthermore, we aim to be a power plant that provides peace of mind to the local community by striving to appropriately disclose information regarding the status and initiatives of the power plant, and providing detailed explanations at various opportunities."

The restart of Shimane 2 was welcomed by Kingo Hayashi, chairman of the Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan. "We believe this is the result of the various efforts that Chugoku Electric Power and its partner companies have made to make safety their number one priority, as well as the careful explanation of those efforts to the local community. We would like to express our gratitude and respect to Chugoku Electric Power, the local government where the plant is located, and all those involved in the project.

"We recognise that this reactor startup marks an important milestone toward the restart of Shimane nuclear power plant unit 2. It is expected that the plant will be restarted under safe operations in the future, and in addition to this being from the perspectives of improving energy self-sufficiency, ensuring a stable supply of electricity, and achieving carbon neutrality, we believe this is extremely significant in that it will be the second restart of a BWR, which has not made as much progress in restarting as pressurised water reactors (PWRs), following the recent restart of Tohoku Electric Power's Onagawa nuclear power plant unit 2."

Onagawa 2 was restarted on 29 October, becoming the first BWR in Japan to be restarted.

Framatome to share fast reactor experience with Japan

Friday, 6 December 2024

France's Framatome has signed a Design Cooperation Implementation Arrangement for the development of sodium-cooled fast reactors with the Japan Atomic Energy Agency, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Mitsubishi FBR Systems.

Framatome to share fast reactor experience with Japan
The signing of the agreement (Image: Framatome)

The General Arrangement - which summarises the details of cooperation between Japan and France regarding the development of fast reactors - has been updated between the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan, and the French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission.

Following the update of this agreement, the implementing agencies of the fast reactor development collaboration - Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA), Japan Atomic Power Company (JAPC), Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) and Mitsubishi FBR Systems (MFBR) - signed an Arrangement for R&D Cooperation for research, development and design review of fast reactors with the French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission (CEA), EDF and Framatome. Under the Arrangement for R&D Cooperation, Japan's experience from the Joyo and Monju fast reactors and France's experience from the Phenix and Superphenix reactors will be used to advance research and development of severe accidents, structural materials, core materials, fuel technology, numerical simulation tools, design review, and design requirements for the Japanese demonstration fast reactor.

In addition, JAEA, MHI and MFBR signed a Design Cooperation Implementation Arrangement with Framatome on design cooperation for the fast reactor. The Design Cooperation Implementation Arrangement calls for cooperation taking lessons from France's experience to develop the design and design evaluation of equipment and systems that the Japanese side considers necessary for the Japanese project.

The agreement was signed on Friday in Tokyo by Framatome Executive Vice President François Billot, JAEA President Masanori Koguchi, MHI Senior Vice President Hidehito Mimaki and MFBR President Makoto Yamagishi.

Framatome noted the agreement marks the beginning of its contribution to the new Japanese programme for the development of a demonstration sodium-cooled fast reactor (SFR).

"With the conclusion of these implementing arrangements, the development track record and operating experience in France will be reflected in the conceptual design of the Japanese demonstration fast reactor and associated research and development in Japan, promoting the development of fast reactors in Japan and in France," the Japanese partners said in a joint statement.

Japan's demonstration sodium-cooled fast reactor (with a capacity of about 600 MWe) is based on an integrated SFR architecture (pool-type reactor) already developed and implemented in France. At the request of the Japanese partners, Framatome will provide feedback and design evaluation both on the technology and the architecture of this type of reactor.

"Framatome is proud to be able to share its experience in developing this technology with our Japanese partners," said François Billot, executive vice president of Framatome Offers & Projects. "This cooperation will contribute to reinforcing and maintaining the skills acquired by Framatome in the field of sodium-cooled fast reactors. This new agreement strengthens the cooperation that began 10 years ago."

In December 2019, MHI and MFBR, together with JAEA, signed an agreement to cooperate on the development of fast neutron reactors with Framatome and the CEA.

MHI was selected in July 2023 by the Japanese government to lead the conceptual design of the demonstration SFR, which is to enter operation in the 2040s. MHI will oversee both the conceptual design as well as research and development for the reactor in partnership with MFBR, which was established in 2007 as an engineering company responsible for the development of FBRs in Japan based on the Mitsubishi Group's accumulated experience in nuclear-related business.

Fast neutron reactors offer the prospect of vastly more efficient use of uranium resources than in conventional power reactors, as well as the ability to burn actinides. Fast reactors have operated in various countries since the 1950s, with some producing electricity commercially.

JAEA has a history of operating sodium-cooled fast reactors, such as Monju in Fukui Prefecture and the Joyo experimental fast reactor in Ibaraki Prefecture. However, the development of fast reactors in Japan was halted when the government decided to decommission Monju in 2016, following a series of problems, including leakage of sodium coolant in 1995.

France itself has operated three such reactors since the 1960s, including Phenix, which operated from 1973 to 2009. The CEA was commissioned by the government to develop two fourth generation fast reactors including Astrid in 2006, and it was decided in 2009 to make Astrid a high R&D priority because of its potential as an actinide burner.

LANL researchers complete HALEU criticality experiment

Friday, 29 November 2024

The Deimos experiment at Los Alamos National Laboratory is the first criticality experiment using high assay low-enriched uranium fuel to be carried out in the USA in more than 20 years, and will help to develop public data and criticality benchmarks for the material.

LANL researchers complete HALEU criticality experiment
A graphite fuel 'cup' containing fuel pellets ready for insertion into a Deimos graphite monolith (Image: DOE)

Criticality benchmarks are essential to nuclear design and safety evaluations required by the industry and regulatory bodies, but there are very few benchmarks that use high assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU). The US Department of Energy (DOE) and Nuclear Regulatory Commission are collaborating on the development of criticality data for HALEU: in August, the DOE awarded USD17 million of funding to 16 projects to help develop public data and criticality benchmarks related to the use, storage, and transportation of HALEU fuels.

The Deimos criticality demonstration, funded by Los Alamos National Laboratory’s Laboratory Directed Research and Development programme, took place at the National Criticality Experiments Research Center at the Nevada National Security Site. The centre has four critical experiment machines and is the only general-purpose critical experiments facility in the USA equipped to conduct experiments on fissionable material at or near criticality.

One of the critical assembly machines at the centre was modified to accommodate a new graphite core and 'cups' to hold HALEU-based fuel pellets containing TRISO (tri-structural isotropic) fuel particles. After demonstrating criticality of the system, the experiment was then measured at room temperature and heated to more than 200° Fahrenheit (93.3° Celsius) to generate new criticality safety data on HALEU fuel.


Assembling the Deimos experiment (Image: Department of Energy (DOE))

"The Deimos experiment is an important step towards deploying HALEU-fuelled nuclear reactors," said Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) Programme Manager for Nuclear Energy Chris Stanek said. "We are excited and proud to make use of unique LANL capabilities to advance the nation's advanced reactor goals, and we look forward to future experiments that Deimos enables."

Many advanced reactors will require HALEU to achieve smaller designs, longer operating cycles, and increased efficiencies over existing nuclear technologies. Data developed from the projects funded through the DOE and Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Criticality Benchmarking solicitation will be made publicly available to enable efficient future design and safety reviews and help the nuclear industry develop new and novel solutions to address data gaps.

 World Nuclear News

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Nuclear NIMBY

Unlike many opponents to nuclear power use in the Alberta tar sands, I am not anti-CANDU.

I support the use of CANDU as the safest low volume residue reactors in the world. That their need for continuing capitalization for maintenance is what has been problematic in the case of the industry in Ontario. Had the world adopted CANDU disasters like Three Mile Island or Chernobyl would never have occurred, because the technologies are different.


That being said, as a power engineer I oppose the use of Nuclear power in the Tarsands, as inefficient and not cost effective, because it will be used for steam injection of bitumen rather than for production of electricity. This will take up larger volumes of water, and further pollute the existing Athabasca river with heated effluent.

Nuclear power might be all the rage for some interested parties in Alberta's oil patch, but others question the need for such controversial power generation in an industry that requires more steam than electricity.
And let's understand that is what is being proposed for the tarsands, not just an electrical plant but one for steam and electrical production needed for bitumen production.

He was one of a small delegation of community leaders from Peace River, interested in visiting New Brunswick’s nuclear power plant. Whitecourt and Peace River are in the running to host Western Canada’s first nuclear plant, putting it about an hour’s drive from the B.C. border. It’s proposed for northwestern Alberta due to the presence of bitumen trapped in rock west of the main oilsands deposits.

Nuclear power may soon run deep electric heaters to extract that rockbound oil, reduce emissions for conventional oilsands extraction and perhaps light northeastern B.C. homes. It would spur the proposed pipeline to deliver the black gold to the west coast at Kitimat and on to Asia, and further cement the merger of Alberta and B.C. into Canada’s western super-province.


The prize Royal Dutch is chasing is bitumen trapped in hard-rock limestone, rather than the conventional oil sands around Fort McMurray where bitumen is mixed with dirt and sandstone.

The Anglo-Dutch energy giant is the likeliest customer for a nuclear power plant proposed by Energy Alberta Corp., a private company working with Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.Unlocking the multibillion-barrel bonanza encased in limestone requires an astounding amount of electricity.

The resource has been known for decades but efforts to recover it have failed.

Royal Dutch is working on electric heaters below ground to loosen up the gooey bitumen to draw it to the surface through wells.

The firm is trying to commercialize what it calls a "novel thermal recovery process" invented by Shell's technology arm.


But because companies in the oilsands are now becoming conservationists due to the provinces carbon tax, they are finding alternatives to nuclear power in other fuels they generate as waste.

oil companies are already moving rapidly towards cheaper, more efficient technologies than those used for the past 20 years, one representative said.

''Nuclear may be an option in five to 10 years from now, but in the meantime, people are already moving off of natural gas and moving on to other things,'' Greg Stringham, with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers said.

In the meantime, gasification of asphaltines, the dregs of the bitumen barrel, is one process being piloted in the oil sands as an alternative fuel, and underground fires fueled by oily air is another revolutionary technology being piloted to reduce costs in the oil sands, Stringham said.


So the guy who once was the leader of the Young Conservatives in Alberta now has to find a different market for his nuclear power plant. While still hoping to sell it to the oil companies as a possible mode for steam injection processes.

Energy Alberta, with partner Crown corporation Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., originally targetted the energy-hungry oil sands in its sales pitch, but has moved on to focus on Alberta in general. ''The purpose of this plant is to produce electricity only,'' spokesman Guy Huntingford said. ''Obviously hydrogen and steam are byproducts of it, but that's not why it's being built; it's being built purely for electricity, so we can place the plant anywhere.''

Nuclear power production of electricity is cleaner than coal, even when considering the environmental impact of both its energy source; uranium mining and fresh water, and its waste problems. It is also less environmentally damaging in comparison to the impact of hydro plants.

In fact nuclear power was one alternative source that M.K. Hubert recommended when offering alternatives to oil consumption in his Peak Oil theory.

The Green NGO's and their campaigners target nuclear power because they equate it with two false premises; fear of radiation, and fear of nuclear war.

They equate peaceful nuclear power with the military industrial complex, and they play on peoples fear of radiation.

There are all kinds of other problems with nuclear energy, including safety (even if technology has improved there is no such thing as a 100% accident proof anything, and a nuclear accident is the stuff of nightmares), dangerous waste (there is no way to get rid of nuclear waste at this time and the plant to be built would store all waste on site), environmental concerns (water would be drawn from the Peace River and that could mean pollution or an effect on local ecosystems), security (governments say nuclear power and nuclear waste are potential terrorist targets), and scarcity (uranium is a limited, non-renewable resource).

Facing reality
Editorial - Monday, June 18, 2007 @ 08:00

Not in my backyard. The call is going out loud and clear. In fact, it has been reverberating in both political and community circles ever since it was realized nuclear energy generates waste that must be stored somewhere.

As recorded in Saturday's Nugget, Nipissing-Timiskaming MP Anthony Rota has grave doubts about the whole concept of burying nuclear waste.

Rota is both a cancer victim and survivor. He cannot be thanked or commended too much for having the courage to admit his experience with cancer, and always being at the forefront in every effort to fight this dreaded disease.

Nuclear waste is radioactive. Radiation causes cancer. Rota speaks for millions of Canadians who are afraid of the stuff and do not want it in their backyards
Radioactive waste is the trouble with nuclear power says the right wing Green NGO Energy Probe which opposes nuclear power because they are shills for King Coal.

Dealing with the waste produced by nuclear reactors is one area that constantly dogs the nuclear power industry. Norman Rubin, director of nuclear research for the anti-nuclear organization Energy Probe, believes the waste is the primary problem with the technology.


The real problem is that with Canada's state funded CANDU, uranium industry and its provincial funded utilities,etc. the control lies with a closed group of state sanctioned corporations like Atomic Energy Canada, which have no public transparency, with no public representation on the board; union, consumer, engineering associations, MP's, etc.


The licensing of more reactors would also be a great boon, at potentially greater public expense, to Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd, which has received subsidies of $17.5 billion over 50 years, according to the Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout.

Widespread distrust of existing agencies led Canadians to call for a new independent, non-partisan oversight body to keep tabs on how both government and industry handle nuclear waste.

This message means that top elected officials in Ottawa and the provinces must "revisit the mandates of existing oversight bodies in the nuclear field," concludes the report. Bodies like the federal regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, will need to have a "very public face."


Where our concern has to be is the privatization of nuclear power, it is when plants like that at Three Mile Island or worse; Hanford, are built by Westinghouse and contractors in a P3 with the State that slip shod construction and maintenance leads to critical problems.

The same kind of cronyism that saw the MIC in the U.S. build nuclear power plants was the kind of cronyism that occurred when the Soviet State built its MIC nuclear power plant in the Ukraine. After all Ukrainians were expendable just like the nice folks around Hanford, or those who live in the Nevada desert.

CANDU was a state sponsored engineered and maintained nuclear power process plant different from the Westinghouse and other designs. It was during the Harris and Martin governments rush to privatize and cut back public sector funding that resulted in the Bruce plant in Ontario running into problems.
Bruce is now operated by a more public corporation which includes the Power Workers Union.

But in the Post-Kyoto era all that has changed. Those who once talked about selling off government assets now embrace them and are promoting them not only in Alberta but internationally.

Stephen Harper would seem an unlikely pitchman for nuclear power. When the Prime Minister launches into his familiar spiel about Canada as an emerging "energy superpower," we all think we know what he's talking about -- he's an Alberta MP, after all, and his father worked for Imperial Oil. Yet in a key speech last summer in London, his most gleeful boast was not about record oil profits, but about soaring uranium prices. "There aren't many hotter commodities, so to speak, in the resource markets these days," Harper joked to the Canada-U.K. Chamber of Commerce crowd. Then, noting that Britain is among those countries poised to begin buying new reactors for the first time in decades, he added: "We'll hope you remember that Canada is not just a source of uranium; we also manufacture state-of-the-art CANDU reactor technology, and we're world leaders in safe management of fuel waste."


And in response to the key criticism of waste storage these leaders in the 'safe management of fuels", a state sanctioned private conglomerate of nuclear power companies, have blown the dust off another old proposal from the seventies; using the Canadian Shield to store radioactive waste. Not much of a different plan than that used by the US. And one opposed by the Canadian public.
Canada's Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn announced Friday the Harper government's endorsement of nuclear power and its approval of going ahead with storing high-level radioactive waste underground.

The Conservatives' announcement allows existing reactor sites to continue accumulating waste indefinitely, and it initiates a search for an "informed community" willing to host a "deep repository" for burial of wastes. It will also explore moving wastes to a central location for temporary, shallow underground storage and recycling of nuclear fuel.

As Susan Riley writes in today's Ottawa Citizen, "Apart from the experimental nature of the proposed solution, many hurdles remain — notably, finding a community desperate enough to become a nuclear dumping ground. It has been long supposed that some remote northern town would be the lucky winner, given the technological preference for disposing of the waste deep in the Canadian shield. But recent research suggests the sedimentary rock underlying much of southern Ontario would also be suitable. That said, the prospect of a bidding war between Oakville and Rosedale appears unlikely."

Lunn said the planned depository would cost billions of dollars but said the cost would be borne by the nuclear industry.

It would take 60 years to find a location, build the facility and then transport in the used fuel.

The Atomic Energy Control Board (AECB) regulates this waste, which is currently stored safely and economically in water-filled pools or in dry concrete canisters at the nuclear reactor sites. While there is no technical urgency to proceed toward disposal right away, the issue needs to be addressed partly because the volume of the waste is growing, and partly because the Government has recognized a public concern that a disposal option needs to be identified. In 1978, AECL began a comprehensive program to develop the concept of deep geological disposal of nuclear fuel waste in igneous rock of the Canadian Shield. AECL, assisted by Ontario Hydro, subsequently developed the detailed proposal that is the subject of a public environmental review process by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Public hearings began on March 11, 1996, and are expected to continue until the end of the year.

Subsequently, in 1978, the Governments of Canada and Ontario established the Nuclear Fuel Waste Management Program “to assure the safe and permanent disposal of nuclear fuel waste”. In this program, the responsibility for research and development on disposal in a deep underground repository in intrusive igneous rock was allocated to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL).

As it stands, the AECL concept for deep geological disposal has not been demonstrated to have broad public support. The concept in its current form does not have the required level of acceptability to be adopted as Canada’s approach for managing nuclear fuel wastes.

Ignoring a 1998 recommendation by a federal environmental panel (the Seaborn Panel) to create an impartial radioactive waste agency, the Chretien government in 2002 gave control of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization to the nuclear industry - namely Ontario Power Generation, Hydro Quebec and New Brunswick Power. Also in 2002 the federal Nuclear Fuel Waste Act gave NWMO a three-year mandate to choose between (a) "deep geological disposal in the Canadian Shield"; (b) "storage at nuclear sites"; and (c) "centralized storage, either above or below ground". NWMO must make its final recommendation to the federal government by November 15, 2005.

The Nuclear Fuel Waste Act results from the response of the Canadian federal government (December 1998) to the recommendations of the report of the Environmental Review panel (March 1998) on AECL's nuclear fuel waste management proposal. The report concluded that the plan for Deep Geological Disposal is technically sound, and that nuclear waste would be safely isolated from the biosphere, but that it remains a socially unacceptable plan in Canada. The report makes several recommendations, including the creation of an independent agency to oversee the range of activities leading to implementation. The scope will include complete public participation in the process. (See also the author's March 1998 editorial on this subject, and a detailed critique by industry observer J.A.L. "Archie" Robertson, published in the Bulletin of Canadian Nuclear Society, vol. 2 and 3, 1998)

Over a study and consultation period of three years the NWMO was mandated to choose among three storage concepts and propose a site:

  • Deep underground in the Canadian Shield
  • Above-ground at reactor sites
  • Or at a centralized disposal area

The final report of the NWMO was released in November 2005, recommending a strategy of "Adaptive Phased Management". The strategy is based upon a centralized repository concept, but with a phase approach that includes public consultation and "decision points" along the way, as well as several concepts associated with centralized storage (vs. disposal), and the ability to modify the long-term strategy in accordance with evolving technology or societal wishes. The approach of Adaptive Phased Management was formally accepted by the federal government on June 14, 2007.

The NWMO is financed from a trust fund set up by the nuclear electricity generators and AECL. These companies were required to make an initial payment of $550 million into the fund: Ontario Power Generation (OPG), contributed $500 million, Hydro-Quebec and New Brunswick Power each paid $20 million, and AECL contribute $10 million. The participants are also required to make annual contributions ranging between $2 million and $100 million (one-fifth of their respective initial contributions).

Another important component of the disposal plan is the transportation of nuclear fuel to the disposal site. In Canada this aspect is the responsibility of the Ontario utility, Ontario Power Generation Inc.. Special transport casks have been designed that are able to withstand severe accidents. The battery of tests applied to these casks include being dropped 9 metres onto a hardened surface, exposure to an 800 degrees Celsius fire for 30 minutes, and immersion in water for 8 hours. The development of such specialized containers has proceeded in parallel with efforts in other countries. Sandia Labs in the U.S., in particular, has published some remarkable photographs of severe crash tests performed on one such design.




Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , ,

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, November 17, 2022

Small nuclear cheaper than solar and wind as Canada greens its power grid: report

NO EMPIRCAL TRUTH TO THIS STATEMENT

Jeff Lagerquist - 

The Canada Energy Regulator (CER) should hedge its bet on solar and wind making up the bulk of the country’s new power-generating capacity into 2050, according to a new report suggesting small nuclear reactors are the best option to do so.


Canada is uniquely positioned to take advantage of the small nuclear reactor technology, having operated reactors for over 70 years, according to the C.D. Howe report. (GETTY)

Canada is uniquely positioned to take advantage of small nuclear reactor technology, having operated reactors for over 70 years, the C.D. Howe Institute says in a report released Tuesday. Canada has 19 operable reactors, and is the world’s second-largest producer of uranium, a key component of nuclear fuel. In 2021, Ontario Power Generation said Canada could support 70 to 80 per cent of a nuclear supply chain, from fuel production to parts manufacturing.

However, the CER’s projection includes no expansion of Canadian nuclear assets, only refurbishment of existing reactors. Wind and solar account for about a quarter of the nation’s total expected power generation by 2050, the year Canada has committed to net-zero emissions.

Solar and wind are set to make up 60 per cent of the increase in new capacity added between 2019 and 2050, according to C.D. Howe's researchers. But that means added costs for energy storage.

“The Achilles heel of wind and solar is provision of adequate storage, at reasonable cost, of power not needed in the middle of the day, but needed when the sun is not shining and/or the wind is not blowing,” authors John Richards and Christopher Mabry wrote in the report.

C.D. Howe’s findings follow a report from Royal Bank of Canada in September calling for energy consumption in Canada to surge 50 per cent in the next decade. The bank warned of power shortages as early as 2026.

Related video: The Canadians who want to see more nuclear energy
Duration 3:06 View on Watch



Nuclear power is an important source of low-carbon energy: World Nuclear Association



In their report, Richards and Marby rank the cost of various power sources, with nuclear power from small modular nuclear reactors (SMR) being the cheapest to operate, once storage costs for wind and solar energy are accounted for. Unlike larger nuclear power plants, which often overrun cost estimates and experience construction delays, SMRs are less complex and require less material and labour.


Source: C.D. Howe Institute© Provided by Yahoo Finance Canada

The International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) defines small reactors as having capacity under 300 MW of capacity. Last month, the Canada Infrastructure Bank announced a deal with Ontario Power Generation to provide $970 million to build the country's first small modular reactor next to the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station in Clarington, Ont. The federal government’s fall economic statement also included a tax credit of up to 30 percent for investment in clean technologies, including SMRs.

C.D. Howe calls Ottawa’s recent nuclear policy offerings “a modest down payment in its green energy financial support,” while stressing that Canada’s net-zero goals will require a “massive reconfiguration” of the power sector.

“These are welcome actions from Ottawa, however nuclear energy is still excluded from some major federal clean energy funding programs such as the Green Bond Framework,” Richards and Marby wrote. “Much more funding will be needed to ensure we don’t put all our eggs in the wind and solar basket.”

The energy crisis in Europe ignited by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has helped nuclear power overcome some of its reputational baggage amid greater focus on energy security. Governments from Japan to South Korea to the United States have made policy “U-turns” on nuclear power over the past year amid soaring energy prices, according to a large Canadian uranium investor.

"What politicians have figured out is that we've loaded a lot of intermittent power into the grid over the last 20 years, and that's been a good thing. But it's not a magic bullet," Sprott Asset Management CEO John Ciampaglia told Yahoo Finance Canada in August. The Toronto-based financial firm operates the world’s largest physical uranium investment fund. (U-UN.TO).

"You need backup baseload power generation to offset the intermittency of renewables,” Ciampaglia added. “There are only three ways to do that. You can burn natural gas. You can burn coal. Or you can have nuclear power plants."

Jeff Lagerquist is a senior reporter at Yahoo Finance Canada. Follow him on Twitter @jefflagerquist.

Download the Yahoo Finance app, available for Apple and Android.

Thursday, October 15, 2020

CANADA
Feds fund small nuclear reactor ahead of national strategy to adopt more of them

OTTAWA — An Ontario nuclear power company is getting $20 million from Ottawa to try to get its new small modular reactor in line with Canada's safety regulations.
© Provided by The Canadian Press

The grant to Terrestrial Energy in Oakville, Ont., is the first investment Canada has made in small modular reactors, or SMRs. It comes just weeks before Natural Resources Minister Seamus O'Regan expects to produce a "road map" to show how the emerging technology will be used to help get Canada to its climate change goals.

"Just last week, the International Energy Agency released a landmark report showing that achieving our target of net-zero emissions without nuclear energy will take a lot longer, with a great risk of failure," he said.

Canada has promised to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by almost one-third in the next 10 years, and then to net-zero by 2050, when any emissions still produced are captured by nature or technology.

About one-fifth of Canada's electricity still comes from fossil fuels, including natural gas and coal.

Nuclear generators produce no greenhouse gas emissions. They currently make up 15 per cent of Canada's energy mix overall, but only Ontario and New Brunswick use nuclear reactors for electricity.

Those CANDU reactors are big and expensive, while SMRs are pitched as smaller and more versatile, and can be shipped to remote locations where electricity grids don't currently reach.

SMRs are still in the developmental stage, with about a dozen companies in Canada trying to be the first to the finish line.

Innovation Minister Navdeep Bains, whose department is providing the $20-million grant through its strategic innovation fund, said they are an emerging technology with high growth potential.

"Without a doubt one of our most promising solutions to fight climate change and promote clean energy has three letters — SMR," he said.

Bains says the money will help the company complete a pre-licensing process with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

This process occurs before the company applies for a licence so that it can work to meet the commission's requirements in the development phase. Terrestrial has been working with the commission for nearly two years and is also undergoing a similar process with the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Terrestrial has offices in Oakville and Connecticut.

The company hopes its first nuclear reactor will be producing power before the end of the decade.

Not everyone is as convinced as O'Regan and Bains that nuclear is the answer to Canada's climate change dreams.

Eva Schacherl, who helped found the Coalition Against Nuclear Dumps on the Ottawa River, said nuclear waste is a big concern, and fears investments in SMRs are going to take money away from cleaner, already proven technologies like wind, solar and tidal power.

"It will distract our attention and resources," she said.

Plus, she said, Canada already has enough nuclear waste to fill more than 1,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools.

"We really don't need to create more," she said.

O'Regan said he is also developing a radioactive waste policy, and said nuclear will not displace other sources of clean power.

"All of this is part of a wave of different energy sources we are going to need," he said. "We're going to need all of it."

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 15, 2020.

Federal government invests in small nuclear reactors to help it meet net-zero 2050 target


The federal government says it's investing $20 million in the nuclear industry to help Canada meet its target of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

The investment in Oakville Ontario's Terrestrial Energy is meant to help the firm bring small modular nuclear reactors to market.

"By helping to bring these small reactors to market, we are supporting significant environmental and economic benefits, including generating energy with reduced emissions, highly skilled job creation and Canadian intellectual property development," said Innovation Minister Navdeep Bains in a media statement.

Small modular reactors — SMRs — are smaller than a conventional nuclear power plant and can be built in one location before being transported and assembled elsewhere.

Atomic Energy of Canada Limited says it sees three major uses for SMRs in Canada:

Helping utilities replace energy capacity lost to closures of coal fired power plants.

Providing power and heat to off-grid industrial projects such as mines and oilsands developments. 

Replacing diesel fuel as a source of energy and heat in remote communities.

Bains said nuclear energy is part of the energy mix Canada must have to reach its climate targets. 

Another part of that mix, Bains said, was the recently announced $590 investment — split evenly between the Ontario and federal governments — to help the Ford Motor Company upgrade its assembly plant in Oakville and start making electric vehicles there
.
© Tracy Fuller/CBC Small modular nuclear reactors could replace diesel generating facilities in remote communities across Canada, like this one in Fort Providence, NWT.


Recycling nuclear waste

Natural Resources Minister Seamus O'Regan said the federal government is reviewing its radioactive waste program to ensure it adheres to the "highest international standards."

"We do have to make sure that Canadians trust the power system," O'Regan said. "SMR technology allows us to minimize the amount of waste and in some cases has the potential to recycle nuclear waste."

The federal government says that Terrestrial Energy has committed to creating and maintaining 186 jobs and creating 52 co-op placements nationally.

The government says the company also has promised to undertake gender equity and diversity initiatives to, among other things, boost the number of women working in science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields.