21st Century's 'Nuclear Options'! . . or the 19th Century???

[Oscar]

The nuclear options

[ http://words.usask.ca/news/2015/04/27/t ... r-options/ ]

April 27, 2015 Written By Michael Robin

For Neil Alexander, Saskatchewan is the land of opportunity for all things nuclear, whether it is in medicine, agriculture, advanced detection equipment or getting in on the first floor of small modular nuclear reactor (SMR) development.

“Saskatchewan is actually quite an attractive potential ‘early mover’ for SMR companies,” said the executive director of the Sylvia Fedoruk Canadian Centre for Nuclear Innovation at the University of Saskatchewan. “We’ve got a bit of effort to put in to make a breakthrough in that field, but it’s certainly something that could help create a more prosperous province.”

At the centre, which he joined July 1, 2014, part of Alexander’s mission is to lead efforts to create suitable infrastructure, and the professional and knowledge base should Saskatchewan decide to actively pursue nuclear opportunities.

“Our job isn’t to promote the nuclear industry, it’s to create the capability to have one, should the province decide it wants one,” he said. “We provide information about it so good decisions can be made. It’s quite important to us for people to understand the distinction between providing information about something and promoting it.”

To get accurate and up-to date information, the Fedoruk Centre funds research on nuclear technologies and issues. One of its first projects was the Saskatchewan Nuclear Attitudes Study, whose results were released in May of last year. Alexander said one of the more intriguing findings from the study was that Saskatchewan people appear to be far less polarized and much
more accepting of nuclear technologies than popular perception might indicate.

“What appears to have happened on previous occasions is that a very small number of people shouted very loudly and I would argue that’s not democracy at work,” he said. “To make good decisions we need future discussions to be rational, informed and fact-based rather than shouting matches where the prize goes to the loudest person no matter how poorly informed they are.”

One of the challenges is to get people to think beyond nuclear power to other fields and applications, of which there are many.

From sterilization of medical equipment to scanners that look through welds to jet engine turbine fans, nuclear technology helps keeps people safe, buildings standing and planes in the air, he explained.

“We couldn’t safely run our modern society without the byproducts of the nuclear industry and applications of nuclear science. It is important that people realize these benefi ts as well as the contributions that the nuclear power industry makes to abating smog, avoiding acid rain, preventing the numerous deaths that take place as a result of the pollutants that arise from fossil fuels.”

Although Alexander emphasized it will be up to the province to decide how or if to pursue nuclear power generation, he made no secret of how he came to his own positive position on the subject.

“It’s a way of thinking. I have a very questioning mind; I very rarely take anything I’m told as truth until I’ve found some evidence that confi rms it.”

Alexander grew up in several communities around England before heading to the University of Birmingham for his formal training in materials science. His first jobs were in first-world energy efficiency and renewable energies. He joked that like a “true climate warrior,” he does not own a car, commuting on foot, even in winter, to his office on campus. A bicycle leaning against his office wall awaits warmer days.

Before moving to Saskatoon, Alexander worked as part of a group working on solar, wind and other renewables including using garbage as fuel, both to generate energy and as a method of recycling.

“As part of that experience I realized we could do the best we could with efficiency and we could do the best we could with renewables, but there was still going to be a pretty large gap,” he said. “Th e only way I could see filling it is with nuclear.”

He conceded nuclear power has a bad image, but insists it is the “safest of the power generation industries” by a wide margin.

“Nuclear is about four times safer than wind power, about 11 times safer than solar, something like 35 times safer than hydro, and safer than gas and coal by orders of magnitude,” he said. “And the question always comes back to ‘does that include the major accidents?’ and yes, it does.”

Alexander sees great opportunities for Saskatchewan if it jumps in as a “first adopter” in research about and manufacturing of SMRs. Stringent industry standards for manufacturing facilities demand an extremely high-quality supply chain and highly trained, specialized staff. This means significant investment fl owing into the province and benefits for the country, for example, to supply power to remote Canadian communities.

For now, nuclear power is a small part of the Fedoruk Centre’s portfolio as a funding agency. Some projects are looking at advanced materials for use in nuclear reactors but more than half of the funding to date has been committed to nuclear medicine research such as improved imaging techniques and advanced diagnostic tools. The balance has been invested in investigations of public opinion and environment, as well as fusion power and plasma research.

“We’re interested in encouraging pools of capability to develop, to give us a reasonable broad-based understanding of nuclear issues,” Alexander said.

Researchers are encouraged to leverage Fedoruk Centre resources by seeking matching money from industry and other funding agencies. “Commitments from industry give us confidence that the knowledge developed will be used for the good of mankind and the students that are trained will have skills that will make them attractive to employers,” Alexander said.

Another finding from the nuclear attitudes survey showed people felt they were not well enough informed on nuclear issues. The Fedoruk Centre is keen to address this both with its current communications efforts and with further research.

“What we’d like to fi nd out is what information they feel they need to be well informed, and then work out how to make it available to them,” Alexander said.

He is making a start at sharing information by giving a presentation April 28 at Woods Ale House entitled Dihydrogen Monoxide, Bananas and the Role of Bad Science in Decision Making as part of the Tox on Tap series of public talks.

Another facet of Alexander’s work is focused on the U of S research community. He is holding meetings with scientists to discuss their work and explore possible applications for nuclear science.

“One of the areas we’re particularly excited about the potential for is agricultural research, specifically plant research. Because the university here is obviously a world leader in that field and we’ve got a world-leading capability in the cyclotron, we’re matching those two areas together.”

[Oscar]

More Info on Small Nuclear Reactors

[ viewtopic.php?f=20&t=759&p=1158#p1158 ]

[Oscar]

McNAMARA: PhDs At The Nuclear Trough

by Pat McNamara April 28, 2015

There’s something truly pathetic about doctors prostituting themselves to revive a dying industry. We are witnessing this at the Sylvia Fedoruk Canadian Centre for Nuclear Innovation (CCNI) where Dr. Duane Bratt and Dr. Neil Alexander, among others, are trying to breathe life back into the nuclear industry at the University of Saskatchewan (U of S).

Both men have recently been singing the merits of Small Modular Reactors (SMR) in Saskatchewan. Dr. Bratt wants to build five of them, preferably in abandoned uranium mines in the north while Dr. Alexander wants the U of S to get in on the first floor of SMR development. I don’t know if these doctors are misinformed or if they think they can bullshit us because they have “PhD” after their names.

Dr. Bratt doesn’t seem to know that they can’t build reactors at the abandoned mines because the responsible authorities have never cleaned the mines up. The level of contamination at these mine sites precludes any human activity until remediation is undertaken. Then again, that didn’t stop the Canadian government from locating a fish processing plant for First Nations on the docks at the abandoned Gunnar mine near Uranium City before it was cleaned up.

The U of S would have little trouble getting in on the ground floor of development of the SMR as virtually all development has stopped on them in North America. The most advanced were the two mPower reactors that Babcock and Wilcox (B&W) were supposed to build at Clinch River for the Tennessee Valley Authority. They cancelled the project in 2014 because they could not entice any other investors despite up to $229 million in grants from the American government. B&W, the Department of Energy and partners spent $400 million on the mPower program and another $600 million was needed to get ready for licensing.

- The Pebble Bed Modular Reactor being developed in South Africa was cancelled in 2010 because they couldn’t find any investors willing to get involved.

- Westinghouse announced in 2014 that it was getting out of SMR development because they could find no customers for SMR technology.

- SMRs have been held back by lack of trust in nuclear power, no investors, low natural gas prices, the Fukushima disaster and problems with licensing new nuclear technologies.

The nuclear industry estimates the SMRs will cost one to two billion each when they are ready for deployment in about ten years. This means they will cost four to five billion in “reality dollars” given that every nuclear project in North America has been grossly over budget. SMRs are nothing but the latest “flavor of the month” from the nuclear industry after full sized reactors died on the drawing board over the past ten years. The industry needed something to promote and this is it.

Dr. Bratt and Dr. Alexander took different paths to the U of S. Dr. Bratt is a political science PhD employed at Mount Royal University in Calgary. He’s never met a microphone he didn’t like as evidenced by his media comments on every topic of concern in Alberta, whether he had any expertise on the subject or not. He was the mouthpiece for Bruce Power in 2009 when they tried to build reactors in Alberta. He was front and centre during the demise of the “nuclear renaissance” when all thirteen of the reactors planned in Canada were cancelled. This complete failure did not deter Dr. Bratt as he coined a new phrase and wrote a book in 2012 on the “nuclear revival” in Canada.

Dr. Alexander comes to Saskatchewan from the most corrupt corporation on Earth where he was the Vice president of Business Development. SNC Lavalin and 115 of its subsidiaries have been banned for ten years from being involved in any project funded by the World Bank because of corruption, fraud and bribery charges in several countries around the world.

Dr. Alexander makes a number of claims in an April 27, 2015 missive from the U of S but does not substantiate a single one of them. He states that “Saskatchewan is actually quite an attractive potential ‘early mover’ for SMR companies” but does not say why. From past experience, we are left to conclude that the “Saskatchewan advantage” comes from the government and the university being co-opted by the nuclear industry.
(The Nuclear Options, By Michael Robin, April 27, 2015 [ http://words.usask.ca/news/2015/04/27/t ... r-options/ ])

Dr. Alexander trumpets the findings of the Nuclear Attitudes Study conducted by the CCNI. This is asinine considering their results run contrary to the study commissioned by HUES3 and by the provincial government’s own UDP survey. His claim that “Saskatchewan people appear to be far less polarized and much more accepting of nuclear technologies than popular perception might indicate” was completely repudiated when communities across the north of the province demonstrated their opposition to high-level waste storage and chased the Nuclear Waste Management Organization right out of the province.

Dr. Alexander dismisses the findings of the UDP survey as follows. “What appears to have happened on previous occasions is that a very small number of people shouted very loudly and I would argue that’s not democracy at work,” he said. “To make good decisions we need future discussions to be rational, informed and fact-based rather than shouting matches where the prize goes to the loudest person no matter how poorly informed they are.” Once again, this comment has no basis in fact as the entire UDP process was set up, initiated, administered and controlled by the provincial government and nuclear industry sycophants.

Dr. Alexander digs deep into the manure pile for his next statement: “Nuclear is about four times safer than wind power, about 11 times safer than solar, something like 35 times safer than hydro, and safer than gas and coal by orders of magnitude.” Once again, no proof is given, no studies are referenced and no terms of reference are provided. This is nothing but pure horseshit from a PhD. Where are the facts? Where are the peer reviewed studies?

The nuclear industry is dying and renewable energy is taking its place. The intermittency argument precluding solar and wind from filling the void left by nuclear is evaporating as residential-scale storage batteries are being developed. The deployment of renewables has been accelerating across the globe while nuclear energy’s contribution has been declining for the past decade. Those are the facts.

I feel sorry for intelligent and highly trained people like Dr. Bratt and Dr. Alexander who succumb to the money offered by the dirty and dying nuclear industry. There’s so much they could do to make this a better country to live in but instead they waste their lives promoting and protecting the most toxic and corrupt industry on Earth. As I said at the start, it really is pathetic when you see doctors acting this way.

Pat McNamara
EMAIL: entwork@hotmail.com