News in Depth: Nuclear, the Next Generation

In our continuing effort to explore what’s next for nuclear, we turn this week to the recent announcement that China will begin construction on a 600 MWe fourth generation fast neutron reactor. While details of the project are few, there is speculation that this project may be the first successful partnership between China and TerraPower, the Washington state based energy firm founded and chaired by Microsoft co-founder and philanthropist Bill Gates.

In this week’s News in Depth, we will take a look at the technology behind fourth generation fast neutron reactors, the story of TerraPower, and China’s efforts to be at the forefront of nuclear energy development and deployment.

Next Generation Technology

As the World Nuclear Association (WNA) notes, fourth generation fast neutron reactors (FNRs) have been in development for decades. As of 2010, over 400 reactor-years of operation have been logged with approximately 20 reactors in different periods. The WNA also provides a useful summary of the initial motivation behind FNR tech:

The FNR was originally conceived to burn uranium more efficiently and thus extend the world’s uranium resources – it could do this by a factor of about 60. From the outset, nuclear scientists understood that today’s reactors fuelled essentially with U-235 exploited less than one percent of the energy potentially available from uranium. Early perceptions that those uranium resources were scarce caused several countries to embark upon extensive FBR [Fast Breeder Reactor] development programs.

The technology is incredibly complex, but for reference note that

Natural uranium contains about 0.7% U-235 and 99.3% U-238. In any reactor some of the U-238 component is turned into several isotopes of plutonium during its operation. Two of these, Pu-239 and Pu-241, then undergo fission in the same way as U-235 to produce heat. In a FNR this process is optimized so that it ‘breeds’ fuel. Some U-238 is burned directly with neutron energies above 1 MeV.

TerraPower‘s Travelling Wave Reactor (TWR) leverages the knowledge gained from decades of FNR research to produce what they describe as “Generation IV, liquid sodium-cooled fast reactor.”


Image Source: TerraPower

China’s New Project

According to the WNA, China first began research FNR reactors in 1964 and, in 2003, built “a 65 MWt fast neutron reactor – the Chinese Experimental Fast Reactor (CEFR) – … near Beijing [in partnership with] Russia’s OKBM Afrikantov [and] OKB Gidropress, NIKIET and Kurchatov Institute.”

This new project is part of China’s efforts to have, according to CIAE projections, fast reactor capacity progressively increasing from 2020 to at least 200 GWe by 2050, and 1400 GWe by 2100. As noted in the opening, TerraPower’s involvement in the project is still unconfirmed, but industry and media sources seem to be coalescing around such a partnership as Gates himself recently travelled in February of this year to China to meet with “with Nur Bekri, a vice chair of China’s National Development and Reform Commission, and with China National Nuclear Corp chairman Sun Qin.”

In any event, what we are seeing here are the early stages of what looks like a new phase in nuclear technology. 4th Generation reactors – in this case, sodium FNRs – have been in development for over a decade and now we are seeing an example of one of the these new designs taking shape. Development is slow, yes, but it is happening and happening at in increasing pace in China. We can only now wait to see what comes next and, hopefully, to see confirmation that this project marks the first partnership between China and Gate’s TerraPower.


News in Depth: Putting a Face on the Future of Nuclear in the UAE

Over the last few months, our News in Depth series has explored the development of nuclear energy around the world. However, what is admittedly missing in our stories and in many of the stories we link to is that human element: who are the people that are driving the future of nuclear?

In this week’s feature, we focus on the future of UAE’s renewable energy programmes and the story of Marwa Al Shehhi and Omar Al Hashmi, Emirati students who are studying abroad in the hope of bringing their new nuclear expertise back home to the UAE.

The Students’ Stories and the UAE’s Nuclear Future

In a recent article in UAE’s The National, Caline Malek tells the story of two Emirati students, Marwa Al Shehhi and Omar Al Hashmi, who have travelled to Korea to bolster their nuclear engineering and management skills. Ms. Al Shehhi describes her motivation in the piece by saying that

“nuclear energy is interesting all over the world, and hearing that my country was adopting safe nuclear energy really made me proud. So I wanted to take part in that initiative…”

Ms. Al Shehhi is studying in a two-year masters program at Kings Kepco International Nuclear Graduate School. Mr. Al Hashmi is studying nuclear engineering as part of a bachelors program at Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. Just like Ms. Al Shehhi, he is also keen on being part of the UAE’s energy transformation,

“I want to make my country proud and try to advance nuclear studies in the UAE. We’re trying to reduce our carbon emissions and this is one of the best ways to do it.”

These two students, along with their peers, appear eager to leverage their foreign education to gain professional experience at home and abroad. For example, another student mentioned in the piece plans to intern with Korea Electric Power Corporation before joining the Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation (ENEC).

ENEC was establisehd by the UAE government on recommendation by the IAEA, as the country embarked on the development of nuclear energy production in the last decade. According the World Nuclear Association’s country profile, 98% of of the UAE’s 101 billion kWh energy production was from oil in 2012. In response to this continued reliance on fossil fuels, the country has accepted a $20 billion bid from a South Korean consortium to build four commercial reactors that are expected to produce 5.6 GWe by 2020 at Barakah, a coastal site 300 km west of Abu Dhabi city.


Image credit: The National

The Educational Story in a Broader Context

With construction at the Barakah site progressing on time and on budget it appears that these students have a bright future ahead of them. However, this story also illustrates the complex interaction between foreign suppliers and the countries involved in nuclear development. It is clear that Korea and Korean companies have a vested interest in building not only reactors abroad, but universities at home that train Korean and foreign students alike. At the same time, countries that have little existing commercial, engineering, or educational infrastructure must look abroad to train students in new technologies such as nuclear.

As a result, the flow of knowledge follows the flow of capital around the world. In the nuclear energy sector in particular, it is important that local people, who will help maintain and operate the facilities long after the initial construction managed by foreign suppliers, have the know-how and skills to safely operate the site.

It starts, then, with education and training, with people like Ms. Al Shehhi and Mr. Al Hashmi. They are the future of nuclear for the UAE.

Summary report for Future of Nuclear seminar – Nuclear Liability Developments in India, May 27

On May 27th attendees of the Future of Nuclear seminar series had the privilege to hear Els Reynaers discuss recent nuclear liability developments in India. Specifically, the discussion focused on the practical implications for Canadian parties interested in establishing commercial exports of civil nuclear energy technology and uranium.

A review of India’s current energy mix, as well as the country’s ambitious projected energy scenarios provided context for the discussion. By 2050, India wishes to meet 25% of its electricity needs through nuclear energy, a significant increase from the roughly 2% the industry currently represents. Thanks to key international developments, specifically a 2008 exception from Nuclear Supply Group (NSG) guidelines that previously restricted the transfer of technology, it seemed India was on-route to meeting their targets with the help of foreign participation.

Nevertheless, for this union to be successful, foreign nuclear vendors, regulators, and suppliers had to navigate India’s Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act (CLND). It is precisely here where the challenges lie. Chief among them were issues regarding the value and time frame of supplier liability, as well as what constitutes a supplier and the right to legal recourse in the event of a nuclear incident.

In response, the recent India-US agreement represents a commitment to address the stipulations of the CLND and so encourage foreign partnerships. The recently launched India Nuclear Insurance Pool (INIP) serves this purpose by providing funds to cover both operator and supplier liability risks and thus generate investor confidence.

Towards the end of the discussion, insightful questions were brought forth that spoke of support as well as the need to delve into the details of both the CLND and INIP. For partnerships to thrive, it is key that the aforementioned challenges be addressed. While we await the finalization of the India-US agreement and INIP policies, the lines of communication between interested parties will be kept open.

Written by Alejandra Tobar, B.Sc. Candidate, University of Toronto


Special Report: Nuclear Law and Liability Developments in India (Part 1 of 3)


On May 27, 2015, Mindfirst will be hosting a Future of Nuclear Seminar on Nuclear Liability Developments in India. The speaker at the event will be Els Reynaers, a Partner at the law firm of M.V. Kini & Co. and President of the International Nuclear Law Association.

In her talk on the recent Indo-US political breakthrough on nuclear liability, Ms. Reynaers will explore the legal and insurance-related developments in India’s nuclear sector, and what those changes mean for Canadian nuclear vendors, regulators, and suppliers.

In the run up to this event, we bring you a three-part special report on India’s nuclear law regime. In Part 1, we explore the history of India’s nuclear law and liability regime. Next week, in Part 2, we discuss the recent negotiations and tentative agreement reached between the US and India in early 2015. In Part 3, to be published the week of Ms. Reynaers’ talk, we will explore the opportunities and challenges ahead for India’s nuclear energy sector.

We hope that this report will give you a clearer understanding not only of the recent Indo-US agreement, but the unique evolution of the nuclear law regime in India. We hope you can join us on May 27 to discuss these issues in person.

Part I: The History of India’s Nuclear Law and Liability Regime

As Gruendel and Reynaers pointed out in their 2012 article, India is not well endowed with natural energy resources. In response to this lack of reliable and local reserves, India plans to have 20,000 MW of nuclear capacity by 2020, with plans to derive 25% of its electricity (approximately 3000 GW) from nulcear by 2050.

Up until the passage of the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 (2010 Liability Act), to be discussed below, nuclear activity in India was governed by the Atomic Energy Act of 1948 and the Atomic Energy Act of 1962. Together, these Acts made the Central Government of India the sole legal operator of nuclear facilities in the country. The legislation did, however, leave room for private sector companies to hold a minority share in the ownership and operation of nuclear facilities under joint ventures.

Another key detail – highlighted by Yash Mannully in an important 2012 article on issues in Indian nulcear liability law – is that the Acts gave power to the Government to make rules that deliniate

the [operator’s] liability in respect of any hurt to any person or any damage to property caused by ionising radiations or any radioactive contamination either at the plant under license or in the surrounding area.

However, despite provisions that enable the Government to regulate liability, little was done in terms of legislating until the last decade. Additionally, up until the last decade, India’s 20 nulcear power plants operated at reduced capacity, given that India was excluded from international nuclear trade under the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. However, with a 2008 agreement by the Nuclear Supplier Group to grant a waiver to India, the country was able to import nuclear technology and sign bilateral agreements on civilian nuclear energy technology with countries such as Canada, France, the Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom, and the United States.1

As of 2008 then, India’s nuclear energy sector was primed to grow at an incredible rate. The country, then home to over 1.1 billion people, was given a new opportunity to fulfill it’s nulcear energy ambitions, in new partnerships with suppliers from around the world. As Gruendel and Reynaers note2, these partnerships were not for “turn-key”, full construction services, but rather for specific contracts for reactor technologies and related components. Given that these contracts are between the suppliers and India’s state nuclear operator (the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL)) the challenge of establishing a clear liability regime for the industry, and the scope of the liability itself, remained.

The 2010 Liability Act was the first concerted effort by the government to outline the scope of liability for the nuclear sector in India. In essence, the Act, in conjunction with subsequent ammendments, expanded the scope of liability beyond the operator – in this case, the NPCIL – to the suppliers of technology used in the civilian nuclear energy sector. By affirming strict and no-fault liability on the operator, the Liability Act was in keeping with the 1960 Paris Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy and the 1963 Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage.3

However, where the 2010 Liability Act differed significantly was in its granting of special rights of legal recourse to the operators in the event of an incident. Under s 17(b), the operator of the nuclear installation “shall have the right of recourse where:

the nuclear incident has resulted as a consequence of an act of supplier or his employee, which includes supply of equipment or material with patent or latent defects or sub-standard services.”

As Gruendel and Reynaers note in their 2012 article, linked above, the original language of 17(b) targeted situations where “the nuclear incident has resulted from the willful act or gross negligence on the part of the supplier,” but such language was dropped when experts agreed that establishing mens rea (or “guilty mind”) would be too difficult and would potentially weaken the government’s power, through their role as operator, to rely on legal recourse for damages against suppliers.

There are additional issues in the 2010 Liability Act that are important – including limitation periods and the complex interaction between international and domestic law – but they are beyond the scope of this brief review.


The key point is that up until the early 2015 Indo-US agreement – which established an insurance pool and clearer liabilility limits for both operators and suppliers in India – suppliers were subject to special legal liability in the event of a nuclear incident. The establishment of this statutory tort – which coexists with common law tort liability – thus drove a wedge between suppliers and India’s nuclear industry. The 2008 agreement to allow bilateral trade was thus at a standstill – the country was open for business, but there was a massive catch. In addition, while the law was extensive, it did not necessarily clarify many of the issues it was designed to solve.

As a result, reform was crucial to any opening of trade between foreign suppliers and India’s NPCIL. Next week, in Part 2 of this series, we explore the efforts to reform and clarify the 2010 Liability Act and the recent Indo-US agreement on nuclear liability and technological development.


  1. See Gruendel and Reynaers 2012, page 46.  
  2. See their 2012 article, linked above, page 48. 
  3. See Gruendel and Reynaers, page 49, footnote 26. 

News in Depth: Deploying SMR Technology in Canada’s Northern Communities

In mid-April, 2015, Peter Lang, President of Dunedin Energy Systems Ltd, gave a presentation at the Nunavut Mining Symposium, arguing for a radical shift in the way we provide energy to remote communities and mining operations. Traditionally, northern communities have relied upon diesel generators that produce substantial pollution and require costly infrastructure for fuel transport to maintain energy production.

Lang suggests a new approach, one that utilizes new, small modular reactor (SMR) technology to produce energy from floating nuclear power ships. In this week’s News in Depth, we explore Lang’s idea and the potential opportunities and challenges that are ahead.

An Old Idea Given New Life

As Lang noted in his presentation, the idea of utilizing nuclear reactors in unique contexts is not new: small, self-contained nuclear reactors have been providing energy on military ships and submarines (103 in the US Navy alone), and ice-breakers for decades and have been deployed in northern Russian communities since the 1970s.

Lang’s Dunedin Energy believes that their SMART (Small Modular Adaptable Reactor Technology) system would provide a more sustainable and consistent energy source for remote communities in Canada. They describe the systems as a “nuclear battery”:

When the fuel in a nuclear battery is consumed, the entire reactor module (which contains the spent fuel) is removed and shipped to a processing facility for fuel recycling. A new, freshly fuelled reactor module is installed to replace it. The reactor module is a sealed unit and cannot be opened for any reason at the operating site.

In his presentation, Lang compares diesel and nuclear, using a 16MWe common production rate. Notably, the annual fuel logistics of diesel include moving and storing over 31 million litres of fuel and annual greenhouse gas emissions are estimated to be 85,000 tonnes. Compare those figures to the zero fuel logistics and greenhouse gas emissions of their nuclear SMART system. Lang also highlights the issue of carbon taxes, arguing that while diesel may cost up to $1.2 Million for a 16MWe plant, a nuclear SMART reactor would gain a credit of $1.2 Million.

The Challenges Ahead

The incredibly favourable comparison above belies some of the deeper challenges that SMR development may face in northern communities.

The first set of challenges relate to cost and public resistance. Dunedin presents two business cases – a full-ownership option and a “zero-capital cost” option wherein Dunedin handles the operation and logistics of deployment, operation, and decommissioning, and the customer pays approximately 29 cents/kW in return.

However, northern communities and mine operators may be tempted to continue to rely on diesel – owing to the current low price of oil and, in essence, because of the stickiness of the status quo. In addition, northern communities, including many Aboriginal groups, continue to be locked in debates over energy development, mining, and socio-economic development; introducing any new nuclear energy plan may provide more fodder for political debate. Dunedin appears to be aware of these challenges and addresses the regulatory and safety issues on their website. However, as we suggested in a piece on April 23, better public engagement and education would be required to quell any genuine fears or uncertainty that exist.

Lastly, northern communities may demand a clearer set of guidelines and regulations relating to decommissioning and remediation. Lang noted in his presentation that decommissioning funds would be held in escrow, effectively guaranteeing that even if a community or mine is bankrupt, that the money for cleanup and restoration is not subject to claims by creditors or other parties. Dunedin’s approach is unique – in that the whole reactor-in-a-ship concept allows for relatively easy site cleanup – but questions still remain. How much would be necessary for cleanup? What does full restoration look like?

In other words, this ambitious idea is not without issues. However, there appear to be tremendous economic and environmental arguments in favour of SMR development in northern and remote communities. These arguments carry over to other contexts – including Mexico, for example – and may one day translate to a new energy future for Canada’s North.

News in Depth: The Debate over Florida Power and Light’s Turkey Point Expansion Plan

Starting April 22, residents of Florida’s Miami-Dade county have had the opportunity to attend public consultation meetings hosted by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission to discuss the Florida Power and Light’s (FPL) plan to add two new nuclear reactors at its Turkey Point plant.

For this week’s News in Depth feature article, we explore various components of the debate around FPL’s Turkey Point plans and reflect on what lessons industry officials and regulators can learn from the consultation process.

The Turkey Point Story

According to FPL, Turkey Point Nuclear Plant is located 24 miles south of Miami, on Florida’s Atlantic Coast. Currently, there are two nuclear power units which have been in operation since the early 1970s. Westinghouse supplied the Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs) and the turbine generators.

FPL now seeks to obtain a combined license (COL) for two Westinghouse Advanced Passive 1000 PWRs, to be called Turkey Point Units 6 and 7. The original application was tendered in June 2009, and FPL hopes to have the new reactors online by 2022.

FPL operates two nuclear plants in Florida, St. Lucie and Turkey Point. Progress Energy Florida operates a 5 unit plant in Crystal River, on Florida’s west coast, and has proposed another plant in Levy County. Nuclear plants in Florida have been met with skepticism by many, as the general public seeks to understand the safety risks in the event of hurricanes or flooding.

In the Turkey Point debate, critics have asked if the plant is prepared to resist the rising sea levels which have reeked havoc in Miami’s barrier islands. In response, FPL has highlighted that the current plant is 20 feet (6 m) above sea level, enough to withstand severe flooding associated with up to Category 5 hurricanes. In addition, the new reactors would be built at an even higher 26 feet, to take into account rising sea levels.

However, what is perhaps more interesting is not just how FPL is responding to criticism, but how it is using the story of its history and current practices to work with and educate the public.

Public Communication and Consultation: What can we learn?

FPL has used many of the standard, and expected, methods to communicate their rationale behind building these new reactors. On its website and in the press, they have emphasized the economic advantage of their operations, zero-carbon emissions, and the extensive research and safety preparation that goes into the plant.

They have also relied on community specific examples, including most notably their efforts to improve the habitat for the once-endangered American crocodile and their support for wetland recovery programs.

The public consulation process – like the one happening right now at Turkey Point – provides a unique opportunity for the nuclear industry to have an honest, down-to-earth conversation with the public about energy, safety, and the environment. In addition, a more human conversation also allows regulators to get a better sense of the public’s views and concerns. In the future, the focus should not only be on the technical details, but on the realistic compromises we must make to meet our energy needs. That includes talking about everything from transmission lines to crocodiles, depending, of course, on the context.

News in Depth: Global Nuclear Growth in Context

This week, in an article for The Energy Collective, Jesse Jenkins, a writer and current PhD student in Engineering Systems at MIT, aimed at putting the growth of renewable energy in perspective. The article provides more than just an overview of renewable energy however, it also provides some interesting context for discussion of the future of nuclear power.

A year in review: thinking about energy capacity worldwide

Before thinking about what comes next in our energy future, it’s important to have some context. In his article, Jenkins provides a succinct summary of the progress made in the last full calendar year:

The world added 103 gigawatts (GW) of renewable power capacity in 2014… That figure excludes large hydropower projects… and is dominated by wind and solar, which saw growth of 49 GW and 46 GM respectively. More importantly, the share of renewable electricity… in the global electricity mix ticked upwards from 8.5 percent in 2013 to 9.1 percent in 2014.

As is noted, that figure is close to the 10.5 percent of global electricity supplied by nuclear power.


(Image Source: The Energy Collective)

A link to the International Energy Agency’s (IAE) World Energy Outlook 2014 Factsheet is also provided. The factsheet highlights some additional key points:

  • 434 operating commercial reactors worldwide at the end of 2013 (capacity: 392 GW)
  • Nuclear power has avoided the release of an estimated 56 Gt of CO2 emissions since 1971
  • Almost 200 of the 434 reactors operating at the of 2013 are to be retired before 2040

Finally, Jenkins articulates two visions for future growth in renewables. In the first scenario, growth is linear at about 100GW per year. In the second, growth compounds at a 10 percent per year rate. As he notes, neither scenario is perfect, but they “bracket the realm of most likely outcomes.”

What’s next for nuclear power and renewables?

The IAE’s factsheet provides an apt summary of the challenge ahead for the nuclear energy sector, “the industry will need to manage an unprecedented rate of decommissioning, while also building substantial new capacity for those reactors that are replaced.” It is clear that the next few decades will be filled with difficult problems: how do we handle the decommissioning of so many reactors, how do we balance short and long term cost economic and political concerns, and how do we safely and steadily grow nuclear capacity, especially in the so-called BRIC countries?

From a review of conference topics and recent news articles, it’s clear that the industry is well aware of these challenges and is making positive strides. As we’ve highlighted here at Future of Nuclear, companies are continuing to develop new, smaller reactors that can be deployed in both industrialized and developing markets. In addition, governments continue to explore how to safely deal with radioactive waste. In all, the challenges are great but not insurmountable.

This, finally, brings us back to the topic of renewables. As highlighted earlier, there is no single panacea for our energy needs or a clear idea of what the future will bring. Powering a diverse world takes a diverse set of solutions. As Mr. Jenkins points out in his article, the best way to ensure that low-carbon sources continue to grow is to not put all of our eggs in one basket. What is needed is a toolkit of locally relevant and sustainable technologies that can respond to the growing need for reliable, safe, and clean energy worldwide. That is the industries’ north star. The trick, as it were, is to keeps steering towards it.

News in Depth: Japan’s Shift Towards Fossil Fuels Raises New Questions about Emissions and Nuclear Investment


The Wall Street Journal recently reported on Japan’s increasing investment in coal, oil, and natural gas as the country strains to produce enough electricity following the idling of all nuclear plants in the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster in March of 2011.

Japan’s embrace of fossil fuels has a number of implications, most notably the pressure on emissions standards and on medium and long term investments in nuclear and renewable energy sources more broadly. In this week’s News in Depth feature, we explore Japan’s recent moves with respect to fossil fuels and the impact those moves have on emissions and strategies for energy infrastructure investment.

The Low Price of Oil and it’s Impact on Japan’s Energy Sector

As of writing, Oil is priced at ($53.44 for Brent Crude), reflecting a downward trend that began in 2014.

Crude Oil 6 Month Price Trend

Goldman Sachs analysts suggest that we may see the price of U.S. crude drop as far as $40 a barrel in the near-term, as inventories begin to rise.

While we continue to forecast a strong demand recovery in 2015, we believe that sequentially weaker activity, the end of winter and the end of potential restocking demand, will lead to a sequential deceleration in demand-growth as we enter the spring.

These prices, in addition to low coal and natural gas prices, have had a major impact on Japan as it seeks to fill the capacity void left by its 48 idled nuclear plants. Japan brought 14 new gas and coal-fired power plants online by the end of 2014 alone. It’s also been reported that by the end of 2025, Japan hopes to have a total capacity of over 13GW of new coal generation.

Reactions to this shift towards oil, coal, and gas have been mixed. There are clear political and economic advantages to Japan’s diversification. Perhaps most importantly, reliance on the cheaper fossil fuels will help Japan ease it’s energy import bill. In the first half of 2014, Japan’s trade gap reached 4.8 trillion yen. Moves to these cheaper energy sources are projected to lower that deficit and to ease pressure on and lower costs for Japan’s economy and manufacturing sector.

However, with Japan being the world’s fifth-biggest emitter of carbon dioxide, concerns have been raised about its increasing reliance of fossil fuels. Aaron Sheldrick, reporting for the Japan Times, writes that Japan is seeing increasing pressure from other countries, including China and the US, to meet it’s emission targets.

Balancing Short Term and Long Term Energy Investments

While the situation in Japan reflects many unique factors, including the Fukushima disaster and the public distrust of nuclear energy, it also provides a number of interesting angles of analysis. There is the broader phenomena of cheap oil and fossil fuels. However, the concerns highlighted above, including climate change and the regulation of carbon emissions, highlight the importance of keeping a longer term view on energy infrastructure investment. Moreover, it is important to consider the balance of an interest in highly elastic and less capital intensive energy sources, such as fossil fuels, with an interest in longer term infrastructure investments, such as nuclear, that pollute less and provide for greater supply certainty for growing economies.

For more on these issues, listen to The Bulletin with UBS podcast by Monocle, which this weeks focuses on global investment strategies in the oil sector. For further reference and cost comparisons between different energy sources, see also The Economics of Nuclear Power.

Economic Club of Canada hosts Hugh MacDiarmid to discuss innovation in nuclear

On 24 September 2014, the Economic Club of Canada is hosting a talk titled “Nuclear: the Innovation Imperative” with Hugh MacDiarmid, Chairman of the Board at Terrestrial Energy.  Terrestrial Energy is a Canadian developer of integrated molten salt reactor (IMSR) technology.  The following exerpt from the event abstract lays out the context of this important discussion:

“It has never been more important to our future prosperity to acquire substantial new sources of energy; this will require a new generation of innovation. Energy demand is increasing at unprecedented rates, particularly in the developing economies. Each one of today’s available energy sources has a downside — cost, risk, environmental harm — and, without a breakthrough, the world’s economic future is threatened.”

If you are interested in learning more about this event and attending, follow the link below:

The 2013 Future of Nuclear conference featured Terrestrial Energy’s David LeBlanc in a discussion of nuclear innovation.  Future of Nuclear 2014 will discuss exclusively innovations in every part of the nuclear industry.  Click here to read more about the 2014 conference, to be held November 4, 2014.

Russia makes an offer to tender two nuclear power plants in Argentina

July 14, 2014 – Messi lookalike and Economy Minister Axel Kicillof and other top Argentine politicians met with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Energy Minister Alexander Novak to discuss cooperation and sign a deal to develop two new Rosatom nuclear plants in Argentina. Details of the story are available by  clicking this article in the Buenos Aries Herald.

From an international perspective these negotiations depict the high level of official government involvement that is often required in nuclear energy deals. The united efforts of Russia’s President and Economy Minister is in stark contrast to the noticeably absent support that Prime Minster Stephen Harper has shown for marketing Canadian Candu reactors abroad.  How should Canada compete with Russia and other nations to export Canadian nuclear technology and expertise around the world?

In a recent post we pointed out that Ontario’s Minister of Research and Innovation Reza Moridi was actively supporting and advocating on behalf of Candu and other Canadian interests at a conference in China. In the high stakes game of international energy, heads of state need to get involved.