Ambient office = 83 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 130 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 126 nanosieverts per hour

Avocado from Central Market = 100 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 119 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 102 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient office = 80 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 95 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 97 nanosieverts per hour

Red bell pepper from Central Market = 82 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 104 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 91 nanosieverts per hour

Dover sole – Caught in USA = 121 nanosieverts per hour

Part 2 of 2 Parts
      NuScale is further along in the approval process than other, more unconventional reactor designs such as the sodium-cooled fast reactor. This reactor creates more fuel than it consumes. Eight countries have built versions of this reactor over the past sixty years at a cost of over one hundred billion dollars. None of these prototypes have proven to be reliable enough to produce electricity competitively. The U.S. has decided on this design for the Versatile Test Reactor at a cost of up to six billion dollars.
     Other startup vendors are considering two other new designs aside from sodium-cooled fast reactors. The first type is molten salt reactors. Only a few of this type of reactors have ever been constructed and operated. They use either fluoride or chloride salts. These are often mixed with lithium or beryllium. The second type are high-temperature gas reactors with helium as a coolant and graphite as a moderator. The U.S. built and operated two of these power reactors between the 1960s and the 1980s. China, Germany and Japan have all built and tested high-temperature gas reactors.
      Another major challenge for these new reactors is that they must use new fuels which must be licensed as well as produced, managed during use, and stored and disposed of when spent. Some of these new reactor designs depend on the use of nuclear fuels that require higher enrichments of uranium. The U.S. has little capacity to produce such fuel. Higher enriched uranium fuels raise concerns about nuclear proliferation. They would require international safeguards.
      Even if these fueling problems could be solved, novel reactor designs also face significant construction challenges. Many of the new designs rely on the availability of adequate sites and efficient construction to achieve profitability. The nuclear industry has long suffered from long construction times and major cost overrun. Since 1980, the construction time required to construct most reactors in the U.S. has been over ten years and costs have skyrocketed. New reactor builds in Europe have had similar problems, The French EPR reactor design has experienced multiple delays and huge cost overruns in both France and Finland. These megaprojects face challenges in program management and quality control. Regulatory issues often result in significant delays.
     The U.S. is not an outlier with respect to these issues. Nuclear reactors around the world are aging and most are not replaced when they are close. In 2019, six reactors began operating and thirteen reactors were permanently shut down. The average age of the four hundred and eight operating power reactors in the world is thirty-one years. Eighty-one of them are over the age of forty one years.
     For all these reasons, nuclear energy cannot be a near or even middle term solution to climate change. Considering how many economic, technical and logistical hurdles stand in the way of constructing safer, more efficient and cost competitive reactors, nuclear energy will not be able to replace other forms of electrical generation quickly enough to achieve the levels of carbon emission reduction necessary to prevent the worst effects of climate change.
     Innovations in reactor designs and nuclear fuels still deserve significant research and government support. In spite of its limitations, nuclear power still has some potential to reduce carbon emissions. Rather than placing unfounded faith in the ability of nuclear power to seriously mitigate climate change, the focus needs to be on the real threat of the changing climate. We need strong government support for noncarbon-emitting energy technologies that are ready to be deployed today, not ten to twenty years from now because we have run out of time.

Ambient office = 78 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 65 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 67 nanosieverts per hour

Yellow onion from Central Market = 52 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 69 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 56 nanosieverts per hour

Part 1 of 2 Parts
     According to the climate experts, time is running out with respect to our opportunity to decarbonize the energy sector. Doing so is critical to preventing some of the most alarming consequences of climate change including rising sea levels, droughts, fires, extreme weather events, ocean acidification and other undesirable effects. These concerns have generated fresh interest in the potential for nuclear power to allow people to rely less on carbon emitting electricity sources such as coal, natural gas and oil. In recent years, advanced nuclear reactor designs have been the focus of intense interest and support from both private investors such as Bill Gates and national governments such as that of the U.S.
      Advocates for nuclear power hope that this renewed interest will yield technological progress and lower costs. However, when it comes to averting the imminent effects of climate change, even the cutting edge of nuclear technology will be too little, too late. The economic trends for existing plants and those currently under construction indicate that nuclear power cannot have a major impact on climate change in the next ten years or more. There are long lead times required to develop and construct full-scale prototypes of new reactor designs. Time is also required to build a manufacturing base and a customer base to make nuclear power more economically competitive. It is unlikely that nuclear power will begin to significantly reduce our carbon energy footprint even in twenty years. No country has developed this technology to the point where it could be widely and successfully deployed.
     Currently, nuclear power provides about twenty percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. The nuclear industry has struggled for decades to remain economically competitive in the energy marketplace. Twelve U.S. nuclear reactors have been permanently shut down since 2013. Seven more U.S. reactors are scheduled to be closed by 2025.
     A 2020 analysis by Lazard showed that in the U.S., capital costs for nuclear power are higher than for almost any other energy-generating alternative. There are multiple efforts underway to make nuclear reactors more efficient and more competitive with other forms of energy generation that can reduce carbon emissions. Each of these designs faces its own set of logistical and regulatory requirements.
     The power reactors currently in operation or under constructions in France, Japan, the U.S. and other countries are all variations on the light water reactor. These reactors are powered by a low-enriched uranium fuel which is cooled and moderated by water. Canada operates reactors that use slightly enriched uranium fuel. They are cooled and moderated by heavy water. The U.K. operates one light-water reactor and some gas-cooled reactors. These reactors are all large and able to generate between six hundred and one thousand and two hundred megawatts of electricity.
      New reactor makers propose smaller reactors that use different types of fuels, coolants and moderators. The NuScale reactor is one of these new designs. It is a small, light water reactor that generates seventy-seven megawatts of electricity and emphasize passive safety features. It is in the middle of the U.S. licensing process.
       NuScale has shown that it is possible for makers of innovative new reactor designs to enter the licensing process. The Nuclear Regulator Commission is working on a new regulation to license some of the more exotic designs.
Please read Part 2 next

Ambient office = 102 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 100 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 98 nanosieverts per hour

Avocado from Central Market = 59 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 94 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 79 nanosieverts per hour

     The 40th Annual Canadian Nuclear Society (CNS) conference was held June 6th to June 9th. The four-day, online event featured plenaries and technical workshops on current Candu performance. It also brought forward a view of a future which is already much under development.
     There were nuclear scientists, innovators and operators at the CNS but there were also the people who stand to benefit the most from nuclear power in its increasingly diverse uses. And there were the people who connect the two groups.
     Seamus O’Regan is the Canadian Minister of Natural resources. He opened the conference, reconfirming the Canadian government’s inclusion of nuclear in its clean energy plant. He stated, “We need an all-energy sources approach and that includes nuclear.” O’Regan referenced International Energy Agency reports as he described the up-hill battle to reduce carbon emissions if nuclear were not included in the energy mix. He said, “We need nuclear to get to net zero.”
     In Ontario and New Brunswick in Canada and six other countries, Candu nuclear plants provide the backbone of the electrical grids. The first plenary covered the state of operations and provided updates on refurbishment project that are currently under way. Some Candu reactors will operate until the mid-2060s after they are refurbished. Candu reactors also supply isotopes for crucial life-saving nuclear medicine as well as finding other uses such food sterilization.
     The second plenary of the CNS was dedicated to the future of nuclear in energy and technology systems. The development of nuclear power in Canada is being driven by increasing interest from Canadian provinces who want to include small modular reactors (SMRs) in their future energy mix. This interest is supported by efforts of SMR design vendors and an active Canadian supply chain.
     Kinectrics is a life cycle management company headquartered in Canada. They used the CNS to announce their plans to build and operate Helius. Helius is an innovation campus and testing facility that will advance nuclear applications such as molten salt thermal energy storage, hydrogen generation, industrial and district heating and water treatment.
      The Canadian Nuclear Laboratories talked about its recent science and technology developments in collaboration with industry partners and laboratories worldwide. Their current work focuses on progress in SMRs, using nuclear power for hydrogen production and reactor sustainability.
      Although CNS is a mostly a technical organization, the conference did make room to discuss social aspects. These included how to develop communication pathways to engage a spectrum of civil society on next generation nuclear technology and how to maximize the benefits of nuclear across society.
     Many organizations are working with Canadian First Nations and other indigenous peoples to share information and learn from their unique perspectives and traditional knowledge.
     Threaded through conversations in several sessions were the work being done to attract more women to the industry, to improve equity, diversity and inclusion as well as the importance of working with indigenous peoples in all projects.
     The 45th annual CNS / Canadian Nuclear Association Student Conference is held in conjunction with the CNS conference each year.