Registered Members Login:
   
Forgotten Your Details? Click Here To Recover +
Welcome To The ShareCafe Community - Talk Shares And Take Stock With Smart Investors - New Here? Click To Register >

21 Pages (Click to Jump) V   1 2 3 4 > » 

moosey
Posted on: Aug 21 2016, 04:47 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

You will now notice that the Construction Intelligence Center website has again been updated for both Paducah and Wilmington since I last posted it here!

http://www.construction-ic.com/HomePage/Pr...rview%2F151013#


http://www.construction-ic.com/HomePage/Pr...rview%2F168133#


You will notice that they have changed the wording from this -: GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH) is planning to construct a laser enrichment facility in Kentucky, the US.

To this -: Global Laser Enrichment (GLE), a joint venture between General Electric Co. (GE), Hitachi Ltd and Cameco, is planning to construct the Laser Uranium Enrichment Facility in Kentucky, the US.


See how they have now broken up the ownership now of GLE into seperate entities, I reckon one of those three companies is leaving, I think it may be Hitachi who may be selling their share, that would effectively mean that GEH is leaving wouldn't it?

I very much doubt that GE would ever sell it's controlling interest of it's 51% holding in GLE and then let another company build a laser enrichment plant on GE land (Their Land), I don't believe for one minute that could or would ever occur?


Also in an earlier version of the Construction Intelligence Center release about Paducah, they said that the NRC will be providing the License for it to GLE in September 2016.

So we may get to see something next month, in other documents it said that the NRC license for Paducah would be provided BY November 2016, so I guess September 2016 would still fit that bill BY November wouldn't it?
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Aug 3 2016, 04:51 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

Regarding the ownership structure of GLE, I am of the opinion that it may be Hitachi pulling out? which in effect would still leave GE or GENE in particular with the 51% holding still in place?

I could see a company like Converdyn who would have some great synergies with GLE/GNF-A being a company that would be interested? they are a company that would also have a great deal to lose if recycling gets up and they were not part of this? they would also have deep pockets, they are owned by General Atomics and Honeywell, as an aside they also make the drone Predator for the US military.

I really can't see GE who also hold the license to the Silex process pulling out and then letting some other company build a laser enrichment plant on their land (which as you can see is still happening), it would not add up in my book, I can see Hitachi selling their part, they will need funds shortly to start building the first PRISM reactor in the US, I will show some links on that later'

Can anyone here see that if you took out only Hitachi, you would have effectively taken out GEH and the GE component would then come under GENE possibly?

I reckon in the end we may get to see four companies owning GLE GE/GNE 51% Cameco 25% Converdyn say 21% and Silex say 4% or somthing along those lines maybe?

I believe there may also be a reason why Silex get to own a certain percentage for a very small outlay?

It was done for a reason and I think I know what the reason was, it relates to the sudden increase of SP in SLX, we then had the GEH announcement, I believe it had the desired effect!

Have a look at page 62 where it shows the ownership structure of GLE
http://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1122/ML11229A173.pdf
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image


 
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Aug 3 2016, 03:40 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

If you look at the company structure, I believe that GEH were always going to leave at some point? but I very much doubt that GE will be parting with it's 51% controlling interest in GLE and then allow another company to build the Wilming plant on THEIR land, it won't happen in my opinion, I think what may be happening is that Hitachi may be parting with teir 25% because I believe they now have other fish to fry.<br /><br />If wilmington is going ahead then so is Paducah, because part of what they get there (the u235 in the form of UF6 and also the U238 as a future fuel for fast breeder reactors) is a necessary component of the re enrichment of RepU from the Used Nuclear Fuel, all of this is associated with PRISM and the Advanced Recycling Center, the ARC separates out three bundles, one is the Plutonium and some actinides mixed in, the second is what they call the Candu bundle, because it can be used directly in a Candu reactor but only once more, or they can re enrich it back to LEU grade and re use it back in a light boiling water reactor and they can do this many times over, besides nthe US doesn't have any Candu reactors.<br /><br />I will post more on this later.
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Aug 3 2016, 02:18 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

It,s been a long time since I posted here, this is something that I posted on Hotcopper, maybe some of you are interested as someone from here was asking me?

There is more to this but I won't be posting it here, but if I know you I will share it, so long as it isn't revealed here or anywhere else!

Paducah and Wilmington are both going ahead NEXT YEAR, Q2 of 2017 is when the estimated start is occurring. Paducah is an integral part of the Wilmington plant, it is required to provide top up fuel in the form of UF6 to enable recycling of UNF.
Paducah is a dual purpose plant also just like I predicted, they are going to build a purpose built storage area for the recovered U238, something that Michael Goldsworthy said is valuable in his address to the SA royal commission, it will be used as part of the fuel for next generation IV reactors, I have always said the plant had to be serving more than one purpose and it is, I also said that they would not be selling the Uranium on market and it looks to me as if they are not, they will lease it to GLE for recycling, I won't post the second link about PPaducah, it may possibly be harmful to Silex, for non disclosure reasons?

Early this year I found the link below , I was excited about that, but I decided to look further.

I first of all found this link -: http://www.construction-ic.com/HomePage/Pr...rview%2F151013#

GLE – Laser Uranium Enrichment Plant – North Carolina
Project Overview
Project Stage: Planning Profile Status: Live
Project Type: Parent Project Announcement Quarter: Q1 2009
Project Value: USD 1000 million Construction Start Quarter: Q3 2016(Estimated)
Project City: Wilmington Project End Quarter: Q4 2020
Construction Type: New Project Country: United States
Location Type: OnShore Last Update: 9 Dec 2015
Funding Mode: Private
Project Description
Global Laser Enrichment (GLE), a joint venture between General Electric Co., Hitachi Ltd and Cameco is planning to construct the Laser Uranium Enrichment Plant project in North Carolina, the US.
The project involves construction of a laser uranium enrichment facility.
The project includes the construction of production units, storage tanks and other related facilities and the installation of machinery and safety systems.
Silex Systems Ltd (Silex) has been appointed to provide laser technology for the project.
In June 2009, GE-Hitachi (GEH) submitted the last part of its license application for the GLE plant.
In third quarter of 2009, GLE began a 'test loop' for the commercial use of the laser enrichment process.
In April 2010, GLE announced successful completion of the first phase of the test loop program, designs for the commercial facility were evolved and economic feasibility was verified.
In February 2012, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published a favorable environmental review of the project.
The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued a license for development of the project in September 2012.
In May 2013, further tests are being conducted to accumulate performance, operating reliability and life-time data on the technology.
Planning activities are underway.
Stakeholder Information:
Planning Authority: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Consultant Contract (Technology): Silex Systems Limited

You will note that if you open the above link now the info has been updated, it is for a 1MWSU pilot plant in my opinion. to test recycling of UNF.


Finding this link above made me think! hey I wonder if they also had something on Paducah?
So I tried a few tags from the Wilmington one but changed the name to Paducah !
Maybe you can find it yourself if you look hard enough?

For those that don't believe GLE are preparing a pilot plant for UNF recycling? just read this link it has lots of useful info in it, some of which I have posted here.

The Russians are in the UNF recycling race already, I posted a link about that previously, and guess what? they will alos be adding U235 into the recycled UNF to bring it back up to specs as LEU and the Russians are also going to lease the Uranium in the recycled UNF.

http://www.nrc.gov/materials/reprocessing.html#repro

Background
In 2007, the Commission directed the staff to complete an analysis of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) to identify regulatory gaps for licensing an advanced reprocessing facility and recycling reactor.
In mid-2008, two nuclear industry companies informed the agency of their intent to seek a license for a reprocessing facility in the U.S. An additional company expressed its support for updating the regulatory framework for reprocessing, but stopped short of stating its intent to seek a license for such a facility. At the time, the staff also noted that progress on some Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) initiatives had waned and it appeared appropriate to shift the focus of the staff's efforts from specific GNEP-facility regulations to a more broadly applicable framework for commercial reprocessing facilities.

I have documents that show that the two companies that approached the NRC were AREVA and GLE.
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: May 22 2014, 04:49 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

Several weeks ago now I received an email from someone called service @ support dot com dot au

they asked me to update my paypal records, they even had the paypal logo, alarm bells rang, so I called Paypaql and spoke to them asking if they had sent something like that? the answer was no, the person at Paypal said they always address you by your full name whereas in this email they just said Dear Customer , so don't be fooled, it is a scam, more than likely they have your ebay info and are trying to marry up the paypal info.

Cheers Moosey
  Forum: Macro Factors

moosey
Posted on: May 13 2013, 05:05 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/break...o-1226641319565

Samsung announces 5G data breakthrough
  • From: AAP
  • May 13, 2013 3:25PM
SAMSUNG Electronics says it has successfully tested super-fast fifth-generation (5G) wireless technology that will eventually allow users to download an entire movie in one second.The South Korean giant says the test has witnessed data transmission of more than one gigabyte per second over a distance of two kilometres.

The new technology, which will not be ready for the commercial market before 2020 at the earliest, will offer transmitting speeds "up to several hundred times faster" than existing 4G networks, it said in a statement on Monday.

That will permit users to "transmit massive data files including high quality digital movies practically without limitation", it said.

"As a result, subscribers will be able to enjoy a wide range of services such as 3D movies and games, real-time streaming of ultra high-definition (UHD) content, and remote medical services," it added.

Samsung said it had found a way to harness millimetre-wave bands which have proved to be a sticking point for the mobile industry to date.

The test used 64 antenna elements, which the tech titan said overcame the issue of "unfavourable propagation characteristics" that have prevented data travelling across long distances using the bands.

One of the most wired countries on earth, South Korea already has around 20 million 4G users.
  Forum: Off Topic Chat

moosey
Posted on: Apr 24 2013, 04:27 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

What's up? SP doing very well today?
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Apr 24 2013, 10:07 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

After the latest release, I emailed Dr Kelly and spoke to him about some concerns I had with the setting up of Novogen North America, especially after seeing what had happened with Marshall Edwards, he did answer me very promptly and said it was a good question and it gave him the opportunity to explain a few things in the blog, I again emailed him and thanked him and apologised to him for the prickly question, he told me it wasn't a prickly question and he understood completely where I was coming from.

here is what Dr Kelly placed on the Novogen website blog.


Following question from shareholder ‘Moosey’.

The announcement on the 18th April 2013 was great, my only concern was the setting up of Novogen (North America) Inc. I would like an undertaking by Dr Kelly that the company remains an Aussie company and any IP found belongs to the parent, one that doesn’t end up resembling something like MarshallEdwards did.

I understand why Novogen would like an American presence, that is where the money is and that is also close to some of the most important cancer research centers, but I have seen other companies who did something similar, the old Novogen being a case in point and then see the American offshoot end up either taking over completely or causing the parent in Oz to fail and then they pick up all the pieces for bugger all and shareholders in Oz end up with stuff all, but in the old Novogen’s case though at least we did end up with shares in MEIP.

Like I said I don’t mind an American presence so long as it stays just that, a presence, one where the intent is that the parent Novogen remains in full control and always will unless it is sold. I would love for this great technology to stay here in Australia if possible? Can we have that in writing Dr Kelly?

Dear Moosey,

One big difference between the MEIPharma Inc situation and the Novogen (North America) Inc. MEI was set up to house oncology drug development. It was always intended to be an independent company, which it eventually became 10 years later. And as you point out, Novogen shareholders have retained their investment in that company which we all hope will deliver a pay-off in due course. The only part of the plan that didn’t work out was that the rest of Novogen was meant to go on to bigger and better things, which for various reasons didn’t happen. In a way I am glad that part of the plan didn’t work out, because it has given 3 ex-Novogen scientists the chance to come back in and take Novogen to a level which we believe will be well beyond anything we ever dreamed of before.

Novogen (North America) Inc is not a drug development company. It owns no IP and conducts no R&D and has no intention of ever doing so. It is purely and simply an administrative arm of the parent company. I wanted a presence in North America. We might be an Australian-based company, but two-thirds of our shares are held as ADRs and to the best of our knowledge, our current 3,900 Australian shareholders are about half the number of US shareholders. That situation warrants and deserves a local presence.

Also, increasingly we will be conducting more and more of our R&D in the US and Europe. Plus we have made a substantial commitment to having all our manufacturing conducted in Switzerland which Andrew Heaton is overseeing. Plus he is responsible for our patent portfolio and for the lodgement of an IND with the FDA. It just makes sense to have someone closer to that action and able to respond to issues in real time. The challenges of basing an Australia resident in the US on an open-ended basis meant that we needed to have that person employed by a US company. That is the genesis of Novogen (North America) Inc.

The Novogen technology will stay in Novogen. You want it in writing? ….. OK. It will leave Novogen Ltd over my dead body. But let’s not get too precious about this country thing. The Company’s primary listing might be Australia…. but we are for all intents and purposes a US company as it currently stands in terms of ownership.

Graham Kelly
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Apr 12 2013, 10:32 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

A poster who calls himself Toby10 posted this on HC, I don't think he posts here or hasn't for some time so I will repost it here with credit to him.

I post it because it shows that the Uranium Enrichment Plant/s appear to be going ahead with possibly not one plant but two and maybe more in the future?


It also seems clear to me that they intend to use the laser system for enriching Uranium for more than just reprocessing tails or normal new UF6 which comes from the mines and is then treated to become UF6, I believe that this new advancement they are talking of is for special nuclear fuel from the Advanced Recycling Centre that GE talks about.

Happy days ..
Project Manager, Regulatory Affairs, Global Laser Enrichment Job

Date: Apr 10, 2013
Location: Wilmington, NC, United States
Description:
Job Number: 1736995
Business: GE Power & Water
Business Segment: Power & Water
About Us: GE looks for innovation everywhere. For 130 years, GE has been at the forefront of innovation, but finding solutions to the world's biggest problems has never been more important than right now. Join us today and become an essential part of the solution! Not just imagining. Doing. GE works. Looking for a challenge where your experience is valued? Come see what you can achieve as a leader with GE Power and Water!
Posted Position Title: Project Manager, Regulatory Affairs, Global Laser Enrichment
Career Level: Experienced
Function: Engineering/Technology
Function Segment: Product Design and Development
Location: United States
U.S. State, China or Canada Provinces: North Carolina
City: Wilmington
Postal Code: 28402-2819
Relocation Assistance: Yes
Role Summary/Purpose: GE is an equal opportunity employer, offering a great work environment, challenging career opportunities, professional training and competitive compensation.

The Global Laser Enrichment technology has successfully completed a licensing effort with the USNRC for a facility based on the Wilmington, NC site. This position will interact with the USNRC and DOE, as required, to maintain the license requirements in Wilmington, advance the technology further and support licensing efforts at alternative locations.
Essential Responsibilities:
In addition, in this role you will:
Lead and coordinate the licensing strategy, generation of licensing documentation, and interactions with the U.S. NRC for licensing of a new enrichment facility and other assigned projects, working with Project Managers, Engineering, Legal, Regulatory Affairs resources, and other involved internal and external parties
Responsible for implementation of management systems and reporting to corporate and regulatory authorities
Represent GLE during public affairs events
Accountable for quality and timeliness of all licensing deliverables to NRC and other internal and external parties, as well as timely resolution of all related licensing issues
Responsible for defining, scheduling, and resource planning as well as work direction of other Licensing Engineers for all licensing submittals and related activities
Responsible for coordinating with Project Managers and Engineering for defining, scheduling, and resource planning of engineering needed for licensing submittals and related activities
Stay abreast of regulatory trends and changes that may affect licensing and incorporate these changes into the licensing strategy
Work with the Regulatory Affairs team to plan, coordinate and provide GE representation as needed at NRC and other industry meetings dealing with licensing for assigned projects
Provide representation and lead GE participation in licensing-related industry task forces that affect licensing
Project Management of contracted work force providing licensing engineering supporting licensing including arranging for contracting of resources and budget control
Responsible for implementation of management systems and reporting to corporate and regulatory authorities
Qualifications/Requirements:
Bachelors Degree in Science or Engineering discipline
Minimum of 5 years of experience implementing NRC regulated programs such as Nuclear Safety, Radiation Protection, Material Control and Accountability and Transportation Licensing
ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS:

Currently hold or within the last 2 years hold a security clearance (NRC or DOE Q)
Additional Eligibility Qualifications: GE will only employ those who are legally authorized to work in the United States for this opening. Any offer of employment is conditioned upon the successful completion of a background investigation and drug screen.
Desired Characteristics:
NRC Licensing process and technical regulatory knowledge in one or more areas such as fuel facility licensing, new plants, fuel, operating plants
Existing NRC or DOE “Q” clearance
Prior experience in working / communicating with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) personnel
Experience working with industry groups, such as NEI and Owners Groups, on nuclear licensing matters
Inclusive - Ability to communicate well with all levels of the organization; Open communication style and the ability to develop team relationships; Excellent interpersonal and influencing skills
Clear Thinker - Ability to make decisions with speed and accuracy, based on the best available information; Commitment to continually strive to increase knowledge with up to date information
External Focus - Ability to create a positive representation of GE externally to customers and regulators
Autonomy - Demonstrated ability to be a self-starter; ability to work independently with little to no oversight; ability to deal effectively with complex, ambiguous and contradictory alternatives
Why join one great company when you can join many? At GE, we’re passionate about making life better with new ideas and technologies. We’re diverse, supporting our communities in more than 100 countries. Experience personal growth and competency development as part of the GE team.

GE Power & Water provides customers with a broad array of power generation, energy delivery and water process technologies to solve their challenges locally. Power & Water works in all areas of the energy industry including renewable resources such as wind and solar; biogas and alternative fuels; and coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear energy. The business also develops advanced technologies to help solve the world’s most complex challenges related to water availability and quality. Numerous products are qualified under ecomagination, GE’s commitment to providing innovative solutions that maximize resources, drive efficiencies and help make the world work better. Headquartered in Schenectady, N.Y., Power & Water is GE’s largest industrial business. Follow GE Power & Water on Twitter @GE_PowerWater. Learn More about GE Power and Water Today!

To stay connected with exciting news and the latest job opportunities from GE AMSTC, Aviation, Energy Management, Oil & Gas, Power & Water and Transportation, follow us on twitter: @geconnections


Nearest Major Market: Wilmington
Job Segment: Regulatory Affairs, Engineer, Project Manager, Law, Nuclear Engineering, Legal, Engineering, Technology
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Apr 9 2013, 04:04 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

CS-6 is basically an extension of a platform that came from other older compounds already in trials with MEIP and also owned by them now, I really don't see any problems with safety first of all, but also with the drug in general because of the path it has taken to where it is now, I just hope they don't try and change the delivery systems whilst in trials, at least not this time around.

It is also worth remembering that CS-6 when it was first tested in the US, was when it had both the left AND right handed forms combined which are known as enantiomers,In manufacturing terms, CS-6 is classified as a chiral molecule, meaning that the molecule can exist in both left and right hand forms known as enantiomers. usually one of these entantiomers is much stronger than the other, so the result in that those tests would have been much lower than would have been the case if they had used only the better side of CS-6, but even then they were fantastic, they say this new form is 200 times better, that has to be good for dosage requirements etc, I remember years ago when they were talking about some of the earlier drugs from the earlier platforms, would lead to chemotherapy where only a very small amount of the drug was required, which in turn led to no hair loss or many of the horrific side effects experienced by cancer sufferers when undergoing chemotherapy.

"Novogen Chief Scientific Officer, Dr Andrew Heaton, today said, “The ability to manufacture CS-6 in both left and right hand forms
represents a significant milestone in the development of this compound.

The indication that one form of CS-6 is active at "nano molar concentrations" against a broad spectrum of brain
cancer lines is exciting and indicates that the earlier potencies we have seen against cancer cells and cancer stem cells are likely to be even greater with the purified enantiomer.

"We are now positioned to rapidly progress CS-6 to the clinic.”


This is the definition of nanomolar from wordnik-:

“Scientists have for decades been doing experiments using chemi­cals in ­nanomolar quanti­ties, which simply means that they're ­extraordinarily dilute.”

http://www.wordnik.com/words/nanomolar

So that means bugger all active is required, which is good for profits and I also have read that it is comparatively easy to manufacture in quantity using a new method also developed by Novogen/Triaxial.

Hopefully one day this cancer cure may mean that it would be equivalent to not much more than having a flu injection or two?
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Apr 6 2013, 03:47 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

WHY I'M DEPRESSED



Over five thousand years ago, Moses said to the Children of Israel,

"Pick up your shovels, mount your asses and camels, and I will lead you to the Promised Land."

Forty years ago Whitlam said "Lay down your shovels, sit on your asses, and light up a Camel, this IS the Promised Land."

Today Julia Gillard has stolen our shovel, taxed our asses, put camels in plain packaging and mortgaged the Promised Land!

Last night I was so depressed thinking about all this. The Health Care Plans, the Carbon Tax, the Slow Economy,

the Wars, the Lost Jobs, Savings, Interest Rates, Social Security and Retirement Funds, so I called a Suicide Hotline.

I had to press 1 for English, and I was then connected to a call center in Pakistan . I told them I was suicidal.

They got all excited and asked if I could drive a truck....

  Forum: Off Topic Chat

moosey
Posted on: Apr 6 2013, 10:05 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

I hasn't held it's price YET simply because this was basically just a repeat of the first release in a fashion, saying that the results were confirmed in a second test, there is more news coming soon, I think that by years end the SP will be much higher if all goes to plan.
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Mar 1 2013, 08:40 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

It's nice to see Josiah T Austin is still on the board of the new Novogen as Non-Executive Director, that surely means that he hasn't sold his shares one would think? Mr Austin was appointed to the Novogen Board on 20 September, 2010. He is the managing member of El Coronado Holdings, LLC, a privately owned investment holding company, which invests in public and private companies. He and his family own and operate agricultural properties in the states of Arizona, Montana, and northern Sonora, Mexico through El Coronado Ranch & Cattle Company, LLC and other entities.

Mr Austin previously served on the Board of Directors of Monterey Bay Bancorp of Watsonville, California, and is a prior board member of New York Bancorp, Inc., and North Fork Bancorporation. He became a director of Goodrich Petroleum, Inc., in 2002. Mr Austin also serves as a trustee of the Cuenca Los Ojos Foundation Trust, a non-profit organisation working to preserve and restore the biodiversity of the borderland region between the United States and Mexico through land protection, habitat restoration and wildlife reintroduction.

  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Feb 28 2013, 12:09 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

Personally I would not be too disappointed if the SP drops for a few weeks.

I am a long term holder and subscribe to the DRP.
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Feb 25 2013, 10:25 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

UCLA researchers develop new technique to scale up production of graphene micro-supercapacitors

By Davin Malasarn February 19, 2013 Kaner and El-Kady's micro-supercapacitors While the demand for ever-smaller electronic devices has spurred the miniaturization of a variety of technologies, one area has lagged behind in this downsizing revolution: energy-storage units, such as batteries and capacitors. Now, Richard Kaner, a member of the California NanoSystems Institute at UCLA and a professor of chemistry and biochemistry, and Maher El-Kady, a graduate student in Kaner's laboratory, may have changed the game. The UCLA researchers have developed a groundbreaking technique that uses a DVD burner to fabricate micro-scale graphene-based supercapacitors — devices that can charge and discharge a hundred to a thousand times faster than standard batteries. These micro-supercapacitors, made from a one-atom–thick layer of graphitic carbon, can be easily manufactured and readily integrated into small devices such as next-generation pacemakers. The new cost-effective fabrication method, described in a study published this week in the journal Nature Communications, holds promise for the mass production of these supercapacitors, which have the potential to transform electronics and other fields. "The integration of energy-storage units with electronic circuits is challenging and often limits the miniaturization of the entire system," said Kaner, who is also a professor of materials science and engineering at UCLA's Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science. "This is because the necessary energy-storage components scale down poorly in size and are not well suited to the planar geometries of most integrated fabrication processes." "Traditional methods for the fabrication of micro-supercapacitors involve labor-intensive lithographic techniques that have proven difficult for building cost-effective devices, thus limiting their commercial application," El-Kady said. "Instead, we used a consumer-grade LightScribe DVD burner to produce graphene micro-supercapacitors over large areas at a fraction of the cost of traditional devices. Using this technique, we have been able to produce more than 100 micro-supercapacitors on a single disc in less than 30 minutes, using inexpensive materials." The process of miniaturization often relies on flattening technology, making devices thinner and more like a geometric plane that has only two dimensions. In developing their new micro-supercapacitor, Kaner and El-Kady used a two-dimensional sheet of carbon, known as graphene, which only has the thickness of a single atom in the third dimension. Kaner and El-Kady took advantage of a new structural design during the fabrication. For any supercapacitor to be effective, two separated electrodes have to be positioned so that the available surface area between them is maximized. This allows the supercapacitor to store a greater charge. A previous design stacked the layers of graphene serving as electrodes, like the slices of bread on a sandwich. While this design was functional, however, it was not compatible with integrated circuits. In their new design, the researchers placed the electrodes side by side using an interdigitated pattern, akin to interwoven fingers. This helped to maximize the accessible surface area available for each of the two electrodes while also reducing the path over which ions in the electrolyte would need to diffuse. As a result, the new supercapacitors have more charge capacity and rate capability than their stacked counterparts. Interestingly, the researchers found that by placing more electrodes per unit area, they boosted the micro-supercapacitor's ability to store even more charge. Kaner and El-Kady were able to fabricate these intricate supercapacitors using an affordable and scalable technique that they had developed earlier. They glued a layer of plastic onto the surface of a DVD and then coated the plastic with a layer of graphite oxide. Then, they simply inserted the coated disc into a commercially available LightScribe optical drive — traditionally used to label DVDs — and took advantage of the drive's own laser to create the interdigitated pattern. The laser scribing is so precise that none of the "interwoven fingers" touch each other, which would short-circuit the supercapacitor. "To label discs using LightScribe, the surface of the disc is coated with a reactive dye that changes color on exposure to the laser light. Instead of printing on this specialized coating, our approach is to coat the disc with a film of graphite oxide, which then can be directly printed on," Kaner said. "We previously found an unusual photo-thermal effect in which graphite oxide absorbs the laser light and is converted into graphene in a similar fashion to the commercial LightScribe process. With the precision of the laser, the drive renders the computer-designed pattern onto the graphite oxide film to produce the desired graphene circuits." "The process is straightforward, cost-effective and can be done at home," El-Kady said. "One only needs a DVD burner and graphite oxide dispersion in water, which is commercially available at a moderate cost." The new micro-supercapacitors are also highly bendable and twistable, making them potentially useful as energy-storage devices in flexible electronics like roll-up displays and TVs, e-paper, and even wearable electronics. The researchers showed the utility of their new laser-scribed graphene micro-supercapacitor in an all-solid form, which would enable any new device incorporating them to be more easily shaped and flexible. The micro-supercapacitors can also be fabricated directly on a chip using the same technique, making them highly useful for integration into micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) or complementary metal-oxide-semiconductors (CMOS). These micro-supercapacitors show excellent cycling stability, an important advantage over micro-batteries, which have shorter lifespans and which could pose a major problem when embedded in permanent structures — such as biomedical implants, active radio-frequency identification tags and embedded micro-sensors — for which no maintenance or replacement is possible. As they can be directly integrated on-chip, these micro-supercapacitors may help to better extract energy from solar, mechanical and thermal sources and thus make more efficient self-powered systems. They could also be fabricated on the backside of solar cells in both portable devices and rooftop installations to store power generated during the day for use after sundown, helping to provide electricity around the clock when connection to the grid is not possible. "We are now looking for industry partners to help us mass-produce our graphene micro-supercapacitors," Kaner said.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/ucla-...que-243553.aspx
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Feb 24 2013, 06:29 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

I hope they get this to work well, it will be huge for Solar I believe.

More Good News About The 'Scientific Accident That May Change The World'


by Chris Clarke on February 21, 2013 2:51 PM


Graphene supercapacitors | Photo: UCLA That battery life video that had gone viral due to a recent post on UpWorthy (and which we told you about Tuesday) now has an update.

We told you that researchers at Ric Kamen's lab at UCLA had found a way to make a non-toxic, highly efficient energy storage medium out of pure carbon using absurdly simple technology.

Today, we can report that the same team may well have found a way to make that process scale up to mass-production levels.

Related

What is Grid Storage?



Explained
: Understanding Distributed Generation The recap: Graphene, a very simple carbon polymer, can be used as the basic component of a "supercapacitor" -- an electrical power storage device that charges far more rapidly than chemical batteries.

Unlike other supercapacitors, though, graphene's structure also offers a high "energy density," -- it can hold a lot of electrons, meaning that it could conceivably rival or outperform batteries in the amount of charge it can hold.
Kaner Lab researcher Maher El-Kady found a way to create sheets of graphene a single carbon atom thick by covering a plastic surface with graphite oxide solution and bombarding it with precisely controlled laser light.

English translation: He painted a DVD with a liquid carbon solution and stuck it into a standard-issue DVD burner.

The result: Absurdly cheap graphene sheets one atom thick, which held a surprising amount of charge without further modification.

That work was reported a year ago; we mentioned it due to the video virally making the rounds this week.

Late Tuesday, UCLA announced that El-Kady and Kaner have a new article in press, in the upcoming issue of Nature Communications, describing a method by which El-Kady's earlier, slightly homebrewed fabricating process shown in the video can be made more efficient, raising the possibility of mass production.
As the authors say in their article abstract,

More than 100 micro-supercapacitors can be produced on a single disc in 30 min or less.

El-Kady and Kaner found a way to embed small electrodes within each graphene unit, and place the whole thing on a flexible substrate that allows the supercapacitor to be bent.

The team is already claiming energy density comparable to existing thin-film lithium ion batteries.

In the video we shared Tuesday, Kaner says that this technology, if it pans out, offers possibilities like a smart phone getting a full day's charge in a second or two, or an electric car reaching "full" in a minute.

This week's press release from UCLA offers other intriguing possibilities:

The new micro-supercapacitors are also highly bendable and twistable, making them potentially useful as energy-storage devices in flexible electronics like roll-up displays and TVs, e-paper, and even wearable electronics.

The researchers showed the utility of their new laser-scribed graphene micro-supercapacitor in an all-solid form, which would enable any new device incorporating them to be more easily shaped and flexible.

The micro-supercapacitors can also be fabricated directly on a chip using the same technique, making them highly useful for integration into micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) or complementary metal-oxide-semiconductors (CMOS).

As they can be directly integrated on-chip, these micro-supercapacitors may help to better extract energy from solar, mechanical and thermal sources and thus make more efficient self-powered systems.

They could also be fabricated on the backside of solar cells in both portable devices and rooftop installations to store power generated during the day for use after sundown, helping to provide electricity around the clock when connection to the grid is not possible.
Kaner says that his lab is now looking for partners in industry that can help make these graphene supercapacitors on an industrial scale.

It's tempting to be cynical about the possibility of a magic bullet energy storage solution; such a breakthrough could solve any number of problems from annoying dead smart phones to two-hour charge times for electric cars to an inefficient power distribution grid, and it's easy to really want this kind of thing to be true.

Plenty of seemingly promising technical innovations in the last few years haven't lived up to their hopeful hype. There's always the chance that further study will reveal a fatal flaw in graphene supercapacitor technology. But for the time being, ReWire officially has its hopes up, at least a little.

http://www.kcet.org/news/rewire/science/mo...capacitors.html
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Feb 22 2013, 12:23 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

Spyglass, I can see Novogen leveraging off Marshall Edwards Pharma (MEIP) because the majority of the compounds they have are the forerunners to what Novogen has now, if MEIP get a partnership say at the beginning of Phase 3 for any of the IP that was originally patented by Novogen, then I believe they would also be stark raving mad not to also take a look at what Novogen now has? seeing as how it is from the same family, but with the possibility of being far better drug possibly and a technology once having passed human safety trial would scream FAST-TRACK to the FDA.

Something else worth noting is that the technology Novogen now hold is a PLATFORM technology, they are concentrating on cancer right now, but they say the tech will also apply to many other drugs for many other illnesses and it is from what I read a cheaper manufacturing process with added benefits as well.
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Feb 19 2013, 12:11 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

Hi Jon, there have been a few naysayers on Hot Copper, I can understand why they would say some of the things they are saying especially if I was unaware of how this drug was found and the path it followed to get to where it is now, I have a feeling much the same as you do, NRT will leverage of any advances in MEIP SP, because most of their compounds under investigation came from Norvet/Novogen in the first place and Dr Kelly and Dr Heaton were the lead investigators, if this new drug passes safety tests ? which I am sure it will, then I can see it being fast tracked

Cheers M.

PS rrodd you only get one thanks, no matter how many times you post the same stuff, (joking LOL).
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Feb 18 2013, 03:50 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

Great day for Novogen (NRT) today, it will be worth watching the US tonight for NVGN.


Up 194.12% today here in Oz.
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Feb 15 2013, 10:36 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

I have been mulling over why GE/GLE are taking so long to announce that they will start building the new plant, we already know they will from two sources now, but when is the burning question?

I think I may now have a better understanding as to why the delay, after reading this document, or should I say two documents, I don't totally believe GLE is looking at whether the new plant will be viable, sure they wouldn't build it if it isn't, but I believe there is another reason for the delay.

I read this document

http://www.wilmingtonbiz.com/industry_news...ils.php?id=4449

and after reading that, well it got me thinking (dangerous I know!)

What stood out in that document were several parts i.e.

"It's a cheaper, more efficient process of enriching uranium than the early technique of gaseous diffusion or the current method that uses centrifuges,"
To me that puts paid as to the economics of it let alone the national security issues IMHO.


But the most important part was this-:
"Even if GE does decide to break ground on the facility, it could take years before any significant development follows because thousands of acres surrounding the GE Hitachi facility lack the basic infrastructure needed for robust development: proper sewer capacity."

There are a number of things that need addressing, some of them being things like, Transport, Water and Sewerage, Storm Water, Schools, there will be 680 construction workers on site and currently,there are only two restaurants in Castle Hayne and the list goes on!
As you may see there are any number of things that are not directly related to the construction site directly but may impinge on it if they were not addressed, these external issues are very important and if some of them were not addressed? if god forbid something terrible happened at the plant,could lead to huge litigation down the track, if every effort was not made to address them before construction of the site even starts, GE would be absolutely NUTS if they do not address these issues first.

This thinking made me dig deeper on this, it led me to this PDF document, this document explains in detail some of the more important issues at hand I believe.


PDF http://www.nhcgov.com/PlanInspect/Document...inal%20Plan.pdf

It is called Castle Hayne Community Plan.

(Yes surprise surprise they already have a plan and it is being acted on right now.)

There is some very important info in this document, it has to be a primary reason why the plant construction hasn't started yet.

For instance, did you know that, the majority of Castle Hayne is not currently serviced by public water or sewer
facilities.

As a result, most of the residents in Castle Hayne depend on wells and septic tanks for their water and sewer needs?

That bit above in my opinion is the number one reason for the delay.

The second reason being-: Flooding and drainage issues are present throughout New Hanover County, and the Castle Hayne community is no different, now look at the diagram on page 32 of that PDF, look at the headwater of that small creek near chip road (bottom LH corner) it is by my estimates about 800 meters from GE look at this map

http://www.mapquest.com/maps?city=Castle%2...ne&state=NC

look for Hermitage road where it meets Castle Hayne Road, on the other side of CH rd opposite Hermitage road is approximately where GE lives, see how close that is to this headwater, also look at the Storm Water areas of concern oin the diagram on page 32 these two point in particular are important in my opinion for a number of reasons, 3. Castle Lakes Road at Prince George Creek 4. Castle Hayne Road at Prince George Creek.


You can see where I am going with this, it may be for instance better to monitor what is happening with the Castle Hayne Plan to get some sort of idea on the timing of the announcement that the full plant construction is about to happen.

NB. I tried uploading the PDF, probably too big? I also tried to paste the map on Page 32 again no luck, so you will just have to look for yourselves.
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Feb 13 2013, 03:07 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

I believe these articles may be important, especially to GE-Hitachi, because this may be the first use of the Prism reactors?

That may not mean much to some here , but the PRISM reactor is the lead in to the Advanced Recycling Centre, which captures the Uranium from the spent fuel before it is burnt in the Prism reactor, the prism reactor burns Plutonium and some Uranium, but the bulk of the recycled Uranium can ether be used in a CANDU reactor or it can be sent back to an Enrichment Facility where the U235 is recycled back for use in a normal LEU Boiling Water Reactor, that may be where Laser enrichment comes into its own?

Report calls for huge expansion of experimental nuclear plants

Development of new technology would move UK away from fossil fuels and generate two-thirds of power by 2050


Mark Halper guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 12 February 2013 10.24 GMThttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013...art-of-comments
JET's fusion reactor, where physicists recreate conditions inside the sun, is the sort of experimental nuclear technology that could help the UK cut its emissions, government scientific advisers say. Photograph: Efda-Jet The UK will need to develop a huge fleet of currently experimental nuclear reactors by the middle of the century, to generate around two-thirds of the country's electricity supply if it is to meet the most nuclear-intensive scenario for moving away from fossil fuels, according to a report by three of the government's most senior scientific advisers.

The expansion would involve developing nuclear generation technologies that are not currently used commercially anywhere in the world, and would also entail a huge expansion from the current electricity contribution of nuclear power to the UK grid. In 2011, nuclear supplied 18% of electricity demand.

If each reactor has the generating capacity of the Hinkley Point power station that would mean at least a trebling of the current number of reactors – 16 at nine different sites around the country. The eventual number could be much higher because the new unconventional reactors are expected to have a smaller generating capacity.

The expansion is necessary to fill the gap left by fossil fuels such as coal and gas, which the government has pledged to phase out to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

The report, which is not yet published, encourages development of unconventional alternatives such as "fast reactors" powered off nuclear waste, designs using thorium rather than uranium, and even fusion power. It implies they could help nuclear to provide as much as two-thirds of UK electricity by 2050.

Sir John Beddington, the government's chief scientific adviser, along with David MacKay, the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) chief scientific adviser, and John Perkins, scientific adviser to the Department of Business Innovation and Skills, are the report's authors.

They have already made "a number of recommendations" to ministers based on findings in the report, a Decc spokesman said.

Some of the alternative reactors can burn plutonium "waste" as fuel. GE Hitachi is in discussions with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and with Decc to construct two of its Prism fast reactors to burn some of the 100 tonnes of plutonium at Sellafield, helping resolve the waste controversies. The billionaire entrepreneur Richard Branson is among those who have expressed support for fast reactors.

Other technologies highlighted in the Civil Nuclear Industrial Strategy report include the use of thorium, a radioactive chemical element – the proponents of which say is more efficient than uranium and is more difficult to make into a nuclear weapon.

Researchers also want to fashion them into small, "modular" sizes that are more affordable and easier to produce than today's large nuclear power stations, and even transportable.

The report was commissioned in response to a 2011 House of Lords select committee report warning the government risked becoming complacent about the UK's nuclear power research and development (R&D) skills and knowledge. It looks at what would be needed to deliver the more nuclear-heavy of four government scenarios outlined in 2011, which examined how to meet the UK's target of cutting carbon emissions 80% by 2050.

The news comes after a rocky fortnight for conventional power, with Centrica pulling out of a partnership with EDF to build new reactors, MPs warning over the £67.5bn cost of waste at Sellafield and Cumbria council rejecting plans for an underground waste-disposal site.

A Decc spokesman said of the report: "In order to potentially deliver against the upper end of this scope, it is likely that more advanced and diverse options will need to be explored by the market." He added: "Ensuring that these options are not foreclosed or essential skills lost will be an important long-term objective, and the R&D roadmap element of the work will set out a number of pathways and key decision points for any future R&D programmes to consider."

The report is due to be published in the coming months.

and this-:

<h1 itemprop="name headline ">Sellafield management sharply criticised by Commons committee</h1> MPs report comes in same week as court action against Sellafield over illegal dumping of nuclear waste in local landfill

The reputation of the nuclear industry faces further damage this week with the publication of a highly critical report on Monday on the management of the Sellafield plant in Cumbria, days before a court action over the illegal dumping of nuclear waste.

The moves follow Cumbria county council's refusal last week to pursue plans to build a storage facility for radioactive materials needed, many believe, if Britain is to build new atomic power stations.

The Commons public accounts committee report claims that Nuclear Management Partners (NMP), the private consortium managing Sellafield, has failed to stem rising costs and delays in dealing with waste and the decommissioning of facilities.

Margaret Hodge MP, the committee's chair, said: "Taxpayers are not getting a good deal from the [Nuclear Decommissioning] Authority [NDA] arrangement with Nuclear Management Partners.

"Last year the consortium was rewarded with £54m in fees despite only two out of 14 major projects being on track.

"It is unclear how long it will take to deal with hazardous radioactive waste at Sellafield or how much it will cost the taxpayer. Of the 14 current major projects, 12 were behind schedule in the last year and five of those were over budget.

"Furthermore, now that Cumbria county council has ruled out West Cumbria as the site of the proposed geological disposal facility, a solution to the problem of long-term storage of the waste is as far away as ever."

The report, Nuclear Decommissioning Authority: Managing Risk at Sellafield, points out that about £1.6bn is being spent annually at the site, where a variety of hazardous materials – including 82 tonnes of plutonium – are kept.

The total lifetime cost of dealing with this has continued to rise each year and has now reached £67.5bn.

"It is essential that the authority brings a real sense of urgency to its oversight of Sellafield so that the timetable for reducing risk does not slip further and costs do not continue to escalate year on year," says the report, from which some findings were released last November.

The MPs' committee is suspicious that the NDA, a public sector body established to oversee the safe dismantling of the UK's old nuclear power stations and deal with waste, does not have a tight enough rein on NMP – a consortium made up of Amec of Britain, Areva of France and the US firm URS – to properly control costs.

The report urges the NDA to work out how to better transfer more risk of failure to the private sector providers.

The NDA said great progress had been made in what was one of the most complex nuclear sites to decommission.

"Of course, not everything has gone smoothly on such a complex and highly technical programme, and the report has rightly pointed to areas where we and the site need to do better," it said in a statement.

"We have a programme of improvements in place and continue to work with Sellafield Ltd and NMP to make continued progress across a broad front of safe operations and project delivery."

Further criticism will be heaped on those managing Sellafield when a court case opens on Thursday that will look into claims the nuclear operator breached environmental permits in 2010 by dumping four bags of radioactive waste in a landfill at nearby Lillyhall without authorisation.

Workington magistrates court, Cumbria, will consider nine charges, although the law has since changed to make it easier for Sellafield to dispose of certain low-level waste materials at Lilyhall.

Management at Sellafield said they did not want to comment before the case, which has been brought by the Environment Agency and the Office for Nuclear Regulation.

The government is currently trying to strike a deal with the French company EDF on a power pricing formula that would convince the company to proceed with new reactors at Hinkley Point in Somerset and elsewhere.

But EDF and other companies interested in building atomic power stations know that any bad publicity around the industry will undermine already-shaky public confidence.




AND THIS


<h1 class="entry-title">Regulators to assess new nuclear reactor design</h1> Date:January 15, 2013 – 10:07 am ONR and the Environment Agency have today received a formal request from the Minister of State for Energy to start generic design assessment work on a new nuclear reactor for the UK – the UK Advanced Boiling Water reactor (ABWR) of Hitachi-GE Nuclear Energy, Limited.

Working together, our job is to ensure the protection of people, society and the environment from the hazards of the nuclear industry and, as with any new nuclear technology, we will only consent to its use in the UK if we are satisfied that it meets high standards of safety, security, environmental protection and waste management.

In December, we concluded a generic design assessment for the (EDF and Areva)UKEPR nuclear reactor, a process which secured safety enhancements to the original design. This experience shows that we have an appropriate model in place to carry out such work, but we also recognise that the ABWR design is different and will present its own unique challenges.

ONR and the Environment Agency will now begin preparatory work with DECC and Hitachi-GE about the timescales and resources involved in assessing this new design.
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Feb 10 2013, 01:57 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

30 Jul 2012: Analysis

Are Fast-Breeder Reactors
A Nuclear Power Panacea?


Proponents of this nuclear technology argue that it can eliminate large stockpiles of nuclear waste and generate huge amounts of low-carbon electricity. But as the battle over a major fast-breeder reactor in the UK intensifies, skeptics warn that fast-breeders are neither safe nor cost-effective.
by fred pearce

Plutonium is the nuclear nightmare. A by-product of conventional power-station reactors, it is the key ingredient in nuclear weapons. And even when not made into bombs, it is a million-year radioactive waste legacy that is already costing the world billions of dollars a year to contain.

And yet, some scientists say, we have the technology to burn plutonium in a new generation of "fast" reactors. That could dispose of the waste problem, reducing the threat of radiation and nuclear proliferation, and at the same time generate vast amounts of low-carbon energy. It sounds too good to be true. So are the techno-optimists right — or should the conventional environmental revulsion at all things nuclear still hold?

COUNTERPOINT:
Say No to Nuclear Fission


Arjun Makhijani, president of the Maryland-based Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, offers a strong rebuttal to Fred Pearce's analysis. Pursuing any kind of nuclear power, including fast-breeder reactors, is a dangerous and expensive diversion from a green energy future, Makhijani argues.
READ MORE Fast-breeder technology is almost as old as nuclear power. But after almost two decades in the wilderness, it could be poised to take off. The U.S. corporation GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH) is promoting a reactor design called the PRISM (for Power Reactor Innovative Small Modular) that its chief consulting engineer and fast-breeder guru, Eric Loewen, says is a safe and secure way to power the world using yesterday's nuclear waste.

The company wants to try out the idea for the first time on the northwest coast of England, at the notorious nuclear dumping ground at Sellafield, which holds the world's largest stock of civilian plutonium. At close to 120 tons, it stores more plutonium from reactors than the U.S. and Russia combined.

While most of the world's civilian plutonium waste is still trapped inside highly radioactive spent fuel, much of that British plutonium is in the form of plutonium dioxide powder. It has been extracted from spent fuel with the intention of using it to power an earlier generation of fast reactors that were never built. This makes it much more vulnerable to theft and use in nuclear weapons than plutonium still held inside spent fuel, as most of the U.S. stockpile is.

The Royal Society, Britain's equivalent of the National Academy of Sciences, reported last year that the plutonium powder, which is stored in drums,
Britain's huge plutonium stockpile makes it a vast energy resource.
"poses a serious security risk" and "undermines the UK's credibility in non-proliferation debates."

Spent fuel, while less of an immediate proliferation risk, remains a major radiological hazard for thousands of years. The plutonium — the most ubiquitous and troublesome radioactive material inside spent fuel from nuclear reactors — has a half-life of 24,100 years. A typical 1,000-megawatt reactor produces 27 tons of spent fuel a year.

None of it yet has a home. If not used as a fuel, it will need to be kept isolated for thousands of years to protect humans and wildlife. Burial deep underground seems the obvious solution, but nobody has yet built a geological repository. Public opposition is high — as successive U.S. governments have discovered whenever the burial ground at Yucca Mountain in Nevada is discussed — and the cost of construction will be huge. So the idea of building fast reactors to eat up this waste is attractive — especially in Britain, but also elsewhere.

Theoretically at least, fast reactors can keep recycling their own fuel until all the plutonium is gone, generating electricity all the while. Britain's huge plutonium stockpile makes it a vast energy resource. David MacKay, chief scientist at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, recently said British plutonium contains enough energy to run the country's electricity grid for 500 years.

Click to enlarge


GE-Hitachi Nuclear The GE Hitachi PRISM (Power Reactor Innovative Small Modular) reactor.
Fast reactors can be run in different ways, either to destroy plutonium, to maximise energy production, or to produce new plutonium. Under the PRISM proposal now being considered at Sellafield, plutonium destruction would be the priority. "We could deal with the plutonium stockpile in Britain in five years," says Loewen. But equally, he says, it could generate energy, too. The proposed plant has a theoretical generating capacity of 600 megawatts.

Fast reactors could do the same for the U.S. Under the presidency of George W. Bush, the U.S. launched a Global Nuclear Energy Partnership aimed at developing technologies to consume plutonium in spent fuel. But President Obama drastically cut the partnership's funding, while also halting work on the planned Yucca Mountain geological repository. "We are left with a million-year problem," says Loewen. "Right now there isn't a policy framework in the U.S. for solving this issue."

He thinks Britain's unique problem with its stockpile of purified plutonium dioxide could break the logjam. "The UK is our best opportunity," he told me. "We need someone with the technical confidence to do this."

The PRISM fast reactor is attracting friends among environmentalists formerly opposed to nuclear power. They include leading thinkers such as Stewart Brand and British columnist George Monbiot. And, despite the cold shoulder from the Obama administration, some U.S. government officials seem quietly keen to help the British experiment get under way. They have approved the export of the PRISM technology to Britain and the release of secret technical information from the old research program. And the U.S. Export-Import Bank is reportedly ready to provide financing.

Britain has not made up its mind yet, however. Having decided to try and re-use its stockpile of plutonium dioxide, its Nuclear Decommissioning Authority has embarked on a study to determine which re-use option to support. There is no firm date, but the decision, which will require government approval, should be reached within two years. Apart from a fast-breeder reactor, the main alternative is to blend the plutonium with other fuel to create a mixed-oxide fuel (mox) that will burn in conventional nuclear power plants.

Britain has a history of embarrassing failures with mox, including the closure last year of a $2 billion blending plant that spent 10 years producing a scant amount of fuel. And critics say that, even if it works properly, mox fuel is an expensive way of generating not much energy, while leaving most of the plutonium intact, albeit in a less dangerous form.

Only fast reactors can consume the plutonium. Many think that will ultimately be the UK choice. If so, the PRISM plant would take five years to license, five years to build, and could destroy probably the world's most dangerous stockpile of plutonium by the end of the 2020s. GEH has not publicly put a cost on building the plant, but it says it will foot the bill, with
Proponents of fast reactors see them as the nuclear application of one of the totems of environmentalism: recycling.
the British government only paying by results, as the plutonium is destroyed.

The idea of fast breeders as the ultimate goal of nuclear power engineering goes back to the 1950s, when experts predicted that fast-breeders would generate all Britain's electricity by the 1970s. But the Clinton administration eventually shut down the U.S.'s research program in 1994. Britain followed soon after, shutting its Dounreay fast-breeder reactor on the north coast of Scotland in 1995. Other countries have continued with fast-breeder research programs, including France, China, Japan, India, South Korea, and Russia, which has been running a plant at Sverdlovsk for 32 years.

But now climate change, with its urgency to reduce fossil fuel use, and growing plutonium stockpiles have changed perspectives once again. The researchers' blueprints are being dusted off. The PRISM design is based on the Experimental Breeder Reactor No 2, which was switched on at the Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois in 1965 and ran for three decades.

Here is how conventional and fast reactors differ. Conventional nuclear reactors bombard atoms of uranium fuel with neutrons. Under this bombardment, the atoms split, creating more neutrons and energy. The neutrons head off to split more atoms, creating a chain reaction. Meanwhile, the energy heats a coolant passing through the reactor, such as water, which then generates electricity in conventional turbines.

The problem is that in this process only around 1 percent of the potential energy in the uranium fuel is turned into electricity. The rest remains locked up in the fuel, much of it in the form of plutonium, the chief by-product of the once-through cycle. The idea of fast reactors is to grab more of this energy from the spent fuel of the conventional reactor. And it can do this by repeatedly recycling the fuel through the reactor.

The second difference is that in a conventional reactor, the speed of the neutrons has to be slowed down to ensure the chain reactions occur. In a typical pressurized-water reactor, the water itself acts as this moderator. But in a fast reactor, as the name suggests, the best results for generating energy from the plutonium fuel are achieved by bombarding the neutrons much faster. This is done by substituting the water moderator with a liquid metal such as sodium.

Proponents of fast reactors see them as the nuclear application of one of the totems of environmentalism: recycling. But many technologists, and most environmentalists, are more skeptical.

The skeptics include Adrian Simper, the strategy director of the UK's Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which will be among those organizations deciding whether to back the PRISM plan. Simper warned last November in
Critics argue that plutonium being prepared for recycling 'would be dangerously vulnerable to theft or misuse.'
an internal memorandum that fast reactors were "not credible" as a solution to Britain's plutonium problem because they had "still to be demonstrated commercially" and could not be deployed within 25 years.

The technical challenges include the fact that it would require converting the plutonium powder into a metal alloy, with uranium and zirconium. This would be a large-scale industrial activity on its own that would create "a likely large amount of plutonium-contaminated salt waste," Simper said.

Simper is also concerned that the plutonium metal, once prepared for the reactor, would be even more vulnerable to theft for making bombs than the powdered oxide. This view is shared by the Union of Concerned Scientists in the U.S., which argues that plutonium liberated from spent fuel in preparation for recycling "would be dangerously vulnerable to theft or misuse."

GEH says Simper is mistaken and that the technology is largely proven. That view seems to be shared by MacKay, who oversees the activities of the decommissioning authority.

The argument about proliferation risk boils down to timescales. In the long term, burning up the plutonium obviously eliminates the risk. But in the short term, there would probably be greater security risks. Another criticism is the more general one that the nuclear industry has a track record of delivering late and wildly over budget — and often not delivering at all.

John Sauven, director of Greenpeace UK, and Paul Dorfman, British nuclear policy analyst at the University of Warwick, England, argued recently that this made all nuclear options a poor alternative to renewables in delivering low-carbon energy. "Even if these latest plans could be made to work, PRISM reactors do nothing to solve the main problems with nuclear: the industry's repeated failure to build reactors on time and to budget," they wrote in a letter to the Guardian newspaper. "We are being asked to wait while an industry that has a track record for very costly failures researches yet another much-hyped but still theoretical new technology."

But this approach has two problems. First, climate change. Besides hydroelectricity, which has its own serious environmental problems, nuclear power is the only source of truly large-scale concentrated low-carbon energy currently available. However good renewables turn out to be, can we really afford to give up on nukes?

MORE FROM YALE e360

Shunning Nuclear Power
Will Lead to a Warmer World


Physicist Spencer Weart argues that if we allow our overblown and often irrational fears of nuclear energy to block the building of a significant number of new nuclear plants, we will be choosing a far more perilous option: the intensified burning of planet-warming fossil fuels.
READ MORE Second, we are where we are with nuclear power. The plutonium stockpiles have to be dealt with. The only viable alternative to re-use is burial, which carries its own risks, and continued storage, with vast expense and unknowable security hazards to present and countless future generations.

For me, whatever my qualms about the nuclear industry, the case for nuclear power as a component of a drive toward a low-carbon, climate-friendly economy is compelling. [A few months ago, I signed a letter with Monbiot and others to British Prime Minister David Cameron, arguing that environmentalists were dressing up their doctrinaire technophobic opposition to all things nuclear behind scaremongering and often threadbare arguments about cost. I stand by that view.]

Those who continue to oppose nuclear power have to explain how they would deal with those dangerous stockpiles of plutonium, whether in spent fuel or drums of plutonium dioxide. They have half-lives measured in tens of thousands of years. Ignoring them is not an option.

POSTED ON 30 Jul 2012 IN Biodiversity Business & Innovation Business & Innovation Energy Forests Science & Technology Water Central & South America Europe North America
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Feb 2 2013, 02:48 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

This was posted on Hotcopper by Toby10 (Thanks)

It is important so I will re post it here, it may also be the substantiation that I need for my prediction? lol

Global Laser Enrichment

To enhance our ability to better serve our nuclear energy customers through expanded nuclear fuel services, Global Laser Enrichment (GLE) is developing uranium enrichment services capability. As the nuclear energy industry expands globally and the demand for enriched uranium increases, GLE is planning a consistent and secure source of uranium enrichment services.
GLE is implementing a phased approach to commercializing the laser enrichment technology with three key stages: completion of a test loop; construction of the initial commercial cascade; and finally, construction of a full-scale commercial production facility.

Features & Benefits
GEH plans to deploy a commercial enrichment facility in the near future, with an increase of approximately one million SWU per year thereafter. The initial commercial cascade would then be expanded in modules to a larger commercial facility, with an expected capacity of 3.5 to 6 million SWU per year.
Third-Generation Enrichment Technology - Uranium hexafluoride is vaporized into a gaseous form and exposed to a laser beam that preferentially excites the 235-UF6 isotope, which enables separation of natural uranium into enriched and depleted uranium. The process operation, while technically complex, is potentially more efficient than existing second-generation centrifuge enrichment technology.

http://www.ge-energy.com/products_and_serv..._Enrichment.jsp

here was my reply on HC
"GEH plans to deploy a commercial enrichment facility in the near future, with an increase of approximately one million SWU per year thereafter. The initial commercial cascade would then be expanded in modules to a larger commercial facility, with an expected capacity of 3.5 to 6 million SWU per year."

That seems to fit almost exactly with the Bellona report 2013 which I posted recently, in that PDF document they said almost the same thing "GEH plans to deploy a commercial enrichment facility in the near future" what was said in the Bellone report was -:General Electric is planning soon to start construction of the new, SILEX-based Uranium Enrichment facility in Wilmington, North Carolina.

And if you look at the figures in the Belona PDF the figures seem to fit as well?
i.e 2,000,000 SWU by 2015, as I said I have previously read that 1000 SWU per year is the target, and that figure of 3,500,000 by 2020 was also mentioned.

If these figures are correct then the first 1,000,000 would be in 2014 meaning that construction has to start any day in my opinion.

So now we have "TWO" sources it would seem?

Hang onto ya hats when they announce this officially!
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Feb 1 2013, 09:59 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

Nothing to really substantiate this prediction, but I have a feeling we will hear something from GLE on the construction of the new plant this month, Part of the reason why I say this is that if those figures are true and if they intend to meet those figures in that Bellona report 2013 Nuclear Fissile Materials, then they will need to fast track the development.
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Jan 31 2013, 09:46 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

Johnson said he learned a lot in his meetings with government legislative leaders. One of the points of discussion centered around the proposed $2 billion loan guarantee being applied for by USEC for the American Centrifuge Project at Piketon.

"There's a lot more to what's going on with USEC than most of us really know," Johnson said. "Some positive. Some not so. And I'll leave it at that.

I think it's workable, but it's going to take time."

While USEC continues to seek a $2 billion loan guarantee from the U.S. Department of Energy, USEC is partnering with the DOE to continue to work on the centrifuge program through the $350 million RD&D (Research, Development and Demonstration) project in hopes it will eventually lead to the loan guarantee for the ACP.

Congress recently cleared another $150 million for the project, which eventually could create some 4,000 jobs in southern Ohio.

Additionally, USEC is finalizing a sale of NAC International, which representatives of USEC say will improve its financial standing when the DOE loan application is revisited later this year.

http://www.equities.com/news/headline-stor...amp;cat=utility

I have read where even if the ACP is found to be workable after the R&D period, it isn't guaranteed that they will get the $2 billion loan guarantee, remember they still have to pay the loan back and if there was any doubt about them being able to do so, then I don't reckon they would get it.
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Jan 30 2013, 10:31 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

I posted this on the other thread, but with little response?

The PDF is called the Bellona report 2013 Nuclear Fissile Materials
management practices, technologies,problems, and prospects)

Authors:
Alexander Nikitin; Prof. Vladimir Kuznetsov, D.Sc. Eng.;
Andrei Zolotkov; Valery Menshchikov, Ph.D. Eng.; Alexei Shchukin, Ph.D. Chem.

The second edition of this report has been prepared with support from the Autonomous Non-Profit Organization "Center for the Support of Territorial Development of the Atomic Industry" and the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

I believe what they are saying is the truth, it seems to be up to date, how they got that information I don't know?
Note what they said about GLE was said after the NRC license was granted, so that gives a time line.

In late 2011, General Electric (GE) completed its work on the SILEX enrichment technology with a large-scale test running
of the new enrichment equipment.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued a favorable decision on a licensing application by a GE-Hitachi partnership for a projected laser enrichment plant with a capacity of 3 million to 6 million separative work units (SWU).


The SILEX technology is believed to be able to significantly reduce the price of fuel for commercial reactors.

General Electric is planning soon to start construction of the new, SILEX-based uranium enrichment facility in Wilmington, North Carolina.

Have a look at table 1.8 on page 18 of the PDF it is talking about World Enrichment capacity and planned capacity in that table it shows United States Global Laser Enrichment (2010) 0 SWU (2015) 2,000 SWU (2020) 3,500 SWU

Also these figures are based on the Wilmington plant, if a second plant was to be built? then the figures would be greater than those shown you would think?


If this document is accurate? then there are a number of things that have to happen and quickly.
I have read where they say 1,000 SWU capacity will be installed per year, so if 2,000 SWU per year is planned for 2015? then 1,000 SWU capacity of that amount would be placed on line in 2014? and if that is the case then construction will have to start VERY soon.



I was the one responsible for calling the PDF Silex bellona, for my filing so don't be misled by that.

Attached File(s)
Attached File  Silex_Bellona_report_2013.pdf ( 781.97K ) Number of downloads: 876

 
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Jan 23 2013, 11:44 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

It is about time we revisited this.

Meehan Green which is 20% owned by Silex, Glenview265 was the first one to highlight this, it seems as if the pilot plant in Saudi Arabia will have a very different type of battery storage!


http://www.meehangreene.com/projects.html


CPV Pilot plant,Saudi Arabia



MGT in partnership with Solar Systems Pty Ltd are installing a Concentrated Photo-Voltaic pilot plant in Saudi Arabia. The CS500 CPV system will be installed at the KAUST (King Abdullah University of Science and Technology) in their NEO (New Energy Oasis) solar energy validation centre. This initiative is to demonstrate the technology’s suitability for the harsh environmental conditions experienced in Saudi Arabia and is a prelude to wide deployment in utility scale power plants. The pilot is a single dish installation rated at 40kW. As with commercial installations, the dense array receiver is upgradable and ‘future proof’. The pilot will be third party validation plant for future increased cell efficiencies and innovations.

As the CS500 uses a closed loop cooling system it will not suffer the severe output de-rating effects of high ambient temperature. MGT is creating opportunities with local partners in the installation and maintenance of the systems and pursuing local supply of balance of plant and sub-components.

MGT also plans to integrate a RedT Flow Battery storage system into the NEO as part of complete solar energy solution. By combining both state of the art technologies MGT will demonstrate how the intermittency of renewable energy sources can be overcome, making Solar Energy truly despatchable to satisfy energy demand when it’s needed.

Here is how this new battery technology works http://www.meehangreene.com/technologies.html

Technology

Vanadium redox flow batteries are based on electrochemical theory that was first put into practice over 120 years ago. Vanadium redox batteries have been demonstrated in applications such as load-levelling the power generated by a wind farm, powering a house using solar energy and in a prototype electric vehicle.

These applications demonstrate that the technology is viable but the complexity of the manufacturing process, particularly in relation to the membrane that separates the two half-cells in the battery, had prevented vanadium redox batteries becoming widely available in commercial products. Until now, that is. Our System has perfected a cell stack design and manufacturing process that increases the quality and lowers the cost of manufacture to a level that makes vanadium redox batteries a practical proposition for a wide variety of applications.


The main features of the vanadium redox batteries are:


  • Very high reliability and low maintenance.
  • Stack operating life of 8 to 10 years; electrolyte has indefinite life.
  • Specialised long-life membrane enables the battery to be charged and discharged over 13,000 times before needing replacement.
  • Ambient temperature operation.
  • Non-hazardous materials.
  • Zero emissions.
  • Silent in operation.
  • Demonstrable return on investment, with payback in 2 to 5 years.
  • Modular stack design and construction allows the basic module to be built into multiple array systems with a wide range of power and capacity.

How it works

Flow batteries work on the same basic principle as common rechargeable batteries:


A battery consists of two half-cells, and a membrane that electrically isolates the half-cells from each other but is permeable to selected ions. One half-cell contains the positive terminal (cathode) and a conductive material called an electrolyte, the other contains a negative terminal (anode) and an electrolyte.

During discharge, a chemical reaction called redox (reduction- oxidation) changes the composition of the electrolyte, causing a shortage of electrons at the cathode and a surplus of electrons at the anode. When the battery is in use, the electrons flow from the anode to the cathode, thereby generating an electrical current.

During charging, an electrical current applied to the terminals reverses the redox reaction and prepares the battery for discharge again.

In consumer batteries such as those used in electronic devices, all of the battery components are encased in a sealed package.

Limited energy storage capacity is a significant problem with standard rechargeable batteries. Flow batteries overcome this problem by storing the electrolyte outside the battery cell.


Pumps are used to deliver electrolyte to the battery cell as needed . Storage capacity is determined by the amount of electrolyte available; to increase the capacity, simply increase the size of the tanks containing the electrolyte.


  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Jan 19 2013, 11:06 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

Solar Systems had better get a move on , because the competition just got hotter, is Solar Systems new cell better than 50% efficient? I hope so, is it also cheaper? hopefully yes , isn't that what we have been told?
At least the cell from IQE built with the substrate from Translucent will be ready this year, hopefully soon.






http://www.electronicsnews.com.au/news/new-multi-junction-solar-cell-design-could-break-c



New multi-junction solar cell design could break conversion barrier

16 January, 2013


RESEARCHERS at the US Naval Research Laboratory, in collaboration with the Imperial College London and MicroLink Devices, have designed a realistic triple-junction solar cell capable of record efficiencies.


Such a lattice-matched, multi-junction solar cell design would be able to break the 50 percent conversion efficiency barrier under concentrated illumination, which is the current goal in multi-junction photovoltaic development.

Currently, the record for triple-junction solar cell efficiency is 44 percent under concentration.

In multi-junction solar cells, each junction is optimised for different wavelength bands in the solar spectrum to increase efficiency. Short wavelength radiation is first absorbed by high bandgap semiconductor material, with longer wavelength parts then passed on to the other semiconductors.

Theory states that an infinite-junction cell would have a maximum power conversion percentage of 87 percent.

However, scientists are challenged to develop a semiconductor material system which can cover the wide range of bandgaps and still be grown with high crystalline quality.

The researchers explored novel semiconductor materials and applied band structure engineering via strain-balanced quantum wells, producing a multi-junction solar cell design which can achieve direct band gaps from 0.7 to 1.8 electron volts with materials that are all lattice-matched to an indium phosphide (InP) substrate.

It is the lattice-matched materials which enables the design to break conversion efficiency records. The scientists identified InAlAsSb quaternary alloys as a high band gap material layer that can be grown lattice-matched to InP.

According to modelling of the alloy, it can achieve a direct band-gap as high as 1.8 electron volts.

By plugging the material into a model which includes both radiative and non-radiative recombination, the scientists created a solar cell design which could achieve over 50 percent power conversion efficiency under concentrated solar illumination.

This is from the IQE website http://www.iqep.com/news-2013/Dec_06_12.asp


Key CPV Solar Technology Process Transfer milestones completed - commercial production on track for 2013

Cardiff, UK, 6 December 2012 - IQE plc (AIM: IQE, “IQE” or the “Group”), the leading global supplier of advanced semiconductor wafer products and services to the semiconductor industry, today announces the achievement of several key technology transfer milestones that represent highly significant progress in its commercial relationship with Solar Junction.

In February 2012, IQE announced an exclusive manufacturing and technology transfer agreement with Solar Junction and laid out a series of milestones. These milestones were designed to culminate in the delivery of full 3Junction (3J) structures to Solar Junction based on successful installation and commissioning of customized production scale MBE tools, and subsequent technology transfer from Solar Junction. Completion of this was planned for the fourth quarter of 2012.

IQE and Solar Junction are pleased to announce the successful completion of these milestones and the delivery of full 3J wafers using the transferred process to Solar Junction. Commercial production is expected to begin in the first half of 2013, initially with customer product qualification quantities, moving to volume production in the second half of the year.

Independently, Solar Junction has successfully qualified its cells to full IEC specifications with several customers, and is strongly engaged with all leading CPV systems houses.

Dr Drew Nelson, IQE Chief Executive, said:

“Our deal with Solar Junction earlier this year will significantly accelerate our well established CPV strategy and position us to become the key epiwafer supplier to the CPV market. The combination of Solar Junction’s core materials IP and technology, with its recently improved world record efficiencies of 44%, together with our own IP and manufacturing capabilities, provides a compelling route to significantly higher cell efficiency and cost effective, high volume production for the CPV industry.

“That combination is now all but complete and we are on track to move to commercial volume production during 2013.

“As we approach the end of our financial year, we are also confident that we will meet our earnings expectations. The transformational deals completed with Solar Junction and RFMD earlier this year are highly complementary and position the Group for accelerating growth in rapidly expanding markets.”

  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Jan 17 2013, 12:41 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

http://scienceblog.com/52948/solor-towers-...s-by-up-to-20x/

Solar 'towers' beat panels by up to 20x

Intensive research around the world has focused on improving the performance of solar photovoltaic cells and bringing down their cost. But very little attention has been paid to the best ways of arranging those cells, which are typically placed flat on a rooftop or other surface, or sometimes attached to motorized structures that keep the cells pointed toward the sun as it crosses the sky.

Now, a team of MIT researchers has come up with a very different approach: building cubes or towers that extend the solar cells upward in three-dimensional configurations. Amazingly, the results from the structures they've tested show power output ranging from double to more than 20 times that of fixed flat panels with the same base area.

The biggest boosts in power were seen in the situations where improvements are most needed: in locations far from the equator, in winter months and on cloudier days. The new findings, based on both computer modeling and outdoor testing of real modules, have been published in the journal Energy and Environmental Science.

"I think this concept could become an important part of the future of photovoltaics," says the paper's senior author, Jeffrey Grossman, the Carl Richard Soderberg Career Development Associate Professor of Power Engineering at MIT.

The MIT team initially used a computer algorithm to explore an enormous variety of possible configurations, and developed analytic software that can test any given configuration under a whole range of latitudes, seasons and weather. Then, to confirm their model's predictions, they built and tested three different arrangements of solar cells on the roof of an MIT laboratory building for several weeks.

While the cost of a given amount of energy generated by such 3-D modules exceeds that of ordinary flat panels, the expense is partially balanced by a much higher energy output for a given footprint, as well as much more uniform power output over the course of a day, over the seasons of the year, and in the face of blockage from clouds or shadows. These improvements make power output more predictable and uniform, which could make integration with the power grid easier than with conventional systems, the authors say.

The basic physical reason for the improvement in power output — and for the more uniform output over time — is that the 3-D structures' vertical surfaces can collect much more sunlight during mornings, evenings and winters, when the sun is closer to the horizon, says co-author Marco Bernardi, a graduate student in MIT's Department of Materials Science and Engineering (DMSE).

The time is ripe for such an innovation, Grossman adds, because solar cells have become less expensive than accompanying support structures, wiring and installation. As the cost of the cells themselves continues to decline more quickly than these other costs, they say, the advantages of 3-D systems will grow accordingly.

"Even 10 years ago, this idea wouldn't have been economically justified because the modules cost so much," Grossman says. But now, he adds, "the cost for silicon cells is a fraction of the total cost, a trend that will continue downward in the near future." Currently, up to 65 percent of the cost of photovoltaic (PV) energy is associated with installation, permission for use of land and other components besides the cells themselves.

Although computer modeling by Grossman and his colleagues showed that the biggest advantage would come from complex shapes — such as a cube where each face is dimpled inward — these would be difficult to manufacture, says co-author Nicola Ferralis, a research scientist in DMSE. The algorithms can also be used to optimize and simplify shapes with little loss of energy. It turns out the difference in power output between such optimized shapes and a simpler cube is only about 10 to 15 percent — a difference that is dwarfed by the greatly improved performance of 3-D shapes in general, he says. The team analyzed both simpler cubic and more complex accordion-like shapes in their rooftop experimental tests.

At first, the researchers were distressed when almost two weeks went by without a clear, sunny day for their tests. But then, looking at the data, they realized they had learned important lessons from the cloudy days, which showed a huge improvement in power output over conventional flat panels.

For an accordion-like tower — the tallest structure the team tested — the idea was to simulate a tower that "you could ship flat, and then could unfold at the site," Grossman says. Such a tower could be installed in a parking lot to provide a charging station for electric vehicles, he says.

So far, the team has modeled individual 3-D modules. A next step is to study a collection of such towers, accounting for the shadows that one tower would cast on others at different times of day. In general, 3-D shapes could have a big advantage in any location where space is limited, such as flat-rooftop installations or in urban environments, they say. Such shapes could also be used in larger-scale applications, such as solar farms, once shading effects between towers are carefully minimized.

A few other efforts — including even a middle-school science-fair project last year — have attempted 3-D arrangements of solar cells. But, Grossman says, "our study is different in nature, since it is the first to approach the problem with a systematic and predictive analysis."


This is probably a better article on this which I found later
http://www.asme.org/kb/news---articles/art...rd--not-outward
  Forum: By Share Code

Poll: Uranium
moosey
Posted on: Jan 15 2013, 09:08 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

Perhaps I should have been a little clearer, you can just put the waste from the LEU Boiling Water Reactors straight into the PRISM, this is what the UK might do? in that instance they get rid of the Plutonium but they don't get to recycle the Uranium, if they want to do this they will have to add an Advanced Recycling Plant on the same site as the PRISM reactor so that they can separate all of the three different substances before using the Plutonium in the PRISM reactor, the other two substances are fission waste which goes to a nuclear repository , the other is the recycled Uranium which has to be re enriched if they want to use it again in the BWR, each time the Uranium is used in this way it effectively only uses 5% of the Uranium in the enriched state, so this process could happen 20 times before all of the original Uranium was used, but it would be mixed with other Uranium that had been re enriched to make up the pellets for the bundle.
  Forum: Macro Factors

Poll: Uranium
moosey
Posted on: Jan 14 2013, 05:31 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

I haven't see a time frame ScottS, I do know that GE-Hitachi have offered their services for the PRISM to the UK so it may be the one that takes the lead, although they are only looking at the PRISM in isolation at this time to get rid of the Plutonium, but they did say the Advanced Recycling Centre may come later if indeed PRISM is chosen.
  Forum: Macro Factors

Poll: Uranium
moosey
Posted on: Jan 14 2013, 12:40 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

ScottS, I believe you are wrong, I will try and explain, if you look at page 4 on the PDF link I supplied :- http://nordic-gen4.org/wordpress/wp-conten...avid-Powell.pdf

It shows a flow diagram, as you say the used fuel from the LEU BWR is sent to the Advanced Recycling Centre where it is reprocessed by electochemical treatment which separates the waste into three sections,

One of them being the fission products which is sent to a waste repository,

The second is what they call the PRISM actinide bundle which goes into the PRISM reactor as fuel.

The third part of the separation is what they either call the Uranium CANDU bundle on page 4 or on page 5 they refer to it as just Recycled Uranium, these two substances are exactly the same i.e. in the Uranium CANDU bundle it can be used in a CANDU reactor as fuel, because a CANDU reactor does not need enriched Uranium to operate it,

this same fuel they call Recycled Uranium also has actinides in it which counteract some of the radioactivity which means it no longer falls between 3% to 5% enriched which is what a LEU BWR requires, it therefore needs to be re-enriched to a higher degree than the 3% to 5% to overcome these impurities, or they may just knock out the actinides and just capture only the U235 portion without the actinides? that part I do not know, but what I do know is that this is possibly still in development, but I also know that the only enrichment process able to re enrich is the laser enrichment process, because it is a closed process, this means it is safer than other enrichment processes for this purpose.

Something else I do know is that flow diagram on page 4 shows that what they call recycled Uranium goes back to what they call Fuel Fabrication, I also know that that Recycled Uranium contains actinides as I said and would be totally usless in a LEU BWR UNLESS it is RE-ENRICHED.

The PDF also shows GLE on page 3 as being an integral part of what they call their "Innovation through the Fuel Cycle"

The initial Atomic Safety Licencing Boards decision to grant Global Laser Enrichment LLC (GLE) for a license to possess and use source, byproduct and special nuclear material and to enrich natural uranium to a maximum of 8% 235U. seems to sum it up, that part was later removed from the Silex website , but it was there for a short time, the need for higher enrichment might be why they were granted a licence for 8% not 5% as one would have expected?

Source material is the raw Uranium mixed into a UF6 form

By product is the Depleted Uranium from the US Stockpile sitting at sites like Paducah, this is where 900 years worth of Uranium will come from for the LEU BWR's, I assume that some of this Uranium will come back for re-enrichment using lasers from the Advanced Recycling Centre in the form of SPECIAL NUCLEAR FUEL which is also called :-
RECYCLED URANIUM which is the third component from the electrochemical process, this will be a continious process where the same Uranium is recycled many times, because these Nuclear power stations only consume 5% of the Uranium each time it is used.


Also if you look here it explains all about the need for rules about SPECIAL NUCLEAR FUEL and why they are necessary.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collecti...7/sr1542v17.pdf



In response to sustained industry interest in reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, the NRC continued to work on developing a technical basis for rulemaking to establish the regulatory framework for licensing a reprocessing facility.


In FY 2009, the agency completed a review to identify and prioritize gaps in the existing regulations.


During FY 2011, the agency continued to define the technical basis needed to support the development of proposed regulations to resolve the identified gaps and establish an effective and efficient regulatory framework.

The NRC continues to conduct rulemakings to secure special nuclear material.


In FY 2009, the agency began an initiative to revise and consolidate the regulations for material control and accounting of special nuclear material.

During FY 2010, staff started developing the draft rule text. This work continued in FY 2011, and the draft text is expected to be released for public comment in FY 2012.








http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collecti...7/sr1542v17.pdf




  Forum: Macro Factors

Poll: Uranium
moosey
Posted on: Jan 14 2013, 09:17 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

I believe it may only the the start for Nuclear power, however it may mean the end or close to it for a lot of Uranium miners, if this gets up?

Sorry to be a wet blanket, I am just trying to give you a heads up, so please don't shoot the messanger.

Could this be why Olympic Dam extension isn't going ahead?


This is an address to the US senate by Eric P. Loewen, Ph.D. Chief Consulting Engineer, Advanced Plants,
GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas LLC.
He was talking about the advantages of using what they call a PRISM reactor in conjunction with what they call an Advanced Recycling Centre.


The way I read this is that the US may not need one single ounce of Uranium for over the next 1000 years?

That is if they adopt what GE-Hitachi have? the UK are also considering it as well, but only for the PRISM reactor at this point not the Advanced Recycling Centre, but that may come later as an extension.


Advancing Technology for Nuclear Energy - Senate Appropriations ...

See where it says :-
• Reducing the required storage time of used nuclear fuel by over 99.99%, from greater than 1 million years to several hundred years;
• Using the current U.S. inventory of 60,000 metric tons of used nuclear fuel to meet the electricity generation demands of the United States for over 100 years if recycled within a high energy GEN IV reactor (using 2008 U.S. electricity generation data); and
• Using the U.S. inventory of depleted uranium that is discarded during the enrichment process that has the potential to meet the electricity generation demands of the United States for over 900 years if recycled within a sodium-cooled GEN IV reactor (using 2008 U.S. electricity generation data.







Advancing Technology for Nuclear Energy
Prepared Testimony
Eric P. Loewen, Ph.D.
Chief Consulting Engineer, Advanced Plants,
GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas LLC
Before the
Subcommittee on Energy & Water Development
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate
Hearing on A National Assessment of Energy Policies –
Significant Achievements since the 1970s and an Examination of U.S. Energy Policies and Goals in the Coming Decades
April 28, 2009
Mr. Chairman, Senator Alexander, and members of the Subcommittee, I am Eric Loewen, Chief Consulting Engineer of Advanced Plants at GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. As you look at energy policy over the past 40 years, I have been asked to help you look forward – to look at the next generation of nuclear technology – the technology that will help the U.S. achieve energy independence, create new jobs and move toward a low carbon future.
Headquartered in Wilmington, North Carolina, GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH) is a world-class enterprise with a highly skilled workforce and global infrastructure dedicated to serving the nuclear industry. We are proud of our record of accomplishments that spans more than five decades; our nuclear alliance is recognized as the world's foremost developer of boiling water reactors, robust fuel cycle products and highly valued nuclear plant services. Combining deep-rooted experience with fresh insight, we provide light water plant operators with responsive reactor services to support safe, efficient and reliable operation.
The nation has already begun to witness the success of the recent federal polices designed to bring about a renaissance of the nuclear industry in the United States. Today, with the incentives of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 in effect, the design and even some basic construction have begun on the next generation of light water reactors in the U.S. Public support for clean, reliable nuclear energy is at record high levels. We have an opportunity to increase the percentage of electricity produced by nuclear plants above the current twenty percent.
My testimony today will give you an overview of how nuclear technology has developed over the past 40 years, the current state of technology in the U.S. and the rest of the world, and perspectives on where the technology might go in the 40 years to come.
Overview of the Development of Nuclear Technology
U.S. leadership in nuclear energy started in 1951 at the National Reactor Test Station near Arco, Idaho. This sodium-cooled reactor produced enough electricity to light four light bulbs. Interestingly, a study done for President Harry Truman in 1952 made a "relatively pessimistic" assessment of nuclear power and actually called for research instead in solar energy. President Eisenhower's call for "Atoms for Peace" one year later, however, led to the initial indication that the federal government would be a strong partner in the development of civilian nuclear energy. Atomic Energy Act of 1954 removed barriers to nuclear energy development by the private sector. The stated purpose of the 1954 Act was to encourage widespread participation in the development and utilization of atomic energy for peaceful purposes, although nuclear materials remained under government control. The new law for the first time permitted private industry to build and operate nuclear plants on their own initiative, and not just as government contractors. GE, the first company to take advantage of this opportunity, built a reactor in Vallecitos, CA – the first commercially funded reactor in the U.S. to provide power to the grid.
In 1955, an early concept of a boiling water reactor developed by Argonne National Laboratory powered a city – Arco, ID – the first such use of nuclear power in the world. This U.S. technical leadership lead to the first generation of commercial nuclear power plants (GEN I), some of which are still in operation. The world's first commercial nuclear power plant opened in England in 1956; the first plant in the U.S. came a year later in Pennsylvania. Availability of adequate funding to provide compensation in the very unlikely event of a nuclear or radiological incident was addressed through the passage of the Price-Anderson Act in 1957.
GE commercialized Argonne's concept of the boiling water reactor by first building a small commercial reactor at our GE facility in Vallecitos, CA, followed by the larger commercial boiling water reactors at the Dresden unit in Illinois, the KRB unit in Europe and the Tsuruga plant in Japan. GE management proceeded in the confident expectation that it could develop the Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) technology and have a commercially competitive product by the 1960s.
The construction of Generation II reactors followed in the early 1960s and represent the 104 nuclear power plants operating in the U.S. today. Of the GEN II reactors in the U.S. today, 34% are BWR designs and 66% are pressurized water reactors (PWR). The power output of U.S. GEN II reactors ranges from 482 to 1,300 MWe. In the early 1960s, these were built as "turnkey projects" to overcome the reluctance of utilities to assume the uncertain risk of building nuclear plants. By the mid 1960s, the industry had evolved to the point where architect engineers and constructors contracted directly with owners and turnkey plants were no longer offered.
During the 1960's, U.S. light water reactor (both BWR and PWR) technology also became established in the world nuclear market, with large orders in Western Europe and Japan. The light-water reactor became the world's technology standard, outstripping the British gas-cooled reactor and Canadian heavy-water reactor technologies by wide margins.
From the construction and operating experience of the GEN II reactors, design improvements were made by industry, and the U.S. government improved the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's licensing processes. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 authorized the one step licensing process known better in the industry as "Part 52."
GE submitted its GEN III design, the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) to the NRC in 1987 and received design certification in 1997. To date, no certified GEN III reactor has yet been built in the U.S. There are currently four ABWRs operating in Japan and work will soon be complete on construction of two additional ABWRs in Japan and two in Taiwan.
The year 1992 was the high water mark for U.S. nuclear power plant installed capacity. The technical successes were enormous. We now have in operation nuclear power plants with a generating capacity greater than the total U.S. electrical capacity installed in 1940, and the plants have a superb safety record. The technical issues that the industry has been able to resolve are far greater than those that remain to be solved. Yet no new plants were started. Why? One significant reason is the substantial financial risks due to the large capital investment required and uncertainties about cost and schedule on new reactor designs.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 responded to these financial risks by authorizing loan guarantees for carbon free technologies such as nuclear power plants, tax incentives for first movers, and risk insurance during the construction phase. This promise of these policies became reality when President Obama announced in February that the Department of Energy has offered conditional commitments for a total of $8.33 billion in loan guarantees for the construction and operation of two new nuclear reactors at a plant in Burke, Georgia. This project is expected to be the first new nuclear power plant to break ground in the U.S. in nearly three decades.
It is important to note that, despite the fact that the U.S. has not built any new plants in recent years, U.S.-developed light-water reactor technology has become the world standard. Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland have all adopted our light-water reactor design for their nuclear programs.

GEH submitted the next advancement in technology its GEN III+ design, the economic simplified boiling water reactor (ESBWR), to the NRC for design certification under Part 52 in 2005, and is expecting final certification in September 2011. This effort was supported by the DOE Nuclear Energy Office through the Nuclear Power 2010 program.
Looking forward to the next generation of nuclear plant design, in 2000, the U.S. organized the world technical community to look at GEN IV reactors in order to improve safety, and address waste issues, and reduce cost and proliferation concerns. This international effort screened over 100 different reactor concepts to identify six plausible designs for continued study. Three of the six GEN IV reactor concepts could be used for nuclear fuel recycling.
Recycling: What is it?
The next area for U.S. innovative leadership in nuclear energy is the commercialization of full-recycling technology.
There are three basic options for used fuel management: the 3 Rs – Repository, Reprocessing or Recycling. Let me provide an overview of each:
Repository - Underground storage for used nuclear fuel from the GEN I and GEN II fleet, where it needs to be stored for at least 1,000,000 years.
Reprocessing – Takes GEN I and GEN II used nuclear fuel for the separation of plutonium using an aqueous-acid system and organic solvents. The recovered plutonium is used in GEN II reactors. The wastes, fission products and high-heat-load transuranics (also known as actinides) are incorporated into glass requiring safe storage for at least 10,000 years. Reprocessing is done currently in the U.K. and France, and soon will be in Japan.
Recycling – Takes GEN I – GEN III used nuclear fuel and separates the usable uranium and transuranics using a molten salt bath and electricity. The recovered uranium and transuranics are then used as fuel for GEN IV reactors, thereby generating electricity from nuclear waste. The remaining fission products wastes are placed into a rock (ceramic) and chunk of metal (a metallic alloy of Zr or Fe) requiring safe storage for just a few hundred years. Because no pure plutonium is extracted, the proliferation risks are eliminated. The U.S. uses a form of this approach currently in treating spent fuel at the Idaho National Laboratory. We call this process "full-recycling."
GE and now GEH have supported investigation of the full-recycling approach initially called the Integral Fast Reactor concept, which was funded under DOE's Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor program for ten years and by the Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership for the past three years. What does it take to recycle? A Generation IV reactor.
Generation IV Reactor: What is it?
Perhaps the greatest promise of the next generation reactor is the ability to recycle used fuel from today's light water reactors.
The GEN IV reactor that I am most familiar with is the PRISM, a Sodium Fast Reactor or "SFR" under development since 1981. The PRISM is America's sodium-cooled reactor, developed jointly by nine U.S. companies under the leadership of GE. The reactor recycles used nuclear fuel, generates electricity and incorporates the lessons learned from the development of earlier reactors.
Following is a brief overview of how the technology works. First, the recycled elements (uranium and transuranics) from today's light water reactors are fabricated into a metallic reactor fuel, which is submerged in liquid sodium. During operation the recycled material fissions (i.e. splits in half) releases energy, and is removed by the flow of sodium and ultimately turned into electricity. The unique element in this recycling reactor is the sodium coolant, which allows nuclear interactions at higher energies so that full-recycling can occur. This cannot occur in a water-cooled GEN II or GEN III reactor where nuclear reactions occur at lower energies.
The sodium-cooled GEN IV reactor is designed with passive safety features. These include passive reactor shutdown, passive shutdown heat removal (requires no human or automatic systems), and passive reactor cavity cooling (improves safety and reduces cost). The sodium-cooled GEN IV reactor supports a sustainable and flexible fuel cycle to consume transuranic elements within the fuel as it generates electricity.
Key milestones and attributes associated with this technology include:
• EBR-II is a sodium test reactor with 30 years of successful operation at the Argonne National Laboratory, which provides a significant base of technical data;
• The Energy Policy Act of 1992 authorized the building of a sodium-cooled recycling reactor;
• The 2002 DOE GEN IV Roadmap rated the sodium-cooled reactor ahead of the other five GEN IV concepts;
• Most recently the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, with four industrial teams including GEH, all agreed that a sodium-cooled reactor was needed to fully recycle all the transuranics in used nuclear fuel;
• A GEN IV sodium-cooled reactor vessel can be fabricated in the U.S. today; and
• This technology uses small modular reactors suitable for smaller electrical grids.

Earlier this year, President Obama directed the Secretary of Energy to establish the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future to make recommendations for developing a safe, long-term solution to managing the Nation's used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. The highly respected members of the Commission have already started their work and will provide a final report to the President within the next two years. GEH has requested an opportunity to engage with the Commission to discuss the benefits of full-recycling and the establishment of recycling centers. Some of the benefits of recycling that we will outline include:
• Reducing the required storage time of used nuclear fuel by over 99.99%, from greater than 1 million years to several hundred years;
• Using the current U.S. inventory of 60,000 metric tons of used nuclear fuel to meet the electricity generation demands of the United States for over 100 years if recycled within a high energy GEN IV reactor (using 2008 U.S. electricity generation data); and
• Using the U.S. inventory of depleted uranium that is discarded during the enrichment process that has the potential to meet the electricity generation demands of the United States for over 900 years if recycled within a sodium-cooled GEN IV reactor (using 2008 U.S. electricity generation data.
While GEH believes the PRISM is an excellent technology, we acknowledge that it is not the only technology and will encourage the Commission to embrace the concept of recycling rather than endorse a particular technology. GEH supports establishing advanced recycling centers in the regions where the reactors stand and where consumers have paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund.
Toward a New GEN IV Policy
GE has worked with the U.S. government to develop civilian nuclear power technology since the beginning of the U.S. nuclear program. There was extraordinary creativity in fashioning novel arrangements to meet the demands of nuclear development; Congress established the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, and industry established standards and professional societies such as the American Nuclear Society to support those standards. These government/private sector approaches represented triumphs of pragmatism over ideology and of substance over form.
Over the past decade, Congress has been responsive and creative in supporting the national laboratories and universities as they investigate the sustainable nuclear fuel cycle. This focus on education and research has played a significant role in the large increase of graduates in nuclear related fields, and must continue so that the industry is prepared for the future.
Our current challenges (waste solutions and plutonium disposition) and opportunities for low carbon electricity call for policymakers to take a fresh look at how to fast track the building of sodium-cooled recycling reactors.
GEH believes that in order to sustain long-term development of full-recycling, the U.S. must learn from our foreign allies (U.K., France, and Japan) regarding best practices from the modified open fuel cycle approach (reprocessing). But we must also stand on our own in support of an even more innovative full-recycling technology.
It is critical to recognize that the U.S. is falling behind in developing innovative nuclear technologies. China and India are in the process of building sodium-cooled GEN IV reactors, which are expected to be the drivers in their development of sustainable nuclear fuel cycles. Without a similar long-term policy, the U.S. can expect to place third, at best in the near future.
Before I conclude my remarks, I want to shift gears a little and mention an additional innovative nuclear technology that GEH is pursuing in the U.S. – Global Laser Enrichment. This new method of enriching uranium for peaceful purposes is being developed in the U.S. under strict oversight by the NRC and the Department of Energy. If the testing of the GLE technology continues to return the positive results we have seen thus far, we will soon build the first commercial facility in Wilmington, NC, adding hundreds of high paying jobs and providing our U.S. customers with a competitively priced, domestic supply of enriched fuel for their power plants.
Summary of Recommendations
The advanced nuclear power technology developed at GEH is a vital part of GE's clean energy portfolio. The world needs the innovative energy technology solutions America has to offer, and America needs them too.
Safe, reliable base-load electricity generated without producing greenhouse gas emissions is needed to meet the heavy demands of industrial and residential users. Congress and the public have endorsed the expansion of nuclear power in the United States, understanding the energy independence and job growth potential of this low-carbon power generation technology. The helpful provisions in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, including loan guarantees have helped set the stage for a nuclear power renaissance.
We must continue the great tradition of the government and private sectors working in partnership to enable nuclear energy to grow. Our recommendations for this Committee for investments in an abundant and responsible long-term energy supply
for weapons plutonium disposition and for addressing used nuclear fuel using full-recycling are to support:
• Competitively awarded industry-led licensing project(s) for sodium-cooled recycling reactor(s).
• Reenergize the domestic manufacturing and sodium research and development base by competitively awarding the manufacture and siting of two GEN IV sodium recycling reactor vessels to support the licensing project.
• Expand the weapons disposition program to include converting weapons material into fuel for disposition in a sodium-cooled recycling reactor.
• Funding the President's budget request for the nuclear energy programs including an additional $36 billion in loan guarantees, Reactor Concepts R&D, Fuel Cycle R&D and the Nuclear Energy Enabling Technology program.
The nation faces a choice today: should we continue down the same path that we have been on for the last thirty years with a repository-only solution, should we take the path of our allies and adopt reprocessing, or should we lead nuclear innovation with full-recycling? By building a sodium-cooled recycling project, we can lead the transformation to full-recycling, use a previously untapped energy source, and provide another path for weapons plutonium disposition.
Thank you. This concludes my formal statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have at this time.

This PDF is all about the PRISM reactor and the Advanced Recycling Centre

http://nordic-gen4.org/wordpress/wp-conten...avid-Powell.pdf

Is it coming ? don't know yet.
  Forum: Macro Factors

moosey
Posted on: Jan 10 2013, 09:37 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

Quote from Warren Buffet, "Short term the stock market is voting machine, long term it is a weighing machine".

another old saying is "it isn't timing the market, it is time in the market"
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Jan 9 2013, 04:16 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

If you had come to this board and said, OK so and so isn't going to happen with this company and here is the reason why I say this and here also is a link to back up what I am saying, I would have accepted you in a much better light.

If you had done this in the first place instead of posting " but wasn't it widely accepted that the deal SLX did to license their methods to GE was SO crap" something that was so dead wrong, with no link and in fact was just utter BS, then I would value your input a great deal more, in other words if you add some value to the conversation rather than trying to tell us the company is failing and we should have sold at $13, then I would been far more impressed, I don't mind any discussion on Silex be it good or bad, but you had better have your links to back up what you say, or at least have a plausible opinion about the company based on some facts, after all, it is only an opinion, we all have one I suppose, but at least I try to show a method to my madness.
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Jan 9 2013, 01:07 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

I don't really know why you are here in the first place, are you trying to tell us how clever you are? or are you here to save us?

You sound like a generation X or is it Y, not sure which it is? someone who needs instant gratification, someone who is not prepared to wait, OK you keep going on with that, but leave us people be who are prepared to put their cash into something worthwhile and see it through, hopefully this company has something that may benefit the whole world one day, not just a few impatient people who have no interest in what a company does.

I wish there was an ignore function on Sharescene, you would be on it!
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Jan 9 2013, 09:52 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

"Can I ask, how much has price declined since you first started posting affirmatively on here ?"


I wasn't going to reply because really it's none of your business, but those who know me, know I got the majority of my holding at 80c cents, I am an investor, I look for companies that have something which I believe will one day be recognized as being the best of type in the world, I am not a speculator or someone who shorts or trades regularly, for one I doubt that I would get it right about knowing when to buy or sell, but more importantly I try to put my money into something that is worthwhile I would like to see the company become a world leader in it's field, I want to support them in this effort in my own small way, those people I mentioned before don't help the company one bit except save for providing some liquidity I suppose, but you could never say they helped the company to any great extent with any monetary support that the company relied on.

There is obviously much that you don't know about Silex, they aren't just in the one field (enrichment) they have many irons in may fires, but I guess to someone like you, that makes absolutely no impact on how you see the company?
As others have pointed out to you, the figure you keep quoting was never ever a realistic figure at that time, but I believe it will be in the future, and hopefully much more, that is where I will make my money if they succeed, I see no reason to think differently at this time, because what I see only gets better every day, I can see why some would say it is taking forever, but in any scientific endeavor there are usually the obligatory delays, but nothing of true and lasting value ever comes easily.
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Jan 7 2013, 05:51 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

This PDF below was written in 2006, it talks about the advantages of possibly using LIS (Laser Isotope Separation) technology for Medical and Industrial applications.

In light of the announcement the other day in the US "Congress looks to shore up domestic Mo-99 supply January 04, 2013"

"DOTmed News Associate Editor
Congress passed a bill late last month to shore up domestic production of molybdenum-99 and phase out the export of high-enriched uranium to make radiopharmaceuticals."


It seems logical to me that if GE had the means to use laser separation at it's disposal for this purpose of enriching molybdenum-99 as basically a sideline to the main purpose of Uranium enrichment? then using it for this purpose would only add value to what the plant was originally designed for and is capable of, it appears it does it cheaper but more importantly, it can also do it better maybe?

Seems to me also that it also stops any HEU from leaving the US, this is a proliferation issue you would think?



http://inl.gov/technicalpublications/Documents/3562834.pdf
Laser Isotope Enrichment for Medical and Industrial Applications

INTRODUCTION.
Nuclear medicine and industrial isotope users are relying on a growing number of enriched natural
isotopes. Some nuclei of these isotopes can be transmuted by spallation reactions induced by
particle accelerators or by neutron absorptions produced in research reactors, to yield valuable
radioactive species for medical and industrial applications. Disruption in the supply of enriched
isotope sources, which are currently provided by surplussed Russian and European ultra-centrifuges
(UCF) or electromagnetic calutrons (EMC) at Oak Ridge, could seriously jeopardize such nuclear
applications
. It is therefore important that new laser isotope separation (LIS) techniques be
developed to insure a secure supply of source isotopes for these important medical and industrial
disciplines
. Prices of isotopes produced by converted UCF or EMC plants, used earlier for Uranium
enrichment operations, are rather high because of high energy consumptions
. For example 33SF6
enriched to 99% in a UCF presently sells for about $16,000 per gram of S-33. LIS schemes forecast
ten-fold lower costs. Table 1 lists some isotopes used in modern medicine that require enrichment.
One of the main reasons for a need of pure isotopes in medical applications is to minimize the
natural contamination in radioisotopes used in nuclear medicine. For instance, the most common
nuclear medicine isotope is Tc-99, derived from radioactive Mo-99 shipped to hospitals weekly in a
“cow.” The Mo-99 (half life 2.75 days) decays to Tc-99 (half life 6 hours), which is eluted
chemically from the “cow” for injection into the patient. The elution is never perfectly free of
contamination from some of the parent material (Mo), and hence the need to keep the quantity of
Mo to a minimum. Current techniques for producing the Mo are by separating it from the fuel and
fission products irradiated in a nuclear reactor. The chemical process cannot distinguish between the
seven or more different Mo isotopes which come from the fission process, and hence all of these
isotopes naturally come along into the product. This process results in a lot of high-level radioactive
chemical waste. An alternative process would produce Mo-99 either from neutron irradiation of
Mo-98 (24%) or neutron spallation on Mo-100 (9.6%), with essentially no high level waste. If
indeed these processes became the ones preferred because they produce no high level waste, then
pure targets of either Mo-98 or Mo-100 would be needed in order to minimize the “contamination”
of the five other naturally occurring isotopes of Mo. In fact the one reason that medical production
of Mo-99 uses the fission product process is that it has far less Mo contamination than the neutron
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Jan 6 2013, 08:50 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

mistagear, I don't know where you got your misinformation from? regarding the terms for the deal that Silex made with GE for the laser enrichment process? but you are dead wrong!

You need to do some basic research before coming out with an outlandish statement like that, Silex have already been paid milestone payments in the multi millions of dollars and will be eligible for more soon, but that is peanuts compared to what they will receive on any enriched Uranium produced by GLE.

Silex will be eligible for somewhere between 7% and 12 % royalties , we were told by Silex recently that the percentage would be on the higher side, so I am thinking that would possibly mean somewhere near 10% maybe more?
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Jan 5 2013, 11:28 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

With this new funding in the US, I reckon GE will be back in there quick smart, that's if they ever really stopped? lasers are supposedly a good way to isolate these radioisotopes to make radiopharmaceuticals, from memory Silex have spoken about this possibility before?

Is this the first mover which is indirectly linked to GE-Hitachi's Prism reactor along with it's Advanced Recycling Centre and also GLE laser separation process? I think it may be? it would make sense if it was, to me anyway!





http://www.dotmed.com/news/story/20202

"General Electric-Hitachi had also been working on a neutron capture program to make moly, but suspended the project in February, apparently over concerns about market conditions"

Congress looks to shore up domestic Mo-99 supply
January 04, 2013
by Brendon Nafziger , DOTmed News Associate Editor
Congress passed a bill late last month to shore up domestic production of molybdenum-99 and phase out the export of high-enriched uranium to make radiopharmaceuticals.

The bill authorizes funding of "non-federal entities," such as universities and private companies, to research and develop new ways to make the radioisotope used in tens of thousands of nuclear medicine imaging exams in the United States every day.

The bill, the American Medical Isotope Production Act of 2011 (or S. 99), was approved unanimously by the Senate and included in a bicameral conference agreement on national defense spending for fiscal 2013 that passed Dec. 21. President Obama is expected to sign the bill, according to the Society for Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, which supports the measure. (Update: Obama signed the bill Thursday, after this article was written.)

S. 99 was sponsored by Sen. Jeff Bingaman, a Democrat from New Mexico and the chair of the Senate's energy and natural resources committee, and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a Republican from Alaska. An earlier version of the bill was introduced, and stalled, in 2009.

The fragile supply chain

Currently, the supply chain for moly-99 is complex and fragile. The United States exports high-enrich uranium, which can be used to make weapons, to a handful of mostly aging nuclear reactors abroad. These reactors in turn use the uranium targets to create Mo-99, which is then shipped to radiopharmacies in the United States. These companies then provide generators to "milk" the moly into technetium-99m, a short-lived nuclear imaging agent primarily used for heart scans. About 50,000 technetium exams are performed in the U.S. every day.

Because of the age of these foreign reactors -- some are nearly a half century old -- there are hiccups. Two years ago, the combined shutdown of one in Canada and one in the Netherlands caused shortages that resulted in delayed testing. The Canadian reactor, the National Research Universal reactor, is also scheduled to go offline for good in 2016.

The bill calls on Congress to get the program started in 3 years. Within 7 years, if all goes according to plan, the U.S. will no longer issue licenses for the export of HEU for medical isotope production. However, the bill does include an out -- if global LEU supply hasn't caught up with U.S. demand, export licenses can be renewed.

Also, the bill calls on Congress to task the National Academy of Sciences with creating a report on moly-99 supplies in the next 5 years.

Budget complexities

The purpose of the law is mostly monetary: helping cover the costs of creating the new reactors or technology that can extract moly while meeting U.S. demand.

Continue reading Congress looks to shore up domestic Mo-99 supply..

But although the purpose is monetary, no specific funding is mentioned in the bill. An earlier version of the legislation, which was analyzed by the Congressional Budget Office, allocated about $143 million to help sponsor non-HEU moly projects, but the funding was taken out of the version that passed Congress.

Now, funding for the projects will likely just come out of the recently passed DOE budget, although an exact dollar amount is not included in the bill, according to officials contacted by DOTmed News.

New technologies

In any case, switching to non-HEU moly is a tall order, but SNNMI thinks it's probably doable.

"I think it is realistic, a lot of different entities around the world are making that shift," Dr. Frederic H. Fahey, president of SNMMI, told DOTmed news. "As far as SNMMI is concerned, we think this is a realistic goal."

Moly-99 distributor Lantheus Medical Imaging is currently using a South African reactor to make an LEU-derived isotope, and had its first U.S. commercial shipment in July 2010.

Several companies have also already received federal grants to explore domestic, non-HEU production. One group is NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes LLC. In November, the Wisconsin-based company pocketed $22 million from the National Nuclear Security Administration's Global Threat Reduction Initiative, one of four companies to qualify for the NNSA's cost-sharing, quarter-million dollar grant program. NorthStar hopes to make moly using multiple linear accelerators. Another contender, Babcock & Wilcox Technical Services Group, is looking at using a special LEU-powered "solution reactor."

General Electric-Hitachi had also been working on a neutron capture program to make moly, but suspended the project in February, apparently over concerns about market conditions.
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Jan 1 2013, 08:09 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

Some here may not be aware of what Novogen now has and will be working on for some time, this is from the new Novogen website, it is well worth a read and hoprfully will shed some light on what is happening with the company this time around.

http://www.novogen.com/blog/why-are-we-tar...ancer/#comments


Why Are We Targeting CS-6 at Brain Cancer
December 21, 2012 By Novogen

Why are we targeting CS-6 at brain cancer? This is becoming a FAQ, so it is worth taking a bit of time here to explain the strategy.

While we have nominated glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) as the primary clinical target of CS-6, we could just as easily have nominated secondary brain cancer of any type, or indeed almost any form of human cancer not involving the brain. Such is the potency and versatility of this compound.

A successful treatment for brain cancer was not part of the initial design criteria behind CS-6. The initial rationale was something as fundamental as the improved design and manufacture of simple benzopyran drugs. As promising as this chemical family was as a source of anti-cancer agents, it had one limiting factor … an inherently poor chemical flexibility of the underlying molecular scaffold. Put simply, this meant that it was difficult to manipulate their shape (in order to develop more potent analogues), they were difficult to manufacture (required 8-10 steps) and generally were highly chiral (contained multiple forms requiring separation).

No-one was more aware of these limitations than Dr Andrew Heaton. As the Senior Chemist in Novogen back in the late-1990s, Andrew was responsible for developing what was then state-of-the-art technology in the design and manufacture of simple benzopyrans such as phenoxodiol, NV-128, NV-143 and NV-196.

Triaxial's breakthrough, thanks to Andrew's insights, was to learn how to 'bend' the benzopyran molecule to allow the insertion of chemical groupings not previously thought possible. That original objective was nothing more complicated than to be able to make far more complex structures than ever before in the hope that we would discover far more powerful anti-cancer agents. What emerged from this early work of Triaxial was a new and patentable family of compounds known as super benzopyrans of structures not seen before that happily fulfilled our predictions by displaying a level of anti-cancer activity that we had not previously encountered.

We had increased the 'sting' in the scorpion's tail by a very considerable amount. We had anticipated this outcome. Four decades of collective experience in the design and use of simple benzopyran drugs had given the three original Triaxial scientists valuable knowledge in the way these compounds work as anti-cancer agents and what parts of the molecule are essential for that activity. So it came as no real surprise, but certainly great relief, to see our original theory proven.

But then a number of benefits emerged that Andrew had predicted but which some of us thought were more in hope. The first was that the process of 'bending' the benzopyran molecule greatly facilitated the manufacturing process. What used to take 8-10 steps, now took 4-5. In terms of scaling up the process to large-scale drug manufacture, this represents a significant potential saving in time and money.

A second benefit was a reduction in the level of chirality of the produced drug. Chirality refers to the presence of enantiomers of the one drug, or left-handed and right-handed versions of the same drug. The propensity of a manufacturing process to produce chirality can have major cost implications with the need to separate enantiomers should one of them prove to have undesirable side-effects, the two enantiomers of thalidomide being the best-known example… one treating nausea and being safe, the other having no effect on nausea but causing severe birth defects.

The third beneficial outcome, and arguably the most significant from the patient's point of view, was the protection of the drug from the cancer cells' attempts to hide from it. We refer to this as our 'Stealth' technology. While the creation of a more complex super benzopyran had delivered a drug with a far more powerful sting in the scorpion's tail, this 'stealth' technology made sure that the scorpion's claws retained their ability to grab hold of its prey. The basis of this technology is the subject of patent applications that we strongly believe provide the Company with a unique and potentially very valuable piece of intellectual property.

So, the outcome of this early R&D work was an initial library of super benzopyran compounds, a number of which displayed strong anti-cancer activity in the laboratory against a range of human cancer types (eg. breast cancer, lung cancer, prostate cancer, ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, brain cancer, skin cancer, colon cancer and bladder cancer. Of these, two compounds, CS-5 and CS-6, were stand-outs both in their anti-cancer activity and in their 'stealth' ability. This presented us with the opportunity to select either (or both) compounds as potential drug candidates, and to apply them to a wide range of potential cancer targets.

However, CS-6 was distinguished from CS-5 in one important characteristic….CS-6 met the major chemical criteria for a potential ability to cross the blood-brain barrier. At this stage we do not know whether it will do this, and we won't know for certain until we reach the clinic. However, on the basis of those drugs known to cross the blood-brain barrier, 5 essential structural criteria are described and CS-6 meets these criteria.

Primary brain cancer is one of those cancers where there has been little progress in patient outcome over the last 40 years. In part that is because of the inherent insensitivity of brain cancer (glioma) cells to both radiation and anti-cancer drugs, and in part because of the difficulty of getting drugs that might work across the blood-brain barrier. This is a pump mechanism that is peculiar to blood vessels within the brain and which serves to protect the brain from toxic chemicals by preventing them from passing out of the blood vessel. Where such toxic anti-cancer drugs do offer any effect in brain cancer therapy, it is usually in late-stage cancers where the integrity of the blood vessels has broken down.

Drugs that are effective against glioma cells are few and far between ….glioma cells have proven to be highly sensitive to the cytotoxic effects of CS-6. Drugs that are effective against glioma cells on the whole do not meet the known structural criteria for crossing the blood-brain barrier ….CS-6 does meet these criteria.

That's why we have selected primary brain cancer as our clinical target for CS-6.
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Jan 1 2013, 03:44 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

For all of you Uranium investors, here is something that may rattle your teeth.

http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/ht-en...7c-3eea4cd8a793

Advancing Technology for Nuclear Energy
Prepared Testimony
Eric P. Loewen, Ph.D.
Chief Consulting Engineer, Advanced Plants,
GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas LLC
Before the
Subcommittee on Energy & Water Development
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate
Hearing on A National Assessment of Energy Policies –
Significant Achievements since the 1970s and an Examination of U.S. Energy Policies and Goals in the Coming Decades
April 28, 2009
Mr. Chairman, Senator Alexander, and members of the Subcommittee, I am Eric Loewen, Chief Consulting Engineer of Advanced Plants at GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. As you look at energy policy over the past 40 years, I have been asked to help you look forward – to look at the next generation of nuclear technology – the technology that will help the U.S. achieve energy independence, create new jobs and move toward a low carbon future.
Headquartered in Wilmington, North Carolina, GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH) is a world-class enterprise with a highly skilled workforce and global infrastructure dedicated to serving the nuclear industry. We are proud of our record of accomplishments that spans more than five decades; our nuclear alliance is recognized as the world’s foremost developer of boiling water reactors, robust fuel cycle products and highly valued nuclear plant services. Combining deep-rooted experience with fresh insight, we provide light water plant operators with responsive reactor services to support safe, efficient and reliable operation.
The nation has already begun to witness the success of the recent federal polices designed to bring about a renaissance of the nuclear industry in the United States. Today, with the incentives of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 in effect, the design and even some basic construction have begun on the next generation of light water reactors in the U.S. Public support for clean, reliable nuclear energy is at record high levels. We have an opportunity to increase the percentage of electricity produced by nuclear plants above the current twenty percent.
My testimony today will give you an overview of how nuclear technology has developed over the past 40 years, the current state of technology in the U.S. and the rest of the world, and perspectives on where the technology might go in the 40 years to come.
Overview of the Development of Nuclear Technology
U.S. leadership in nuclear energy started in 1951 at the National Reactor Test Station near Arco, Idaho. This sodium-cooled reactor produced enough electricity to light four light bulbs. Interestingly, a study done for President Harry Truman in 1952 made a “relatively pessimistic” assessment of nuclear power and actually called for research instead in solar energy. President Eisenhower’s call for “Atoms for Peace” one year later, however, led to the initial indication that the federal government would be a strong partner in the development of civilian nuclear energy. Atomic Energy Act of 1954 removed barriers to nuclear energy development by the private sector. The stated purpose of the 1954 Act was to encourage widespread participation in the development and utilization of atomic energy for peaceful purposes, although nuclear materials remained under government control. The new law for the first time permitted private industry to build and operate nuclear plants on their own initiative, and not just as government contractors. GE, the first company to take advantage of this opportunity, built a reactor in Vallecitos, CA – the first commercially funded reactor in the U.S. to provide power to the grid.
In 1955, an early concept of a boiling water reactor developed by Argonne National Laboratory powered a city – Arco, ID – the first such use of nuclear power in the world. This U.S. technical leadership lead to the first generation of commercial nuclear power plants (GEN I), some of which are still in operation. The world’s first commercial nuclear power plant opened in England in 1956; the first plant in the U.S. came a year later in Pennsylvania. Availability of adequate funding to provide compensation in the very unlikely event of a nuclear or radiological incident was addressed through the passage of the Price-Anderson Act in 1957.
GE commercialized Argonne’s concept of the boiling water reactor by first building a small commercial reactor at our GE facility in Vallecitos, CA, followed by the larger commercial boiling water reactors at the Dresden unit in Illinois, the KRB unit in Europe and the Tsuruga plant in Japan. GE management proceeded in the confident expectation that it could develop the Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) technology and have a commercially competitive product by the 1960s.
The construction of Generation II reactors followed in the early 1960s and represent the 104 nuclear power plants operating in the U.S. today. Of the GEN II reactors in the U.S. today, 34% are BWR designs and 66% are pressurized water reactors (PWR). The power output of U.S. GEN II reactors ranges from 482 to 1,300 MWe. In the early 1960s, these were built as “turnkey projects” to overcome the reluctance of utilities to assume the uncertain risk of building nuclear plants. By the mid 1960s, the industry had evolved to the point where architect engineers and constructors contracted directly with owners and turnkey plants were no longer offered.
During the 1960’s, U.S. light water reactor (both BWR and PWR) technology also became established in the world nuclear market, with large orders in Western Europe and Japan. The light-water reactor became the world’s technology standard, outstripping the British gas-cooled reactor and Canadian heavy-water reactor technologies by wide margins.
From the construction and operating experience of the GEN II reactors, design improvements were made by industry, and the U.S. government improved the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s licensing processes. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 authorized the one step licensing process known better in the industry as “Part 52.”
GE submitted its GEN III design, the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) to the NRC in 1987 and received design certification in 1997. To date, no certified GEN III reactor has yet been built in the U.S. There are currently four ABWRs operating in Japan and work will soon be complete on construction of two additional ABWRs in Japan and two in Taiwan.
The year 1992 was the high water mark for U.S. nuclear power plant installed capacity. The technical successes were enormous. We now have in operation nuclear power plants with a generating capacity greater than the total U.S. electrical capacity installed in 1940, and the plants have a superb safety record. The technical issues that the industry has been able to resolve are far greater than those that remain to be solved. Yet no new plants were started. Why? One significant reason is the substantial financial risks due to the large capital investment required and uncertainties about cost and schedule on new reactor designs.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 responded to these financial risks by authorizing loan guarantees for carbon free technologies such as nuclear power plants, tax incentives for first movers, and risk insurance during the construction phase. This promise of these policies became reality when President Obama announced in February that the Department of Energy has offered conditional commitments for a total of $8.33 billion in loan guarantees for the construction and operation of two new nuclear reactors at a plant in Burke, Georgia. This project is expected to be the first new nuclear power plant to break ground in the U.S. in nearly three decades.
It is important to note that, despite the fact that the U.S. has not built any new plants in recent years, U.S.-developed light-water reactor technology has become the world standard. Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland have all adopted our light-water reactor design for their nuclear programs.

GEH submitted the next advancement in technology its GEN III+ design, the economic simplified boiling water reactor (ESBWR), to the NRC for design certification under Part 52 in 2005, and is expecting final certification in September 2011. This effort was supported by the DOE Nuclear Energy Office through the Nuclear Power 2010 program.
Looking forward to the next generation of nuclear plant design, in 2000, the U.S. organized the world technical community to look at GEN IV reactors in order to improve safety, and address waste issues, and reduce cost and proliferation concerns. This international effort screened over 100 different reactor concepts to identify six plausible designs for continued study. Three of the six GEN IV reactor concepts could be used for nuclear fuel recycling.
Recycling: What is it?
The next area for U.S. innovative leadership in nuclear energy is the commercialization of full-recycling technology.
There are three basic options for used fuel management: the 3 Rs – Repository, Reprocessing or Recycling. Let me provide an overview of each:
Repository - Underground storage for used nuclear fuel from the GEN I and GEN II fleet, where it needs to be stored for at least 1,000,000 years.
Reprocessing – Takes GEN I and GEN II used nuclear fuel for the separation of plutonium using an aqueous-acid system and organic solvents. The recovered plutonium is used in GEN II reactors. The wastes, fission products and high-heat-load transuranics (also known as actinides) are incorporated into glass requiring safe storage for at least 10,000 years. Reprocessing is done currently in the U.K. and France, and soon will be in Japan.
Recycling – Takes GEN I – GEN III used nuclear fuel and separates the usable uranium and transuranics using a molten salt bath and electricity. The recovered uranium and transuranics are then used as fuel for GEN IV reactors, thereby generating electricity from nuclear waste. The remaining fission products wastes are placed into a rock (ceramic) and chunk of metal (a metallic alloy of Zr or Fe) requiring safe storage for just a few hundred years. Because no pure plutonium is extracted, the proliferation risks are eliminated. The U.S. uses a form of this approach currently in treating spent fuel at the Idaho National Laboratory. We call this process “full-recycling.”
GE and now GEH have supported investigation of the full-recycling approach initially called the Integral Fast Reactor concept, which was funded under DOE’s Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor program for ten years and by the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership for the past three years. What does it take to recycle? A Generation IV reactor.
Generation IV Reactor: What is it?
Perhaps the greatest promise of the next generation reactor is the ability to recycle used fuel from today’s light water reactors.
The GEN IV reactor that I am most familiar with is the PRISM, a Sodium Fast Reactor or “SFR” under development since 1981. The PRISM is America’s sodium-cooled reactor, developed jointly by nine U.S. companies under the leadership of GE. The reactor recycles used nuclear fuel, generates electricity and incorporates the lessons learned from the development of earlier reactors.
Following is a brief overview of how the technology works. First, the recycled elements (uranium and transuranics) from today’s light water reactors are fabricated into a metallic reactor fuel, which is submerged in liquid sodium. During operation the recycled material fissions (i.e. splits in half) releases energy, and is removed by the flow of sodium and ultimately turned into electricity. The unique element in this recycling reactor is the sodium coolant, which allows nuclear interactions at higher energies so that full-recycling can occur. This cannot occur in a water-cooled GEN II or GEN III reactor where nuclear reactions occur at lower energies.
The sodium-cooled GEN IV reactor is designed with passive safety features. These include passive reactor shutdown, passive shutdown heat removal (requires no human or automatic systems), and passive reactor cavity cooling (improves safety and reduces cost). The sodium-cooled GEN IV reactor supports a sustainable and flexible fuel cycle to consume transuranic elements within the fuel as it generates electricity.
Key milestones and attributes associated with this technology include:
• EBR-II is a sodium test reactor with 30 years of successful operation at the Argonne National Laboratory, which provides a significant base of technical data;
• The Energy Policy Act of 1992 authorized the building of a sodium-cooled recycling reactor;
• The 2002 DOE GEN IV Roadmap rated the sodium-cooled reactor ahead of the other five GEN IV concepts;
• Most recently the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, with four industrial teams including GEH, all agreed that a sodium-cooled reactor was needed to fully recycle all the transuranics in used nuclear fuel;
• A GEN IV sodium-cooled reactor vessel can be fabricated in the U.S. today; and
• This technology uses small modular reactors suitable for smaller electrical grids.

Earlier this year, President Obama directed the Secretary of Energy to establish the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future to make recommendations for developing a safe, long-term solution to managing the Nation’s used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. The highly respected members of the Commission have already started their work and will provide a final report to the President within the next two years. GEH has requested an opportunity to engage with the Commission to discuss the benefits of full-recycling and the establishment of recycling centers. Some of the benefits of recycling that we will outline include:
• Reducing the required storage time of used nuclear fuel by over 99.99%, from greater than 1 million years to several hundred years;
• Using the current U.S. inventory of 60,000 metric tons of used nuclear fuel to meet the electricity generation demands of the United States for over 100 years if recycled within a high energy GEN IV reactor (using 2008 U.S. electricity generation data); and
• Using the U.S. inventory of depleted uranium that is discarded during the enrichment process that has the potential to meet the electricity generation demands of the United States for over 900 years if recycled within a sodium-cooled GEN IV reactor (using 2008 U.S. electricity generation data.
While GEH believes the PRISM is an excellent technology, we acknowledge that it is not the only technology and will encourage the Commission to embrace the concept of recycling rather than endorse a particular technology. GEH supports establishing advanced recycling centers in the regions where the reactors stand and where consumers have paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund.
Toward a New GEN IV Policy
GE has worked with the U.S. government to develop civilian nuclear power technology since the beginning of the U.S. nuclear program. There was extraordinary creativity in fashioning novel arrangements to meet the demands of nuclear development; Congress established the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, and industry established standards and professional societies such as the American Nuclear Society to support those standards. These government/private sector approaches represented triumphs of pragmatism over ideology and of substance over form.
Over the past decade, Congress has been responsive and creative in supporting the national laboratories and universities as they investigate the sustainable nuclear fuel cycle. This focus on education and research has played a significant role in the large increase of graduates in nuclear related fields, and must continue so that the industry is prepared for the future Our current challenges (waste solutions and plutonium disposition) and opportunities for low carbon electricity call for policymakers to take a fresh look at how to fast track the building of sodium-cooled recycling reactors.
GEH believes that in order to sustain long-term development of full-recycling, the U.S. must learn from our foreign allies (U.K., France, and Japan) regarding best practices from the modified open fuel cycle approach (reprocessing). But we must also stand on our own in support of an even more innovative full-recycling technology.
It is critical to recognize that the U.S. is falling behind in developing innovative nuclear technologies. China and India are in the process of building sodium-cooled GEN IV reactors, which are expected to be the drivers in their development of sustainable nuclear fuel cycles. Without a similar long-term policy, the U.S. can expect to place third, at best in the near future.
Before I conclude my remarks, I want to shift gears a little and mention an additional innovative nuclear technology that GEH is pursuing in the U.S. – Global Laser Enrichment. This new method of enriching uranium for peaceful purposes is being developed in the U.S. under strict oversight by the NRC and the Department of Energy. If the testing of the GLE technology continues to return the positive results we have seen thus far, we will soon build the first commercial facility in Wilmington, NC, adding hundreds of high paying jobs and providing our U.S. customers with a competitively priced, domestic supply of enriched fuel for their power plants.
Summary of Recommendations
The advanced nuclear power technology developed at GEH is a vital part of GE’s clean energy portfolio. The world needs the innovative energy technology solutions America has to offer, and America needs them too.
Safe, reliable base-load electricity generated without producing greenhouse gas emissions is needed to meet the heavy demands of industrial and residential users. Congress and the public have endorsed the expansion of nuclear power in the United States, understanding the energy independence and job growth potential of this low-carbon power generation technology. The helpful provisions in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, including loan guarantees have helped set the stage for a nuclear power renaissance.
We must continue the great tradition of the government and private sectors working in partnership to enable nuclear energy to grow. Our recommendations for this Committee for investments in an abundant and responsible long-term energy supply,
  Forum: Investment Discussion

moosey
Posted on: Dec 31 2012, 04:35 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

This will blow your mind lol.

it's a little dated now, they must be well advanced by now you would think?


http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/ht-en...7c-3eea4cd8a793

document created 28/4/2010

Advancing Technology for Nuclear Energy
Prepared Testimony
Eric P. Loewen, Ph.D.
Chief Consulting Engineer, Advanced Plants,
GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas LLC
Before the
Subcommittee on Energy & Water Development
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate
Hearing on A National Assessment of Energy Policies –
Significant Achievements since the 1970s and an Examination of U.S. Energy
Policies and Goals in the Coming Decades
April 28, 2009

Earlier this year, President Obama directed the Secretary of Energy to establish the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future to make recommendations for developing a safe, long-term solution to managing the Nation's used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. The highly respected members of the Commission have already started their work and will provide a final report to the President within the next two years. GEH has requested an opportunity to engage with the Commission to discuss the benefits of full-recycling and the establishment of recycling centers. Some of the benefits of recycling that we will outline include:
• Reducing the required storage time of used nuclear fuel by over 99.99%,
from greater than 1 million years to several hundred years;
• Using the current U.S. inventory of 60,000 metric tons of used nuclear fuel
to meet the electricity generation demands of the United States for over 100
years
if recycled within a high energy GEN IV reactor (using 2008 U.S.
electricity generation data); and
• Using the U.S. inventory of depleted uranium that is discarded during the
enrichment process that has the potential to [/color][color="#FF0000"]meet the electricity
generation demands of the United States for over 900 years
if recycled within a
sodium-cooled GEN IV reactor (using 2008 U.S. electricity generation data.


All of this explains now why the Atomic Safety & Licensing Board said in it's initial release.

The ASLB's Initial Decision ... Global Laser Enrichment LLC (GLE) for a
license to possess and use source, byproduct and special nuclear
material
and to enrich natural uranium to a maximum of 8% 235U

So it appears that the Silex technology may be used in three ways, two of which we have been formally notified about, enrichment of natural Uranium Enrichment in UF6 mix, also tails re-enrichment/reprocessing using Byproduct from previous enrichment, but there is also a third use which we haven't been officially told about YET, reprocessing of recovered Uranium from the Advanced Recycling Centre of special nuclear material.

http://nordic-gen4.org/wordpress/wp-conten...avid-Powell.pdf
In the document they show that this Uranium that is recovered in the Advanced Recycling Centre can either be used in a Candu reactor or reprocessed to get rid of some of the actinides which lower the effect of the Uranium which means it has to be enriched to a higher degree than what normal Uranium is refined i.e.3 to 5%


BLOODY HELL, they will have enough fuel for 1000 years using the spent fuel and tails if they use this system, it may mean that that some Uranium miners go bust, it may even be the reason why Olympic Dam didn't go ahead? but they
still need to enrich the tails and also the Uranium recovered from the spent fuel in the Advanced Recycle Centre, and remember is it will need to be enriched to a higher degree, something else to consider also is that, if all of this works then there will be much more nuclear used throughout the world if they can get rid of the bulk of the waste in this manner especially the really bad stuff!

No wonder Chris Monetta said " the laser method could be one of the keys to the nation long-term energy security,at a minimum , it could provide a steady supply of uranium enriched right here in the US."

What he was really saying, is that even if the ARC reprocessing plant doesn't go ahead the Uranium enrichment plant definitely will, but I firmly believe they both will when you consider the figures.

It is coming, no doubt here, like old Joh Bjelke Peterson once said "now
don't you worry about that"
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Dec 30 2012, 11:59 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

More on this subject.

http://www.usnuclearenergy.org/PDF_Library...Center_GNEP.pdf

http://www.ecomagination.com/portfolio/ge-...ecycling-center
GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy’s Advanced Recycling Center (ARC) is designed to produce electricity by recycling the used nuclear fuel (UNF) from current nuclear power plants and the uranium discarded during enrichment. Using PRISM reactors, the ARC will be able to extract over 100 times more energy from uranium than the “once-through” fuel cycle employed by current nuclear plants. The ARC is designed to lower the cost and engineering challenges associated with UNF disposal when compared to traditional storage or reprocessing by generating significant additional electricity from what is now considered nuclear waste.

<h2 class="heading">Environmental Benefits</h2> One metric ton of used nuclear fuel, if recycled with GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy's Advanced Recycling Center technology using PRISM reactors, would produce enough electricity to power over 600,000 U.S. homes for one year. Traditional grid sources would require 3 million metric tons of coal or 40 billion cubic feet of natural gas to produce the same amount of electricity.
<h2 class="heading">Operating Benefits</h2> The used nuclear fuel produced by one year of operation of a typical 1,000 MW nuclear power plant, if recycled with GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy's Advanced Recycling Center technology using PRISM reactors, would generate enough electricity to power over 10 million average U.S. households for a year.
Attached File(s)
Attached File  _GE_Hitachi__advanced_Recycling_Center_GNEP.pdf ( 146.74K ) Number of downloads: 446

 
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Dec 30 2012, 09:52 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

My last post was a lead in to this.

I have been looking for quite some time to find some sort of connection between GLE and Reprocessing of used nuclear fuel, I think I may have now found that connection at long last!

To start this off, you should read this :-)
http://www.ecogeek.org/component/content/article/982

You may also like to read this PDF ;-)
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1529_web.pdf




In there it talks about re enriching used nuclear fuel, on page 39 it says this:-Beware of isotopic content though…It cannot be recycled through reenrichment, save maybe with lasers, because of too high U-236 content

I believe they may have stated this because of safety reasons, I believe that it is much safer to re enrich using lasers than when using gas diffusion or centrifuge technology? in the paper "ATTACHMENT B NRC STAFF RESPONSES TO THE LICENSING BOARD'S INITIAL QUESTIONS REGARDING THE FEIS"

It talks about radiological safety in FEIS Question No. 31:


Response No. 31
The NRC staff's qualitative analysis of the potential occupational exposures to UF6 within the proposed GLE Facility in comparison to those from a gas centrifuge process is described in this paragraph. As noted in the response to FEIS Question 33, GLE stated that the proposed laser-based enrichment is a closed process, so releases are expected to be less than those associated with non-enrichment processes that involve opening process lines and, as a result, require workplace venting.

I believe what they are saying here is that the laser enrichment process is much safer than any other enrichment process, because of the fact that it is a closed process as against say using a number centrifuge cylinders in a plant, this may mean that laser can indeed be used for reprocessing used nuclear fuel perhaps, if you read the document below it seems to indicate that it has been chosen by GE-Hitachi (GLE) as part of it's Fuel reprocessing technology?

Have a read of this PDF document:- http://nordic-gen4.org/wordpress/wp-conten...avid-Powell.pdf

It is Titled "Spent Nuclear Fuel Recycling using PRISM"

look at page two:- GE Hitachi Nuclear Alliance, GLE •Uranium Enrichment … Third Generation Technology
Look at page three:- Innovation throughout the fuel cycle, Global Laser Enrichment.

Look at page five titled "The Nuclear Fuel Recycling Center" see where after the Nuclear Fuel Recycling Center using Electrometallurgical Separations, which produces three things,Short-lived Waste,PRISM fuel and last but not least, "Recycled uranium" now look at the diagram below and see where that Recycled Uranium is sent to!

It is sent to what they call fuel fabrication, but we all know that there are more than one step to fuel fabrication, don't we, yep one of those steps is adding the Uranium to make a UF6 mix, the Uranium is then enriched, but in this case I believe the only viable method is using the SILEX process because this "Recycled uranium" still contains some nasty actinides, some of which need to be separated, another thing that needs to be considered is the level of enrichment, because some of the actinides still left counter the enriched Uranium's properties, which means it has to be enriched to a higher degree, 8% maybe seems to be a nice number?

I can see now what Chris Monetta was talking about when he said "said the laser method could be one of the keys to the nation long-term energy security,at a minimum , it could provide a steady supply of uranium enriched right here in the US."


I believe what he was saying is that even if the "Spent Nuclear Fuel Recycling using PRISM" project didn't proceed for whatever reason? they would still go ahead and use the SILEX laser separation, just for regular Uranium Enrichment.

You need to look at the diagram on page 6 to see how the Reprocessed Uranium is sent back to the Uranium Enrichment centre which they call Fuel Fabrication
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Dec 30 2012, 08:38 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

The PRISM Reactor is being developed by GE-Hitachi, it is all about making nuclear fuel a non proliferation issue and also producing electricity at the same time, in doing so it also eliminates much of the Nuclear waste in the process.


http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf08.html

PRISM

In the USA, GE was involved in designing a modular liquid metal-cooled inherently-safe reactor - PRISM. GE with the DOE national laboratories were developing PRISM during the advanced liquid-metal fast breeder reactor (ALMR) program. No US fast neutron reactor has so far been larger than 66 MWe and none has supplied electricity commercially.

Today's PRISM is a GE-Hitachi design for compact modular pool-type reactors with passive cooling for decay heat removal. After 30 years of development it represents GEH's Generation IV solution to closing the fuel cycle in the USA. Each PRISM Power Block consists of two modules of 311 MWe each, operating at high temperature - over 500°C. The pool-type modules below ground level contain the complete primary system with sodium coolant. The Pu & DU fuel is metal, and obtained from used light water reactor fuel. However, all transuranic elements are removed together in the electrometallurgical reprocessing so that fresh fuel has minor actinides with the plutonium. Fuel stays in the reactor about six years, with one third removed every two years. Used PRISM fuel is recycled after removal of fission products. The commercial-scale plant concept, part of a Advanced Recycling Centre, uses three power blocks (six reactor modules) to provide 1866 MWe. See also electrometallurgical section in Processing Used Nuclear Fuel paper.

A variant of this is proposed to utilise the UK's reactor-grade plutonium stockpile. A pair of PRISM units built at Sellafield would be operated initially so as to bring the material up to the highly-radioactive 'spent fuel standard' of self-protection and proliferation resistance. The whole stockpile could be irradiated thus in five years, with some by-product electricity and the plant would then proceed to re-use that stored fuel over perhaps 55 years solely for 600 MWe of electricity generation.

  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Dec 29 2012, 08:42 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

http://www.nei.org/keyissues/nuclearwasted...usednuclearfuel

Recycling Used Nuclear Fuel

The federal government plans to develop advanced recycling technologies to take full advantage of the unused energy in the used fuel and reduce the amount and toxicity of byproducts requiring disposal.


Government to Study Recycling
For economic and national security reasons, the United States does not currently recycle used nuclear fuel. After its use once in the reactor, companies remove it for ultimate disposal in a repository. This "once-through" fuel use is called an "open" fuel cycle. The recycling and reuse of nuclear fuel is called a "closed" fuel cycle. This approach would capture the vast amount of energy still remaining in used nuclear fuel.
The federal government plans to evaluate both the open and closed fuel cycles, including the benefits and availability of advanced recycling technologies. The nuclear industry endorses this plan, which could result in long-term environmental and energy security benefits for America.



Converting Used Fuel Into New Fuel
Through recycling, the separated uranium would become new fuel for commercial nuclear power plants. The long-lived radioactive elements, including plutonium, become fuel that could be used in advanced reactors that would be developed commercially as part of the research and development program.

Advanced recycling technologies would reduce the volume, heat and toxicity of used nuclear fuel, but not completely eliminate the byproducts. The recycling byproducts would require disposal in a permanent repository. Graphics and Charts
Aerial View of Yucca Mountain

Helpful Links http://www.nei.org/Key-Issues/nuclearwastedisposal/integratedusedfuelmanagement

Integrated Used Fuel Management

Under an integrated management approach, used nuclear fuel will remain stored at nuclear power plants in the near term. Eventually, the government will recycle it and place the unusable end product in a deep geologic repository.

The Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future will review national policy for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle, including storage, processing and disposal. See the commission's full charter.


Used Nuclear Fuel Is Solid and Compact
Used nuclear fuel consists of small ceramic uranium fuel pellets. All the used nuclear fuel produced by the U.S. nuclear energy industry in nearly 50 years—if stacked end to end—would cover an area the size of a football field to a depth of less than 10 yards.



Near- and Long-Term Plans for Managing Used Fuel
The nuclear energy industry supports a three-pronged, integrated used fuel management strategy:
1. interim storage of used fuel at centralized, volunteer locations
2. research, development and demonstration of advanced technology to recycle nuclear fuel
3. development of a permanent disposal facility.

Used fuel storage at nuclear plant sites is safe and secure. However, interim storage sites at centralized volunteer locations will enable the movement of used fuel from both decommissioned and operating plants before recycling facilities or a repository begin
operating.

A research and development program, including a commercial demonstration plant, should be implemented to recycle used nuclear fuel. The objectives of reprocessing and recycling uranium fuel are to reclaim a significant amount of energy that remains in the fuel and to reduce the volume, heat and toxicity of byproducts placed in the repository.


Goals of an Integrated Strategy

An integrated used fuel management program includes key elements phased in during the short, medium and long terms.

Short-term goals include:


Continuing NRC endorsement of waste confidence and the signing of standard contracts between DOE and energy companies for managing used fuel at new nuclear plants. These goals were accomplished in 2008.<li>Adequately funding the repository licensing process, including the NRC's review of DOE's Yucca Mountain repository construction application. The Obama administration has announced its intent to terminate this project and withdraw DOE's license application. The industry believes the licensing process should continue. Ultimately, a geologic repository will be needed somewhere. Even if a facility is not built at Yucca Mountain, completion of the licensing process will yield vital lessons that will facilitate completion of a facility when a new site is selected. However, if the administration halts the Yucca Mountain licensing process, the industry believes it should be done in a manner that would facilitate resuming the process at a later date should that be warranted.<li>Developing a research and development program for advanced fuel recycling technologies, including government partnerships with industry. <li>Identifying and developing volunteer sites for interim storage and advanced fuel-cycle facilities.
Medium-term goals include:


Moving used fuel to interim storage sites, ideally at advanced fuel-cycle development sites.
Continuing research, development and demonstration of advanced fuel recycling and fuel fabrication technologies to make them more cost effective and efficient and to maximize uranium recycling.<li>Repository licensing.
Long-term goals include:


Commercial advanced fuel recycling.
Operating the repository.


This is a little dated now but I believe it is referring to technologies in the above links somehow?

I reckon it is talking about cradle to the grave technologies?

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/nuclear-wasteland


The United States now claims to have a way of eliminating reprocessing's other major liability: the risk of spreading a supply of raw materials for bomb making. The United States officially banned reprocessing of spent fuel for power reactors in 1977, during the administration of President Jimmy Carter, who feared that proliferation of reprocessing technology would make it too easy for wayward nations or even terrorist groups to obtain the raw material for bombs. But in recent years, the U.S. Department of Energy engineers, including Finck, have developed an approach that they claim is more resistant to terrorist misuse, thereby mitigating concerns about nuclear security and proliferation. The result is that, three decades later, pressure is mounting for another look at reprocessing. The U.S. government is already supplying recycled fuels to one commercial reactor and planning tests of new proliferation-resistant reprocessing technologies.

If I am right about this Reprocessing using laser tech then this company stands to make much much more than was ever envisaged at the techs inception?
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Dec 28 2012, 01:39 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

This PDF is also very much worth a read

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1217/ML12177A350.pdf

GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC Facility Mandatory Hearing July 11-13, 2012
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Dec 27 2012, 02:35 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

This PDF shows the first questions that were asked, some good stuff in there also!

One thing though that I didn't know is that the GLE laser process produces more waste than it's competitors, although not a lot more, is what I read, but I just wonder why more?

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1217/ML12171A618.pdf

ATTACHMENT B
NRC STAFF RESPONSES TO THE LICENSING BOARD'S
INITIAL QUESTIONS REGARDING THE FEIS

FEIS Question No. 3: Does 10 CFR § 50.68(b)(7) limit Part 52 reactor license holders from using fuel assemblies enriched at levels above 5%? Does the NRC Staff expect a change to 10 C.F.R. § 50.68(b)(7)? From where does GLE expect demand for fuel enriched above 5%? (EIS, 1-2)

Response No. 3 (J. Davis, T. Johnson): No, 10 CFR 50.68 does not limit Part 52 reactor license holders from using fuel assemblies enriched at levels above five percent (5%) by weight. 10 CFR 50.68 provides two options.

As stated in 10 CFR 50.68(a), holders of a construction permit or operating license issued under Part 50 or a combined license issued under Part 52 for a nuclear power reactor must comply with 10 CFR 70.24 (option 1) or 10 CFR 50.68(b) (option 2). Similarly, 10 CFR 50.68(b) provides that if a licensee does not maintain a monitoring system capable of detecting a criticality as described in 10 CFR 70.24 (option 1), the licensee must comply with the requirements in § 50.68(b) (option 2).

The limitation in 10 CFR 50.68(b)(7)—that maximum nominal U-235 enrichment of the fresh fuel assemblies is limited to 5% by weight—applies only if the licensee chooses to comply with option 2 (10 CFR 50.68(b)), instead of option 1 (10 CFR 70.24).

Therefore, as long as the holder of a construction permit, operating license, or combined license for a nuclear power reactor complies with 10 CFR 70.24 by implementing a monitoring system that meets the specific requirements in § 70.24, the licensee would not be limited to a maximum nominal U-235 enrichment of fresh fuel assemblies of 5% by weight.

After conferring with the NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and the Office of New Reactors, the NRC staff is not aware of any rule making that would change 10 CFR 50.68(b)(7).

While the nuclear industry has discussed the possibility of using higher burnup fuels with enrichments higher than 5 weight percent U-235, the NRC staff is unaware of any specific plans by nuclear power plants to utilize such fuels in the near future.

The Applicant proposed an 8 weight percent U-235 limit in anticipation of potential future demand for such fuels.
Attached File(s)
Attached File  GE_HITACHI_GLOBAL_LASER_ENRICHMENT_2_.pdf ( 975.67K ) Number of downloads: 124

 
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Dec 27 2012, 12:40 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

The statement below should satisfy all the naysayers who say that the Silex Enrichmnt tech hasn't been proven!
Why would the NRC say such a thing (see below) if it hasn't already been proven to work, it is in fact the ACP that has yet to be proven going by what the NRC say!

I guess that even if the ACP was proven? then wouldn't it come down to costs and efficiency.

Remember that both technologies are what they call dual purpose i.e Enrichment AND Reprocessing capable.

What the NRC are saying in my opinion, is they need one or the other but not both!

NRC staff considered, in the FEIS, the impact that would result if the proposed GLE Facility is licensed and the NEF, ACP, EREF, and proposed GLE enrichment
facilities are operated at their maximum anticipated production limits, and the Paducah GDP is
shut-down. As previously explained (and as stated on page 1-8 in the FEIS, Ex. NRC003), the impact would be that the total projected annual domestic enrichment capacity would exceed the projected annual demand

The projected level of extra capacity (that would result under the
circumstances described earlier in this paragraph) would provide a supply margin to assure the
availability of enriched uranium for commercial nuclear power plants in the United States, given
the uncertainties surrounding the construction and operation of the ACP and EREF facilities.

In other words, the NRC staff concluded that the proposed GLE Facility is necessary to help assure that there is sufficient domestic enrichment capacity, especially in light of the uncertainties associated with the other domestic enrichment facilities, and that having the proposed GLE Facility licensed and in operation would provide an additional domestic source of enriched uranium consistent with national energy security objectives.

The NRC staff also considered statements made by DOE and the National Nuclear Security Administration that indicated that having additional domestic sources of enriched uranium is important to U.S. national energy security.


March 6, 2012, the Under Secretary for Nuclear Security and Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, Thomas D’Agostino, stated the following: “What we believe is that it’s very important for the United States to maintain an indigenous U.S. capability to enrich fissile material.

It’s important on a number of fronts. One of the fronts, ultimately, is to provide the materials that . . . the Naval Reactors program will absolutely need in order to keep our submarines and aircraft carriers operating. Because . . . the other reason it’s important is, in order . . . to have unencumbered, domestically produced, low-enriched uranium, so that I can continue to have tritium for our nuclear stockpile.

But it’s important on other fronts as well.
Particularly, we believe that in order to . . . discourage the unnecessary spread of enrichment technology, that other countries need to have confidence in the uranium enrichment market to be able to supply its needs; and that having a domestic U.S. capability . . . is absolutely important to market stability”

The NRC staff conducted a qualitative assessment of the alternative of using gas centrifuge technology at GLE’s proposed location within Wilmington Site in Section 2.3.4 of the FEIS (Ex. NRC003).

Based on this qualitative assessment, the NRC staff concluded that employing gas centrifuge technology in place of the proposed laser-based technology would not be environmentally preferable.

Q17: What did the NRC staff conclude as a result of the alternatives analysis in the
FEIS?

A17: (HA) As a result of the alternatives analysis in the FEIS (Ex. NRC003), the NRC
staff concluded that there were no other alternative sites or technologies that would be
environmentally preferable or superior to the site and the technology proposed by GLE.


There is much more in this document that is well worth reading!

Enjoy.


Attached File(s)
 
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Dec 24 2012, 02:50 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

The part below was very interesting, I believe that this modification to stop enrichment above 20% would be far easier to attain with laser technology than any other enrichment tech, once 20% is reached it could have a feedback circuit where the laser is forcibly switched off.

"For a transfer of an enrichment facility, or equipment or technology therefor, suppliers should seek a legally-binding undertaking from the recipient state that neither the trans-ferred facility, nor any facility incorporating such equipment or based on such technology, will be modified or operated for the production of greater than 20% enriched uranium. Suppliers should seek to design and construct such an enrichment facility or equipment therefor so as to preclude, to the greatest extent practicable, the possibility of production of greater than 20% enriched uranium ."

I NRC have stated that the laser enrichment system proposed for Wilmington will be set at a maximum of 8% , so it seems as if they can adjust this figure as required at will?
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Dec 24 2012, 12:40 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

Interesting read here, I wonder what sort of test loop they are thinking of?

Seems to me there may be more than one country using this dual purpose tech soon?

Do people really think that GLE won't go ahead with it?
GE want it as part of their Cradle to the Grave technology.


http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/...eport-color.pdf


Special arrangements for export of enrichment facilities, equipment and technology
7. (a) For a transfer of an enrichment facility, or equipment or technology therefor, suppliers should seek a legally-binding undertaking from the recipient state that neither the trans-ferred facility, nor any facility incorporating such equipment or based on such technology, will be modified or operated for the production of greater than 20% enriched uranium. Suppliers should seek to design and construct such an enrichment facility or equipment therefor so as to preclude, to the greatest extent practicable, the possibility of production of greater than 20% enriched uranium .
(b) For a transfer of an enrichment facility or equipment based on the following enrichment technologies1: gaseous diffusion, gas centrifuge, laser enrichment, and EMIS, any of them, held by one or more Participating Governments as of 31 December 2008, supplier should:
• Avoid, as far as practicable, the transfer of speciaJized design, development and manufacturing technology associated with such items; and
• Seek from recipients an agreement to accept enrichment equipment, facilities, and technology under conditions that, at a minimum, do not permit or enable replication of the facilities.
Information required for regulatory purposes or to ensure safe installation and operation of a turnkey facility should be shared to the extent necessary without divulging en-abling technology.
© In the event that technologies other than listed in 7(b) or new technologies for uranium enrichment are being developed for commercial deployment or additional Participating Governments pursue the development of existing technologies, prior to deployment of a test loop or other analogous prototype system Participating Governments, or governments involved should propose arrangements in the NSG governing transfers of such technolo¬gies, and the NSG should decide on these proposals. Such arrangements should be, at a minimum, equivalent to those in 7(b). Participating Governments may also propose new alternative arrangements relating to control of transfers of enrichment technology to fa¬cilitate cooperation on enrichment technology. Furthermore, Participating Governments will review the special arrangements for export of enrichment facilities, equipment and technology every five years beginning in 2013 for the purpose of addressing changes in enrichment technology and commercial practices.


Seems to me that the US want's to be the main supplier in the world of Enriched Uranium at a price cheaper than the rest compared to any other enrichment? with the proviso that they get the spent fuel back for reprocessing in a deal not unlike what they have envisaged with the UAE?


Merry Christmas from the Moose.
Attached File(s)
Attached File  Enrichment_and_Reprocessing_tech_limits_of_sale.pdf ( 849.32K ) Number of downloads: 2456

 
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Dec 21 2012, 02:08 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

The drop should be good for the dividend reinvestment brigade?
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Dec 21 2012, 01:34 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

What gives with APA today, do they go ex divvy or something? decent drop for no news!
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Dec 21 2012, 01:19 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

Just looking at this concept, I reckon it may be an advantage to also have the Solar cube track to those reflector mirrors, to the ones that are working at their best performance, so that the biggest gain could be achieved all the time due to the best angle of incidence being applied,the cube wouldn't track the sun as such like the mirrors do, it would only track the mirrors themselves so that the cube is placed at the best possible angle to receive the reflected suns rays from the mirrors, does this make sense because to my way of thinking in the setup they have shown at Bridgewater this would only occur once for a brief period in any given day, some time around mid day I believe?

This may be huge one day, although the smaller dish concept will also have it's place in small to medium installations, but this power tower will be the most efficient and best suited to large Utility operations in my opinion.
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Dec 21 2012, 10:35 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

Here is something that may spark some interest?

There is heaps we aren't being told about just yet, but that doesn't mean they are just sitting on their hands!

University of New South Wales:
40% efficient photovoltaic “power cube” power tower receiver
Funding of $550,000 to support a $1.37 million basic research project in collaboration with Spectrolab/Boeing and Solar Systems.
This project involves a new technology that offers realistic opportunities to lower solar electricity costs and to
substantially increase commercial deployment over the next decade using the multiplying effect of solar
concentration. The path to cost reduction is by improving current energy conversion efficiency by
splitting sunlight into its spectral components and converting the different components by an array
formed from GaInP/GaAs/Ge tandem solar cells and a second array formed from silicon cells. The
project builds on technology unique to Australia that involves the world’s first operational PV power tower
with advantages in conversion efficiency, simplicity of operation and future efficiency potential over CST
power towers.

Merry Christmas all.

Cheers Moose.
Attached File(s)
Attached File  Power_Tower_Martin_Green.pdf ( 1.22MB ) Number of downloads: 1876

 
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Dec 12 2012, 03:03 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

http://www.meipharma.com/sites/default/fil...c%202012%29.pdf

Abstract

Background — Pracinostat (SB939) is a dialkyl benzimidazole competitive inhibitor of histone deacetylase (HDACi) that has >1000-fold selectivity for HDAC Class 1 and 2 versus Class 3. Antitumor activity has been demonstrated in xenograft models of AML (MV4-11). We conducted a phase I study with pracinostat in patients with advanced myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS; n=11), acute myeloid leukemia (AML; n=12), and lymphoma (n=1). Pracinostat demonstrated excellent PK properties and target inhibition and was generally well tolerated. The MTD was not reached. Activity was documented in 9 patients (1 CR, 1 PR, 7 SD), which encouraged further exploration of pracinostat-based combinations. The recommended phase II dose was 100 mg daily. The combination of 5-azacitidine and HDACi is known to be safe and active in MDS and AML. Methods — This is a pilot phase II study conducted as an extension study in the context of a phase I trial of pracinostat in hematological malignancies to determine the efficacy and safety of the combination of pracinostat (60 mg orally every other day 3 times a week for 3 consecutive weeks) and 5-azacitidine (75 mg/m2 IV daily x 5 every 3 to 6 weeks) given in 4-week cycles to patients with intermediate-2 or high risk MDS. Results — Nine patients (6 women) were accrued between May 2011 and September 2011. Median age was 64 years (range, 22-73), WBC 2.4x109/dL (0.7-9.3), Hg 10g/dL (8.2-11), platelets 31x109/dL (14-269), and bone marrow blasts 7% (0%-18%). Seven (78%) patients had therapy related MDS with history of prior chemotherapy/radiotherapy exposure (3 breast cancer, 2 non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, 1 breast and ovarian cancer, and 1 melanoma). Three patients had failed prior therapy: decitabine and haploidentical stem cell transplantation (SCT; n=1), lenalidomide (n=1), and decitabine and TXA-127 (n=1). All patients carried cytogenetic abnormalities: complex (n=4, 3 including -7 and 1 with -5), -7 (n=3, one of them with +8), t(6;9) (n=1), and t(14;16) and del(20) (n=1). Two patients with -7 also carried gene mutations: 1 in CEBPa and 1 IDH2R140Q. Patients received a median of 4 cycles. All 9 patients are evaluable. The overall response rate (ORR; defined as CR+CRi+PR) is 8/9 (89%) and the CR+CRi rate is 7/9 (78%). Five (56%) patients achieved a complete cytogenetic response, including the patient carrying IDH2R140Q, in whom such mutation became undetectable. Eight-week mortality was 0%. Only 1 (11%) patient has died, unrelated to study drug (after allogeneic-SCT). The median duration of response was 45 days (0-229). Reasons for discontinuation were: transition to allogeneic-SCT (n=5), no pracinostat availability by sponsor (n=2), no response (n=1), and progression to AML (n=1). The combination was well tolerated. All toxicities were grade 1 or 2. The most frequent toxicities were fatigue and nausea (56% each). Conclusion — The combination of pracinostat and 5-azacitidine was very well tolerated in patients with MDS. The preliminary ORR of 89% is very encouraging, considering that most patients in this study had high-risk cytogenetics and/or had treatment related MDS, both subsets of MDS with very poor prognosis.

• Loss of gene function in MDS is frequently caused by epigenetic transcriptional silencing through methylation of the cytosine residues within CpG dinucleotides and/or posttranslational deacetylation of histones
• Reversing epigenetic changes with DNA hypomethylating agents such as 5-azacitidine (AZA) has changed the therapeutic paradigm in MDS.
• Combinations of hypomehtylating agents and histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACi) may improve the results observed with single agent hypomethylating therapy.
Very High Rates of Clinical and Cytogenetic Response with the Combination of the Histone Deacetylase Inhibitor Pracinostat (SB939) and 5-Azacitidine in High-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome A. Quintás Cardama, H. Kantarjian, F. Ravandi, C. Foudray, N. Pemmaraju, T. Kadia, G. Borthakur, N. Daver, S. Faderl, E. Jabbour, J. Cortes, G. Garcia-Manero Department of Leukemia, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, U.S.A.

Background – Pracinostat (SB939)

• Pracinostat (SB939) is a dialkyl benzimidazole competitive HDACi with >1000-fold selectivity for HDAC Class 1 and 2 versus Class 3. Antitumor activity has been demonstrated in xenograft models of AML (MV4-11).
• We conducted a phase I study of pracinostat in patients with advanced MDS (n=11), acute myeloid leukemia (AML; n=12), and lymphoma (n=1).
• Pracinostat demonstrated excellent PK properties and target inhibition and was generally well tolerated.
•The MTD was not reached and activity was observed in 9 patients (1 CR, 1 PR, 7 SD), which encouraged further exploration of pracinostat-based combinations.
• The recommended phase II dose was 100 mg daily.
•The combination of AZA and HDACi is known to be safe and active in MDS and AML
Objectives
Patients and Methods
•This is a pilot phase II study conducted as an extension study in the context of a phase I trial of pracinostat in hematological malignancies
•Patients included in this pilot study had a diagnosis of intermediate-2 or high-risk MDS according to IPSS
•Combination therapy consisted of:
•pracinostat (60 mg orally every other day 3 times a week for 3 consecutive weeks)
•AZA (75 mg/m2 IV daily x 5 every 3 to 6 weeks) given in 4-week cycles
•Given that the combination of AZA and HDACi has been shown to be safe and active in MDS and AML, we designed a study to assess the efficacy and tolerability of the combination of AZA and pracinostat in patients with high-risk MDS
Patients and Methods
•This is a pilot phase II study conducted as an extension study in the context of a phase I trial of pracinostat in hematological malignancies
•Patients included in this pilot study had a diagnosis of intermediate-2 or high-risk MDS according to IPSS
•Combination therapy consisted of:
•pracinostat (60 mg orally every other day 3 times a week for 3 consecutive weeks)
•AZA (75 mg/m2 IV daily x 5 every 3 to 6 weeks) given in 4-week cycles

Results
• Patients received a median of 4 cycles.
• All 9 patients were evaluable for efficacy and toxicity analyses.
• The overall response rate (ORR; defined as CR + CRi + PR) was 8/9 (89%).
• Seven of the 9 patients (78%) achieved either CR or CRi.
• Five (56%) patients achieved a complete cytogenetic response, including the patient who also carried an IDH2R140Q mutation, in whom such mutation became undetectable.
• The 8-week mortality was 0%.
• Only 1 (11%) patient has died, unrelated to any of the study drugs, after allogeneic-SCT.
• The median duration of response was 45 days (range, 0-229).
• The combination of pracinostat and 5-azacitidine was very well tolerated in patients with MDS.
• The preliminary ORR of 89% is very encouraging, considering that most patients in this study had high-risk cytogenetics and/or had treatment related MDS, both of them subsets of MDS with very poor prognosis.

Conclusions
• The combination of pracinostat and 5-azacitidine was very well tolerated in patients with MDS.
• The preliminary ORR of 89% is very encouraging, considering that most patients in this study had high-risk cytogenetics and/or had treatment related MDS, both of them subsets of MDS with very poor prognosis.
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Dec 12 2012, 08:31 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

If there is a retrace then it should really be NVGN that comes back a bit to match what NRT are at in real terms, there is an imbalance at the moment which will sort itself out soon one way or another.
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Dec 11 2012, 11:34 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

Those figures were in US Dollars, so you need to take into account the cash conversion from USD to AUD for the $0.4096
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Dec 11 2012, 11:17 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

One NVGN share is worth 25 NRT shares, so 1 NVGN share @ $10.24 should mean that I NRT share should be $0.4096
if all is equal, which it isn't at this time.
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Dec 10 2012, 11:51 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

Looks like LED's may have some serious competition in the near future?

http://www.azonano.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=3142





Tuneable Plastic Lighting with Carbon Nanotube Polymer Nanocomposites: An Interview with Professor David Carroll
Interview by Will Soutter



Corresponding author: Professor David Carroll, carroldl@wfu.edu
Director, Center for Nanotechnology and Molecular Materials, Wake Forest University

In this Thought Leader interview, David Carroll, Director of the Center for Nanotechnology and Molecular Materials at Wake Forest University, talks to Will Soutter from AzoNano about their new FIPEL lighting technology, how it will compete in the lighting market, and the limits of nanomanufacturing.

WS: Please give us an overview of the new lighting technology you have developed.

DC: We have developed a new lighting device to rival fluorescent and OLED lighting, which involves a new type of polymer, and also a new type of material structure. We have a number of publications about the technology, the first of which came out recently in Organic Electronics. Basically the device uses charge generation layers and field concentrators inside a polymer, to create an AC-driven polymer electroluminescent device. We call this FIPEL (field-induced polymer electroluminescence), and it is a mixture of new materials and new architectures, so it's actually more than just one innovation here.

WS: How long have you been working on the FIPEL technology?

DC: We built the first prototypes about 10 years ago, in 2003. They weren't very bright, but the concept was there. In the intervening period, various other groups have worked on their own versions which operate on the same principle, but those have been fairly low performaning devices too, in general.

About four years ago, we patented a new polymer which emits white light, and it turns out that this polymer is ideal for use in this architecture. About a year ago, we discovered a set of charge injection materials which can be blended with the polymer, that make it light up much brighter, and it all came together from there. So there have been a few stages, but I'd say the technology as it stands now as 1-2 years old.

In the recent publication, the device we had gave about 100-200 cd/m2 - not very bright, but that was a proof of concept. More recent models we've made have been regularly getting between 10,000 and 20,000 cd/m2, so they are as bright, if not brighter than most white-emitting OLEDs.

WS: You mentioned that FIPEL is a mixture of novel material and novel structure - what does the nanostructure of the material contribute to its properties, compared to the bulk properties of the material itself?

DC: Well the material itself is pretty important. Something that is demonstrated in one of the forthcoming publications is the effect of carbon nanotubes acting as nanoantennae. They have quite a drastic effect, not only for charge injection, which is expected because of their high aspect ratio, but also on things like the triplet states inside the matrix, which drives up the efficiency of the device quite radically.

As for the structure of the material, there is a degree of crystallization that occurs around these nanotubes which affects how they work, so the way that the nanotubes are inserted into the matrix is extremely important, to try and control this effect. We are not the first group to put carbon nanotubes into a field-induced device, but we are the first to do it this particular way, and that is crucial to the efficacy of the material.

The nanotubes play multiple roles in this device - they are not just for charge injection, like most people think. Other groups have used them in plasma-type displays, where the nanotubes provide better plasma, because of the lower charge injection barriers. In our case, they do far more than just that - they have a really important effect on the whole matrix.

WS: The technology seems to be in a fairly advanced stage of development - how far away is the technology from use in commercial products?

DC: We should be beginning alpha-stage production within the next year. There is some development still to do - we are currently working on finding the best way to manufacture the material inexpensively, and putting together the first assembly line.

WS: How will FIPEL devices compete with existing lighting products?

In terms of commercial competiveness, FIBEL will certainly compete with LEDs on cost, and the color temperature and color rendering are also significantly better than LEDs, although they are not as bright.

What's really important about our device is the ability to dial in any color you can imagine, because of the way the polymer is designed. We have red, green and blue emitters, and we can blend them together in any proportion. Those RGB emitters also transfer a certain amount of energy over to phosphorescent dyes, and the proportions of the dyes can also be tuned - so we have six different parameters that we can use to tune in any colour that we want.

In another of the forthcoming publications, we literally stepped through the CIE color index - (0.34, 0.31), (0.34, 0.32), (0.34, 0.33), etc., we were amazed at the level of fine adjustment we could achieve.

This has some really interesting implications. For example, we know can take the photopic response of the human eye is, so we can tune in a color which overlays that curve as perfectly as possible - we can build a lamp which is exactly attuned to your eye. That gives FIPEL an instant competitive edge over both LEDs and compact fluorescents.

If you consider the bulb alone, we can't quite match the efficiency of LEDs, but it is still a very efficient device. A full study on the efficiencies will be in the next publication that comes out, but the typical numbers are above what is typically reported for OLEDs, and that is considered quite high. This means that FIPEL is definitely competitive with fluorescent lamps, on color, efficiency, and on cost.

In fact, cost is one of the main advantages that FIPEL has. A typical flat panel fluorescent for an office building would currently be about US$200 - the FIPEL equivalent would be about $50. We expect the cost of ownership over the lifetime of the product to be much less as well. FIPEL devices with typical encapsulants would have lifetimes of 20,000 to 50,000 hours, and some devices have shown lifetimes much longer than that.

The FIPEL material is also much more environmentally friendly - no toxic substances like mercury are used, and there are no rare earth elements.

WS: How will FIPEL compete in other applications, such as display screens?

DC: A wide range of applications are potentially viable lighting in a commercial, office, or domestic setting, and displays. The tunable colors are a huge benefit in the display market, because FIPEL devices give fantastic rich colors, and we can modify them to give a deeper blue, or a purer red, for example. The other big advantage in displays, particularly compared to OLEDs, is the very low current draw - even on quite big devices, the current drawn is around 2 mA, which is hardly anything.

The material is also very tolerant to manufacturing faults, which is important in larger displays. Because of the low current, you don't get runaway current effects. So I do see FIPEL as a very very good competitor in that market.

The only issue with display applications is that our devices are AC-driven. Integrating an AC-driven device into an active matrix display may be quite challenging. On the other hand, using AC does give you a very fast response time, which is always desirable in displays - we are operating at 40,000 Hz.

The other issue that we may have is differing efficiencies between colors. The devices in general are very efficient, but that still has to be shown "in situ", in the circuits they will eventually be working in. Measuring efficiency is also not quite as simple as with OLED, because of the AC power. Coupling power into this capacitive device will inevitably lead to resonances associated with the circuit, which makes it a little bit more difficult to work with. I don't think FIPEL will replace OLED in displays tomorrow, but I think there is potential, because of the colors, brightness, and other advantages, for it to become a viable competitor in the future.

WS: How will FIPEL perform in some of the more niche lighting applications that were suggested when OLED started taking off, for example full-wall lighting?

DC: White lighting in general never really took off with OLEDs. I think a lot of people massively underestimated the difficulties in working with it on a large scale, caused by the number of layers in the devices, the high currents involved, etc.

The devices that we built have just 3 or 4 layers, depending on the exact archtecture - a fraction of the number needed with OLEDs. Most importantly, we induce a polarization current in the device, which means that there isn't a lot of current that flows through interfaces - that reduces a lot of the damage typically caused by the current, and the device will not have to go through nearly so much of the strain that OLEDs have to withstand, even at very high brightness.

So with FIPEL, you can consider doing something like whole-wall lighting installations, although realistically that will always be a high-end architectural design gimmick rather than a commonplace thing. But there are a lot of cool applications like that which you can think about with this technology. We have had a lot of interest from architects, because of the flexibility of the platform - you can make it in any shape that you want, because it is plastic.



David Carroll in the lab with graduate student Greg Smith and their new FIPEL lighting technology. Image credit: Wake Forest University

WS: Do you anticipate any issues with scaling up production of the technology?

DC: Not really - the existing fabrication method should scale up well. The main challenge we have currently is trying to integrate printing into the manufacturing line. FIPEL uses nanocomposites - nanotubes with things attached to them, and a blend of a polymer with small molecules, which have a tendency to attach themselves to the nanotube. These can be quite challenging materials to work with, when you are talking about simple manufacturing processes.

There is a lot we still don't know - and not just us, everybody working in commercialization of nanotechnology. Something that seems relatively simple, like designing a spray nozzle for a nanotube printing system which prevents aggregation, is actually quite difficult, and that's not something that we can do well yet.

There is so much that we need to do as an industry on these basic fronts. The nanocomposites being developed work so extraordinarily well, and yet we have had trouble using them, because we don't have good manufacturing routes to them. That is always going to be the big question mark working with nanomaterials - they perform very well, and there is a huge market out there that they would take by storm, but working with nano is hard, and there is a long way still to go.

WS: What other projects can we expect to see from your group in the future?

DC: In general, our research group tries to look at the areas that other people are not working in. We're not going to try and build the best OLED, because there are lots of people in that field who are better at it than we are.

The other project we had recently that garnered a lot of attention was "Power Felt" - a fabric that generates power from the heat of the human body. We have made some more advances in that - we have come up with a new construct for that technology which has been widely tested at this point, and that's getting pretty good.

What you are going to see coming out next from our group are nano-inks of Copper Zinc Tin Sulfide (CZTS). This is the material that will replace silicon in photovoltaics. Nanoformulation is a great way to make this stuff without hydrazine, and without all the expensive and dangerous processing, and I think this is going to be the next generation of solar cells.

Silicon as a PV material doesn't work very well. Consumers are buying into silicon PV because there are lots of tax credits and subsidies associated with it. If it were a really great technology, that wouldn't be necessary - people would just buy it. CZTS is going to be that great - I'm convinced of it. You're going to see some really exciting stuff around that from us, probably in the summer of next year.


About the Carroll Research Group
The Carroll Research Group focuses on "Quantum Matrix Composites." These materials are based on spatially correlated arrays of quantum-functional nanomaterials, within an electroactive host. Local symmetries, degrees of freedom, and length scales lead to a rich assortment of interactions within the nanodot or nanowire architecture. The group specifically seeks to understand the quantum-cooperative behavior that results.

The group also explores how these materials might lead to the development of technologies in:

  • Power: photovoltaics, PV/T, lighting and display systems, piezo-thermoelectrics.
  • Medicine: cancer therapeutics, sensor technology, and biological-electronic interfaces (Bionics).
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Dec 10 2012, 12:57 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

Do not sweat, all is not lost!


In fact it is looking decidedly rosy IMHO


http://www.novogen.com/letter-from-the-chairman/

CEO's Welcome

Dear Novogen Shareholders

My name is Graham Kelly and I am your newly-appointed CEO of Novogen Ltd. I come back to the role with a great sense of pride and not a small amount of satisfaction. I have unfinished business … a technology to put back on track and the faith of some long-suffering shareholders to be restored. In that task I am joined by Dr Andrew Heaton, our Chief Scientific Officer, and together we will be driving the Company forward.

Andrew and I are back because Novogen has acquired the company, Triaxial Pharmaceuticals. Triaxial was formed by the three scientists most responsible for developing the original Novogen intellectual property concerning isoflavonoid anti-cancer drugs. After leaving Novogen, the three of us came together out of a belief that the drugs that we had developed at Novogen represented the start of the process, rather than the end. I refer you to our Blog site to understand what I mean by this.

From that belief came a theory that we hoped would lead to more powerful anti-cancer drugs and ones that would be more available to the cancer cell. The particular issue we wanted to address was why the remarkable anti-cancer activity that we and a large number of collaborators around the world had observed in the test-tube with those drugs was not repeated in humans to the same extent. We developed a theory that had to do with the overall shape of the molecule and the need to protect certain parts of that molecule from chemical reactions within the body. Putting that theory in practice meant, however, meant developing a wholly new method of drug construction, and that is what Triaxial eventually achieved. That method, for which a number of patents have and are continuing to be applied, allows the design and construction of new families of compounds not previously achieved.

From the very first library of compounds made with this novel technology has emerged an outstanding prospect … CS-6. In designing this drug, we chose to go one extra step and really showcase the utility of the technology by designing a drug that met the known structural requirements for crossing the blood-brain barrier.

CS-6 is active in the laboratory against a wide range of human cancer cell types, but it happens to show a particular potency against glioma (brain cancer) cells. Our clinical target for this drug, therefore, is glioblastoma multiforme, the main form of primary brain cancer in humans.

Gliomas are rarely curable, generally responding poorly to standard chemotherapy, and with 10,000 new cases being diagnosed each year in the USA alone, this represents a considerable unmet need in medicine.

While we are getting on with the development of CS-6, the search will go on for even more extensions of the technology. We have an active analogue program underway looking at even more complex versions of CS-6 which we hope will extend the utility of this new family of anti-cancer drugs even further.

So that is your new company, one that I hope you will follow with growing interest and a sense of involvement over the coming years. To help you with that, I make the pledge that we, the executive, will be as open and as responsive as it is possible to be. Feel free to contact us at any time with any questions or comments. I feel very strongly about the rights of shareholders and that as the owners of the Company, we serve you and are answerable to you.

Finally, if it provides any comfort for shareholders who have seen their shareholding asset fall in value in recent years, Triaxial shareholders have their equity in the new Novogen in the form of shares which only vest when three key milestones are achieved – successful completion of a Phase 1 study, successful completion of a Phase 2 study, and obtaining Investigational New drug status from the FDA for any one drug.

I hope you take this as evidence of our confidence in the technology and in the future.

Welcome aboard.

Yours sincerely,

Graham Kelly
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Dec 8 2012, 10:46 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

It goes deeper than that applefoot in my opinion, something is afoot (pun)

Have a read of the second release yesterday, the one about director resignation/appointment, it seems we get Prof Kelly back but we also get Dr Andrew Heaton who was responsible for furthering Prof Kelly's work, he was the one that developed the drugs that MEI are now trialling, but he is now with NRT via the Triaxial purchase of which Dr Heaton was the person who started that company, I really think MEI have some great news in store for us next week, but more importantly, NRT will leverage off what MEI releases in my opinion, the timing of the release of the MEIP shares, the buyout of Triaxial and the return of both Prof Kelly and Dr Heaton all point to this in my opinion, there is not enough money fro NRT to develop this new CS6 drug or others that they will have, but it is worth remembering that any new drugs in the near future for NRT will stem from the same family only they will be derivatives or analouges from the same family, if MEI announces great results then it will be dead easy for NRT to raise cash for their super benzopyran structures platform in my opinion.

I went to Novogens website yesterday and found this below, although they seem to have now blocked access???

here is what I posted on HC

Hmmm, I suggest those with any interest in NRT read today's ASX release here http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20121207/pdf/42bt5nt43q0q2q.pdf

I was always under the impression that it was Prof Kelly's work mostly, that lead to some of the lead candidates that MEIP now has , not so , it was Dr Andrew Heaton that was responsible for the design and execution that gave rise to the lead compounds ME128, ME196, ME143, and ME344, he was also the instigator in forming the company Triaxial, so we get the person who founded Novogen initially, with it's drug Phenoxodiol and we also get the person who went on to develop that platform into these other compounds, what do they have install for us now with this new drug CS6 for the treatment of Brain Cancer it is part of the family called Super Zopyrans, so MEI got what we once had but we still have another few shots in the locker, no wonder the US is excited.

Have a look at their new website http://novogen.com

This bit below is from http://novogen.com/latest-news/

Novogen’s New Technology Explained
December 5, 2012 By Novogen

Our first post is an attempt to explain a key part of Novogen’s newly-acquired technology. This is the so-called ‘Stealth’ technology……. created specifically to improve the chances of our drugs reaching their cancer target in a fully active state.

First, a bit of terminology that we need to clear up. You might be used to hearing Novogen’s anti-cancer drugs being referred to as isoflavonoids. That is a chemical term. It simply means a particular molecular shape with hydrogen, oxygen and carbon atoms in the appropriate places. All the drugs that Novogen was working on some years ago were all variations of the basic isoflavone molecular scaffold.

The drugs that Novogen is working on now still have an isoflavone heritage, but are so much more complex than the Company was able to produce before that they have become an entirely new family of chemical compounds, only distantly related to isoflavonoids. We refer to these as super benzopyrans.

But the one bit of critical heritage that super benzopyran molecules such as CS-6 have and which is shared by simple isoflavonoid anti-cancer drugs is a particular shape of the head of the molecule that is crucial to binding to the cancer cell target. Where they differ is in the shape of the tail of the molecule, that part of the molecule that delivers the anti-cancer action.

A good analogy is to imagine the molecule as a scorpion….two claws up-front grabbing hold of the prey and a tail then delivering the killer blow. The two ‘claws’ of the isoflavone molecule is how the molecule binds to a particular protein either externally on the cancer cell’s outer membrane or internally on its mitochondrial membrane, with the tail of the molecule then blocking certain functions within the cancer cell leading to its death or malfunction.

The isoflavone ‘claws’ are in fact terminal hydroxyl (OH) groups that are highly chemical reactive. That high reactivity ensures that once they get to a cancer cell they will home in on the target and attach firmly. The problem, however, is that this high chemical reactivity also means that they are prone to binding to a range of substances before they get to the cancer cell. And in this form the isoflavone is inactive…unable to bind to the cancer cell. To use our scorpion analogy again, it would be like putting boxing gloves on the scorpion’s claws, making it impossible for it to grab its prey.

Virtually all isoflavone drug injected into the blood of a patient ends up being bound in this way. The process is called conjugation, with the two main reactive substances being a sugar (glucuronide) or a salt (sulfate). Conjugated isoflavones have no anti-cancer activity and rely on the presence of specific enzymes in the end tissue to cleave off the sugar or the salt in order to release the active isoflavone drug. Normal, healthy tissues are well served with the necessary enzymes to undertake this cleaving; cancer tissues, on the other hand, less so. It’s a lottery….some cancer tissues contain the necessary enzymes, whereas others (probably the majority) don’t, or at best, don’t contain much.

Enter Triaxial’s Stealth technology. We have developed a technology that allows the creation of super benzopyran structures in which the fundamental isoflavone cancer binding site (scorpion claws) is retained, but the tail has been expanded to the point that its anti-cancer potency is considerably enhanced. We have increased the potency of the scorpion’s sting. But in creating the super benzopyran structure, it also emerged that we substantially reduced the susceptibility of the molecule to conjugation. CS-6 is a prime example of this …. a molecule with an exceptionally potent anti-cancer sting in its tail, but two claws that in the laboratory, anyway, are showing a much reduced susceptibility to conjugation.

That’s the promise of this technology. We now proceed to the job of testing this promise in pre-clinical studies.
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Nov 7 2012, 07:01 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

NVGN
4.05+1.73(+74.57%) 3:58pmEST

MEIP
1.100.40(+57.14%)3:58 PMEST

They were up yesterday as well!

Here is why!

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/mei-pharma-r...-140000965.html


MEI Pharma Reports New Data Showing High Response Rates in Clinical Trial of Pracinostat and Azacitidine in Myelodysplastic Syndrome
Data Accepted for Presentation at American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting
PR NewswirePress Release: MEI Pharma, Inc. – 6 hours ago
RELATED QUOTES
Symbol Price Change
MEIP 1.08 0.38

SAN DIEGO, Nov. 6, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- MEI Pharma, Inc. (MEIP), an oncology company focused on the clinical development of novel therapies for cancer, announced today that preliminary data from a pilot Phase II clinical trial of the Company's investigational oral histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor, Pracinostat, in combination with azacitidine in patients with advanced myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) has been accepted for poster presentation at the American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting on December 10, 2012.

(Logo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20120628/LA32362LOGO)

An abstract of the presentation, entitled "Very high rates of clinical and cytogenetic response with the combination of the histone deacetylase inhibitor Pracinostat (SB939) and 5-azacitidine in high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome," submitted by Dr. Quintas-Cardama and Dr. Garcia-Manero of the MD Anderson Cancer Center, is now available online at www.hematology.org. The poster will be presented at 6:00 p.m. Eastern time from Hall B1-B2, Level 1, Building B of the Georgia World Congress Center in Atlanta.

"We are very encouraged not only by the response rates reported to date, but also by the rapid appearance of the responses with the combination of Pracinostat and azacitidine," said Daniel P. Gold, Ph.D., President and Chief Executive Officer of MEI Pharma. "These data are particularly compelling given that most patients in the study had treatment-related MDS and expressed high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, both of which carry a poor prognosis. With these data in hand, combined with the capital raise we announced yesterday, we expect to be in a position to rapidly advance to the next stage of development and initiate a randomized Phase II trial of Pracinostat in combination with azacitidine in patients with MDS by the second quarter of next year."

About Pracinostat

Pracinostat is a selective inhibitor of a group of enzymes called histone deacetylases (HDAC). There are currently two HDAC inhibitors approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, one of which is also approved for the treatment of peripheral T-cell lymphoma. Pracinostat has shown evidence of single-agent activity in multiple clinical trials, including advanced hematologic malignancies such as MDS, acute myeloid leukemia and myelofibrosis. Pracinostat has also demonstrated pre-clinical activity in hematologic disorders and solid tumors when used alone or in combination with a wide range of therapies in laboratory studies. Pracinostat has been generally well tolerated in clinical testing of more than 150 patients, with readily manageable side effects often associated with drugs of this class. The most common adverse event (all grades) is fatigue. Pracinostat has not been approved by the FDA for commercial distribution.

About MEI Pharma

MEI Pharma, Inc. (MEIP) is a San Diego-based oncology company focused on the clinical development of novel therapies for cancer. The Company's clinical development pipeline includes lead drug candidate Pracinostat, a potential best-in-class HDAC inhibitor. Pracinostat has been tested in multiple Phase I and exploratory Phase II clinical trials, including advanced hematologic malignancies such as MDS, acute myeloid leukemia and myelofibrosis. The Company expects to initiate a randomized Phase II trial of Pracinostat in combination with azacitidine in patients with MDS by the second quarter of 2013. In addition, MEI Pharma is developing two drug candidates derived from its isoflavone-based technology platform, ME-143 and ME-344. Results from a Phase I trial of intravenous ME-143 in heavily treated patients with solid refractory tumors were presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting in June 2012. A Phase I clinical trial of intravenous ME-344 in patients with solid refractory tumors is ongoing. For more information, go to www.meipharma.com.

Under U.S. law, a new drug cannot be marketed until it has been investigated in clinical trials and approved by the FDA as being safe and effective for the intended use. Statements included in this press release that are not historical in nature are "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the "safe harbor" provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. You should be aware that our actual results could differ materially from those contained in the forward-looking statements, which are based on management's current expectations and are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, including, but not limited to, our failure to successfully commercialize our product candidates; costs and delays in the development and/or FDA approval, or the failure to obtain such approval, of our product candidates; uncertainties or differences in interpretation in clinical trial results; our inability to maintain or enter into, and the risks resulting from our dependence upon, collaboration or contractual arrangements necessary for the development, manufacture, commercialization, marketing, sales and distribution of any products; competitive factors; our inability to protect our patents or proprietary rights and obtain necessary rights to third party patents and intellectual property to operate our business; our inability to operate our business without infringing the patents and proprietary rights of others; general economic conditions; the failure of any products to gain market acceptance; our inability to obtain any additional required financing; technological changes; government regulation; changes in industry practice; and one-time events. We do not intend to update any of these factors or to publicly announce the results of any revisions to these forward-looking statements.
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Nov 6 2012, 04:31 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

Hope you advanced to green moon?
  Forum: Off Topic Chat

moosey
Posted on: Nov 2 2012, 02:09 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

Yeah I know, more talk , which is cheap, but at least it is some news about Lebby/Translucent I guess?

Come on Translucent, start Walking the Walk instead of Talking the Talk.


http://www.compoundsemiconductor.net/csc/n...,-Frankfur.html

Translucent's Michael Lebby, announced as guest speaker at CS International Conference, Frankfurt
Oct 30, 2012 CS International are pleased to announce Michael Lebby, General Manager & Chief Technology Officer-Translucent Inc has been confirmed as a guest speaker for the Compound Semiconductor industry's premier international event, CS International, which will held in Frankfurt, Germany on 4th & 5th March 2013. His presentation will be on The Challenges and Opportunities of Using Epitaxial Gan, Gesn, and Rare Earth Oxides on Large Format Silicon Wafers for Power Electronics, Solar, and Lighting. In April 2010, Lebby joined Translucent based in California to head up the company's R&D efforts to commercialize rare earth oxides for epitaxial based materials that have been developed over the past decade. Crystalline based semiconductor rare-earth oxides exhibit a number of attractive properties for advanced substrate and device solutions that include GaN-on-Si for solid state lighting and power electronics, Ge-on-Si for CPV solar, and GaAs based photonics and electronics.

He led the drive for green photonics while heading OIDA in the mid-2000s. The adoption and acceleration of this new discipline has become a significant focus for the photonics industry.

His career has spanned all aspects of the optoelectronics business ranging from research and development, operations, manufacturing, and finance, to sales, marketing, and investing.

With more than 180 USPTO utility patents issued in the field of optoelectronics, he has been cited by the USPTO to be in the most prolific 75 inventors in the country from 1988-1997.

He is a Fellow member of IEEE and OSA, and has testified on behalf of the optoelectronics industry while working for OIDA on Capitol Hill. Also has given numerous talks, speeches, panel discussions, and interviews, on the subject of optoelectronics internationally over the past two decades. Lebby has 2 doctorates and a MBA from the University of Bradford in the UK.

Michael will join the two day event with speakers coming from a wide range of organisations including leaders from Intel Corporation, Aixtron, Epistar Corporation, RF Micro Devices (RFMD), TriQuint Semiconductor and over 30 other leading chipmakers giving their perspective on the latest developments in device technology.

Professionals from around the world will attend this two day event to hear key insights and opportunities, from a range of leading analysts, and learn of the latest chip developments in LEDs, solar cells, lasers and power and RF electronics.

Delegates will have the opportunity to network with leading industry professionals of the III-V chip making industry and interact with suppliers.

Further information is available on the CS International website at: www.cs-international.netor by calling 44 024 7671 8970.
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Oct 30 2012, 02:18 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

Hmm that would be interesting if they decided to go ahead with this plan?

Sometimes where there is smoke there is also fire?


http://www.themorningbulletin.com.au/news/...-plant/1600099/

Rockhampton mayor says nuclear "over my dead body"

Related Items
Margaret Strelow "Over my dead body".

These are the words of Rockhampton Regional Council mayor Margaret Strelow in response to the possibility of building a nuclear plant in the region.

Media reports on the weekend revealed secret plans from the Bjelke-Petersen era to construct a nuclear enrichment plant in the Rockhampton region are being revisited by the Federal Opposition.

"It's not even a discussion I want to have," Cr Strelow says.

"I'm a Mum and a grandma."

Broadmount, 30 kms south-east of Rockhampton, and Boolburra, 95km west of Rockhampton, were among three preferred options put forward 40 years ago for a $1 billion uranium enrichment plant.

North Queensland MP Warren Entsch says it makes sense to reconsider the plan, and Senator Barnaby Joyce is also showing his support.

But Member for Keppel Bruce Young says any claim the Newman government is revisiting the plans is wild speculation.

"I've spoken to Campbell Newman and he knows nothing about it," he says.

However, member for the federal seat of Flynn Ken O'Dowd says he was at a lunch with the premier in Brisbane last Tuesday where Mr Newman spoke on the subject.

"He (Mr Newman) said now the prime minister had given the go ahead to sell uranium to India, Queensland would be left behind if it didn't get in the market.

"He thought a processing plant was a good money spinner for Queensland," Mr O'Dowd says.

"I think it makes more sense to process in the Northern Territory where it's closer to markets and to the mines."

The claims come in the wake of the Newman Government overturning Queensland's 23-year ban on uranium mining.

A spokesman for Member for Capricornia Kirsten Livermore, says the media reports are obviously some kind of joke.

"We'd be very interested to hear if the LNP is serious about this," he says.



UPDATE: 5.20PM

Member for Flynn, Ken O'Dowd today clarified comments he made in this story.

"In clarification on my comments in yesterday's report on this issue, the Premier was referring to the mining and export of Uranium, at a recent GAPDL luncheon in Gladstone as being a positive for Queensland's economic future, and that logistically, the Northern Territory may be a logical point of export due to its proximity to tenements in the North Western region of the State."
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Oct 21 2012, 03:38 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

Yes I agree, if they weren't making money using it then they would desist.

In the first option where they say 1 – Charge for bids submitted. are they suggesting that if you make a bid then you are charged? or are they saying that they (bot traders) will be treated the same as you and I where they pay for brokerage even if they only buy one share?


I firmly believe that if they continue in the same vein then they will eventually kill the market, take a look at what has happened to long term trends over the last 5 to 10 years!



Cheers M
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Oct 21 2012, 09:43 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

Gday, GOODAYS, I have noticed the bot trading here in Oz for some time now, in some ways I see it as a positive, because they seem to try an put a cap on any SP rise, for what purpose would that be? maybe to buy more for a client at a cheaper price operhaps, it more than likely really pees off any day traders maybe and sometimes it affects the nerves of the average punter , but when the really decent news comes and especially when royalties and hence dividends start arriving , then their game will no longer work, because the SP wont be based on intrinsic value anymore, it will be based on multiple PE amounts derived from profit/dividends.

The only part that I think is totally wrong with this bot trading is that they get to get their shares at .00001 of a cent less and before I do, they see an order come in and up the price by that .00001 of a cent in nano seconds before your trade is made, so that they are the market makers , they then let you buy a couple of shares just to start your order, and then they let you stew, if you want your order filled? you have to up the anty, so that you don't end up with a couple of shares for a trade where the brokerage is the largest component, these algorythmic traders don't pay brokerage on any single trade , this places the ordinary punter at a great disadvantage in my opinion.
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Oct 14 2012, 01:13 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

Here is something to back up what I am saying, perhaps it may never happen? but if it did and Japan was relying mostly on Solar then they may be in for a very big problem?

And the same goes for Germany, I see it as foolish to rely mostly on just one source of power for a number of reasons.

Like I said I wouldn't be putting all of my eggs in the one basket, they should have more than one source of clean energy in my opinion, just in case!

Solar plus new upgraded and safer nuclear would be the best option.

http://www.eh-resources.org/volcanoes.html


The Middle Ages
Like any period the middle ages have know periods of ecological and climatic disruptions which translated in famine and epidemics. In the thousand years between 500 and 1500 there are two periods of ecological and climatic disruption that stand out. The first one occurred at the start of the period and is by many historians regarded as the end of antiquity. The second period occurred during the 14th century when climate deteriorated and disease hit the population in the form of the Great Famine and the Black Death. Let's first turn to the end of antiquity and the start of the Middle Ages.


Dendrochronological data showing the decreases in
the rate of tree-ring growth of Irish oak trees for the
years around 540 AD. Adapted from: E. Rigby et al. Between 536 and 551 AD tree ring growth was very low throughout Europe and many other parts of the world, including North America, New Zealand and China. Contemporary writers in southern Europe described what modern climate scientists call a 'dust veil event' which sharply reduced solar radiation reaching the earth's surface. This depressed temperatures, disrupted weather patterns, reduced biological productivity, including food crops, and resulted in famine and social disruption during the 6th century. The consequences of the dust veil were experienced worldwide. In Britain, the period 535-555 AD experienced the worst weather of the 6th century. In Mesopotamia, there were heavy snowfalls and in Arabia there was flooding followed by famine. In China, in 536, there was drought and famine and yellow dust rained down like snow. In Korea, 535 and 536 were the worst years of that century in climatic terms with massive storms and flooding, followed by drought. It has also been suggested that the occurrence of the Justinian Plague, a pandemic that affected the Byzantine Empire in the years 541-42 is linked to the climatic events five years earlier.

Although historians have sought to explain the 'dust veil' in terms of a comet hitting the earth no evidence for this has ever been found.1 Only recently, with the help of earth scientists, is it becoming clear that we are dealing here with a volcanic event. Ice core, analysis combined with tree ring data has shown that a severe volcanic eruption, possibly in south America, of somewhat larger magnitude than the 1815 Tambora eruption most likely caused the 536 dust veil.2 This catastrophic event can be regarded as the trigger that ended the classical world and the beginning of the Middle Ages. It blotted the sun out for many months and resulted directly and indirectly, in climate chaos, famine, migration, war and massive political change on all continents. The question is if this was a one off event in the past two thousand years. Historical events of the 14th century suggest that this is not the case.

Written records from the 14th century provide accounts of severe weather in the period from 1314 to 1317, which led in turn to crop failure and famine. This episode of failed harvests and its consequences is known as "The Great Famine". Notwithstanding these ecological calamities, the population of northern Europe was at an all time high by the second quarter of the 14th century. However, the arrival of the Black Death, in Europe in 1347 pushed the European population into a century-long demographic decline and caused long-term changes in economy and society.

Until recently it is believed that the Black Death was riding on the back of expanding trade between Europe and Asia in the 13th and 14th centuries. This would have brought populations into contact that had been isolated before and were vulnerable to new disease. But new research has suggested that the causes of the Black Death are more complicated and might be related to volcanism and the resulting atmospheric upheavals.

First of all there is a parallel with the 536 event: the outbreak of a plague epidemic. With the knowledge of this volcanic event there is the possibility that something similar happened during the 14th century. In recent research, medievalist Bruce Campbell of Queens University in Belfast, compared the chronologies of prices, wages, grain harvests and the corresponding chronologies of growing conditions and climactic variations, taking into consideration dendrochronology, the Greenland and Antarctic ice cores and episodes of the Black Death. Campbell comes to the startling and tentative conclusion that both the Great Famine and the Black Death might be related to a series of large volcanic eruptions that caused climate chaos, followed by famine and disease. The mechanisms between climatic disturbance and the disease are not understood at present but the evidence is tentative because of the coincidence of volcanic events, climate disruption, famine and disease.3

Without the Great famine and Black Death the social and economic history of Europe would have been different. The European population was decimated by 50% but the survivors experienced an increase of living standards and wages unparalleled until the Industrial period. So, perhaps volcanoes triggered the Renaissance and the emergence of modern Europe.


Laki eruption 1873

The central fissure of Laki volcano, Iceland
Source: Wikimedia Commons Iceland is one of the most volcanic places on the planet with over 160 volcanoes and experiences a major volcanic eruption almost every decade. The close proximity to Europe and the prevailing western winds makes it possible for volcanic ash and gasses to reach the continent. One of the most notable and best documented events has been the eruption of the Laki volcano in 1873. The eruption started on 8 June and lasted for 8 months producing 15 cubic kilometres of lava.

Of key importance to the events examined here is the fact that in 1783, volcanic gases emitted by the eruption in Iceland were transported to Europe by the prevailing winds, where they caused considerable respiratory distress to susceptible people and damage to crops, trees and fish. Very detailed descriptions of severe acid damage to vegetation, insects, people and property have been left by a number of scientists, of which the recently rediscovered records of two Dutchmen, Brugmans (1787) and Van Swinden (1786), reveal the impacts of the Laki eruption during the summer of 1783. In mainland Europe the volcanic gases were described as a 'dry fog', an 'acid fog' or 'sulphurous fog'. For example, Brugmans (1787) noted: "On many days after the 24th June, in both the town of Groningen and countryside there was a strong, persistent fog...the fog was very dense and accompanied by a very strong smell of sulphur.., many people in the open air experienced an uncomfortable pressure, headaches and experienced a difficulty breathing…".4

This account is typical of many that were written at the time. Many crops withered because of the acid deposition but there are no reports on the continent of famine. This is different in northern Scotland where the population was facing hardship because of a harvest failure in 1782, a year before the eruption. The food situation was already poor when acid deposition and ash from the Laki eruption rained down and destroyed crops. Contemporary reports from northern Scotland suggest that many farmers and their families abandoned their farms and 'were forced to beg or perish'. This shows that the effects of the Laki eruption were not the direct cause for famine in Northern Scotland but the last straw which triggered the crisis.

The 2010 eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull is only causing disruption of air traffic but did not have much of an impact on the ground of continental Europe in terms of disrupted weather patterns or acid and ash deposition. However, if the eruption had continued and spread to the nearby Ketla volcano and atmospheric conditions had changed a "dry fog" would probably develop over Northwest Europe. Will such an event redirect historical trends in Europe? That is unlikely in the light of the events of 1783, although one has to be careful and considered on a local level it might have had some impacts.

Perhaps the Laki contributed to a more concerted scientific effort to understand climate and weather in Europe. More serious were the consequences for the Icelandic population. Iceland depended heavily on sheep and cattle herding as a source of food production besides some production of grain and other crops. Acid deposition stunted the growth of grass affecting fodder production to feed animals during the winter months. In addition fluorine deposition poisoned streams and grass killing around 80 percent of sheep and half of all cattle. As a result an estimated 20-25% of the population died in the famine and fluorine poisoning after the fissure eruptions ceased.

Further to the south in Northern Scotland there are indications that the impact of the Laki eruption might have speeded up the clearances. However, Dodgshon et al. remind us in a paper assessing the influence of Icelandic volcanic eruptions in the Scottish Highlands that volcanic eruptions are inadequate to explain social and ecological changes.5 This reminds us that climatic and environmental disasters are most of the time "funnels", and not direct causes of long term historical developments. They reinforce already existing historical patterns such as migration or political instability, over exploitation or the development of new economic and social regimes.
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Oct 13 2012, 09:37 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

Never put all of your eggs in one basket!
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Oct 13 2012, 08:57 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

Just something to consider for the Japanese?

I believe the Japanese should think hard about closing all of their nuclear plants or even some when you consider what was said about Mt Fuji on ABC news this morning, they said that scientists in Japan are fearful of a major eruption of Mt Fuji, they say that the earthquake that caused the Tsunami and also another not long after, which occurred right under Mt Fuji are causing pressure to build, which may cause a large eruption, if that happened and there was a large dust cloud from the eruption?, then perhaps solar would not be producing as well as it could for some time, leading to Japan having a serious power shortage?

Perhaps Japan should consider upgrading their Nuclear plants instead to plants that are much more reliable now instaed of relying on 1960's technology?
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Oct 10 2012, 10:34 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

Welcome Wolverine.

I don't know if anybody else saw the ABC1 The Business last night?

Sir Chris Llewellyn Smith was interviewed and he had some very insightful info, for instance he said that he thought Fusion energy was possible, but he doubted that he would see it in use in his lifetime, it may be in use possibly around the middle of this century though?

He also Spoke about the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, he said the combination of a very old 1960's style nuclear reactor, the biggest recorded earth quake in the region and also the biggest Tsunami on record to cause the accident, but there hasn't been one recorded death as of yet? there may be a few in the future from radiation poisoning? but compared to those in the coal fired generation business where around 5000 deaths a year happen , let alone all of the deaths from air pollution causing heart failure or respiratory problems etc, not to mention the all of the global warming problems that are causing strange weather problems.

He said Nuclear will still be very much in demand.


Sir Chris Llewellyn Smith FRS
Chair, Royal Society Advisory Group on Global Science Report

Chris Llewellyn Smith is a theoretical physicist. He is currently Director of Energy Research, Oxford University, and President of the Council of SESAME (Synchrotron-light for Experimental Science and Applications in the Middle East). He has served as Chairman of the Council of ITER (2007-09), the global fusion energy project, and of the Consultative Committee for Euratom on Fusion (2004-09), and was Director of UKAEA Culham (2003-08), with responsibility for the UK's fusion programme and for operation of the Joint European Torus (JET). While at Culham he elaborated and promoted the ‘Fast Track’ development of fusion energy. He was Provost and President of University College London (1999-2002), Director General of CERN (1994-1998), and Chairman of Oxford Physics (1987-1992). During his mandate as DG of CERN the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) was approved and construction started, and the Large Electron Positron collider (then CERN’s flagship project) was successfully upgraded. After completing his Doctorate in Oxford in 1967, he worked briefly in the Physical Institute of the Academy of Sciences in Moscow, before spending periods at CERN and the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, after which he returned to Oxford in 1974. His work as a theoretical particle physicist, which was mainly on the quark model and theories of the strong and electro-weak forces, and how they can be tested experimentally, was recognised by election as a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1984. Chris Llewellyn Smith has written and spoken widely on science funding, international scientific collaboration and energy issues. He has served on many advisory bodies nationally and internationally, including the UK Prime Minister’s Advisory Council on Science and Technology (1989-92). His scientific contributions and leadership have been recognised by awards and honours in seven countries on three continents.

  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Oct 9 2012, 06:45 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

Just from memory, I believe it is in the vicinity of around $75 million, it is in the Annual report if you care to look it up though.
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Oct 2 2012, 04:07 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

I wonder who writes these dividend announcements? I certainly wouldn't like to be getting the dividend paid in Canadian?
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Sep 30 2012, 04:39 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

Nice find Glenview, we all know that the parabolic dish system used by Solar Systems is the best available technology, especially when you consider that the cell technology is an evolving technology and the efficiencies are changing constantly, it is far easier to change the cells in a receiver in a parabolic dish system or a power tower than it is to change the thousands of panels in competitors technology.

this new battery storage system is interesting though, first time I have seen where the electrolyte is stored outside of the battery and pumped into the battery when required, sounds like a goer to me, less batteries required , just a bigger electrolyte storage system? I like the sound of this!

http://www.meehangreene.com/index.html


Technology

Vanadium redox flow batteries are based on electrochemical theory that was first put into practice over 120 years ago. Vanadium redox batteries have been demonstrated in applications such as load-levelling the power generated by a wind farm, powering a house using solar energy and in a prototype electric vehicle.

These applications demonstrate that the technology is viable but the complexity of the manufacturing process, particularly in relation to the membrane that separates the two half-cells in the battery, had prevented vanadium redox batteries becoming widely available in commercial products. Until now, that is. Our System has perfected a cell stack design and manufacturing process that increases the quality and lowers the cost of manufacture to a level that makes vanadium redox batteries a practical proposition for a wide variety of applications.


The main features of the vanadium redox batteries are:


  • Very high reliability and low maintenance.
  • Stack operating life of 8 to 10 years; electrolyte has indefinite life.
  • Specialised long-life membrane enables the battery to be charged and discharged over 13,000 times before needing replacement.
  • Ambient temperature operation.
  • Non-hazardous materials.
  • Zero emissions.
  • Silent in operation.
  • Demonstrable return on investment, with payback in 2 to 5 years.
  • Modular stack design and construction allows the basic module to be built into multiple array systems with a wide range of power and capacity.

How it works

Flow batteries work on the same basic principle as common rechargeable batteries:


A battery consists of two half-cells, and a membrane that electrically isolates the half-cells from each other but is permeable to selected ions. One half-cell contains the positive terminal (cathode) and a conductive material called an electrolyte, the other contains a negative terminal (anode) and an electrolyte.

During discharge, a chemical reaction called redox (reduction- oxidation) changes the composition of the electrolyte, causing a shortage of electrons at the cathode and a surplus of electrons at the anode. When the battery is in use, the electrons flow from the anode to the cathode, thereby generating an electrical current.

During charging, an electrical current applied to the terminals reverses the redox reaction and prepares the battery for discharge again.

In consumer batteries such as those used in electronic devices, all of the battery components are encased in a sealed package.

Limited energy storage capacity is a significant problem with standard rechargeable batteries. Flow batteries overcome this problem by storing the electrolyte outside the battery cell.


Pumps are used to deliver electrolyte to the battery cell as needed . Storage capacity is determined by the amount of electrolyte available; to increase the capacity, simply increase the size of the tanks containing the electrolyte. RedT is world leader in advanced vanadium redox battery technology. Our complete 30 kWh to 150 kWh energy storage systems are available now. A utility-scale system offering megawatts of storage capacity is in development. One of the ket features of the flow battery is its ability to seperate power(kW) fom energy(kWh).The stack size determines how powerful it is, while the amount of fuel determines how far it can travel.

We have spent more than eight years developing and proving out technology. Our product range is based on the ENIFY 5 cell stack module, a 5 kW building bolck that delivers a continuous 5 kW of power, or peak power of 10 kW for shorter intervals. Using the ENIFY 5 as a strating point, it is possible to build vanadium redox battery systems that scale to 250 kW power or more, by using many stacks in a multiple array. The energy is determined by teh capacity of the electrolyte tanks.

Features

  • Super-efficient proton exchange membrane can be charged and discharged 13,000 times before replacement.
  • Operates in ambient conditions withour need for high pressures o temperatures.
  • Maintenance-free operation with remote monitoring capability.
  • Electrolyte has indefinite life subject to balance monitoring and control, which can be done remotely.
  • No halides, heavy metals, or toxic chemicals used in the battery or the manufacturing process.
  • Retains charge indefinitely when in shutdown mode.
  • High charge/discharge ratio 1:5:1.
  • High round trip efficiency 70% to 80%.
  • Silent and emissions-free in operation.
  • Robust patented construction engineered for minimum internal losses and maximum turnaround efficiency.
  • Smart controller monitors [via IP addressable controller] a detailed set of parameters including cell voltages, pressure, temperature, flow rate and charge level.
CPV Pilot plant,Saudi Arabia



MGT in partnership with Solar Systems Pty Ltd are installing a Concentrated Photo-Voltaic pilot plant in Saudi Arabia. The CS500 CPV system will be installed at the KAUST (King Abdullah University of Science and Technology) in their NEO (New Energy Oasis) solar energy validation centre. This initiative is to demonstrate the technology's suitability for the harsh environmental conditions experienced in Saudi Arabia and is a prelude to wide deployment in utility scale power plants. The pilot is a single dish installation rated at 40kW. As with commercial installations, the dense array receiver is upgradable and 'future proof'. The pilot will be third party validation plant for future increased cell efficiencies and innovations.

As the CS500 uses a closed loop cooling system it will not suffer the severe output de-rating effects of high ambient temperature. MGT is creating opportunities with local partners in the installation and maintenance of the systems and pursuing local supply of balance of plant and sub-components.

MGT also plans to integrate a RedT Flow Battery storage system into the NEO as part of complete solar energy solution. By combining both state of the art technologies MGT will demonstrate how the intermittency of renewable energy sources can be overcome, making Solar Energy truly despatchable to satisfy energy demand when it's needed.


The Technology


  • SSPL's technology is suited to large utility-scale generation and distributed power applications.
  • The CS500 operates by concentrating solar flux onto a dense array of highly efficient triple junction solar cells.
  • The concentrator is a parabolic dish array of 112 mirrors with a total concentration ratio of 500 suns.
  • The receiver is a dense array of solar cells fixed at the focal point of the parabolic dish.
  • The dish is kept at 90 degrees to the sun using a highly accurate dual axis tracking system.
The Technology Advantages

The solar Systems Dense Array CPV Dish technology provides several operational and economic advantages when compared against competing CPV and flat-panel( thin film and silicon based) technologies, including the following three key features:

a) Future Proof due to simple,cost effective upgradability

The configuration of the Dense Array cell technology is such that it can be readily upgraded as the efficiency of TJ calls improves, without the need for significant additional capital expenditure. This is a unique feature of the Solar Systems Dense Array technology.

b) Maximum Energy Extraction

The system is actively cooled using a closed loop cooling circuit. As the receiver is kept at the optimum operating temperature, there is virtually no output degradation due to high ambient temperatures. As the system is sealed and there is no requirement for circulated cooling air, the optical performance does not degrade due to condensation fouling.

c) Low levelised Cost of Energy

The LCOE is achieved by :


  • Production cost down curve driven by volume and innovation.
  • Higher power conversion efficiency.
  • Proven reliability in extreme environmental conditions.
  • Low maintenance and water requirements.
  • Local fabrication of dish structures and subcomponents.
  • Training and of local personnel for installation and operations.



The concentrator is a parabolic dish array of 112 mirrors with a total concentration ratio of 500 suns, but wait there is MORE!




Stay tuned!





  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Sep 29 2012, 02:14 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

I think the release by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board possibly said more than what they wanted released to the general public and this part ( allowing GLE to possess and use source,byproduct and special nuclear material) was omitted by the NRC in it's release.

Freudian Slip my friend.
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Sep 28 2012, 11:12 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

There is a bit of discussion going on over on HC about why the testing of the GLE test loop will continue into 2013.

This was posted by

From 15/11/2011 "Interim Operational Update"

"Test Loop activities in Wilmington, North Caroline, in parallel with engineering and prototyping activities at the Oak Ridge, Tennessee Engineering and Manufacturing Facility will continue through to the revised target date for the NRC license decision (31 Aug 12)."

Then in 24/08/2012 "FY12 Results and Operational Update"

"Concurrent testing and engineering design activities are expected to continue into CY 2013, with the aim of providing additional information supporting the scaling up of equipment for the proposed commercial production plant."



My thoughts were-: What possible engineering and prototype stuff would Oak Ridge Laboratory be building?
If the Wilmington plant was testing for the enrichment of natural Uranium in UF6? then surely all of the prototype stuff would have already been built, maybe even as far back as the USEC days but certainly at Lucas Heights, with some minor tweaking on site at Wilmington?

If the Wilmington site testing was just about enriching natural Uranium then I believe GLE would be making the decision to build asap, I believe they are testing this stuff they mentioned here "in parallel with engineering and prototyping activities at the Oak Ridge" at Wilmington, my belief is that this is additional to just enriching natural Uranium, I believe that they may be testing to see if they can use the tech to re enrich nuclear waste, they would need a test loop to do this, this may be why the further testing in the test loop is required and may be the reason for the delay?

I also think that GLE CEO Chris Monetta was giving us a hint in the latest release when he said -:
"The technology we've developed could be one of the keys to the USA's long-term energy security. At a minimum, it could provide a steady supply of uranium enriched right here in the USA to the country's nuclear reactors."
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Sep 21 2012, 12:10 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

What is going on with MEIP? is something in the wind?




0.53+0.06(12.77%) 3:59pmEDT



http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/advchart/...lse&state=9
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Sep 21 2012, 10:19 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

I meant to add this to my last post, it shows why they need to re enrich the Uranium in the Nuclear waste to a higher degree than the normal~4-5% when processing ordinary uranium in the first enrichment.

The presence of the neutron absorbers 234U and 236U in the reprocessed uranium calls for a
substantial additional enrichment of the fuel to compensate for this loss of neutronic reactivity
during reactor irradiation
.
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Sep 21 2012, 09:56 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

Yes glenview265, I believe the re enrichment of the Uranium tails sitting in UF6 in barrels today is a given in my opinion and it could be done at Wilmington, but I believe if the US were to move to Closed Fuel Cycle (CFC) to give them an alternative to places like Yucca Mountain waste nuclear Repository, then this reprocessing of waste nuclear material would be done elsewhere, somewhere far more secure than the Wilmington site and possibly at an existing Nuclear reactor site or a new PRISM reactor yet to be built?


I posted this a week or so back now, but with this new info it takes on a new meaning.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.html


"New reprocessing technologies are being developed to be deployed in conjunction with fast neutron reactors which will burn all long-lived actinides."

" [b]In the future, laser enrichment techniques may be able to remove these isotopes."

"t[b]he US budget process for 2006 included $50 million to develop a plan for
"integrated spent fuel recycling facilities"

"GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH) is developing this concept by combining electrometallurgical separation (see section on Electrometallurgical 'pyroprocessing' below) and burning the final product in one or more of its PRISM fast reactors on the same site. The first two stages of the separation remove uranium which is recycled to light water reactors, then fission products which are waste, and finally the actinides including plutonium."
[/b][/b]
[b]Boston Consulting Group gave four reasons for reconsidering US used fuel strategy which has applied since 1977:

[/b]
  • Cost estimates for direct disposal at Yucca Mountain had risen sharply and capacity was limited (even if doubled)
  • Increased US nuclear generation, potentially from 103 to 160 GWe
  • The economics of reprocessing and associated waste disposal have improved
  • There is now a lot of experience with civil reprocessing.



http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/...te_1529_web.pdf

"Physical re-enrichment consists of using the same technology as the one used for enriching natural uranium"

Environmental considerations will be important in determining the future of recycling.
Reprocessing of spent fuel could form a vital part of this advanced fuel cycle methodologies
to separate and recover valuable fissile materials. The recycling of RepU and Pu reduces the
overall environmental impact by the entire fuel cycle. The recycling of fissile materials not
only reduces the toxicity and volumes of waste; but it reduces also requirements for fresh
milling and mill tailings.


The direct disposal of spent fuel premeditates creation of larger
capacity repositories for permanent disposal than compared to that required for the waste
generated from the closed fuel cycle.

[b] [/b]
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Sep 20 2012, 10:16 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

I am wondering now whether the Oak Ridge Laboratory has been looking at the possibility of using laser enrichment to re enrich waste nuclear fuel?
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Sep 20 2012, 05:52 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

I am glad you picked that up Glenview, because it tends to answer something I have been saying, something that I believe is very important?


The following were from a thread on HC, it was in relation to the 8% enrichment

Here is what was said by others as well as myself!

emeraldcity001 said this

Global Laser Enrichment LLC (GLE) for a license to possess and use source, byproduct and
special nuclear material and to enrich natural uranium to a maximum of 8 percent 235U

From the release from NRC

Anyone's thoughts on the 8% maximim ?
What does centrifuge processing enrich to?
% wise that is?


rennis (who I believe is Sinner here on SS) said this
Reactors only need U enriched to ~4-5%. 8% is overkill, but gives margin for error/scope for blending whilst staying well under ~95% needed for nuclear bombs. The 8% show unequivocally that it is not intended for production of nuclear weapons, as per the Aus/USA agreement signed a decade ago

And here is my reply,
I am led to believe that if nuclear waste from a reactor was to be treated to re enrich the Uranium within the waste then it is necessary to treat the waste to a higher level than what is required ~4-5% for the natural Uranium residing in the Uranium Hexafluoride (UF6).

This further treatment is due to the fact that the waste also has other impurities in it which counteracts the effect that the Uranium has and thus necessitates the need to enrich the Uranium in the waste to a higher degree to overcome the effect of these impurities.

Don't be surprised if we get to see another enrichment plant built to re enrich Uranium waste from nuclear reactor plants, but it won't be at Wilmington if this happens?
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Sep 20 2012, 10:47 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

Well I am surprised that no one has posted the good news yet? YEP we got the go ahead for the license for enrichment plant.

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20120920/pdf/428tydf2j1f5cr.pdf
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Sep 7 2012, 04:03 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

I found it .

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20120417/pdf/425ncdjvgp0j70.pdf

Or perhaps this one.


http://ss01.boardroomradio.com/files/BLG/BLG20120424.pdf
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Sep 7 2012, 04:00 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

Nipper, where did you get the bit about Bluglass? do you have a link, because Dr Petar Atanackovic who was a part owner who helped set up Translucent is now with Bluglass!
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Sep 7 2012, 10:54 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/frv-to-bui...t-auction-50595

FRV to build 20MW solar PV plant after winning ACT auction

By Giles Parkinson on 5 September 2012

Spanish renewables firm Fotowatio Renewable Ventures (FRV) is to build a 20MW solar PV farm near Canberra after winning the ground breaking reverse auction held by the ACT Government – the first in Australia. It's a result that should cause people to reassess the price of solar PV and which could likely pave the way for a significant solar industry in the country.

The 20MW solar PV farm at Royalla, 23kms south of the Canberra CBD, will be the largest in Australia when it is completed in 2014 – twice the size of the 10MW plant currently being built by First Solar near Geraldton. And it will also set a new benchmark for prices.

FRV won the auction with a bid of $186/MWh, edging out nine other proposals from five competing consortia. Solar insiders say that because the ACT government chose to award a flat tariff over 20 years (such contracts are usually indexed), the effective rate for the purchase agreement is around $150/MWh in year one – assuming a 3 per cent price escalator.

The cost to the ACT government could have been reduced because it will take possession of the renewable energy certificates produced from the project – which are currently worth around $45/MWh, although the ACT has decided to retain the certificates to further offset its emissions, and to ensure that the emissions abatement is additional to national caps.

The ACT government will pay the difference between the wholesale cost and the agreed tariff with FRV. It expects this to fall over time as wholesale electricity costs rise. It says this will amount to 25c/week, or $13 a year, for each household for this project. It expects this cost to fall to $9.50 a year by 2020 as the gap between wholesale prices and the fixed contract narrows.

The tender was the first to be held by the ACT Government as part of its "Big Solar" plan to initially allocate 40MW of capacity to solar projects, and then lift this to a total of 210MW, including other technologies, by 2016. A second tender of 20MW of solar will occur early next year.

The ACT Government has argued that such reverse auctions – which rewards tenderers for bidding the lowest price – are the most effective means of rolling out new technologies, and at the most effective price. They have been used widely in the US, China, India, South Africa, and in South America.

"The quality and price of FRV's winning bid shows how successful this auction process can be in delivering renewable energy investment," ACT Energy Minister Simon Corbell said.

Indeed, the result of this auction compares favourably with those in South Africa, which elicited an average price of $199/MWh in its latest round of auctions in May. It is also at the bottom end of the recent assessment of solar PV technology costs released by the Bureau of Resource and Energy Economics. That assessment suggested that solar PV would offer the cheapest form of new-build energy in Australia by the end of the decade. If the experience in South Africa and other countries repeats itself here, then the results of the next tender might be even lower.



An artist's impression of the Royalla solar farm.

The auction win is also a coup for FRV, which was a key member of the Moree Solar consortium that won the Solar Flagships tender but could not make financial closure on the 150MW solar farm. That bid was eventually lost to a consortium comprising AGL Energy and First Solar, which will build a 159MW acility spread between Broken Hill and Nyngan – although construction will not start till 2014 and will not be complete before late 2015.

But FRV appears to have gotten some revenge, because among the final shortlist was a proposal by the local utility, Actew AGL, which is jointly owned by the ACT Government and AGL Energy, and which was heavily favoured to win. The solar industry will be heartened by the ability of an independent developer to compete against an incumbent utility.

FRV says it has participated in the development of 1.5 gigawatts of solar energy across the globe, and has completed more than 360MW of solar PV and solar thermal plants. "We believe that this program will make a strong contribution to accelerating Australia's transition to a lower carbon emitting economy," country manager Andrea Fontana said in a statement. It did not release the name of the supplier of the modules.
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Sep 6 2012, 11:29 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

Hmmm, perhaps the US wants to see what Laser Uranium Enrichment can do before committing?


http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2062679


The situation in the United States is worth specific attention. After having developed a closed fuel cycle in the early days of nuclear power, the USA switched to a once-through cycle in 1978 mainly because of proliferation concerns. In 2006, a major political transition occurred with the launch of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, which proposed the return of the closed fuel cycle. Then, in 2009, after more than two decades of work, the US government decided to halt the Yucca Mountain repository project in Nevada and subsequently chartered a ‘Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s nuclear future’ to recommend a new strategy for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle. It looked increasing likely that the US might change its policy towards reprocessing. However, in its final report, published in January 2012, the BRC said that: “it would be premature for the United States to commit, as a matter of policy, to closing the fuel cycle given the large uncertainties that exist about the merits and commercial viability of different fuel cycles and technology options.”
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Sep 6 2012, 10:44 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

Maybe the decision for the US to go closed fuel cycle (CFC) has already been made?

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.html

Processing of Used Nuclear Fuel
(Updated May 2012)

  • Used nuclear fuel has long been reprocessed to extract fissile materials for recycling and to reduce the volume of high-level wastes.
  • New reprocessing technologies are being developed to be deployed in conjunction with fast neutron reactors which will burn all long-lived actinides.
  • A significant amount of plutonium recovered from used fuel is currently recycled into MOX fuel; a small amount of recovered uranium is recycled.
The other minor uranium isotopes are U-233 (fissile), U-234 (from original ore, enriched with U-235, fertile), and U-237 (short half-life beta emitter). None of these affects the use of handling of the reprocessed uranium significantly. In the future, laser enrichment techniques may be able to remove these isotopes.


As there is no destruction of minor actinides, recycling through light water reactors delivers only part of the potential waste management benefit. For the future, the focus is on removing the actinides from the final waste and burning them with the recycled uranium and plutonium in fast neutron reactors. (The longer-lived fission products may also be separated from the waste and transmuted in some other way.) Hence the combination of reprocessing followed by recycling in today's reactors should be seen as an interim phase of nuclear power development, pending widespread use of fast neutron reactors.

All but one of the six Generation IV reactors being developed have closed fuel cycles which recycle all the actinides. Although US policy has been to avoid reprocessing, the US budget process for 2006 included $50 million to develop a plan for "integrated spent fuel recycling facilities", and a program to achieve this with fast reactors has become more explicit since.

In November 2005 the American Nuclear Society released a position statement4 saying that it "believes that the development and deployment of advanced nuclear reactors based on fast-neutron fission technology is important to the sustainability, reliability and security of the world's long-term energy supply." This will enable "extending by a hundred-fold the amount of energy extracted from the same amount of mined uranium". The statement envisages on-site reprocessing of used fuel from fast reactors and says that "virtually all long-lived heavy elements are eliminated during fast reactor operation, leaving a small amount of fission product waste which requires assured isolation from the environment for less than 500 years."

In February 2006 the US government announced the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) through which it would "work with other nations possessing advanced nuclear technologies to develop new proliferation-resistant recycling technologies in order to produce more energy, reduce waste and minimise proliferation concerns." GNEP goals included reducing US dependence on imported fossil fuels, and building a new generation of nuclear power plants in the USA. Two significant new elements in the strategy were new reprocessing technologies at advanced recycling centres, which separate all transuranic elements together (and not plutonium on its own) ­starting with the UREX+ process (see section on Developments of PUREX below), and 'advanced burner reactors' to consume the result of this while generating power.

GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH) is developing this concept by combining electrometallurgical separation (see section on Electrometallurgical 'pyroprocessing' below) and burning the final product in one or more of its PRISM fast reactors on the same site. The first two stages of the separation remove uranium which is recycled to light water reactors, then fission products which are waste, and finally the actinides including plutonium.

In mid-2006 a report5 by the Boston Consulting Group for Areva and based on proprietary Areva information showed that recycling used fuel in the USA using the COEX aqueous process (see Developments of PUREX below) would be economically competitive with direct disposal of used fuel. A $12 billion, 2500 t/yr plant was considered, with total capital expenditure of $16 billion for all related aspects. This would have the benefit of greatly reducing demand on space at the planned Yucca Mountain repository.

Boston Consulting Group gave four reasons for reconsidering US used fuel strategy which has applied since 1977:

  • Cost estimates for direct disposal at Yucca Mountain had risen sharply and capacity was limited (even if doubled)
  • Increased US nuclear generation, potentially from 103 to 160 GWe
  • The economics of reprocessing and associated waste disposal have improved
  • There is now a lot of experience with civil reprocessing.
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Sep 5 2012, 12:48 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-...f-1226465449972

<h1 class="heading">Contract for closure money not savings</h1>


HUNDREDS of millions of dollars the federal government saves by abandoning its plan to pay dirty power stations to close down shouldn't be used to prop up the budget, a leading green think-tank says.


Interesting?

I hear tell there is a fire at the Yallourn power station right now?
  Forum: Off Topic Chat

moosey
Posted on: Sep 4 2012, 04:42 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

The way I see it gulf is that the Silex laser enrichment process is more efficient than it's competitors because first of all it takes
less dollars to build an enrichment plant, but it also uses less electricity to enrich the same amount of Uranium as it's competitors from a given amount of raw product, but because the process is cheaper to use and also more efficient, I believe it is possible to extract a fair bit more Uranium from the same feedstock used to get the first lot of Enriched Uranium from, whereas if it's competitors wanted to extract this added Uranium, then I am not sure whether it would be economical for them to do so.

BUT my last posts had nothing to do with the normal Uranium Enrichment process, what the IAEA were alluding to was that normal Uranium Enrichment Processes can be used to recover unused Uranium from the nuclear waste that comes from the nuclear reactors, when they say normal I would assume that to mean gas diffusion, centrifuge, AND LASER enrichment, they go on to say that this recovered Uranium has to be enriched to a higher degree than what is required from the enrichment of natural Uranium, they also say that it would be best if a separate dedicated enrichment plant would be better suited to prevent any mix up between naturally enriched Uranium such as what GLE will produce and the re enrichment of Uranium from waste fuel from a reactor, because it still contains some nasties in it.

We all know that the US has placed an embargo on any new nuclear plants until they have decided what to do with the waste, we also know the Stephen Chu as energy secretary for the US decided to shutdown the Yucca Mountain site?
What was his reasoning? did he have something else in mind to handle waste? I suspect so after reading this IAEA PDF, I believe it may mean that they were looking at reprocessing the waste somehow?

If that is so and if you were to build a dedicated plant in the US just for re enrichment and cleaning up nuclear waste , then if this site had to be modified with protective shielding to prevent the worker from being exposed to nuclear contamination then what sort of enrichment plant would be best suited? Gas Diffusion, NAH to old to expensive , centrifuge? maybe but just think how much shielding would be necessary on all of those centrifuge units, laser enrichment, now your talking, a much smaller area to shield the worker would be required, cheaper to build and far cheaper to run, especially when higher enrichment is required.

If the US plans to re enrich its Uranium in the nuclear waste instead of just storing it? then they will need to build a dedicated plant for this purpose, IF the GLE plant at Wilmington gets the nod then, without taking too greater leap in faith I believe I could envisage two plants being built simultaneously, although not at the same site, I could see Wilmington and some other more secure Nuclear reactor site where reprocessing can take place, where that site is would be a hard one to answer especially with the NIMBY brigade.
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Sep 4 2012, 09:30 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

This is also from the same PDF.



1. INTRODUCTION
The growth of nuclear energy is linked to the public perceptions on environmental impact
associated with nuclear power plants and associated fuel cycles. Various fuel cycle options in
different countries are being evaluated to further improve nuclear energy in resource
utilization, safety, environmental friendliness and non-proliferation. The technical and
economic evolution of the nuclear fuel cycle will depend on the future growth rate of nuclear
energy, and on national and utility choices between options for each fuel cycle step. Many
believe that the “once-through fuel cycle” by direct disposal of spent fuel in geological
formations is an economically viable nuclear fuel cycle option in the immediate future. Some
also feel that the option of the closed fuel cycle with a view to recycle the fissile materials and
dispose of the fission products as high-level waste is the best option and that this closed fuel
cycle (CFC) option should be developed as a long term option. This document focuses on the
technical and practical issues of the management of reprocessed uranium (RepU) in the
context of collection and analyses of information related to CFC.
On a sustainable development perspective, recycling is an attractive option for improving the
efficiency of natural resource management and reducing radioactive waste accumulation.
Furthermore, in a scenario of nuclear energy revival with a significant share for energy
generation, including the development of nuclear systems for producing process heat, district
heating, desalinated water and hydrogen, the demand for fissile materials may eventually
exceed the quantities of uranium economically recoverable.
Environmental considerations will be important in determining the future of recycling.
Reprocessing of spent fuel could form a vital part of this advanced fuel cycle methodologies
to separate and recover valuable fissile materials. The recycling of RepU and Pu reduces the
overall environmental impact by the entire fuel cycle. The recycling of fissile materials not
only reduces the toxicity and volumes of waste; but it reduces also requirements for fresh
milling and mill tailings. The direct disposal of spent fuel premeditates creation of larger
capacity repositories for permanent disposal than compared to that required for the waste
generated from the closed fuel cycle.

Reprocessing has long been considered as an important sensitive issue due to the proliferation
potential, political and societal implications associated with it. There is considerable
experience in the civil reprocessing of irradiated fuel on an industrial scale in several countries.
As of the beginning of 2003, spent fuel totalling almost 255 000 tonnes of heavy metal (HM)
have been discharged from power reactors. About 171 000 tonnes HM remain in storage as
spent nuclear fuel, while the remainder has been reprocessed. In several countries (such as
France, India, Japan, Russian Federation, etc.) spent fuel has been viewed as a national energy
resource. Some countries hold reprocessed uranium as the result of their commercial
reprocessing service contracts for reprocessing of spent fuel with others. In some of these
countries, the use of recycled materials is already taking place.
The nuclear industry has in place facilities to recycle reprocessed uranium on an industrial
scale [1]. A significant operating experience is continuously accumulated by the industry in
each step of RepU recycling. Appropriate actions have been carried out to properly and safely
operate the RepU management facilities and plants. Its purification and conditioning for
storage, re-enrichment and/or direct utilization are now routine operations. Activities range
from the small-scale reprocessing of fuel from research or experimental reactors to largescale,
industrial plants offering an international service for standard oxide fuel from LWRs,
WWERs, PHWRs, AGRs and GCRs.

From the perceptions of the proliferation threat, the disposition of separated plutonium
receives more attention than the disposition of reprocessed uranium from governments, the
media, and the public. However, the consideration for the use of reprocessed uranium as
reactor fuel is different and simpler than for using MOX fuel.
The technical issues involved in managing reprocessed uranium are RepU arisings, storage,
chemical conversion, re-enrichment, fuel fabrication, transport, reactor irradiation, subsequent
reprocessing and disposal options, as well as assessment of holistic environmental impacts.
The scope of this document is presented in the following scheme (Figure 1). The objective is
to overview the information on the current status and future trends in the management of
RepU and to identify major issues to be considered for future projects. Economic analyses,
commercial interests, military facilities, minor research and development (R&D)
programmes, and highly enriched uranium (HEU) (except when it is converted to low
enriched uranium (LEU)) will not be discussed in this publication.


the Australian (Separation of Isotopes by LASER
Excitation) SILEX process, only the development programme for SILEX remains on-going
[33]
This was one of the listed sources in the PDF
[33] GOLDSWORTHY, M., SILEX, Interim Technology Project Updates,
http://www.silex.com.au/s6_announcements/c...t_01.asp?id=132.

You will note that the link above is no longer accessible?
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Sep 3 2012, 08:47 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

I posted this on Hot Copper, but I am not sure if anybody there realised the significance of this?

I was googling to see if spent nuclear fuel could be re enriched, firstly to get any unused Uranium and secondly as a means of cleaning up spent fuel?



http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/...te_1529_web.pdf

Management of Reprocessed Uranium
Current Status and Future Prospects

FOREWORD
The International Atomic Energy Agency is giving continuous attention to the collection,
analysis and exchange of information on issues of back-end of the nuclear fuel cycle, an
important part of the nuclear fuel cycle. Reprocessing of spent fuel arising from nuclear
power production is one of the strategies for the back end of the fuel cycle
. As a major
fraction of spent fuel is made up of uranium
, chemical reprocessing of spent fuel would leave
behind large quantities of separated uranium which is designated as reprocessed uranium
(RepU). Reprocessing of spent fuel could form a crucial part of future fuel cycle
methodologies, which currently aim to separate and recover plutonium and minor actinides.
The use of reprocessed uranium (RepU) and plutonium reduces the overall environmental
impact of the entire fuel cycle. Environmental considerations will be important in determining
the future growth of nuclear energy. It should be emphasized that the recycling of fissile
materials not only reduces the toxicity and volumes of waste from the back end of the fuel
cycle; it also reduces requirements for fresh milling and mill tailings. In comparison, the
method of direct disposal of spent fuel premeditates creation of larger capacity repositories for
permanent disposal. The issue of recycle and reuse of valuable material is important for the
nuclear fuel cycle in the context of sustainable growth of the nuclear energy. Recognizing the
importance of this subject, the International Atomic Energy Agency initiated the preparation
of this report to review and summarize information available on the management of
reprocessed uranium.

"Physical re-enrichment consists of using the same technology as the one used for enriching natural uranium"

"The radioactivity of enriched RepU is higher than that of enriched natural U.

That is why the use of re-enriched RepU usually requires dedicated processing facilities, including additional shielding to protect operators against radiation. This may also imply rigid management controls to prevent cross contamination with fuel manufacture from natural U. However,although the 232U assay is largely increased after enrichment, the operators do not encounter any difficulties with enriched reprocessed uranium (ERU), as it is quickly filled in UF6
cylinders. Moreover, when the cylinders are full, the radiations emitted by 232U decay products are partially absorbed by the uranium. Nevertheless, several measures can be taken
to reduce the radiation at this very step:
• Reducing time between UF6 conversion and reprocessed uranium re-enrichment;
• purifying the material just before shipment, by transferring UF6 from one container to
another in case the UF6 has been stored for a long time prior to enrichment (special filters
can also be used to improve the purification factor); and
• diluting feeding heels by filling the empty feeding containers with enrichment tails that do
not contain 232U nor its decay products.
The presence of the neutron absorbers 234U and 236U in the reprocessed uranium calls for a
substantial additional enrichment of the fuel to compensate for this loss of neutronic reactivity
during reactor irradiation
. Therefore, at equal burnups, the 235U assay must be higher in ERU
fuel than in Enriched Natural Uranium (ENU) fuel. This problem of over-enrichment needed
for ERU fuels to reach the burnup equivalence with ENU fuel has been already briefly
mentioned in the Section 2.1.2 (including the illustration Figure 7). One example quoted is for
RepU enriched to 4.02 % of 235U being equivalent to 3.7 % enrichment from the natural U


If this is saying what I think it says? then the GLE laser enrichment has to be a given, because it is a far cheaper means to an end product for the re enrichment of spent fuel, it will do it quicker and cheaper and those two things together make this a no brainer, end of story.
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Sep 2 2012, 03:24 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

Hi GOODDAYS, If I may ?, I have a few ideas of my own here, which "MAY" or may not be on the mark, but just going by what I do know, then I see this as a distinct possibility.

It certainly appears as if they are exiting the solar panel area in Sydney, going by the sale of it's panel manufacturing machinery etc and the closure of the BP solar plant, but yet we see that they are still short listed in the ACT Auction, is this now a redundant project for Silex Solar should this have been removed? remember that Silex said they are restructuring the business and that they will focus on larger projects and when you look at the dates for the ACT release of the short listed companies then surely Silex would have told them well in advance that they could not deliver a product, or can they?

I personally don't think panel type solar will be in fashion in a few years, for the reasons below, and if I am right, well selling the Sydney Plant makes perfect sense to me, if what I think may be happening comes about?

Now consider that Translucent are going to get exclusive rights to use the technology from Arizona State Uni for Si-Ge-Sn, which they consider may take them to over 50% or so they say?
This new tech will certainly be used in CPV if it proves to be as good as they say?
As far as I know both IQE and Emcore will be or are making making these new cells for testing, but lets also consider AGILE tech as well, which will be available soon, or even a similar tech from the Arizona State Uni, they both relate to optical concentration, for instance in the AGILE (Axially Graded lens) system developed by Stanford Uni, in a recent article they show a panel with 16 cells, each of which uses one of these AGILE lenses, they mention that they can concentrate up to 60 suns in one spiel and in another they say they have shown that it is possible to get to 100 suns and it doesn't require two axis tracking, just think what that could do to a cell with over 50% efficiency?
It's worth remembering that they use about six of these cells to make one larger cell for CPV ( that what Spectro labs do anyway)

It would not take a great leap of faith to understand that these new cells may very well be used in a panel type installation for all rooftop installations soon, a panel that consists of 16 of these cells with a lens fitted which can concentrate the suns rays many times, is it 60 or 100 I just don't know yet? but one of these panels will be more than enough to supply power to a small business, for a normal home? well maybe a smaller version? as one with 16 cells may be way too big imho.
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Aug 31 2012, 01:35 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

The last post was dated 16 Aug 2012?

Solar Auction Interested Parties - Environment and Sustainable ...
www.environment.act.gov.au/energy/solar_auction_interested_parties16 Aug 2012 – Solar Auction Interested Parties. ... ACT Government Environment and Sustainable Development Directorate. This site, ACT Government ...

This one is dated 22 Aug 2012?

ACT Large-scale solar Feed-in Tariff 'winners' to be announced ...
www.solarchoice.net.au/.../act-reverse-auction-feed-in-tariff-winners-...22 Aug 2012 – The ACT's Reverse-Auction FiT program has been contrasted with the Federal Government's Solar Flagships program, whose projects have ..

ACT Reverse-Auction Feed-in Tariff 'winners' to be announced in coming weeks
by admin on August 22, 2012

in ACT,Commercial-scale solar,Solar and renewables policy,Solar Feed-in tariff

The winning applicants of the Australian Capital Territory's Reverse-Auction Feed-in Tariff, whose first round for 20 megawatts (MW) of capacity received 49 proposals in April this year, will be announced in 'a few weeks', according to ACT Energy Minister Simon Corbell, speaking at the East Solar conference in Melbourne this week. Under the Reverse-Auction FiT, solar project developers set the Feed-in Tariff rate to be offered by competitively bidding against one another.



Players in the utility-scale and commercial-scale solar power industry, as well as government bodies and not-for-profits interested in renewable energy are waiting in eager anticipation the announcement, whose results could set the tone for the industry nationally and open the floodgates for large-scale solar power across the country if successful. For this reason, the ACT, although small compared to other states and territories, will have an influence on the state of large-scale solar power in Australia disproportionate to its size.



Minister Corbell offered little in the way of specifics about the projects, but said that he expected the territory's program to produce 'remarkable' results, echoing in his remarks the campaign phrase used by not-for-profit group 100% Renewables: '
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Aug 31 2012, 01:14 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

I wonder why Silex Solar are still on this list? Or more to the point why isn't SOLAR SYSTEMS?


http://www.environment.act.gov.au/energy/s...erested_parties


ACT Solar Auction – Interested Parties
The following list of organisations and persons is provided to facilitate networking of parties interested in the ACT's Large-scale Solar Auction Request for Proposals process. Parties may request that their details be added to or withdrawn from the table by emailing the following information to SolarAuction@act.gov.au:

  • Contact name and/or business name
  • Phone number and/or email address
  • Interest in the solar auction process (limited to 140 characters including spaces).
The ACT Government is providing the information on this site as a facilitative service only to interested parties and makes no claims, representations or warranties as to the fitness of, or credentials of parties who are included in this table, or in relation to the accuracy or truth of the information about those parties appearing below.

Contact Details Interest Leeson Solar – (Peter Leeson)
1300 887 007
pleeson@leesongroup.com.au

Design and Installation of Commercial and Utility Solar/Investment

Green Power Labs Australia Pty Ltd - (Trevor March)
0448 819 442
tmarch@greenpowerlabs.com

GPL provide expert solar monitoring, resource assessment & technical due diligence services validating project feasibility & bankability

Abigroup Contractors - (Hamish Wall)
0411 423 261
Hamish.Wall@Abigroup.com.au

ECP Contractor

LG Electronics Pty Ltd - (Markus Lambert)
0449 552 190
markus.lambert@lge.com

LG-diversified manufacturer of high quality, bankable modules. LG also offer turnkey solutions. LG solar farms operate in Europe & Asia.

GoshLab Pty Ltd - (Matthew Hutchins)
info@goshlab.com.au

GoshLab is a Canberra company specialising in solar tracking technology. Contact us if your proposal includes tracking: PV, CPV, or CST.

AEG Power Solutions - (Mark Kibby)
0477 678 400
mark.kibby@aegps.com

AEG Power Solutions is a manufacturer & supplier of Central Solar PV inverters for commercial and utility scale applications.

SunPower Corporation - (Russell Harris)
0418 138 048
russell.harris@sunpowercorp.com

Efficient panels & trackers by SunPower deliver more revenue per hectare. We provide full EPC from 2-20MW. Call Russell Harris 1800 786 769.

Tindo Solar Pty Ltd - (Richard Inwood)
0428 606 420
richard@tindosolar.com

Australian manufactured solar modules - 60 MW capacity

SunUp Solar Pty Limited - (Steve Eccles)
1300 433 126
Steve@SunUpSolar.com.au

SunUp Solar is able to assist proponents with Large Scale Renewable Energy design, supply and management services.

SunWiz Consulting - (Warwick Johnston)
0413 361 534
warwick@sunwiz.com.au

Financial Modelling, System Engineering, Options Analysis, Detailed System Design, Project Management, Documentation, Tender Assistance

Daly International - (Daniel O'Meara)
02 8061 1803
DOMeara@dalyinternational.com.au

Property, planning and professional engineering consultancy. Leasing, land access, planning and environmental, professional engineering.

SCHOTT Solar - (Ivan Poerwowidjojo)
02 8426 1611
info.australia@schott.com

German Manufacturer of high performance bankable solar modules. Contact for module supply and additional project support (design, financing)

Silex Solar - (Alex Rogers)
02 9704 8888
alex.rogers@silexsolar.com.au

Australian manufacturer of PV modules and supply of BOS. Design and installation management of commercial PV.

GL Garrad Hassan - (Simon Mason)
03 9600 1993
simon.mason@gl-garradhassan.com

GL Garrad Hassan is the world's largest renewable energy consultancy. Bankable resource/energy assessments and technical due diligence.

INGENERO - (Patrick Greene)
0430 494 295
patrick.greene@ingenero.com.au

Interest in the solar auction process: Ingenero is an EPC Solar developer.

Robert Bosch (Australia) Pty Ltd – Bosch Solar Energy - (Frederik Troester)
03 9541 7048
frederik.troester@au.bosch.com

Bosch Solar Energy, a fully integrated PV manufacturer, offers high-grade and stable performing PV products and Turnkey Solar Plants.

Eco-Kinetics Group P/L - (Richard Smaldino)
0414 530 657
rsmaldino@eco-kinetics.com

Eco-Kinetics is a National & International turnkey EPC contractor of solar

power plants. EK is a subsidiary of CBD Energy, a listed company.

INABENSA AUSTRALIA – (Fabian Fiorotto)
0407 994 371
fabian.fiorotto@inabensa.abengoa.com

EPCM Contractor

Q-CELLS Australia Pty Ltd – (Christoph Neufink)
02 9455 0017
c.neufink@q-cells.com

Australian proven & bankable modules, German engineered, local support, Technology leadership, Experience of over 600 MW EPC & 350 MW O&M

Clean Technology Partners Pty Ltd - (Lachlan Bateman)
03 9005 7371
lachlan.bateman@clean-tech.com.au

Professional engineering and project management services for the solar industry to achieve project goals faster and at lower cost and risk.

CNPV Solar Power SA - (Ravinder Soin)
0419 216 267
rsoin@ozemail.com.au

CNPV Solar Power SA is a manufacturer of high power density solar modules with proven high kWh/kW for MW utility scale projects

Palisade Investment Partners - (Daniel Roberts)
Daniel.Roberts@palisadepartners.com.au

Specialist infrastructure investor. Interest in long term ownership of assets. http://www.palisadepartners.com.au/

GHD Pty Ltd - (Julien Gaschignard)
0400 618 149
julien.gaschignard@ghd.com

Professional services firm with presence in ACT providing tender support, engineering, planning & environmental services to solar industry

Vacon Pacific Pty Ltd - (Mike Smits)
0413 878 135
mike.smits@vacon.com

Solar Inverters 'certified' to AS4777.2/AS477.3 incl. Reactive Power Control up to 1MW, with strong local service & support.

TODAE SOLAR - (Danin Kahn)
0423 176 146
solar@todaesolar.com.au

Todae Solar is both a project developer and solar EPC. Contact us if you have an interest in either of these services.

NHP Electrical Engineering Products Pty Ltd - (Daniel Harris)
0418 679 656
dharris@nhp.com.au

Supply, service & support for Santerno central inverters, up to 1.33MW plug & play Station configurations, BDEW certified.

SEE-Change Inc. - (Amanda Snashall)
0438 243 448
amanda.snashall@see-change.org.au

SEE-Change is a not-for-profit community organisation who wish to engage with bidders to enable community investment in large-scale solar.

Kyocera Solar Pty Ltd - (George Phani)
info@kyocerasolar.com.au

The right choice matters! When you demand product quality, reliability and proven performance choose KYOCERA Solar as your partner.

Rensus Capital - (Jonathan Ruddick)
08 8351 2311
jruddick@rensus.com.au

Rensus Capital provides private equity investment capital to Australian small and large scale solar projects; contact us with opportunities.

Emerson Control Techniques Pty Ltd - (Isaac Morian)
0408 294 797
Isaac.Morian@emerson.com

We provide utility scale PV inverter systems with fully controllable power factor.

Conergy Pty Ltd - (Inka Heile)
07 3492 1937
i.heile@conergy.com.au

Manufacturer and supplier of German manufactured modules, inverters and mounting structure. EPC contractor.

SREC Elvin Pty Ltd - (Glen Currie)
0407 168 344
glen@srec.com.au

As a solar plant builder we are interested in building plant for proponents. We also have the funds to build solar plant.

APP Corporation Pty Ltd – ( Hamish Sinclair)
02 6285 1097
Hamish.sinclair@app.com.au

Canberra based consultancy specialising in Property, Planning and Project Management with experience in Solar, Wind and HEP projects.

Century Solar Energy - (Kay YE)
1300 886 903
info@csesolar.com.au

Design and install large scale generation units, and provide ongoing technical support and maintenance services.

Coronium Pty Ltd - (Mike Schach and Gavin Street)
0468 478 154
info@coronium.com.au

Consultancy in all aspects of PV project development & delivery, we can help realise successful & profitable results (www.coronium.com.au)

Arup - (Rick Maddox)
0412 257 520
rick.maddox@arup.com

Consulting engineers with 500 MW of Tech/Comm Due Diligence experience in PV globally. Resource, environmental, planning, geotech, etc.
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Aug 29 2012, 11:03 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116


Renewable Energy News
TUESDAY 28 AUGUST, 2012 | 2012 Australian Energy Update



by Energy Matters


A recent report from Australia's Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics (BREE) shows Australia's total energy consumption has increased by 3 per cent from 2009–10 to a total 6100 petajoules.

Renewable energy (not including biomass) showed the strongest annual consumption growth in 2010–11 at 20 per cent, followed by a 7 per cent jump in natural gas and oil consumption.

Total electricity generation in Australia stayed static at around 250,000 gigawatt hours in 2010–11. A welcome drop in coal-fired generation was offset by increased generation from natural gas and renewable energy sources.

In 2010–11, coal's share in total consumption fell to 35 per cent; the lowest since the early 1970s.

Renewable energy consumption provided around 4 per cent of total energy consumption in Australia in 2010–11 (260 petajoules), 6 per cent higher than 2009–10.

Electricity generation from renewable sources including wind, hydro and solar power has increased rapidly in recent years. Electricity generation from solar, hydro and wind jumped substantially in 2010–11 relative to 2009–10 by 204, 24 and 15 per cent respectively. Solar PV generation has been driven primarily by solar rebates and incentives.

An earlier report from BREE predicted renewable technologies, such as solar PV and onshore wind, are expected to have the lowest levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) compared of a range of energy sources examined; including brown coal, by 2030.

However, RenewEconomy's Giles Parkinson states the BREE forecasts for solar PV and solar thermal costs may be twice as high as what the industry expects.

The Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics is an economic research unit within the Australian Government Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism

The full 2012 Australian Energy Update can be viewed here (PDF)

http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?...article_id=3358
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Aug 29 2012, 10:57 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

New salt-based battery a leap for green energy
August 8, 2012









Murdoch University researchers have come up with a potential solution to one of sustainable energy's greatest challenges: power storage for use in non-generation times.

According to project leaders Drs Manickam Minakshi and Danielle Meyrick of Murdoch's School of Chemical and Mathematical Sciences, while the efficiency of wind and solar technologies has improved rapidly, one major problem has remained unsolved.

"The central obstacle facing sustainable energy is unreliability. Wind turbines don't turn on a still day. Solar doesn't work at night and can be hampered in the day by cloud, dust or snow coverage," Dr Minakshi said.

"To provide power at non-generation times, excess energy needs to be stored in batteries, but storage technologies now being considered, such as molten salt or molten sulfur, work at high temperatures, making them expensive and impractical."

"Our water-based sodium-ion battery has shown excellent potential for affordable, low-temperature storage."

Dr Minakshi said he was drawn to sodium because its chemical properties were similar to lithium, the element that powers most portable electronic devices.

His challenge was to find material for cathodes and anodes capable of accommodating sodium's ionic size – which is 2.5 times larger than that of lithium.

"Ions travel out of the cathode and into the anode to form a current. As an imperfect analogy, you can think of them as mesh filters that ions pass through. We had to find materials with larger gaps in their mesh," Dr Minakshi said.

Dr Minakshi tested various metals and phosphates, eventually finding success with manganese dioxide as the cathode and a novel olivine sodium phosphate as the anode. The result is a safe, cost-effective battery with high energy density.

"While the technology is too bulky for portable devices, it has excellent potential for large-scale use, including storing energy from wind turbines and solar farms for later feeding into local electricity grids, as well as use in industry," Dr Minakshi said.

The battery has the added advantage of being based on globally abundant and affordable sodium, iron and manganese – putting green energy potential in the hands of the developing world.

"Our research has reached the stage where we're ready to move beyond our lab towards larger-scale commercialisation. This is a very exciting time."




http://media.murdoch.edu.au/new-salt-based...or-green-energy
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Aug 29 2012, 10:52 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

This sounds like a great idea for Solar and it is Ozzie tech.


http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?...article_id=3357


Australian Researchers Develop Cheap Salt Battery


by Energy Matters


Researchers at Murdoch University in Perth, Western Australia are developing water-based sodium-ion battery.

The concept of using salts for energy storage is nothing new, with molten salt batteries already rolled out in a number of solar farms; including the world's first baseload solar generation facility in Spain.

However, as great as the technology is, it does have some drawbacks says Dr Manickam Minakshi of Murdoch’s School of Chemical and Mathematical Sciences.

"To provide power at non-generation times, excess energy needs to be stored in batteries, but storage technologies now being considered, such as molten salt or molten sulfur, work at high temperatures, making them expensive and impractical."

Dr. Minakshi says a water-based sodium-ion battery he and Dr Danielle Meyrick are developing has shown excellent potential for affordable, low-temperature storage.

A major challenge for the researchers was finding suitable material for cathodes and anodes capable of accommodating sodium's ionic size - 2.5 times greater than that of lithium.

"Ions travel out of the cathode and into the anode to form a current. As an imperfect analogy, you can think of them as mesh filters that ions pass through. We had to find materials with larger gaps in their mesh," Dr Minakshi said.

Dr. Minakshi eventually found success with manganese dioxide as the cathode and a novel olivine sodium phosphate as the anode, resulting in what he says is a safe, cost-effective battery with high energy density; with the added benefits of being comprised of earth abundant materials.

"While the technology is too bulky for portable devices, it has excellent potential for large-scale use, including storing energy from wind turbines and solar farms for later feeding into local electricity grids, as well as use in industry."

Dr Minakshi said the team is now ready to move beyond the laboratory environment and into larger-scale commercialisation.

Other emerging battery and energy storage technologies we've covered:

- "Rust" battery
- Zinc air
- Iron phosphate
- Lithium-air
- Virus
- Cavern
- Molten salt
- Beltway
- Flywheel
- Iron based flow
- Vanadium based flow
- Liquid metal
- Silicon air
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Aug 27 2012, 03:57 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

I posted this on HC so I suppose it is also worth posting here because I see this as important.

Silex/Translucent must have liked what they saw?
Will this take them to 50% + efficiency?

"Recently Translucent has expressed interest in exercising this option agreement and is currently in negotiations for an exclusive license."



http://research.nau.edu/vpr/reports/Full-A...t-June-2012.pdf

Annual Research Report
June 2012

Translucent, Inc.
Translucent is owned by Silex, a public Australian company. AzTE and Translucent have entered into an exclusive option agreement to license a portfolio of solar-related technologies. This revolutionary technology eliminates the use of costly germanium as a substrate for concentrating solar devices, and instead uses a buffer layer deposited directly onto silicon substrates, thereby reducing cost while increasing device reliability and efficiency. Recently Translucent has expressed interest in exercising this option agreement and is currently in negotiations for an exclusive license.


M03-037P, US Patent No. 7,781,356, is entitled "Epitaxial Growth of Group III Nitrides on Silicon Substrates Via a Reflective Lattice-Matched Zirconium Diboride Buffer Layer." This technology is exclusively optioned to Translucent, Inc.
The patent describes a method that allows the integration of semiconductor materials that are used for fabricating light emitting diodes and high power transistors (e.g. Gallium Nitride) onto Silicon wafers, overcoming the present need to use expensive (and small) Sapphire substrates. This technology has the potential to significantly reduce the cost of solid state lighting.

The technology was developed by Dr. John Kouvetakis, ASU Professor in the Department of
Chemistry and Biochemistry.

I tried to upload the PDF but it was too big I assume?
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Aug 24 2012, 04:55 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

I just need to clarify something, John Kouvetakis doesn't work at Translucent Inc, he is at Home Department: Arizona State University Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry Area of Study:Inorganic & Materials Chemistry some of his patents have been licenced to Translucent Inc.

Licensed Technologies

Nicole Herbots – SiO2 Associates, LLC
Joseph Hui – 4Blox, Inc.
John Kouvetakis – Translucent, Inc.
Doug Loy – Plextronics, Inc.
Jonathan Posner – Illumina, Inc.
Dong-Kyun Seo – NanoVoltaix, Inc.
Trevor Thornton – SJT Micropower, Inc.
Bruce Towe – EndoStim, Inc.
Sarma Vrudhula – Nayalogic, Inc.

John Kouvetakis
#7,582,891
Materials and Optical Devices Based on Group IV Quantum Wells Grown on Si-Ge-Sn Buffered Silicon

#7,589,003
GeSn Alloys and Ordered Phases with Direct Tunable Bandgaps Grown Directly on Silicon

#7,598,513
SixSnyGe1-x-y and Related Alloy Heterostructures Based on Si, Ge and Sn




So this is how Translucent can lodge it's own application for a patent (see below) using the technology developed at the Arizona State Uni by Dr John Kouvetakis.

REO-Ge Multi-Junction Solar Cell United States Patent Application 20120085399 whose Filing Date: 12/23/2011 and Publication Date: was 04/12/2012

and the Inventors were : Lebby, Michael S. (Palo Alto, CA, US) Clark, Andrew (Palo Alto, CA, US)
Smith, Robin (Palo Alto, CA, US)


  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Aug 24 2012, 02:45 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

Here is the answer,

It looks like Translucent may own the patent? but the Arizona State Uni may also have some claims?

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2012/0085399.html


Inventors:
Lebby, Michael S. (Palo Alto, CA, US)
Clark, Andrew (Palo Alto, CA, US)
Smith, Robin (Palo Alto, CA, US)
Application Number:13/336664
Publication Date:04/12/2012
Filing Date:12/23/2011
Export Citation:Click for automatic bibliography generation
Assignee:TRANSLUCENT, INC. (Palo Alto, CA, US)
Primary Class:136/255
International Classes:H01L31/0352



Arizona State University have developed a method to fabricate Si/GeSn and/or Si/Ge tandem cells that take advantage of chemical vapor deposition (CVD) techniques allowing growth of Ge and GeSn on silicon substrates. The resulting potential efficiencies substantially exceed that of traditional Si solar cells and represent the most promising approach to advance Si-cell technology. Increased Efficiency—traditional Si cells offer maximum thermodynamic efficiency of ˜35% (requires thick Si) compared to ˜40% efficiency offered by new method for ultra-thin Si; traditional Si operates at ˜21% for actual commercial values and down to ˜15% at a 25 µm thickness. Allows Dramatic Reductions in Material Thickness—GeSn/Ge thicknesses below 10 µm and even below 1 µm for certain applications sufficient for 90% light absorption compared to the optimal 150 µm value needed for traditional Si solar cells. Eliminates Need for Light Trapping Features—traditional methods require special texturing or rear surface reflectors; significance of advantage increases as thickness decreases.


Have a look where these Translucent people came from!

https://asunews.asu.edu/20110214_inventivefaculty
John Kouvetakis – Translucent, Inc.

John Kouvetakis
#7,582,891
Materials and Optical Devices Based on Group IV Quantum Wells Grown on Si-Ge-Sn Buffered Silicon
#7,589,003
GeSn Alloys and Ordered Phases with Direct Tunable Bandgaps Grown Directly on Silicon
#7,598,513
SixSnyGe1-x-y and Related Alloy Heterostructures Based on Si, Ge and Sn


Radek Roucka | LinkedIn
www.linkedin.com/pub/radek-roucka/b/183/525
Phoenix, Arizona Area - Materials Engineer at Translucent Inc
Current. Materials Engineer at Translucent Inc. Past. Faculty Research Associate at Arizona State University. Education. Arizona State University. Connections ..

And here are some of the reasons why they are at Translucent perhaps?

This GeSn seems to have many legs and some of the other tech shown here also seems to apply to what Solar Systems are working on as well!

http://azfurnace.org/technologies/advanced-materials

Tracking-fault Tolerant Photovoltaic Array for Concentrator Applications
Solar powered photovoltaic systems are one of the fastest growing renewable energy systems worldwide. One new method is concentrated photovoltaic (CPV) systems. However, CPV requires sophisticated tracking equipment that maintains the sunlight concentrated on the PV array and since the sunlight is being concentrated onto a much smaller area, even the smallest misalignment can result in significant losses. Researchers at Arizona State University have proposed a passive tracking-fault tolerant solution that is simple and less expensive. The inventor proposes a solution that will passively negate misalignment error while maintaining the array efficiency and current generation, and reducing or eliminating the need for secondary positioning systems. Benefits and advantages include lower costs by reducing or eliminating expensive secondary tracking equipment, more power by maintaining high current generation, and the ability to retrofit and implement with existing systems.

Multijunction Photovaltaic Devices on InP Substrate
Currently, Si wafers and related wafer processing accounts for approximately 75% of the cost of producing conventional solar panels. With a potential concentration ratio of 500 – 1000 and double the efficiency over conventional single junction cells, the use of concentrator multi-junction cell technologies will dramatically reduce the fraction of the wafer cost for solar panels, which will solve the semiconductor materials bottleneck and lower the overall cost for electricity generation using PV cells. Consequently, researchers at Arizona State University have developed lattice matched hybrid II-VI/III-V multijunction stacks on InP substrates to overcome these issues.

Materials and Optical Devices Based on Group IV Quantum Wells Grown on Si-Ge-Sn Buffered Silicon

The ability to manufacture high quality Sn-Ge and Si-Ge-Sn alloys has significant industry value for various reasons; however, existing techniques have failed to produce sufficiently high quality alloys to allow for effective use of these alloys in device applications. Researchers at Arizona State University have developed a device quality semiconductor structure comprising a single quantum well (SQW) Ge-Si-Sn/Ge-Si heterostructure that is grown strain-free on Si(100) via a Sn-Ge buffer layer using chemical vapor deposition (CVD). It is possible to specifically design these alloy systems to display quantum confinement Stark effects (QCSE), the response to an applied electric field in which the exciton absorption peaks in a quantum well shift. Consequently, the SQWs can operate as building blocks to fabricate multi-quantum well (MQW) modulator structures with band gaps covering the 1.4 – 1.9 µm range.

Lattice Matched Multi-Junction Photovoltaic Devices

Currently, Si wafers and related wafer processing accounts for seventy-five percent of the cost of producing conventional solar panels. With a potential concentration ratio of 500 – 1000 and double the efficiency over conventional single junction cells, the use of concentrator multi-junction solar cell technologies will dramatically reduce the fraction of the wafer cost for solar panels, which will solve the semiconductor materials bottleneck and lower the overall cost for electricity generation using PV cells. By increasing the number of junctions, it is possible to achieve even higher efficiencies; however, this is difficult to achieve in practice due to lattice mismatch and current-matching issues. Consequently, researchers at Arizona State University have developed lattice matched hybrid II-VI/III-V multi-junction stacks to circumvent these complications.

GeSn Infrared Photodetectors
The application of silicon photonic technologies to optical telecommunications requires the development of near-infrared detectors monolithically integrated to the Si platform. Most present approaches require the bonding of the semiconductor detector material to the silicon circuitry, which can be time consuming and expensive. While approaches to integrate Ge with Silicon have also been explored, the direct absorption edge of pure Ge falls in the middle of one of the infrared optical communications windows, and provides poor absorption (hence optical signal detection) in the other two optical communication wavelength bands.
To address these issues, researchers at ASU have developed infrared detectors using Germanium-Tin (GeSn) materials that may be grown with high crystalline quality on Si substrates
Semiconductor Materials for Photovoltaic Applications
Since modern single-cell crystal solar technology appears to be approaching the maximum expected efficiency, efforts to increase the competitiveness of these cells have focused on decreasing the cell thickness and thereby reducing silicon consumption.
Consequently, the industry is also approaching a fundamental limit when it comes to savings by reducing the Si thickness. Researchers at Arizona State University have developed a method to fabricate Si/GeSn and/or Si/Ge tandem cells that take advantage of chemical vapor deposition (CVD) techniques allowing growth of Ge and GeSn on silicon substrates. The resulting potential efficiencies substantially exceed that of traditional Si solar cells and represent the most promising approach to advance Si-cell technology.



Hmmm I am liking what I see here!
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Aug 24 2012, 02:36 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

Some of the information in this announcements download seems to be slightly different to what today's PDF says, this one shows us a bit more?

http://www.silex.com.au/downloads/asxannou...-update-24-8-12

2. SOLAR SYSTEMS

Significant progress with the development of the unique CPV 'Dense Array' technology, including performance optimisation, reliability testing and cost reductions continues to be made. The Company plans to release a lower cost and improved performance product to the market during CY 2013.

Product Development Activities
(i) Substrates for Power Electronics and LED Lighting applications:
Improvements continue with the quality of Translucent's proprietary vGaNâ„¢ substrates (Gallium Nitride (GaN) epitaxial layers deposited on Rare Earth Oxide (REO) layers on silicon wafers).

This iterative improvement process which includes testing by several potential customers is taking longer than anticipated, however the results are very encouraging with product quality substrates anticipated in the near term.

Translucent is currently constructing an in-house designed, fully functional multi-wafer prototype production system, which will significantly increase the volume of vGaNâ„¢ substrates that can be produced, and will enable the production of large 200mm substrates for the first time.

Tell me why they would do this unless it has CONTRACTS already?

(ii) Substrates for Ultra-High Efficiency Solar Cells:

Translucent is developing a novel process to reduce the cost and increase the efficiency of advanced multi-junction (MJ) solar cells used in concentrating solar (CPV) applications (such as the technology being developed by Solar Systems). The process involves deposition of germanium-tin (GeSn) layers on to silicon wafers in a proprietary designed epi-reactor.

Analysis undertaken in collaboration with Arizona State University has indicated that (GeSn) based MJ cells have the potential to achieve 50% or more solar conversion efficiency, compared to around 43% for today's best MJ cells, and around 20% for conventional silicon solar cells.

Translucent has initiated collaborative efforts with three key CPV solar cell manufacturers (Spectrolab, Emcore, IQE) in the GeSn substrate project outlined above, and expects to be able to supply them with product-quality substrates during the next year. This project has received a funding grant from the Australian Solar Institute (ASI) worth $2 million over 3 years.



This was what Solar Junction did together with NREL and the US DoE to reach 43.5% efficiency.


High-Efficiency Solar Cell Brings CPV Closer to Grid Parity

Written by Sandra Henderson | 28 June 2012



The SJ3 solar cell developed by the US Department of Energy's (DOE) National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) with industrial partner Solar Junction has been named one of 2012's most significant innovations by R&D Magazine. The cell uses tunable bandgaps, lattice-matched architecture and ultra-concentration tunnel junctions to achieve a world-record conversion efficiency of 43.5% with potential to reach 50%.

The prestigious award is an indicator for the immense impact this new SJ3 cell could potentially have on the near future of solar energy. "The high performance and other attractive features of this cell will contribute to the lowering of costs for concentrating photovoltaic (CPV) electricity to grid parity levels," says Dr. Daniel Friedman, manager of NREL's III-V Multijunction Materials and Devices group. "The space photovoltaics industry is likely to find this cell attractive as well."

The S3J, a high-efficiency triple junction solar cell for CPV applications, captures different light frequencies throughout the day, ensuring optimal conversion of photons to electrons. Friedman explains the cell's unique design: "The cell's record-setting efficiency is based on a "lattice-matched" design which does not require thick buffer layers or complex processing, providing low cost and high reliability." The 43.5% efficiency occurred under lens-focused light with 418 times the intensity of the sun. The record PV cell performance was achieved at little additional cost "by replacing the bottom germanium layer of the three-junction cell with gallium and a dash of a dilute-nitride alloy," according to NREL information. This small change increases the bottom band-gap from an insufficient 0.67 electron volts (eV) to an ideal 1.0 eV.

"Solar Junction has developed a proprietary platform technology enabling the manufacture of high-quality dilute nitride semiconductors for use in multijunction solar cells. The world record was achieved by using this technology," says John Herb, Vice President of Product and Program Management at Solar junction, based in San Jose, California (US). "NREL did much of the fundamental science, while Solar Junction solved the product development problems. The fundamental breakthrough enabling the commercialization of dilute nitrides and the product development was done at Solar Junction."

Going forward, Herb is confident his team "will increase cell efficiency to 50% by combining the dilute nitride materials with other known solar materials to build cells with still higher-efficiency four- and five-junction designs." At this time, his company is supplying the S3J cells only to a limited set of customers. "Currently, Solar Junction's primary focus is expanding manufacturing for the current S3J cell family," Herb says. "We are also actively working on the next generation of cell design that will deliver about 45% cell efficiency. Our early results with a four-junction cell design are very promising."




So my question is this, is this new 50% plus efficient GeSn substrate technology owned by Translucent? Solar Junction hold the world record at around 43% with it's tech, which was partly developed at Translucent in my opinion anyway?


  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Aug 24 2012, 10:49 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

Hi glenview25, the link you gave didn't work for me? maybe this one will?

http://www.onenewspage.co.uk/n/Science/74r...mic-reality.htm
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Aug 23 2012, 12:59 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116


How Deadly Is Your Kilowatt?
But an energy’s deathprint, as it is called, is rarely discussed. The deathprint is the number of people killed by one kind of energy or another per kWhr produced and, like the carbon footprint, coal is the worst and wind and nuclear are the best. According to the World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control, the National Academy of Science and many health studies over the last decade (NAS 2010), the adverse impacts on health become a significant effect for fossil fuel and biofuel/biomass sources (see especially Brian Wang for an excellent synopsis). In fact, the WHO has called biomass burning in developing countries a major global health issue (WHO int). The table below lists the mortality rate of each energy source as deaths per trillion kWhrs produced. The numbers are a combination of actual direct deaths and epidemiological estimates, and are rounded to two significant figures.

Energy Source Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)

Coal – global average 170,000 (50% global electricity)

Coal – China 280,000 (75% China’s electricity)

Coal – U.S. 15,000 (44% U.S. electricity)

Oil 36,000 (36% of energy, 8% of electricity)

Natural Gas 4,000 (20% global electricity)

Biofuel/Biomass 24,000 (21% global energy)

Solar (rooftop) 440 (< 1% global electricity)

Wind 150 (~ 1% global electricity)

Hydro – global average 1,400 (15% global electricity)

Nuclear – global average 90 (17% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)




To read the full article go here-: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/201...ce-always-paid/

  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Aug 23 2012, 12:48 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

It seems that the NRC ruling recently was supposedly a problem or that coal seam gas will be the best solution to the energy needs of the US, thats if you believe the environmentalists? well perhaps maybe they best think again?

Nuclear Waste Confidence -- NRC Ruling No Big Deal

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/201...ng-no-big-deal/

The 24 environmental groups that petitioned NRC to respond to the court are acting like they actually stopped all action on nuclear licensing (Marketwatch NRC Ruling). While no final decisions will be made in issuing licenses, the process for licensing new and existing plants will continue as before, the NRC said, which means the impact to the industry will be minimal.

Also, reactors can operate even after their present license expires as long as it is the NRC that is dragging it out. And most reactors have already been relicensed in the last ten years. Only 18 out of 104 reactors are not and primarily because they have to operate beyond 20 years before they can apply. The four new GenIII plants being built at Vogtle (Georgia) and V.C. Summer (South Carolina) are also not affected at all since their licenses have already been issued.

Since NRC needed to do this anyway and will get it done before any of the critical licensing deadlines pass, this is no big deal. The nuclear industry has long been resigned to a slow-moving regulatory system. The environmental groups also stated that this action exacerbated an already dying nuclear industry, plagued with runaway costs and competition with far less expensive energy alternatives.

Huh? Re-licensing nuclear reactors is the absolute cheapest form of energy, about 2¢/kWhr for 20 years. They are obviously referring to new natural gas plants versus new nuclear GenIII plants which is not impacted by this ruling at all. New nuclear is actually cheaper than new gas in the long run, e.g., 20 years or more, even at present gas prices, but our society doesn’t like to plan for the long-term so it usually gets these things wrong. And why anyone thinks gas plants are environmentally preferable to nuclear is odd from a carbon-emissions standpoint
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Aug 23 2012, 11:22 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116


Renewable Energy News
THURSDAY 23 AUGUST, 2012 | Renewable Distributed Electricity Generation To Triple By 2017



by Energy Matters

http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?...article_id=3351



Annual global installations of renewable distributed electricity generation will nearly triple between 2012 and 2017 says Pike research.

The research group's "Renewable Distributed Energy Generation" report projects installations will reach 63.5 gigawatts (GW) capacity a year in 2017. Between now and then, close to 232 GW of distributed renewables will be added.

Pike points out the centralized model of power generation, transmission, and distribution "is growing more and more costly to maintain at current levels", whereas renewable distributed energy generation (RDEG) sources such as home solar power have less need for transmission and are "uniquely positioned to disrupt this traditional paradigm".

"In a growing number of cases around the world, renewable distributed generation technologies are more cost-effective than centralized installations that require transmission to population centers," says Pike research analyst Dexter Gauntlett.

Other benefits of a decentralised electricity generation system include the reduction of line loss associated with power transmission; which can account for up to 10% of electricity production. Solar panels also generate their peak electricity during peak consumption periods, bringing down the cost of wholesale electricity through what is known as the solar merit order effect.

Rapidly decreasing costs for renewable energy equipment will continue to contribute to eating into centralised energy generation's lunch says Pike. According to the report, solar panel production capacity reached an estimated 50 GW by the end of last year and module costs dropped from roughly USD$4.00 per watt in 2006 to $1.00 per watt in 2011.

Last year saw massive growth for RDEG, with 20.6 GW installed; representing $66.5 billion in revenues globally. Italy and Germany combined accounted for 58% of global RDEG installed capacity in 2011.

In 2009, Australia's CSIRO stated broad adoption of clean distributed energy production technology could reduce the cost of Australia evolving into to a low-carbon country by as much as $130 billion by 2050.
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Aug 20 2012, 05:47 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

Yep, no doubt about it, when the market finally wakes up what costs CPV can actually supply power for, they will all be gobsmacked.

The penny may be finally starting to drop about how good CPV will really be, no wonder MG said that Solar will possibly outweigh what Uranium Enrichment may be worth to Silex in the future.


http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?...ip1gc5ta0m02ur3

Renewable Energy News
MONDAY 20 AUGUST, 2012 | BREE Report May Only Tell Half The Solar Story



by Giles Parkinson, editor of RenewEconomy.com.au


The solar cost story might be twice as good as the government thinks.

The BREE report - the first ever attempt to do a proper assessment of the cost profiles of 40 competing technologies (essentially solar, wind, coal, gas, biomass, wave and nuclear, and their variations) - said that by 2030, utility scale solar PV would deliver the cheapest of any technology options. Even, by 2020, wind and solar would be cheaper than fossil fuels, although landfill gas and nuclear (in a controversial and hotly disputed conclusion) could still match them at that time.

Needless to say, this is something of a game changer for the Australian energy industry. But the BREE report might only be telling half the story, because many in the solar industry, and financial analysts, suggest that the BREE forecasts for solar PV - and solar thermal - may be twice as high as what the industry expects.

First of all, there is a crucial point to be made here: producing electricity from a fully depreciated, 40-year coal plant with a mine at the doorstep, still remains the cheapest form on energy in this country. But whatever energy policies are taken in the future, Australia will need to replace virtually all its current capacity in the decades to comes - at least by 2050. That's why the BREE report is crucial, because it suggests that solar and wind offer the cheapest options for the future. They may, in fact, offer the cheapest options for the present.

The BREE report though, which was prepared with the help of engineering consultant WorleyParsons, an equally conservative organization, is being criticized because it is not taking into account some of the real-world experiences, and some of the more common industry forecasts. And, in some cases, its conclusions are contradictory or don't make sense.

The report notes some of the dramatic cost reductions in the price of modules in the last two years, but their capital cost estimates for 2016, for instance, assume only modest reductions in the price of modules in the coming five years, and a rise in the balance of systems costs.

Indeed, their capital cost projections are no different than their 2012 estimates. But even this figure, at $3.38/W, it is more than 50 per cent higher than what some solar developers have indicated they are bidding in the ACT solar auction (some say they are calculating $2/W. The results of that auction could be a good reality check for the BREE forecasts.

The report also draws some bizarre conclusions from the US Department of Energy's Sunshot program, whose aim is to reduce the price of an installed module from $3.80/watt in 2010 to less than $1/watt by 2020, when it will be producing energy at $65/MWh, and be cheaper than gas or coal.

The BREE report suggests the DOE is now looking to reduce installed costs to $2.20/W by 2016, but as DOE Secretary Stephen Chu explained in March, it is practically already there. The cost of modules has plunged from $1.80/W to 70c/W (and is expected to be at 50c/W by 2015), and the balance of systems costs are already down around 20 per cent to $1.50/W.

BREE is probably right in suggesting that the best solar PV will be producing energy at a levelised cost of $50/MWh by 2030, but its median point is the problem, especially given the DOE forecasts. By 2020, BREE says the median point for non-tracking solar PV will be $133/MWh, more than double the DOE's prediction.

And then, it predicts that for the entire decade from 2020 there will be a total reduction in costs of just 7 per cent - less than one per cent a year. Given the efficiency and manufacturing gains that are anticipated in the sector, not to mention the balance of systems costs, the expected arrival of major semi-conductor firms into the manufacturing business, this seems extraordinarily conservative.

The good news is that BREE will be updating its forecasts every six months, and will be undertaking a wholesale review every two years. This is important. The current report is a crucial first step along the path for government policy makers to appreciate that renewable energy represents not just a cleaner future, but a cheaper energy future. This is a point made repeatedly by the likes of the International Energy Agency.

But it will be essential for BREE to maintain an active process of cost updates - because its forecasts will shape policy decisions on carbon pricing, renewable energy targets, even the 100 per cent renewable assessment that has been requested by The Greens. Given the infrastructure and new plant that will be required over the coming decades, it is critical that it has the best information to hand, and still not be blinded by the views of traditionalists that still have trouble accepting that an energy grid could ever look much different to the one we have had for the last 50 years.

Giles Parkinson is the founder and editor of RenewEconomy.com.au, a website providing news and commentary on cleantech, climate and carbon issues. He is a journalist with three decades experience, a former Business Editor and Deputy Editor of the Financial Review, a columnist for The Bulletin magazine and The Australian, and the former editor of Climate Spectator.
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Aug 17 2012, 05:40 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

This may be just what Solar needs, lets hope so anyway.


http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases-te...AEnergy_Storage

CEDAR PARK, Texas, June 21, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- EEStor Inc. ("EEStor") announced today that it has successfully completed production of an electrical energy storage unit (EESU) dielectric layer that will potentially allow its technology to achieve an energy density which would be competitive against all other electrical energy storage technologies. At the completion of additional internal testing and refinements by EEStor, EEStor plans to obtain third party testing and certification of the EESU. On May 15, 2012, EEStor had announced that it was working on improvements in its film morphology and the success announced today reflects the completion of these improvements.
PR Newswire (http://s.tt/1fmFE)


http://www.google.com/patents/US20060210779

An electrical-energy-storage unit (EESU) has as a basis material a high-permittivity composition-modified barium titanate ceramic powder. This powder is double coated with the first coating being aluminum oxide and the second coating calcium magnesium aluminosilicate glass. The components of the EESU are manufactured with the use of classical ceramic fabrication techniques which include screen printing alternating multilayers of nickel electrodes and high-permittivitiy composition-modified barium titanate powder, sintering to a closed-pore porous body, followed by hot-isostatic pressing to a void-free body. The components are configured into a multilayer array with the use of a solder-bump technique as the enabling technology so as to provide a parallel configuration of components that has the capability to store electrical energy in the range of 52 kW·h. The total weight of an EESU with this range of electrical energy storage is about 336 pounds.


This may also help explain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EEStor

EEStor is a company based in Cedar Park, Texas, United States that claims to have developed a revolutionary new type of capacitor for electricity storage, which EEStor calls the 'Electrical Energy Storage Unit' (EESU).[1] The claims are described in detail in two of the company's patents, US 7033406[2] and US 7466536.[3] EEStor claims that its capacitor can store more energy than lithium-ion batteries used in portable devices for cheaper than the low-cost lead-acid batteries used in gasoline powered cars. Its claims, if true, would radically change the electric car industry. However, the company has repeatedly missed research deadlines and still has not publicly demonstrated the technology. Despite this, EEStor's partner, Zenn motors, raised CAD$2 million from investors primarily on the promise of EEstor's technology.[4]


Contents

Claimed specifications
The following is how the EESU is claimed to compare to electrochemical batteries used for electric cars:[5]


Ceramic EESU NiMH Lead-acid(Gel) Lithium-ion Weight (kg/lbs) 135/300 780/1716 1660/3646 340/752 Volume (litres/cubic inches) 74.5/4541 293/17,881 705/43,045 93.5/5697 Self-discharge rate 0.02%/30 Days 5%/30 Days 1%/30 Days 1%/30 Days EV Charging time (full) - 100% charge 3-6 min >3.0 hr 3-15 hr >3.0 hr Life Reduced with deep cycle use none very high high very high Hazardous Materials none yes yes yes Temperature vs. effect on energy storage negligible high very high high Commercially Available no yes yes yes
Status and delays
Several delays in production have occurred and there has not been a public demonstration of the uniquely high energy density claims of the inventors.[6] This has led to the speculation that the claims are false. In January 2007 EEStor stated in a press release "EEStor, Inc. remains on track to begin shipping production 15 kilowatt-hour Electrical Energy Storage Units (EESU) to ZENN Motor Company in 2007 for use in their electric vehicles."[7] In September 2007, EEStor co-founder Richard Weir told CNET production would begin in the middle of 2008.[8] In August 2008, it was reported he stated "as soon as possible in 2009".[9] ZENN Motor Company (ZMC) denied there was a delay, just a clarification of the schedule, separating "development" and "commercialization".[10] In March 2008 Zenn stated in a quarterly report a "late 2009" launch was scheduled for an EEStor-enabled EV.[11] In December 2009 Zenn announced that production of the lead acid based ZENN LSV would end April 30, 2010. At that time Zenn did not announce a date for production of an EEstor based car.[12]

In April 2009 EEStor announced third-party certification of permittivity. The press release did not mention the voltage at which it was tested, so EEStor's uniquely-high energy density claims remain to be demonstrated.[13][14]

In July 2009 ZENN Motor Company, as a result of the April 2009 permittivity tests, invested an additional $5 million in EEStor, increasing its share of ownership to 10.7%.[15] A Zenn press release indicates they were able to get a 10.7% stake because other EEStor investors did not increase their stake.[16]

Since these tests, very little has been heard from the company, but ZENN continues to publicly advocate for the technology.[4]


Skepticism from experts
EEStor's claims for the EESU exceed by orders of magnitude the energy storage capacity of any capacitor currently sold. Many in the industry have expressed skepticism about the claims. Jim Miller, vice president of advanced transportation technologies at Maxwell Technologies and capacitor expert, stated he was skeptical because of current leakage typically seen at high voltages and because there should be microfractures from temperature changes. He stated "I'm surprised that Kleiner has put money into it."[17]


Patent description and claims
EEStor reports a large relative permittivity (19818) at an unusually high electric field strength of 350 MV/m, giving 10,000 J/cm³ in the dielectric. Voltage independence of permittivity was claimed up to 500 V/μm to within 0.25% of low voltage measurements. Variation in permittivity at a single voltage for 10 different components was claimed by measurements in the patent to be less than +/- 0.15%.[3] If true, their capacitors store at least 30 times more energy per volume than (other) cutting-edge methods such as nanotube designs by Dr Schindall at M.I.T.,[18] Dr. Ducharme's plastics research,[19] and breakthrough ceramics discussed by Dr. Cann.[20] In such a strong electric field, the permittivity usually decreases due to dielectric saturation, or the dielectric may break down, causing a short circuit between the capacitor electrodes.[citation needed] Northrop Grumman and BASF have also filed patents with similar theoretical energy density claims.[21][22] EEStor has the only patent which claims to have actually measured the high energy density in sample components.[citation needed]

The EEStor patents cite a journal article[23] and a Philips Corporation patent[24] as exact descriptions of its "calcined composition-modified barium titanate powder." The Philips patent describes "doped barium-calcium-zirconium-titanate" (CMBT) and reports a permittivity of up to 33,500 at 1.8 V/μm, but does not report the permittivity at high electric fields such as the 350 V/μm EEStor claims. EEStor coats its 0.64 micrometer (average size) CMBT particles with 10 nm aluminum oxide (6% by volume) and immerses them in 6% PET plastic by volume, giving 88% CMBT. The patent claims the aluminum oxide coating and PET matrix reduce the net permittivity to 88% of the CMBT permittivity. The Philips patent did not use either aluminum oxide or PET. The dielectric in solution is screen-printed and dried in 10 μm layers, alternating with 1 μm aluminum plates (used to apply the working 3500 V).

A July 2008 press release[citation needed] states the PET plastic matrix allows for better crystal polarization and that this "along with other proprietary processing steps provides the potential of a polarization saturation voltage required by EEStor, Inc." The patent states this is done at 180 C with 4000 V.

EEStor's US patent 7033406 mentions aluminum oxide and calcium magnesium aluminosilicate glass as coatings,[2] although their subsequent US patent 7466536 mentions only aluminum oxide.[3] Nickel was mentioned in the earlier US patent as the electrode but the later patent uses 1 μm aluminum plates as a less expensive alternative. According to the patents, both changes were made possible by selecting the PET matrix because it is pliable enough to fill voids at only 180 C.


Partnerships
In July 2005, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers invested $3 million in EEStor.[25][26]

In April 2007, ZENN Motor Company, a Canadian electric vehicle manufacturer, invested $2.5 million in EEStor for 3.8% ownership and exclusive rights to distribute their devices for passenger and utility vehicles weighing up to 1,400 kg (excluding capacitor mass), along with other rights.[27] In July 2009, Zenn invested another $5 million for a 10.7% stake.[28] A Zenn press release indicates they were able to get a 10.7% stake because other EEStor investors did not increase their stake.[16] Zenn has received $34 million from the equity markets in the past 3 years, and spent $10.1 million of the proceeds on EEStor ownership and technology rights.[28] In December 2009 Zenn canceled plans for the car but plans to supply the drive train.[12] By April 2010, Zenn had cancelled all production of electric vehicles, leaving ownership of EEStor and their rights to the technology as their focus.[12] Zenn raised CAD$2 million in April of 2012, mostly on the promise of EEStor's technology.[4]

In January 2008, Lockheed-Martin signed an agreement with EEStor for the exclusive rights to integrate and market EESU units in military and homeland security applications.[29] In December 2008, a patent application was filed by Lockheed-Martin that mentions EEStor's patent as a possible electrical energy storage unit.[30]

In September 2008, Light Electric Vehicles Company announced an agreement with EEStor to exclusively provide EEStor's devices for the two and three wheel market.[31]
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Aug 8 2012, 11:19 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

Game-changing enrichment technology offends fossil supporters at BAS

August 2, 2012
By Steve Aplin

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, an anti-nuclear political affairs publication, recently published an attack on a new uranium isotope separation process called SILEX. SILEX, a laser-based process invented in Australia, is being promoted by a joint venture that includes GE-Hitachi and Cameco. They claim it will use far less electricity than centrifuge-based enrichment, which itself uses far less than gaseous diffusion. But, according to BAS, that is a strike against it.

Experts have warned that laser enrichment… would be particularly good at making highly enriched uranium — the ingredient needed to make nuclear weapons — and that a commercial venture could stimulate proliferation.

Anybody familiar with nuclear proliferation would laugh at such a statement. Pakistan developed nuclear weapons in the 1980s based on centrifuge enrichment. It did not do this under cover of a commercial arrangement; the only commercial reactor in the country, a CANDU near Karachi, played no role in Pakistan's bomb. The country did not wait for laser technology.

South Africa and Argentina also didn't wait for laser-enrichment to prove itself: they figured out their own methods of separating uranium isotopes. Neither country separated isotopes under the guise of civilian nuclear power; both separation programs were secret military ones.

Three further countries pursued uranium enrichment. These were Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Muamar Ghadafi's Libya, and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Saddam built electromagnetic calutrons from declassified open literature; like the programs in the countries mentioned above, Saddam's was a top-secret military program. Libya and Iran bought centrifuge designs and equipment from a Pakistani entrepreneur who headed up an extensive global black market network. Neither Libya nor Iran made these purchases above board; these programs were also top secret. India also acquired or developed uranium isotope separation capability, possibly as early as some time in the 1960s. Very little is known about how India acquired the technology; it was certainly not by way of any kind of above-board commercial civilian arrangement.

SILEX changes absolutely nothing, other than—possibly, if its proponents are correct—the economics of enrichment.

Its opponents just don't want to see any improvement in the economics of light water reactor (LWR) nuclear energy.

Here's how to resolve any proliferation concerns surrounding SILEX. If a SILEX plant opens in any country other than one that already separates isotopes, then make sure the plant is safeguarded and that the host country has acceded to the IAEA's Additional Protocol.

But that's standard procedure already, isn't it.

Nuclear Supplier Group rules already ensure that no other rule-respecting countries than the ones already hosting isotope separation facilities will host the first SILEX plant. So the whole issue is already moot.

As for the countries that don't respect NSG rules, well they're beyond our control anyway, aren't they. If they don't play by NSG rules, then NSG countries won't trade with them. If they're bent on getting a nuclear bomb, chances are they won't wait around for the latest greatest way to enrich uranium. They'll use electromagnetic calutrons if they have to. Who cares about the physical footprint—Saddam, with every U.S. spy satellite pointed at Iraq, did exactly that. No one knew until Hans Blix's weapons inspections teams, scouring Iraq for chemical and biological weapons in the wake of Saddam's rout in 1991, stumbled across the calutrons.

If a current NPT weapons state should end up hosting a SILEX plant, how is that supposed to increase the threat of proliferation? These countries already have thousands of nuclear weapons!

This is the same non sequitur that underpins the self-ban on reprocessing. U.S. abstinence will have zero effect on an aspiring proliferant's decisions. Recall the countries I mentioned above: Pakistan, Argentina, India, South Africa, Iraq, Libya, and Iran. All developed or tried to develop nuclear weapons after the U.S.'s self-imposed ban on reprocessing. No proliferant gives a damn what U.S. NSG policy is.

The BAS's manufactured "concern" over SILEX is all about putting up further obstacles to civilian nuclear energy development. BAS frequently publishes articles on climate change, some of which even pretend to give nuclear power a fair evaluation. But they all dismiss it, in favour of natural gas. For an example, click here.

You can see the entire BAS article here.

http://canadianenergyissues.com/2012/08/02...porters-at-bas/
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Aug 8 2012, 11:05 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

Uranium on the laser's edge
August 6, 2012
BY Michael Richardson

Enrichment systems produce nuclear bomb-grade matter as well as fuel for civilian reactors.


The United States is on the verge of approving a licence later this month for the world's first plant to enrich uranium on a commercial scale for civilian nuclear power reactors using laser technology developed by an Australian company. The Australian firm, Silex Systems, says that its secret laser system is cheaper than existing methods of turning natural uranium into fuel for reactors that generate electricity. The plant could be in operation in the US by 2016. It would be run by a partnership of three leading nuclear suppliers, America's GE Energy, Japan's Hitachi, and Canada's Cameco, the largest uranium producer.

This could give the partners a significant share of global enrichment business and enable them to offer buyers a complete commercial package that included construction of reactors and supplying fuel.

The enrichment market is expected to be worth $US20 billion ($A19 billion) by 2030, as more countries in Asia, the Middle East and elsewhere start or expand nuclear power to generate big amounts of electricity without the pollution and global warming emissions caused by burning coal.




Read the whole article here -:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/opinion/ur...0805-23nko.html
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Aug 8 2012, 10:33 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

Wouldn't it be great if Silex/solar Systems place a tender for this PPA, note, they only want the power not to acquire any generation assets.


http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?...9hjte7fqsear9v3


U.S. Army Issues $7 Billion RFP For Renewable Energy
Renewable Energy News
TUESDAY 07 AUGUST, 2012 |
by Energy Matters


The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for $7 billion worth of locally generated, renewable and alternative energy through power purchase agreements.

"We believe the Federal Renewable and Alternative Energy contract will provide the Army with an important means to achieve its goal of one gigawatt of renewable energy projects by 2025," said Secretary of the Army John M. McHugh.

The government wishes to purchase the energy that is produced; not to acquire any generation assets. The successful contractors will be financing, designing, building, operating, owning and maintaining the electricity generation facilities.

"Contracts will be awarded to both large and small businesses according to four different renewable energy technologies: solar, wind, geothermal and biomass," said Sarah Tierney, the project's contracting specialist.

By awarding the contracts, the Army says it will have achieved a streamlined process to develop large scale renewable energy projects that uses private sector financing.

"This approach will help speed overall project development timelines to ensure the best value to the Army and private sector," says a USACE statement.

The U.S. Army represents 20 percent of the Department of Defense's total energy use. In 2011, Army energy expenses totaled $5 billion, a $1 billion increase over the prior year.

The DoD aims to produce or source a quarter of its total energy from renewables by 2025 - which will require approximately 3 gigawatts capacity.

The passion for renewables isn't a case of the DoD suddenly becoming tree-huggers for the warm and fuzzy aspects. It believes "energy security and sustainability are operationally necessary, financially prudent and mission critical".

The Army's energy chief is also pushing energy efficiency awareness, stating that wise use of water and power resources begins with behavioural changes by soldiers, not solely with investments in technologies and new equipment.
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Jul 31 2012, 06:02 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/canberra-c...y-by-2030-82930
Canberra concedes wind, solar to be cheapest energy by 2030

By Giles Parkinson on 31 July 2012 The Australian government's chief energy forecasting body has published a dramatic revision of its cost estimates, predicting that onshore wind and solar PV will deliver the cheapest forms of energy by 2030 – with solar PV dramatically cheaper than all other energy forms by 2050.

The Australian Energy Technology Assessment (AETA) prepared by the government's Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics slashes its previous estimates of the cost of a whole range of renewables technologies, and in some cases doubles the predicted cost of coal-fired generation in the decades to come – with or without the addition of carbon capture and storage.

Its estimates of the cost of gas generation are relatively unchanged, around $130/MWh, but in its most controversial conclusion is says that nuclear energy currently represents the cheapest form of energy – saying that its range of costs is between $55 and $100/MWh, even though the experience in the UK is that new nuclear requires tariffs of at least $220/MW to get built.

BREE's Professor Quentin Grafton said in the report, which was prepared in conjunction with engineering group Worley Parsons, that by 2030 some renewable technologies, such as solar PV and wind, are expected to have the lowest LCOE of all of the evaluated technologies.

"The results indicate that Australia's energy future is likely to be very different to the present," the report concludes. "This has profound implications for electricity networks, how energy is distributed and Australia's ability to meet its targeted greenhouse gas emissions reductions."

These are the first government-sponsored technology cost estimates published since the Draft Energy White Paper was released last December. That paper virtually ignored solar as a contributing element to Australia's energy grid, but it now recognises that estimates for solar PV were wide of the mark, and its costs have fallen dramatically and would continue to do so (even though the report predicts no cost declines between 2020 and 2030).

The estimates for 2012, 2020, 2030 and 2050 are published below (you may need to click on them to enlarge and view properly). The contrast with the December predictions – published at the bottom – is informative.

BREE suggests that solar PV will be competing with onshore wind, biomass and nuclear(!) in Australia by the end of the decade, before emerging as the cheapest technology in subsequent years. Its estimates are for a midpoint of around $224/MW now, around $116/MWh by 2030 and a midpoint of $86/MWh by 2050, and as cheap as $70/MWh by 2020 and $30/MWh by 2050. Even brown coal, without a carbon price and CCS, is costed at around $100/MWh by 2020, nearly double that with a carbon price, and with CCS is costed between $150/MWh and $200/MWh, depending on the technology.

Its predictions for other renewable technologies may also be disputed by some technology developers.

A range of solar thermal technologies are appraised, with current costs estimated at more than $300/MWh, falling to around $200/MWh by 2025, but then making no further progress. Solar thermal developers, along with the International Energy Agency, believe costs will fall to around $100/MWh by the end of the decade. An Australian industry report released in June called "Realising the potential of Concentrating Solar Power in Australia", suggested costs of $120-$130/MWh could be reached.

The AETA report sees the average cost of onshore wind at $116/MW (although some are being built now in Australia for around $80/MW), and while it sees this falling to the low $90s/MW by 2025, it then predicts a gradual rise in costs, which may be disputed by the industry. It says offshore wind would cost around $194/MW now, and be virtually unchanged out to 2050.

In wave power, where Australian developers predict costs coming down to around $100/MWh by the end of the decade, BREE suggests it will still cost around $222/MW by 2025, but then achieve no further cost reductions over the next 25 years.

Geothermal is expected to deliver costs of around $215/MWh (hot rocks) in 2025, and then gradually increase in costs to $222/MWh, while hot sedimentary aquifer's will cost around $154/MWh from around 2020 and also increase in costs. Geothermal developers have previously predicted costs of around $100/MWh, although they have gone a bit quiet on these predictions recently due to a lack of progress.

Among the non-renewable technologies, BREE said combined cycle gas (and in later years combined with carbon capture and storage) and nuclear power offered the lowest LCOE over most of the projection period, and they both remain cost competitive with the lower cost renewable technologies out to 2050.

However, its forecasts for nuclear are astonishing, given the experience in the UK, which already has nuclear plant and is desperate to build more. The BREE report suggests cost for new build nuclear in 2012 in Australia would be less than $100/MWh, rising slightly to around $126/MWh in 2050. Last week, the Financial Times reported that French nuclear giant EDF is asking for £165/MWh – or $250/MWh – to build the Hinkley Point project, and a French government committee estimated the ongoing costs of nuclear plants already built would be around $88/MW by 2017, and that does not include the capital costs. The BREE report says decommissioning costs were not factored in to its calculations.









The estimates the government was relying on last December

  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Jul 15 2012, 03:14 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

Sorry everyone for the blank page in my last post, I was trying to paste this PDF in the link below and a few thoughts I had concerning it, so I will let you retrieve the PDF as it won't load here.

The document in the link below is titled "AUSTRALIAN SUSTAINABLE ENERGY"

Zero Carbon Australia stationary energy plan, a 10 year roadmap for 100% sustainable energy

http://media.beyondzeroemissions.org/ZCA20...y_Report_v1.pdf

In it they make choices about which technologies they see as being best suited to obtain 100% renewable energy.

The Criteria they chose were that they had to be technologies that were already commercialised and also capable of supplying power 24 hours a day.

They chose WIND and CST for the reason I gave above

Concentrating Solar Power with Storage — 24 hour dispatchable power (CST)

Wind: Cheap, Clean and Technologically Advanced

They mentioned CPV briefly but because it was neither an existing technology or a system that can supply power 24 hours a day it didn't fit their criteria, well not yet anyway, but that may change?

I see disadvantages with those technologies in some areas?


What caught my eye at first glance in the PDF were that there seem to be some synergies here, my first thought was when I looked at the parabolic dish fitted with mirrors see page 27

Look at the bottom picture where it is called Paraboloidal dishes. It is a pretty familiar dish isn't it?

My first thoughts were, couldn't Solar Systems could make these dishes? but then it dawned on me, this is also a technology under development, but it seems that the tower system is already commercialised and that was the reason why it was chosen in the first place.

Then it dawned on me, aren't Solar Systems are also making a tower system as well? how hard would it be to marry the CST and the CPV together (a hybrid system) i.e two or more receivers on the same tower, think outside the square, they both use towers, they could both use concentrating parabolic dishes just like the one in the picture, but instead of having the receiver at the front of the dish, why not focus the rays to the tower and the respective receiver for that system?

You could have the best of both worlds, a far more efficient way of producing electricity during the day, but one with a backup when intermittent cloud cover occurs, where the CST could then help supply electricity during these intermittent cloudy periods, it would also then come into it's own at night by supplying the off peak power, which is considerably less than that required by the power network during peak loading periods in daylight hours.

Why couldn't the tower shown on page 27 called Power tower (central receiver) and heliostat fields, also include a CPV receiver/s on the same tower as well? And use parabolic dishes to supply the concentrated rays to the appropriate receiver, either CPV or CST?

I say far more efficient during daylight hours using CPV because, you can't tell me a system that has to convert the sun's rays to provide heat and then transfer that heat to a salt solution and the use that heated salt solution via a heat exchange to superheat water to provide steam to drive a turbine to create electricity, could be more efficient that the CPV system that converts the sun's rays directly to electricity?

But the heat created on the cells of the CPV system could be used to add to those of a CST system on the same tower you would think, but perhaps one day in the future, instead of the heat exchange and steam driven turbine, maybe Solar Systems could also use Translucent technology once again in their patented Thermoelectric and Pyroelectric Energy Conversion Device -: http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/7807917.html#show-page5


If the decision was to build some of these Concentrated Solar Tower systems, then why not also include CPV on the same tower, and depending on the conditions on the day due to cloud cover etc you could focus all or some of the dishes from either system on to the most efficient method during cloudy days, whether that is CPV or CST under those condition, I don't know?

But you would get the best of both worlds I reckon?
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Jul 14 2012, 12:15 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Jul 13 2012, 04:14 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

I meant to add this link in my last post, it reconfirms what I was trying to say, the power producers and distributors will in the end lead to their own demise, and the faster they lift their prices the more people will turn to the alternatives, the pollies may help them in the short term , but all of that will do is harm Australia's interests and push the renewable technologies to other countries first, countries who are more willing to accept change and who can also see the benefits of doing so in having cleaner and also cheaper power, the US is one example, they will lead and as usual Australia will follow, when it realizes that in the end Australia will have to change to the same systems as what they are using overseas to be cost competitive. it's alright for the coal fired power producers to produce power cheaply from brown coal but it is dirty and the end users are not getting true value for what they are charged, power may be cheap to produce but it certainly isn't cheap for the consumers.

CPV and Nuclear will end up the winners I believe, and Silex are in both, what a coincidence!


http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/five-thing...h-spirals-15400

Five things we learned … about energy market death spirals

By Giles Parkinson on 13 July 2012 Who knew that the first weeks of the carbon price would be this entertaining? A bakery chief resigning after urging his franchisees to post coalition propaganda in shop windows and blame the carbon tax and its impact on electricity costs for a stunning rise in the cost of sticky buns. The Labor Right chose the occasion to decide that the next best thing to attacking rival factions is to attack the people that keep them in power. The radio shock jocks have been absolutely compelling. No time to tune into Radio National. Stand-up comedy is rarely this good.

But amid the stunts and the tales of outrageous misfortune over the new carbon price, it's become increasingly clear that one of the most stunning changes in a major industry is taking shape right before our eyes. It's about the provision of electricity. We are on the cusp of one of the most dramatic industry upheavals since Kodak stared at digital technology and blinked, and newspapers editors were shown an i-pad and returned to their cross-words.

The Australian Energy Market Operator set the ball in motion two weeks ago with its updated energy forecasts, noting a "game-changing" fall in demand. AGL Energy made it clear what the industry thought about this when it published its study on the "energy market death spiral."

Fixed line telcos across the world know all about this. In energy, it's actually got surprisingly little to do with climate change and carbon policies, although the extent of those will hasten and shape the transformation. The challenges and opportunities arise a from a mixture of falling demand, the emergence of solar PV as a mass market product, the gold plating of networks by greedy state governments, and the introduction of disruptive technologies such as storage. One aspect is wonderfully chronicled by Mike Sandiford today, this story highlights the case of the disappearing peaks, and a sign of the future is illustrated by Infigen Energy's announcement that it is building the first solar PV/Battery storage hybrid plant that is connected to the National Electricity Market. It is small but it could have a profound impact on the NEM.

The path of least resistance

Make no mistake, this is a serious issue confronting the energy industry and there are billions at stake. It is one thing to see the present and imagine the future, but it's harder to navigate the best path forward. This is the challenge facing the energy industry and policy makers. The utilities have responded by doing what the French would do, screaming "sauve qui peut", which can be roughly translated into "every man for himself", or 'save what you can". Or, if you're having trouble changing with the game, at least try and change the rules, or not change them as the case may be.

The network operators have been stubbornly resisting anything that can resemble energy efficiency or demand management initiatives, or a curb on their profligate spending. Among the utilities, Origin Energy re-launched its attack on the renewable energy target, in an attempt to protect its gas-fired generators, and other planned investments. AGL Energy turned its focus on time-of-use pricing. All drew a chorus of support from vested interests.

Origin Energy's problem is that it has invested heavily in recent years in gas plants, reasoning (not unreasonably) that a fuel that is cleaner than the coal-fired generation that currently dominates the Australian grid would be a sensible move.

But gas has found itself squeezed out by a limp carbon policy and falling energy demand. Its 630MW Darling Downs combined cycle gas fired generator, for instance, the cleanest baseload generator in the country, is running at less than half capacity just two years after it was built. It is more or less functioning as an intermediate or peaking plant, and that is not why Origin Energy spent $1 billion on its construction.

Two things can solve the problem – lifting the carbon price to $50 or $60/tonne of Co2 to squeeze out coal, or delaying or diluting the renewable energy target to squeeze out wind and solar. One glance at Australia's political elite, and of its media, quickly informed Origin Energy of the path of least resistance. And so it has attacked the RET.

It's a matter of timing

AGL Energy opposes diluting the RET, arguing it would be disastrous for renewables, but its economists were expressing great concern about the plight of low income families in the face of an onslaught of electricity price rises, and used this as an argument to urge caution about energy efficiency policies and for the introduction of smart metres and time of use pricing – a little more upfront pain for long term gain.

Of course, AGL Energy could try and address this issue through other means, such as using the strength of its balance sheet and help introduce its customers to solar leases and other financing options currently all the rage in the US. That way, for no upfront cost, struggling households could have modules installed on their roof, reducing the size of their bills and the amount of electricity that they would need to buy from AGL Energy. Ooops! That might just add to the death spiral. Best put them on a time-of-use metre then, so they can do their washing at midnight.

There's light at the end of the tunnel

But bringing the debate back to energy and climate, the news has actually been quite good. This graph from consulting firm Pitt & Sherry below illustrates Australia's falling demand, and its even greater fall in energy emissions. And this is before the carbon price was introduced.

  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Jul 13 2012, 01:56 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

I won't post all of this because it was it was reproduced with permission, but it is a good read, it explains a lot in very simple terms, I really don't know why these power companies or distributors are talking these steps instead of embracing some of these these renewable technologies, if they aren't part of the solution then they are part of the problem, they aren't seeing things with their eyes wide open, they WILL NOT stop things like Solar from taking market share in the end, even if they do get the pollies from both sides to play their silly game initially? all they will do is delay the inevitable and these companies who are short sighted will go broke instead of being part of this new paradigm.

What will happen is that other countries will adopt it first, it will improve their competitive edge over Australia yet again, we have an opportunity to be part of something big , but short sightedness will yet again result in our country being behind the eight ball, instead of leading it? our pollies are just plain dumb, our country is run by sheeple who just follow, they can't construe the idea that we could lead the world.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/one-piddli...ectricity-31764

One piddling light and the plunging cost of electricity

By Mike Sandiford on 13 July 2012 Just how much would it cost electricity generators if I reduced my electricity consumption by turning off just one light? You would think the answer is half of bugger all, and you'd be almost right.

In an attempt to be a bit more precise, let's quantify exactly what "half of bugger all" amounts to. Assume that the light I stop using is a 75 watt globe and that I was only using it for about 3 hours a day. So turning it off reduces my average electricity consumption by about 10 watts and saves me about 85 kilowatt-hours over the year.
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Jul 12 2012, 10:39 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

Nero fiddles while Rome burns still, our pollies are that dumb they will continue to help the coal fired generators mates maintain their profits and keep renewables on the back burner, how much proof do they need?
I don't totally agree with the author about carbon tax, it in itself does not stop one ounce of carbon, especially if they keep giving money to the generators to circumvent the impact of the CT.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/two-key-re...n-climate-28341
Two key reports highlight man's influence on climate

By Andrew Freedman on 11 July 2012 The influence of manmade global warming on the climate system continues to grow, with human fingerprints identified in more than two dozen climate "indicators" examined by an international research team — from air temperatures to ocean acidity — for a comprehensive annual "State of the Climate" report released Tuesday.

In a related study also released on Tuesday, climate researchers said manmade global warming is already shifting the probability of many extreme weather and climate events, making heat waves, droughts, and other events more likely to occur in some parts of the world.

Together, the two reports amount to a comprehensive accounting of the present state of the climate system, over which mankind is now exerting a greater impact than ever before.

The "State of the Climate 2011" report, published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS), presents a peer reviewed tour through the weather and climate events of 2011. The overriding theme that emerges from the report is that the effects of human activities are readily evident, be it in the form of rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere — global carbon dioxide concentrations hit a new all-time high of 390 parts per million last year, and will cross the 400 ppm threshold worldwide by 2016 — to the inexorable increase in ocean heat content.

The report shows that a La Nina event, characterized by cooler-than-average sea surface temperatures, helped keep global average surface temperatures down compared to 2010, but it was one of the warmest La Nina years on record.

In the Arctic, which has been warming at twice the rate of the rest of the globe, 2011 had the second-lowest sea ice extent on record. Barrow, Alaska, located above the Arctic Circle, experienced a record 86 straight days when the temperature failed to drop below freezing.

The report also contains evidence from ocean salinity measurements that the global water cycle is intensifying. "The dry regions are getting drier and the wet regions are getting wetter," Kate Willet, a senior scientist at the U.K. Met Office said on a conference call with reporters.

The other climate assessment, which was also released by NOAA and the AMS, represents a step forward in efforts to decipher how manmade global warming is influencing specific extreme weather and climate events.



Global average surface temperature departures from average during 2011. Credit: NOAA.

"Every weather event that happens now takes place in the context of a changing global environment," said deputy NOAA administrator Kathryn D. Sullivan in a press release.

Researchers used different approaches to analyze a half-dozen extreme weather and climate events that occurred last year, from the brutal Texas drought and heat wave to the deadly Thailand floods.

The report notes that global warming has already been playing a role in shifting the odds for several of these extreme events, including the Texas drought. The 2011 growing season was by far the warmest and driest in Texas history, and the drought was the worst one-year drought on record there as well, costing billions in agricultural losses.

The study concluded that, due to manmade global warming, La Nina-related heat waves are now 20 times more likely to occur in Texas than they were 50 years ago.

Weather patterns during La Nina years naturally tend to favor warmer and drier conditions in the Lone Star State. According to Peter Stott, who leads the Climate Monitoring and Attribution team at the U.K.'s Met Office, since manmade global warming is boosting average temperatures, it makes it more likely that certain thresholds will be reached or exceeded when a La Nina occurs. "You're [now] much more likely to have exceptional warmth," in Texas during a La Nina year, he said.

Other researchers looked at international events and came to different conclusions depending on the questions researchers asked and the specific event in question. For example, scientists looked into the shifting odds for two unusual months that the U.K. experienced in 2010 and 2011. The U.K. had a very warm November of 2011, and rare cold during December 2010, during which time much of Britain experienced a white Christmas.

The study found that, because of manmade global warming and other factors, cold Decembers are now half as likely to occur as they were 50 years ago, and warm Novembers are 62 times more likely to take place.

Other experts in the burgeoning field of "extreme-event attribution" took on the challenge of determining whether there was a global warming influence on the record Thailand floods of last year.

The floods were the worst to occur there since 1942, with some areas remaining submerged by 6 feet of water for more than two months, according to NOAA. The floodwaters damaged or destroyed many high tech manufacturing centers, leading to delays in shipping equipment such as laptop computers.

In this case, the researchers found evidence that the floods were manmade, but not because of climate change. The study concluded that the rainfall amounts were not actually unprecedented or that unusual for Thailand, and that industrial development, reservoir management policies, and other trends on the ground contributed to the flooding.

"The flooding was unprecedented but the rainfall that produced it was not," Stott said.

Stott is working with an international team of scientists to advance extreme-event assessments, and has raised the possibility of eventually being able to conduct them in near-real time if the science advances far enough.

(This section was first published in Climate Central. Reproduced with permission).

Australian scientists respond

The NOAA report involved 11 Australian scientists. Australia is covered in Chapter 7 dealing with regional climates. NOAA has also created a resource page with images, highlights and explainers etc.

Below several Australian scientists, including one of the report's authors, comment on the report. The quotes were collated by the Australian Science Media.

Dr Karl Braganza is the Manager of Climate Monitoring at the National Climate Centre, Bureau of Meteorology

"While many have focussed on the extreme events detailed in the BAMS 2011 State of the Climate, the report also details continued long-term changes in climate.

"Most notably, the Arctic continues to warm at a very rapid rate – around twice the rate of warming compared with the rest of the planet – continuing a now well-established trend. The warming of the Arctic and the loss of Arctic sea-ice is one of the key positive feedback mechanisms involved in amplifying greenhouse-forced climate change. Arctic sea-ice extent was the second lowest on record at the end of the 2011 summer, and is tracking at lowest on record for 2012. In addition, the ocean heat content (OHC), a measure of heat stored in the oceans, was also in record territory during 2011, and continues another well-established long-term warming trend.

"Global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations topped 390 parts per million for the first time in the instrumental record, with individual readings from monitoring stations in 2012 topping 400 parts per million. These are very likely the highest concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the last 100,000 years, and perhaps the last several million years. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are now similar to those during the Pliocene, a much warmer period than any experienced by modern humans.

"These indicators show that climate change, especially changes to atmospheric chemistry, are not just continuing but tracking at the more extreme end of possible scenarios.

"It is against this backdrop that the increasing frequency of extreme weather events observed in the last decade should be gauged. Increasing greenhouse gases have warmed the entire climate system, such that all weather now occurs in a climate almost one degree warmer than a century ago. This warming will continue to load the dice in favour of extreme warm weather and climate events. Events experienced in recent times are therefore an important heuristic for future climate change impacts."

Dr Rob Massom is with the Australian Antarctic Division and the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre and was one of the Australian authors of the report with his specific focus being Antarctica and sea ice

"This annual report is of crucial importance in that it allows us to keep close tabs on the changing state and behaviour of the global climate system. The report now tracks 43 global-scale climate indicators, with a view to better understanding climate change and its complex causes and effects; one of these indicators is Antarctic sea ice.

"Every year, up to 19 million square kilometres of the surface area of the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica freezes, and the resultant sea ice cover plays a key role in the global climate system. Not only this, but the sea ice is also a sensitive indicator and modulator of change and variability in patterns of atmospheric and oceanic circulation and temperature, the effects of which are amplified at high latitudes. Moreover, close linkages exist between processes occurring in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean and Australian weather and climate.

"In 2011, Antarctic sea ice areal extent exhibited considerable variability about the long-term (30-year) mean, depending on season. Whereas the ice extent attained a record low in April, it was well above average in December. The latter reflects the prevalence at that time of low pressure systems and generally cool conditions around the Antarctic perimeter."

Professor David Karoly is a climate scientist from the School of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne

"This report on global and regional climate variations in 2011 is comprehensive and BIG!!

"It provides detailed evidence of continuing climate change, including record-high global concentrations of carbon dioxide and ongoing warming of the upper layers of the ocean. Many of the regional variations of climate in 2011, including in Australia, were dominated by the effects of La Nina. In Australia, this led to record-high two year totals of rainfall, many areas in eastern and northern Australia experiencing flooding, lower than recent average temperatures, but very dry and hot conditions in the southwest of WA."

Associate Professor Paul Beggs is Deputy Head of the Department of Environment and Geography at Macquarie University. His area of research is focussed on the impacts of climate change on human health

"This comprehensive and impressive "State of the Climate in 2011" report by the internationally respected American Meteorological Society and US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, while a snapshot of climate last year, also places this into accurate historical perspective and provides information on the state, trends, and variability of the climate system.

"Australia's climate in 2011 features prominently in the report, with our wettest two-year period (2010–11) on record being highlighted in the first paragraph of the report, a dramatic picture of the associated flooding of Rockhampton in January 2011 comprising the report's back cover, and much in between. The report provides yet another international expert assessment showing our global climate changing.

"While beyond the scope of this particular report, the adverse impacts of this changing climate are also clear and undeniable, and are with us already. The Australian Government's action on climate change through its introduction of the carbon tax is to be applauded and embraced by Australians. Such efforts will reduce the extent of, but not stop, future climate change. Therefore, Australia and the rest of the world must also now adapt to climate change, with again the efforts of Australia's National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility vital both now and into the future."
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Jul 10 2012, 04:16 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

"Origin Energy does not have an extensive pipeline of its own wind energy or solar energy projects in Australia, which means it would need to satisfy its share of the target by signing power purchase agreements with third-party developers."

Interesting?

I can think of one utility solar energy supplier who may be interested!
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Jul 10 2012, 03:58 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/green-ener...ed-attack-46320

Green energy schemes under renewed attack

By Giles Parkinson on 10 July 2012 Australia's largest energy utility Origin Energy has renewed its assault on the Renewable Energy Target, claiming that the cost of meeting the RET will outstrip that of the carbon price in 2020.

In interviews with the two national daily newspapers, The Australian and The Australian Financial Review, Origin Energy CEO Grant King said falling demand meant the fixed target of 20 per cent would morph into an effective target of around 26 per cent.

Environmental groups, the Greens, and renewable energy developers say this is a good thing – given that the move to decarbonise the electricity grid will inevitably mean more renewables need to be deployed in the future.

But Origin Energy and others in the industry are facing much reduced demand for their coal and gas generators, and lower returns, as well as little justification for new gas projects, unless the policy can be changed. They are ramping up their campaign as the newly created Climate Change Authority, chaired by Bernie Fraser, prepares to undertake its first task – a scheduled review of the renewable energy target.

"The community signed on for 20 per cent by 2020. If it is 25 or 30 per cent then it will mean more costs," King told the AFR. He told The Australian that the RET "is going to create crowding out effects that were different at the time it was implemented."

Origin Energy first challenged the renewable energy target last September, when King suggested in an interview with this reporter that it should be morphed into a 25/25 target.

In February, he noted how falling demand meant that the case for baseload generation in Australia was already redundant, and in May, at a Macquarie Bank conference, he first suggested cutting the target back so that it reflected the percentage of "actual demand" – effectively reducing the amount of utility-scale wind and solar that would need to be deployed by nearly half.

Origin Energy's latest campaign against the RET was foreshadowed by RenewEconomy more than a week ago, after the Australian Electricity Market Operator unveiled its much-reduced demand forecasts for 2012/13 and for the next 10 years – even lower than those assumed by Origin Energy.

As we wrote on Monday in How utilities propose to kill solar PV, Australian utilities are now fighting against the two main green energy initiatives that threaten their long-established business models – the deployment of large-scale renewables such as wind farms and utility-based solar, and the rapid uptake of solar PV and other forms of distributed generation.

Each utility is attacking a different part of the green energy market that reflects its own natural advantage – Origin seems better placed to deal with solar PV and distributed generation and changes in the retail space, while AGL Energy's strengths appear to lie in large-scale renewable generation.

Origin Energy has a bunch of reasons why it wants the RET to be wound back. The first is that it is heavily invested in gas-fired power generation, which is being squeezed by lower demand, the increasing deployment of renewables, record low electricity prices, and the fact that brown coal generators, in particular, have been compensated for the carbon price and are unlikely to close down without being bought out by the government in its contracts-for-closure scheme.

Even demand for expensive open-cycle gas turbines (peaking plant) is being reduced. AEMO has cut its peak demand forecasts, and the amount required to support renewables is also under question. In South Australia, where renewables now account for more than 30 per cent of production, no new peaking load has been required to account for the variability of wind energy.

Origin Energy also has its own pet project – the 2,100MW Purari run-of-river hydro scheme in Papua New Guinea – which it would like to have included in a renewable energy target, but that is unlikely to happen. And Origin Energy does not have an extensive pipeline of its own wind energy or solar energy projects in Australia, which means it would need to satisfy its share of the target by signing power purchase agreements with third-party developers.

AGL Energy, which does have a significant pipeline of projects, has staunchly defended the RET, describing any move to dilute it as "disastrous," a sentiment echoed by wind and solar energy developers, and the Clean Energy Council, which argues that it has only been in place for two years and demand forecasts could change just as quickly. TRUenergy, which has neither a large pipeline of renewable energy projects, nor a significant presence in the small-scale solar market – has yet to publicly update its position on the RET.

The Australian Conservation Foundation said that if Origin Energy's advice was followed it could mean missing out on the equivalent of eight large-scale solar plants. "We should be increasing the target, not lowering it. Because of this target, we're achieving the transition to clean energy faster. We can go further. This is a great thing," the ACF said. "Fossil fuel companies should not undermine popular, effective policies just because the company has invested in 20th century technologies which are becoming less and less competitive as Australia moves to a clean energy economy."

The Greens said much the same, arguing for a higher renewable target and saying that Australia should seek to get to 100 per cent "as quickly as possible" and was uniquely positioned to do so. "The RET is frequently misrepresented by those with a vested interest in continuing with fossil fuel generation," Greens leader Christine Milne said. "The cost of renewable energy is too frequently overstated. There is clear evidence that it is driving wholesale electricity prices down."

But here's a further irony. It is not clear that a review of the 20 per cent target is within the remit of the Climate Change Authority. At the urging of Origin Energy and other generators when the legislation was put into place, the target is fixed – although it has been adjusted to 41,000 terrawatt hours to account for the unexpected surge in rooftop solar. There is actually no mention of 20 per cent.

The review is effectively an operational one, and must be consistent with the act, which means that it must encourage the additional generation of electricity from renewable sources. How that relates to a review of the target may become clearer after the first board meeting of the CCA next week.
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Jul 9 2012, 02:56 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/how-big-ut...-solar-pv-81496

How big utilities propose to kill solar PV
By Giles Parkinson on 9 July 2012 A couple of nasty figures have been produced in recent weeks that will give energy companies – retailers, generators and distributors – cause to reflect on how they will manage to satisfy their shareholders' insatiable appetite for increased profits in coming years.

The figures were inter-related. The first lot were the updated demand forecasts issues by the Australian Energy Market Operators. Demand for 2012/13 is now likely to be nearly 10 per cent below where it was predicted just a year ago, and demand out to 2020 might be 30 per cent below the most optimistic predictions. For an industry that has relied on an unremitting correlation of electricity demand to GDP growth, this has been a shock to the system.

AEMO chief Matt Zema acknowledged the problems facing the industry as it tries to eke out more revenue in the face of declining demand. Essentially, he said in an interview with RenewEconomy, as demand falls and investment in fixed infrastructure increases, the cost per megawatt grows – creating a vicious circle, or what AGL Energy described in a document last week as the Energy Market Death Spiral.

Part of this reduction has been partly blamed on reduced manufacturing, and partly on reduced demand from households and business in response to surging electricity costs, and on the massive investment in infrastructure to cope with peak demand. But the most enduring, and growing factor, at least on the demand side, is the penetration of solar PV. And AEMO forecasts give little consolation to the established industry – the amount of solar PV in the Australian market is tipped to grow 10-fold over the next two decades, and its impact on revenue and profits for the incumbent generators, retailers and network operators will increase accordingly.

Private forecasts suggest that the growth of solar PV could be much greater than that recognised by AEMO. Yingli, the world's largest solar PV manufacturer in 2012, has said that Australia could, in fact, become the first "mass market" for solar PV in the world – thanks to a combination of declining costs, rising grid prices, lots of sun and innovative financing models.

RenewEconomy has written before that the proliferation of solar PV in the mass market – reducing household energy costs and offering negative cost emissions abatement – has the potential to redefine the energy price debate, if the politicians could seize the moment. But they are under intense pressure from the industry, and all along the value chain from retailers to state government-owned distributors.

AGL Energy's answer to the "death spiral" was to push for time-of-use tariffs to ease pressures on the disadvantaged – low income earners and pensioners – and to help reduce peak demand. "It is not about making the industry more profitable, it's not about that at all," AGL Energy senior economist and co-author of the report Paul Simshauser told Radio National's Saturday Extra program on the weekend.

Most observers, however, could conclude that is exactly what it is about, and the industry can be expected (their shareholders will surely demand it) to fight not just for tariff changes outlined in the AGL document, but also to fight back against the incursion of solar PV. They might not be able to kill it, but by acting to reduce its attraction, they could rein in its growth.

Here are some tactics that are being suggested to deal with what AGL Energy managing director Michael Fraser described on the Radio National Breakfast program 10 days ago as the "infiltration" of solar PV and distributed energy. "It's been a good thing," Fraser said. "But we will have to watch that."

Replace net metering with gross metering

There is talk that at least one utility is working on a proposal to push for gross tariffs to replace net tariffs. Gross tariffs were popular in some states at the height of the inflated feed-in tariffs, because householders received a premium price for every kW of solar they produced. With the winding back of feed-in tariffs, net metering has been introduced which allows households to use solar PV as a hedge against rising electricity prices, using the electricity they produce to reduce their requirements from the grid.

However, while this offers significant savings to householders, this cuts the retailers and the network operators out of the game, and net metering would become even more attractive under the time-of-use tariffs proposed by the likes of AGL Energy, because those tariffs (around 52c/kW or more) are introduced when solar PV is producing the most. By introducing gross metering, particularly at low tariffs, it effectively deprives the householder of the right to "self consume" because, for accounting purposes, the householder must export all electricity back to the grid and import all its use at a higher price. This reduces the hedge the householder has against rising grid prices, and the value of solar and ties the volume of energy consumed into the spread sheets of the retailers and network operators.

Tariff changes and expansion of demand tariffs

Several readers – small business and farmers – have complained of tariff changes in Queensland and elsewhere that impose a higher "demand" charge for connection to the grid, and lower per kWh tariffs – again reducing the attraction of solar PV for self consumers. Geoff Bragg from the Solar Energy Industry Association highlighted the issue in this analysis, pointing out that some utilities wanted to expand such a tariff to smaller commercial users and even residential users.

"Anyone who currently installs solar as a small commercial user on a tariff in the range of 20 to 40c/kWh would be in for a rude shock if their tariff was switched to a 5 to 10c/kWh charge plus large standing charges or peak KVA penalties. The savings from slowing the meter down would be decimated," he wrote. "Imagine if this same argument were moved across to the residential sector. Our customers might find themselves paying 8c/kWh plus $7 a day to be connected to the network or peak demand penalties perhaps? Supplying their own kWhs with solar wouldn't make sense …. the future of the Australia PV industry could be in the balance."

Retrospective tariff changes

The NSW Coalition government tried it on last year, before being forced to back down. However, one unremarked-upon part of the new Queensland package, which includes the slashing of the net feed-in tariff from 44c to 8c, and then to nil from 2014, is the change in rules to rental properties and properties that are sold. Anyone changing the name of an account – either through the sale of a property, or because of a different tenant – will lose their right to the 44c/kW tariff and will be switched over the 8c/kWh tariff. (It probably should be noted that the retailers and network operators in Queensland are government owned).

Absolute caps

Generators in Germany and Italy, the world's two largest solar PV markets in 2011, were pushing for the deployment of solar PV to be capped to protect their earnings. In Germany, a cap of 3 to 3.5GW was contemplated. But the solar PV industry is now a powerful voice in Germany and, with the support of state governments, the federal government backed down. It has now announced that once solar PV deployment reaches 52GW (double its level of the end of 2011), then subsidies will end. Some experts think that will occur by 2015. German policy makers are now seeking to design a new system. Italy was put under pressure by its dominant utility, Enel, which complained of major losses in generation profits from the merit order effect. Italy cut its subsidies, but actually increased its target for renewables.

Network limitations

These are similar to an absolute cap. They are decisions by distributors to ban the installation of new rooftop solar PV, as has happened in WA, or to limit their size, as has happened in Queensland. The recent report by the CSIRO, however, suggests that distributors are not trying very hard, and/or are using solar as a scape-goat to hide other issues. The CSIRO report concluded that at current levels of around 10 per cent penetration there would be no problems for network operators. Indeed, even at 40 per cent, there should be little difficulty, although some weak, rural grids would need to address some issues, but these were considered manageable.

Changing renewable energy targets

The Renewable Energy Target is considered untouchable because it has bipartisan support, but both Labor (in Victoria) and the Coalition (Howard Government) have form in back-tracking on announced renewable targets. The same forces that won changes then are busy behind the scenes now, and are planning to put immense pressure on the Climate Change Authority when it conducts its review this year.

A change to the large-scale renewable target would limit the growth opportunities for both wind farms and utility-scale solar. A change to the small-scale technology target is also mooted. Although the multiplier is due to wind back to one in July, 2013 – would the government contemplate scrapping renewable energy certificates for small-scale deployment?

Planning restrictions: bury solar in red tape.

This has worked effectively to suppress the wind industry in Australia, mostly through the introduction of planning regulations that vastly restrict the opportunities for large wind farms. With distributed solar PV, that would be harder to control, but authorities could always try to bury the product in red tape. Barry Cinnamon, the CEO of Westinghouse Solar, now owned by Australia's CBD Energy, wrote in Forbes last week. that the cost of rooftop solar in the US was twice that of Germany because of the amount of paperwork and red tape that installers had to go through. And produced this graph to illustrate his point.



"Even though solar panel costs are about the same, in almost every other category German costs are lower," Cinnamon wrote. "In Germany, the residential solar industry has no red tape, there is a highly‐tuned supply chain to get equipment to customer job sites, installers get projects completed in a day, permitting is virtually automatic, costs to acquire a customer are very low and overhead is negligible.

"In Germany, you don't need permission to connect to the utility, you don't need a building permit, you don't need any inspections and you don't need financing (it's automatic with a German bank). When rooftop solar was in its infancy, some of these regulations made sense. Now that rooftop solar is standardised, simpler, and safer – and the panels are much cheaper – this paperwork is unnecessary. This red tape is holding back the industry from creating even more jobs, driving innovation and building true energy security for our nation."
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Jul 9 2012, 02:55 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

<h1 class="post-title">http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/how-big-utilities-propose-to-kill-solar-pv-81496</h1><h1 class="post-title">How big utilities propose to kill solar PV</h1> By Giles Parkinson on 9 July 2012 A couple of nasty figures have been produced in recent weeks that will give energy companies – retailers, generators and distributors – cause to reflect on how they will manage to satisfy their shareholders’ insatiable appetite for increased profits in coming years.

The figures were inter-related. The first lot were the updated demand forecasts issues by the Australian Energy Market Operators. Demand for 2012/13 is now likely to be nearly 10 per cent below where it was predicted just a year ago, and demand out to 2020 might be 30 per cent below the most optimistic predictions. For an industry that has relied on an unremitting correlation of electricity demand to GDP growth, this has been a shock to the system.

AEMO chief Matt Zema acknowledged the problems facing the industry as it tries to eke out more revenue in the face of declining demand. Essentially, he said in an interview with RenewEconomy, as demand falls and investment in fixed infrastructure increases, the cost per megawatt grows – creating a vicious circle, or what AGL Energy described in a document last week as the Energy Market Death Spiral.

Part of this reduction has been partly blamed on reduced manufacturing, and partly on reduced demand from households and business in response to surging electricity costs, and on the massive investment in infrastructure to cope with peak demand. But the most enduring, and growing factor, at least on the demand side, is the penetration of solar PV. And AEMO forecasts give little consolation to the established industry – the amount of solar PV in the Australian market is tipped to grow 10-fold over the next two decades, and its impact on revenue and profits for the incumbent generators, retailers and network operators will increase accordingly.

Private forecasts suggest that the growth of solar PV could be much greater than that recognised by AEMO. Yingli, the world’s largest solar PV manufacturer in 2012, has said that Australia could, in fact, become the first “mass market” for solar PV in the world – thanks to a combination of declining costs, rising grid prices, lots of sun and innovative financing models.

RenewEconomy has written before that the proliferation of solar PV in the mass market – reducing household energy costs and offering negative cost emissions abatement – has the potential to redefine the energy price debate, if the politicians could seize the moment. But they are under intense pressure from the industry, and all along the value chain from retailers to state government-owned distributors.

AGL Energy’s answer to the “death spiral” was to push for time-of-use tariffs to ease pressures on the disadvantaged – low income earners and pensioners – and to help reduce peak demand. “It is not about making the industry more profitable, it’s not about that at all,” AGL Energy senior economist and co-author of the report Paul Simshauser told Radio National’s Saturday Extra program on the weekend.

Most observers, however, could conclude that is exactly what it is about, and the industry can be expected (their shareholders will surely demand it) to fight not just for tariff changes outlined in the AGL document, but also to fight back against the incursion of solar PV. They might not be able to kill it, but by acting to reduce its attraction, they could rein in its growth.

Here are some tactics that are being suggested to deal with what AGL Energy managing director Michael Fraser described on the Radio National Breakfast program 10 days ago as the “infiltration” of solar PV and distributed energy. “It’s been a good thing,” Fraser said. “But we will have to watch that.”

Replace net metering with gross metering

There is talk that at least one utility is working on a proposal to push for gross tariffs to replace net tariffs. Gross tariffs were popular in some states at the height of the inflated feed-in tariffs, because householders received a premium price for every kW of solar they produced. With the winding back of feed-in tariffs, net metering has been introduced which allows households to use solar PV as a hedge against rising electricity prices, using the electricity they produce to reduce their requirements from the grid.

However, while this offers significant savings to householders, this cuts the retailers and the network operators out of the game, and net metering would become even more attractive under the time-of-use tariffs proposed by the likes of AGL Energy, because those tariffs (around 52c/kW or more) are introduced when solar PV is producing the most. By introducing gross metering, particularly at low tariffs, it effectively deprives the householder of the right to “self consume” because, for accounting purposes, the householder must export all electricity back to the grid and import all its use at a higher price. This reduces the hedge the householder has against rising grid prices, and the value of solar and ties the volume of energy consumed into the spread sheets of the retailers and network operators.

Tariff changes and expansion of demand tariffs

Several readers – small business and farmers – have complained of tariff changes in Queensland and elsewhere that impose a higher “demand” charge for connection to the grid, and lower per kWh tariffs – again reducing the attraction of solar PV for self consumers. Geoff Bragg from the Solar Energy Industry Association highlighted the issue in this analysis, pointing out that some utilities wanted to expand such a tariff to smaller commercial users and even residential users.

“Anyone who currently installs solar as a small commercial user on a tariff in the range of 20 to 40c/kWh would be in for a rude shock if their tariff was switched to a 5 to 10c/kWh charge plus large standing charges or peak KVA penalties. The savings from slowing the meter down would be decimated,” he wrote. “Imagine if this same argument were moved across to the residential sector. Our customers might find themselves paying 8c/kWh plus $7 a day to be connected to the network or peak demand penalties perhaps? Supplying their own kWhs with solar wouldn’t make sense …. the future of the Australia PV industry could be in the balance.”

Retrospective tariff changes

The NSW Coalition government tried it on last year, before being forced to back down. However, one unremarked-upon part of the new Queensland package, which includes the slashing of the net feed-in tariff from 44c to 8c, and then to nil from 2014, is the change in rules to rental properties and properties that are sold. Anyone changing the name of an account – either through the sale of a property, or because of a different tenant – will lose their right to the 44c/kW tariff and will be switched over the 8c/kWh tariff. (It probably should be noted that the retailers and network operators in Queensland are government owned).

Absolute caps

Generators in Germany and Italy, the world’s two largest solar PV markets in 2011, were pushing for the deployment of solar PV to be capped to protect their earnings. In Germany, a cap of 3 to 3.5GW was contemplated. But the solar PV industry is now a powerful voice in Germany and, with the support of state governments, the federal government backed down. It has now announced that once solar PV deployment reaches 52GW (double its level of the end of 2011), then subsidies will end. Some experts think that will occur by 2015. German policy makers are now seeking to design a new system. Italy was put under pressure by its dominant utility, Enel, which complained of major losses in generation profits from the merit order effect. Italy cut its subsidies, but actually increased its target for renewables.

Network limitations

These are similar to an absolute cap. They are decisions by distributors to ban the installation of new rooftop solar PV, as has happened in WA, or to limit their size, as has happened in Queensland. The recent report by the CSIRO, however, suggests that distributors are not trying very hard, and/or are using solar as a scape-goat to hide other issues. The CSIRO report concluded that at current levels of around 10 per cent penetration there would be no problems for network operators. Indeed, even at 40 per cent, there should be little difficulty, although some weak, rural grids would need to address some issues, but these were considered manageable.

Changing renewable energy targets

The Renewable Energy Target is considered untouchable because it has bipartisan support, but both Labor (in Victoria) and the Coalition (Howard Government) have form in back-tracking on announced renewable targets. The same forces that won changes then are busy behind the scenes now, and are planning to put immense pressure on the Climate Change Authority when it conducts its review this year.

A change to the large-scale renewable target would limit the growth opportunities for both wind farms and utility-scale solar. A change to the small-scale technology target is also mooted. Although the multiplier is due to wind back to one in July, 2013 – would the government contemplate scrapping renewable energy certificates for small-scale deployment?

Planning restrictions: bury solar in red tape.

This has worked effectively to suppress the wind industry in Australia, mostly through the introduction of planning regulations that vastly restrict the opportunities for large wind farms. With distributed solar PV, that would be harder to control, but authorities could always try to bury the product in red tape. Barry Cinnamon, the CEO of Westinghouse Solar, now owned by Australia’s CBD Energy, wrote in Forbes last week. that the cost of rooftop solar in the US was twice that of Germany because of the amount of paperwork and red tape that installers had to go through. And produced this graph to illustrate his point.



“Even though solar panel costs are about the same, in almost every other category German costs are lower,” Cinnamon wrote. “In Germany, the residential solar industry has no red tape, there is a highly‐tuned supply chain to get equipment to customer job sites, installers get projects completed in a day, permitting is virtually automatic, costs to acquire a customer are very low and overhead is negligible.

“In Germany, you don’t need permission to connect to the utility, you don’t need a building permit, you don’t need any inspections and you don’t need financing (it’s automatic with a German bank). When rooftop solar was in its infancy, some of these regulations made sense. Now that rooftop solar is standardised, simpler, and safer – and the panels are much cheaper – this paperwork is unnecessary. This red tape is holding back the industry from creating even more jobs, driving innovation and building true energy security for our nation.”

  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Jul 3 2012, 12:04 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

Survey Finds 94% Of Australians Want Big Solar

http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?...article_id=3280


Renewable Energy News
MONDAY 02 JULY, 2012 | Survey Finds 94% Of Australians Want Big Solar



by Energy Matters


As plentiful as Australia's solar resources may be and as much as Australians may want a clean energy future with solar power as the centerpiece, we're still not anywhere close to tapping into even a small percentage of our sun-kissed potential.

After pulling funding from Solar Dawn, Queensland Premier Campbell Newman may want to take note of a recent poll showing 94% of respondents said they wanted to see big solar projects built in Australia.

The Big Solar Poll, conducted by dozens of community groups across Australia, found a further 95% wanted to see governments investing in big solar projects.

Coordinated by 100% Renewable, the survey also revealed people generally understood that solar was a "circuit breaker" for rising power bills and accepted that financial support of new clean energy based power generation stations is well worth the investment.

Many respondents considered the biggest barrier to getting runs on the board in terms of large solar farm projects to be politicians. A common theme was the hope of seeing "more leadership and less bickering" among leaders and lawmakers.

In the survey report, 100% Renewable points out the cost of renewable energy has been plummeting, driving a global investment to $260 billion in 2011, bypassing fossil fuel-based energy for the first time.

The group also says renewables reduce the wholesale cost of electricity and those savings should be passed on to consumers to provide relief for Australian families from continued power price hikes.

Addressing Australia's ongoing and escalating love affair with gas 100% Renewable says: "Rather than being the clean energy alternative it is assumed to be, gas is neither cheap nor clean and represents a false choice for Australia."

100% Renewable is a community initiated campaign working with more than 100 community groups across our nation, with a vision for an Australia powered entirely by clean renewable energy.

I think what they want is what they will get in spades, I reckon the solar tower system will be at least five to six time more efficient than the dish system they are building at Mildura and possibly more? and this is part of the reason why IMHO -:

http://compoundsemiconductor.net/csc/featu...itical-edg.html

"The dream of CPV is for the PV market to see some real segmentation," says Yuen. He hopes that in locations with intense solar radiation, the financial case for installing CPV will be so strong that it will soon start to dominate this segment of the market.

Employing Solar Junction's devices in CPV systems operating in these environments can cut generating costs associated with the technology, because these cells are capable of operating efficiently at very high concentrations, such as 1000 suns. Magnification always leads to 'hot spots' – in this case local concentrations of 1500 or 2000 suns that produce very high current densities. "If your tunnel junction isn't very good, you kill cell performance," says Sabnis. He claims that tunnel junction performance typically falls off above 1000 suns. "Using our approach you can have tunnel junctions that approach 8000 [suns] without any failure, so system manufacturers don't have to worry about hot spots with our cells."

they also said this "One incredibly impressive characteristic of the Solar Junction cell is its high level of performance at very high concentrations. Peak performance occurs at 400-600 suns, and efficiency in excess of 43 percent is recorded at 1000 suns. Increase concentration further to 2000 suns – an operating condition that is often unavailable in tests performed by independent labs to verify performance – and the cell's efficiency is believed to still be above 42 percent."

so the efficiency drop off isn't that great when they go from 1000 to 2000 suns, only a 1 percentage point loss?

Did you see that ? these cells can handle up to 8000 suns, lets just say for a safety margin five to six thousand suns, perhaps more? but all they have to do if the cell is getting too close to it's heat limits perhaps? is aim the mirrored dishes slightly away from the sun.

CPV is the future, flat panel will not compete.

The Government are complete fools if they think solar isn't coming, all they are doing is driving people away from conventional coal/gas fired power in the end , CPC solar is about to become big time in large scale and soon rooftop, all that is missing is the storage and that is coming soon as well, it the power providers don't wake up then they will lose everything, they need to start talking to the solar people if they don't want to end up owning white elephants.

  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Jul 3 2012, 11:57 AM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/solar-insi...-at-solar-75665

Solar Insights: Why government has failed at solar

Giles Parkinson on 3 July 2012

The newly appointed CEO of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, the venture capital fund manager Ivor Frischknecht, will have plenty on his desk when he turns up for his first day at work in Melbourne next month. And the largest of a multitude of proposals will be the $1.2 billion Solar Dawn project in Queensland, closely followed by a handful of other rejected and unsuccessful Solar Flagships ideas.

The Solar Dawn consortium was putting on a brave face on Monday after it failed to get a power purchase agreement and the state government used the opportunity to pull its $75 million share of the funding. Effectively, though, as a flagships project it is already dead. The federal government has passed the dossier to ARENA, and the PR campaign being launched by Solar Dawn is about trying to ensure it sits at the head of the queue when Frischknecht and his colleagues assess how they will disburse the $3.2 billion at their disposal.

The Queensland decision allowed Federal Resources and Energy Minister Martin Ferguson to take the moral high ground and chastise the Newman government for "letting slip" the opportunity to be a world leader in the development of solar thermal. But Ferguson should read his own words carefully, because no party is more responsible for letting slip opportunities on leadership in the solar field than the federal government itself. It will go to the 2013 election with not a single panel or heliostat installed from its $1.5 billion Solar Flagships program, despite more than 50 projects worth some $80 billion jostling for a bite of the action when it was first announced in 2009.

That's a shocking indictment on the government. Just one project, AGL's 150MW solar PV facility at Broken Hill and Nyngan, will be built with flagships funding, but it will have to take its place in the queue of AGL projects and that company's need for renewable energy certificates (pretty much defeating the point of the whole flagships exercise) and will not begin construction for another two years. The tragedy is that the government's inability to create an effective scheme has tarnished the image of large scale solar projects – when it has been clear to all that either smaller scale projects, or differing mechanisms such as reverse auctions, could have produced a much different result. Hopefully, ARENA has absorbed those lessons.

Hark, a solar PPA is signed

Given that the Solar Dawn project – and the Moree Solar project before it – failed to get power purchase agreements from any utilities or energy retailers, we thought it would be useful to show that PPAs for solar do actually exist. Well, there is at least one that we know of, apart from the internal one written by two AGL subsidiaries for the flagships PV project. We can't show the actual document, because that was commercial in confidence, but the photo below shows the signing of the PPA signed by Silex Systems CEO Dr Michael Goldsworthy and Diamond Energy chief Tony Sennitt last Thursday.



The details of the PPA to take power from Silex' 600kW concentrated solar PV testing facility were not revealed, but we do understand that it was somewhere between Silex' estimates of its current levellised cost of energy (15c-20c/kWh), and where it thinks it will be in a few years' time (around 10c/kWh). Which is information enough to tell us that Diamond has at least recognised the daytime value of the solar power and paid beyond the normal wholesale market average.

Sennitt told RenewEconomy after the signing that such a deal would not have been worth the trouble for a large retailer, but Diamond now has a growing portfolio of green-only PPAs that it uses to service its customer base of several thousand businesses. "It's meaningful for our business, but for (larger utilities) it would be just a hassle," he said. Still, progress all the same.

Will the government get the message on solar PV?

The Federal Government is still trying to get its mind around the impact and potential of solar PV, and failing miserably. In a revealing interview with the AFR on the weekend, Climate Change Minister Greg Combet said "What is important in the transformation of the energy sector is large-scale renewable energy," and then suggested that the small scale renewable scheme could be wound up, an issue he took up later when describing the abatement costs of solar PV subsidies as more than $400/tonne.

There's a couple of problems here. First of all, it ignores the forecasts of the Australian Energy Market Operator, which predicts that that rooftop solar in Australia could be producing 28,000 gigawatt hours of electricity by 2031, not far short of the 41,000 gigawatt hours to be produced by large scale renewables by that date. Private forecasts, suggest that level within a decade. And the significance is that most households would care little about where the grid-connected electricity comes from by that time, because it is the rooftop solar that will be delivering their own cost savings, even without subsidies at that time. In turn, that is delivering abatement at a "negative cost" – unlocking some $30 billion in emissions-reducing technology, and delivering energy savings to households.

It is strange that the politicians on either side have failed to seize the importance of this. The public certainly have, which is why inquiries to solar installers are at record levels. And what was the top ranking story on News Ltd's Adelaide Now website on the day that the carbon tax was introduced? A story about how solar could reduce energy costs by half. An heroic prediction maybe, but it's captured the interest of the public, if not the political class. It's seems an obvious message to sell for the Clean Energy Future.

Why Japan is the land of the rising sun

The world's third biggest economy is tipped to emerge as the world's third biggest solar PV market, courtesy of the generous feed in tariffs (40 yen/kWh) announced by the government last month. Solar PV is one of the three pillars of Japan's new energy policy, along with gas and energy efficiency. It aims to have 28GW of solar PV installed by 2020 (from 1.3GW at the end of 2011), which means its market size will rise at least five fold to a run-rate of at least 4GW a year in the next 18 months.

Deutsche Bank made some interesting observations about why solar will appeal in Japan. Firstly, there is the strong anti-nuclear sentiment among consumers. Secondly, there is the attractive returns for non-residential solar systems. Japan's balance of system costs are currently rated at around $3.50/watt, but this is tipped to fall sharply to as low as $1.90/W within 18 months.

That will be delivering internal rates of returns for solar PV investors of at least 15 per cent, Deutsche Bank estimates. This could occur even with a 20 per cent reduction in the FiTs. This compares to bond yields in the low single digits. The main impediments to the maket? Finding enough land and electrical engineers to meet demand. Still, Softbank this week announced it will build Japan's largest solar PV plant to date, a 111MW facility in Hokkaido. It will be built a full year before Australia's first plant of similar scale is completed.
  Forum: By Share Code

moosey
Posted on: Jul 2 2012, 02:47 PM


Group: Member
Posts: 4,116

AEMO slashes energy demand forecasts by nearly 10 per cent

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/aemo-slash...-per-cent-56289





By Giles Parkinson on 29 June 2012 The energy market game-changer, falling demand: Developers and network operators can tear up their business plans. And so can some renewable hopefuls too – the era of solar PV and price-conscious consumers is here.

For decades the greatest virtue of the electricity market was its predictability. All planners had to do was plug in the forecasts for GDP growth, and demand could be expected to respond accordingly. Building new generation and poles and wires in such a regulated environment was comparatively simple, if a little dull.

How that has changed. Now, thanks to new technologies, the factoring of environmental factors, and a dramatic consumer response to rising prices, the electricity market is being turned on its head – or at least it's head has been turned. A whole range of new factors, mostly the installation of air conditioners and rooftop PV beyond the front door of the home – normally beyond the view and interest of the market operators – has made this a wildly unpredictable market. The electricity industry suddenly got interesting, and difficult to manage.

The best reflection of this is in the ability of industry bodies such as the Australian Energy Market Operator to predict future demand. Since the 1960s, this has been relatively easy, but in the last couple of years, its prediction, and those of the industry's – have been trashed by the "significant" changes it says are occurring in the market. Today, it released a report that conceded demand for 2011/12 was 5.7 per cent below forecast of just a year ago. Its updated predictions for 2012/13 are now 8.8 per cent below the forecast made 12 months ago.

In some states, such as South Australia, where there has been a greater penetration of rooftop solar PV than any other state, and a much higher pentration of wind, its demand forecasts have been cut by 12.2 per cent. In Queensland, another strong solar PV state, the variation is 10 per cent

This is an extraordinary development for an industry that has been raised on regulated returns and predictable outcomes. AEMO hasn't completed its statement of opportunities – the complexity of the new market means that for the first time these two exercises have been separated – but AEMO boss Matt Zema says any plans for new generation will need to be deferred. And some generators and network operators may be wondering if recent investments will prove to be wise.

How did this happen? Zema says through changes in technology, manufacturing, and the "social fabric". This is the third consecutive year of a demand downturn – the first two were blamed on the GFC and floods. "But when we copped a third year, we realized that this is more than just a once off, this is about significant change in our energy demand," Zema told RenewEconomy in an interview.

"This is the first time we can find that even with strong GDP growth there has not been an increase in energy consumption. We are seeing quite a shift." And, he says, a lot of that is happening at consumer level. "People are saying yes I can have a good standard of living but do I need four plasma TVs all on standby? People are conscious about how much they are paying for energy."

According to AEMO, the principal contributing factors in percentage terms to the 5.7 per cent variation in forecasts were a decline in large industrial loads (3 per cent), mild weather (one per cent), consumer response to price rises and energy efficiency measures (one per cent), and the impact of solar PV (0.7 per cent).

This latter – solar PV –will remain, with changes in consumption patterns, the biggest and the most constant swing factor. In 2011/12, AEMO estimates that solar PV contributed 1,702 gigwatt hours, or 0.9 per cent of estimated annual energy production. This is expected to jump nearly 50 per cent to 2,473GWh in 2012/13, or 1.3 per cent of annual energy, and to 7,558GWh, or 3.4 per cent of total energy, under its medium growth scenario, by 2021/12. It could well be much more.

"The forecast increases in rooftop solar photovoltaic system allocations are expected to offset a large amount of electricity that would have otherwise been provided by the NEM," AEMO says.

And this is the key for generators – both incumbent and aspiring coal and gas generators, and for renewable energy players.

This graph below shows how AEO's forecasts for 2021/22 have changed in a matter of 12 months. The difference between the high growth forecast of last year and the low growth forecast from this year is 30 per cent. The median changes are well over 10 per cent. The market is not even expected to return to 2009 levels until 2017.



This has considerable implications for incumbent generators. Lower demand has already had a biting impact on wholesale electricity prices, and profit margins, for the largest generators. When Origin Energy 's Grant King told RenewEconomy in February there was no need for new baseload before the end of the decade, that was based around Origin Energy's forecasts of around 250 terrawatt hours.

AEMO's latest "highest" forecast is for less than 240TWh in 2020, its median forecast is for less than 220TWh and it says it could be as low as 200TWh – a full 20 per cent below Origin's estimate of just four months ago.

That in turn, will increase the stakes of the review into the Renewable Energy Target being undertaken by the newly created Climate Change Authority later this year. In May, King argued that the RET should reflect actual demand rather than a fixed amount of renewable energy production (a total of 41,000TWh to add to the pre-existing mostly hydro capacity of 15,000TWh).

Even though Origin Energy had previously argued for a fixed target, for the sake of certainty, it now argues that this would represent nearly 25 per cent if including solar PV. That number jumps to nearly 30 per cent under AEMO's revised forecasts. You can be sure that Origin Energy and others will be arguing their case.

But if it was morphed to an actual percentage, then the new build renew