Nuclear energy in the 21st Century

• Professor Roger Cashmore FRS, UK Atomic Energy Authority

Biography

Roger Cashmore was appointed Chairman of the UK Atomic Energy Authority on 30 July 2010. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society and the former Principal of Brasenose College in Oxford, as well as being Professor of Experimental Physics in Oxford. Before returning to Oxford, he was Director of Research and Deputy Director General of CERN, the European high energy physics laboratory in Geneva, Switzerland, where he was responsible for the experimental programme at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). Before leaving for CERN he was Chairman of Physics in Oxford and during his teaching and research career he has more than 200 publications in learned journals. He has been a Visiting Professor in Tsukuba in Japan, Brussels, Padua, Fermilab in the United States and holds an Honorary Doctorate from the Joint Institute of Nuclear Research in Dubna, Russia. He was awarded the C V Boys Prize of the Institute of Physics and a Research Award by the Alexander von Humbold Foundation in Germany. In 2004 he was made a Companion of the Order of St Michael and St George (CMG) for services to international particle physics.

• Professor Robin Grimes

Biography

Robin Grimes joined the Materials Department at Imperial College in 1995 and was appointed the Professor of Materials Physics in 2002. Currently he is Director of the Imperial College Centre for Nuclear Engineering and the Rolls Royce University Technology Centre in Nuclear Engineering. His primary research interest is the application and development of computer simulation techniques to predict structural and dynamic properties of nuclear fuel, reactor and waste materials but also solid oxide fuel cell materials and defects in semiconductors. He is the Principle Investigator of the UK Research Councils Nuclear Champion initiative and was recently the specialist advisor to the House of Lords review of Nuclear Research Requirements for the UK. He was a member of the Royal Society Working Group on Nuclear non-proliferation and is on the editorial board of the Journal of Nuclear Materials.

• Dame Sue Ion FREng

Biography

Biography not yet available

• Sir John Beddington FRS, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS)

Biography

Sir John Beddington was appointed as Government Chief Scientific Adviser (GCSA) on 1 January 2008. Since being in post, the GCSA has led on providing scientific advice to Government during the 2009 swine flu outbreak, the 2010 volcanic ash incident, and the emergency at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in 2011. The GCSA has also been responsible for increasing the scientific capacity across Whitehall by encouraging all major departments of state to recruit a Chief Scientific Adviser.

Sir John Beddington heads a team of Chief Scientific Advisers in all departments across government and chairs the National Security Council Committee on Science and Technology.

In the government response to the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, it has been indicated that he will chair an Advisory Board which will examine the research and development needs for nuclear work.

• Dr Ian Emsley, World Nuclear Association

Abstract

The presentation presents the WNA’s view of current uranium supply and demand and three scenarios for future demand to 2030. Demand scenarios start with reactor numbers and then look at reactor management practices as determinants of uranium demand. WNA assumptions regarding the nature of the nuclear fuel cycle and the supply of secondary fissile material are presented. Primary supply forecasts start with resource estimates and consider the prospects for new mine supply.

Biography

Ian Emsley is a Senior Project Manager at the World Nuclear Association. His principal responsibility is for nuclear fuel market analysis and is a contributor to the WNA’s Global Nuclear Fuel Market Report. Before starting work in April 2011 for the WNA, Ian was an independent consultant working in the field of commodity market research and environmental policy analysis.

Prior to this, Ian spent 25 years with mining company Anglo American plc engaged in a number of roles including strategy management, environmental policy advice and economic / commodity market analysis. Ian has degrees in economics and sociology from the Universities of Bristol and London.

• Professor Nick Pidgeon, Cardiff University

Abstract

Public attitudes to nuclear power will be one of the critical factors for UK energy policy in the coming decades. The talk reviews the history of academic research on perceptions of nuclear power, highlighting the important role played by trust. It moves on to consider how views of nuclear in Britain have evolved over the past 10 years, drawing upon empirical evidence from national surveys and an in-depth study of communities around existing nuclear facilities. Many people in Britain still hold only a ‘reluctant acceptance’ of nuclear power when placed in relation to their beliefs about both climate change and energy security. At local sites views were more complex, and dependent upon a number of factors (geography, trust, benefits, safety). While most local people expressed a familiarity and acceptance of their station anxieties always exist below the surface of their talk. The talk concludes with consideration of the impacts of the Fukushima accident on British public attitudes.

Biography

Nick Pidgeon is Professor of Environmental Psychology at Cardiff University, where he directs the Understanding Risk Research Group. He is currently supported by an Economic and Social Research Council Climate Leader Fellowship. His research looks at public perception and acceptability, risk communication, and the governance of environmental and technological risks including nuclear power, climate change, biotechnology, and the emerging issues of nanotechnology and climate geoengineering. He is particularly interested in how trust in risk regulation can be built, and in mechanisms for public involvement in decisions about controversial risk issues He was a member of the Royal Society / Royal Academy of Engineering nanotechnology study group and is currently a member of the Chief Scientist’s independent Science Advisory Group at the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change. Co-editor with Roger Kasperson and Paul Slovic of The Social Amplification of Risk, Cambridge University Press, 2003 and with the late Barry Turner of the 2nd edition of Man Made Disasters, 1997, Butterworth Heinemann.

• Professor Gerry Thomas, Hammersmith Hospital

Abstract

The 1st anniversary of the earthquake, tsunami and resultant release of radiation from the damaged nuclear power plant at Fukushima is approaching, as is the 26th anniversary of the accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power plant. These two accidents have dented public confidence in the safety of nuclear power and have prompted a revival in the public debate over human exposure to radiation in general. Is the public right to be so concerned over the health effects of radiation exposure – what scientific evidence do we have that helps us to understand the risk?

It is generally accepted that there is a linear, no threshold dose response curve to radiation. There is no doubt that this is so at higher levels of radiation exposure and that appropriate precautions must be taken to safeguard health. However, at much lower doses (less than 1 mSv) epidemiological studies lose their power to detect increases in cancer above the background level that we all accept is associated with a variety of environment and genetic factors.

The long term studies post Hiroshima and Nagasaki (1950-1997) state that of the 9335 cancer deaths in the 86,572 population, only 440 (5%) of the solid cancers and 103 of 310 leukaemias were attributed to radiation exposure . A very small proportion (0.8%) of non-cancer related deaths were also associated with radiation. The decrease in life expectancy is 2.6 years and 21 days for those who received the highest and lowest doses respectively. Since the majority of the population received low doses, the average loss of life expectancy is 4 months. The only radiobiological effect on health of the general population exposed to radiation from Chernobyl has been a large increase in thyroid cancer in those who were youngest at exposure. There have been approximately 6000 thyroid cancers in this population, 15 of which have proved fatal. We predict a 1% death rate overall from thyroid cancer over 30-50 years, although 30% of the patients may require further treatment. 25 years after the accident we can see no definite proof of any other health effect. The worst effect has been a psychological one that results from radiophobia rather than radiation itself. Even in the most heavily contaminated areas around Chernobyl, the whole body doses for those resident in the 50km exclusion zone over a 19 year period equate to 50mSv, and for those living further away, 10 mSv. Compare this with the average dose of 7-9mSv for a single CT scan or 1mSv per year (70-80 mSv over a lifetime) in terms of exposure to natural background radiation, and this provides some context for understanding the health risks posed by these accidents.

It is important that we present radiation risk to the public in the context that they can understand and help them to interpret the complicated scientific information that surrounds radiation effects. All types of power generation require a risk-benefit analysis, but assessment of risk must be evidence-based rather than opinion.

Biography

Gerry Thomas is a molecular pathologist with an interest in the molecular biology of thyroid and breast cancer. Following a first degree in Pharmacology from Bath University, she studied Pathology at the University of Wales in Cardiff. She then spent 10 years at the University of Cambridge, followed by 5 at Swansea University and is now Professor of Molecular Pathology at Imperial College London. She is committed to a bedside to bench approach to cancer research and has developed a number of biobanks to facilitate access to human tissue for research. She is the Project Director for the Chernobyl Tissue Bank, Scientific Director for the Wales Cancer Bank and Director of the Imperial College Healthcare Tissue Bank. She serves as advisor on a number of European initiatives in Biobanking for Stratified Medicine. She has studied the health effects of the Chernobyl accident since 1992, and works with the Japanese authorities as a member of the Expert Panel on the Health Effects of the Fukushima accident.

• Jussi Heinonen, Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK), Finland

Abstract

Operation of a nuclear power plants or other fuel cycle facilities generates radioactive materials which are of no direct use for the operator of the plant. The options for the management of these materials depend on their type and activity inventory. Firstly, the materials may be recycled or reused, or they are of no further use and must be regarded as waste. Waste management option can be developed for example based on waste activity. Currently several countries has final management option for low and intermediate level waste. However the endpoint solution for high level waste, spent nuclear fuel or reprocessing waste, has not yet been implemented.

There has been different kind of ideas for final management of spent nuclear fuel like transmutation or disposal to sea sediments. Nowadays geological disposal is internationally accepted strategy and for example Finland has been developing geological disposal of spent fuel almost 40 years. The main milestone so far was the Decision in Principle where disposal site and concept were selected. The program is now proceeding to construction license step and plan is to start disposal operation near year 2020.

Geological disposal is developed worldwide, is seen technically feasible and a few countries are coming towards implementation. However in many cases political and societal acceptance has been a challenge for moving forward in disposal. In scientific and technical point of view a key aspect is to develop understanding of the characteristics and evolution of different disposal system components.

Biography

Jussi Heinonen leads STUK’s Nuclear Waste Section, which is responsible for the regulatory oversight of nuclear waste management and disposal in Finland. Mr. Heinonen has a background (MSc, HUT) in material sciences. Mr. Heinonen has 10 years of experience in nuclear waste management. He has been involved with regulatory oversight of spent nuclear fuel disposal focusing on disposal canister chemical and mechanical performance, engineered barrier development and design and construction of underground disposal facility. Lately he has been involved in oversight of spent nuclear fuel interim storage design, spent nuclear fuel encapsulation plant design and licensing process of Olkiluoto disposal facility.

• Dr Richard Stainsby, AMEC

Abstract

The Generation IV initiative was developed by the US department of Energy in the early 2000’s to establish an international collaboration for the development of the next generation (the 4th generation) of nuclear power plants. A number of countries signed the Generation IV International Forum (GIF) charter and sub-sets of these agreed to develop six promising candidate systems to become viable commercial power plants for deployment around the middle of this century. Of these six systems, three were proposed to be fast reactors, reactors that rely on fission by fast, or high energy, neutrons to sustain the fission chain reaction. Subsequently two fast neutron versions of two the other systems have been proposed. Fast reactor improve the utilisation of natural uranium by almost two orders of magnitude compared with existing thermal reactors and offer the promise of reliable large-capacity electricity generation that will be sustainable for millennia. This talk presents the status of the technology of fast neutron reactors currently under consideration within Generation IV.

Biography

Has worked in the nuclear industry in the UK for 26 years after completing a PhD in CFD and heat transfer in 1985. Richard worked for UKAEA on advanced fuels for the Prototype Fast Reactor and thermal hydraulics from 1985 to 1994. His association with fast reactors continued through PFR decommissioning, providing consultancy to international bodies, and Accelerator Driven Systems (ADS). Since joining AMEC (NNC) in 2004, Richard has worked on the three of the six Generation IV systems; sodium and gas cooled fast reactors and very high temperature reactors. In 2008 he became Coordinator of the Euratom Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor (GFR) Specifically Targeted Research Project. He is the Coordinator of the EC's GoFastR project, aimed at further developing GFR. He has worked as a consultant to Regulators in South Africa and the US on the licensing of high temperature gas reactors. Currently, he represents Euratom within committees of the Generation IV International Forum as Chair of the GFR System Steering Committee as a member of Project Management Boards for GFR and the sodium-cooled fast reactor.

• Professor David MacKay FRS, Department of Energy and Climate Change

Biography

David MacKay was appointed as Chief Scientific Advisor to the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) on 1st October 2009. The Chief Scientific Advisor’s role is to ensure that the Department’s policies and operations, and its contributions to wider Government issues, are underpinned by the best science and engineering advice available.

David MacKay studied Natural Sciences at Trinity College, then went to Caltech to complete a PhD in Computation and Neural Systems. In 1992 he returned to Cambridge as a Royal Society research fellow at Darwin College. In 1995 he became a university lecturer in the Department of Physics, where he was promoted in 1999 to a Readership and in 2003 to a Professorship in Natural Philosophy. He was elected a fellow of the Royal Society in 2009.

• Duncan Forbes, Rolls Royce

Biography

Duncan’s role, which began in January 2010, involves building on two existing businesses in Submarines and Instrumentation and Control to develop Rolls-Royce in the growing Civil Nuclear market. Prior to this, Duncan spent seven years in the Submarines reactor business.

Duncan joined Rolls-Royce in 1975 as a technician apprentice, spending 27 years in a variety of engineering roles within Civil Aerospace and across disciplines such as mechanical design, stressing, control systems, thermodynamics and dynamic modelling. He has worked on projects with companies in Russia, China, America and worked in Germany, where he spent four years as Director of Engineering of a BMW-Rolls-Royce joint venture.

Moving into Marine as EVP of E&T, Duncan was part of the leadership team that led the sector through a period of rapid growth, developing innovative technologies in ship design, propulsion systems, reciprocating and GT prime movers, nuclear reactors and handling equipment.

During this time he became the Technical Working Group Chairman of the European Marine Equipment Council and Vice Chairman of the Waterbourne Technology Platform.

• Christophe Behar, CEA, France

Abstract

1 - France has been operating for decades recycling options for used fuel management. Recycling plutonium in MOX fuels provides about 10% of the French electricity; plutonium-free ultimate waste are safely immobilized in long-lasting glass, which should be – according to the roadmap fixed by the French Act about radwaste management- disposed in clay repository from 2025. PUREX process is operated in the La Hague reprocessing plant, and up to 25 000 tons of LWR spent fuel have been processed up to now, while about 1800 tons of MOX fuels have been manufactured. And about 12000 glass canisters are today stored in La Hague pits for decay.

2 - This scheme appears to be improved, and also to be completed: large and increasing amounts of depleted uranium (more than 200 000 tons) and, to a less but very significant extent, spent MOX fuels (about 2000 tons), are waiting for further valorization. Attractive features of fast neutron reactors physics present them as the best tool for that, opening the way for a recurrent systematic recycle of both uranium and plutonium, and then providing a drastic extension of uranium natural resource.
And fast neutron systems seem able, in addition, to significantly decrease long-term potential radio-toxicity of the residual waste by drastically decreasing the minor actinide content of final waste.

3 - The French government decided to launch R&D in order to prepare decisions in this perspective: two options are being considered:
- sodium-cooled fast reactors, as the reference option; CEA started the basic design studies for the ASTRID prototype (a sodium-cooled 600 MWe fast neutron reactor), with innovative options, notably in the field of safety. This is performed within a broad cooperation frame.
- gas-cooled fast reactors , as an alternative option(ALLEGRO, a possible prototype in Europe).
Coupled with advanced fuel cycle options, such prototype would provide the opportunity to go ahead towards fully sustainable nuclear systems, even more efficient, safer, and more resistant vs. proliferation risks.

4 - As a complement to the development of fast neutron reactor technologies, CEA launched a comprehensive program in the field of fuel cycle technologies:
- to adapt the current technologies to some fast reactor fuels specificities;
- to improve them: simplify, increase compactness, decrease waste and release…
- and to complete them: a comprehensive program has been performed for minor actinide recovery, and innovative molecules, innovative processes have been successively experimented, at kg-scale, on genuine spent fuel, in the ATALANTE facility.
A comprehensive scientific report is to be issued by the end of this year, to present the results of the work performed and to assess the “industrial perspectives” of different options -as called by the French Act about radioactive materials and waste management.

Biography

Christophe Béhar, born 1957 in Paris, France, graduate of the Ecole Centrale de Paris (1982). Christophe Béhar began his career with the French Atomic Energy Commission(CEA) in 1984 as part of the team in Saclay working on the isotopic separation of uranium. After holding several positions of responsibility within the Department of Enrichment Processes, in 1997 he was appointed Head of the Technology Department of Nuclear Fuel Enrichment at Pierrelatte.

In 2000 he was appointed as Director of Materials and Environmental Monitoring at the Military application Division of CEA (DAM). This Division is mainly responsible for procuring materials to manufacture nuclear weapons and for naval propulsion, for coordinating expertise from French nuclear companies regarding non-proliferation, and for decommissioning the former production plants for military nuclear material(Pierrelatte and Marcoule). In January 2004 he was appointed Director of the Research Centre CEA/DAM-Ile de France, in charge of french nuclear weapons design and fight against nuclear proliferation. Since April 2009, Mr. Béhar is the Director of the Nuclear Energy Division at the French Atomic Energy Commission (CEA), in charge of the whole nuclear energy sector (both Research & Development and dismantling).
Mr. Béhar is member of the supervisory board of AREVA, member of the executive
board of the companies AREVA TA, STMI and the high performance computing
company GENCI.

In parallel to his professional activities at the CEA, Mr. Béhar is a lecturer at the Ecole Centrale de Paris and at the Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Techniques Avancées. Mr. Béhar is Chevalier of the Legion of Honour and of the National Order of Merit.

• Dr Srikumar Banerjee, Atomic Energy Commission, India

Abstract

Power production through use of nuclear fuel has been continuously making developments in terms of improved fuel utilization. The advanced fuel cycles which may see adoption in the coming years will not only achieve better resource utilization but also reduce nuclear waste both in its quantity and life.

With the objective of power production alone open fuel cycle has been adopted in many of the prevalent reactor designs in light water as well as heavy water reactors. Light water reactors have achieved burn-up in the order of 50000 to 60000 MWdays per tonne of enriched uranium while natural uranium based PHWR are operating at 7000 MWdays per tonne of natural uranium. Seemingly burn-up in heavy water reactors is low. However, when compared in terms of energy derived from per tonne of mined uranium, heavy water reactors deliver about 20% to 30% more energy per tonne of mined uranium. This is because of better neutron economy of PHWRs and also that during the process of enrichment certain amount of mined uranium gets tied up in the tailings.

The closed fuel cycles where the spent fuel is processed to obtain plutonium and reuse it in the same type of reactors extends the fuel utilization. Recycling plutonium however continues to build additional actinides like plutonium 240 and 242 which are neutron absorbers. Thus multiple recycling is not commercially attractive. At present only one cycle use of MOX has been adopted commercially in some PWRs.

The fast breeder reactors offer better physics characteristics for use of plutonium because the eta value of plutonium considerably increases in fast flux, making breeding possible. Fuel burn-up achieved in fast breeder reactors can also be considerably high going upto 100,000 MWdays per tonne or more. Recycling of plutonium can also be done in fast breeder reactors several times. Thus with regard to fuel utilization a combination of use of uranium in water based reactors followed by fast breeder reactors is obvious choice when availability of uranium decreases in future.

India is in unique position with regard to fuel as availability of uranium in the country is limited while it has significant resources of thorium. By employing Heavy water reactors followed by plutonium based fast breeder reactors manifold enhancement of the resource utilization is possible. Thorium utilization is considered in the next stage to maintain this capacity operational for few centuries. With the recent access to uranium from international market and the adoption of light water reactor systems, the variation to fuel cycle option under consideration is to use the fuel discharged from LWRs to provide slightly enriched uranium (around 1% enrichment) as input to PHWRs .
Thus reprocessing is becoming essential part of fuel cycle. The traditional wet reprocessing process may get advanced to use of DUPIC fuel in light water reactor and heavy water reactor combination. Dry reprocessing and pyro chemical reprocessing also offer advantages in future.

Indian programme will also use thorium in predominant manner. Thorium has advantage of better physical properties in terms of melting point and thermal conductivity. It has singular valency. These characteristics further help in better chemical stability, reduced gas release and good radiation resistance.

In terms of physics characteristics uranium 233 offers high as well as more uniform eta value for use in thermal flux as well as fast flux, giving option of using thorium in any type of reactor. Uranium 233 has very less capture cross section compared to fission cross section thus building less actinides waste. In general the radioactive spent fuel in thorium based fuel is 25% less than in uranium based fuel. The presence of uranium 232 which is gamma emitting acts as proliferation resistant material.

Further advances in fuel cycles include use of ADS for utilization of thorium as well as the molten salt breeder reactor concepts of using thorium which would help in achieving all the targets i.e. producing power, better utilization of fissile and fertile materials and incineration of waste.

Biography

Dr. Srikumar Banerjee joined Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), Mumbai in 1967 after obtaining B. Tech. in Metallurgical Engineering from Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Kharagpur. He also obtained Ph.D from IIT, Kharagpur while working in BARC. As Director, BARC during 2004-2010 he provided leadership in the development of Advanced Reactor Technology, Fuel Cycle technology and strategic programmes.

Presently, Dr. Banerjee is Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission and Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Atomic Energy. He is one of the leading experts in materials science and technology and made outstanding contributions to many materials related areas, basic as well as application oriented. His comprehensive work on physical metallurgy of zirconium alloys and radiation induced order-disorder transition in alloys are widely quoted in scientific literature. His work has also provided a basis for developing a novel fabrication schedule for the pressure tubes used in the Indian Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors (PHWRs).

Dr.Banerjee is a recipient of many national and international awards and honours. National awards include Indian National Science Academy (INSA) Young Scientist Medal (1976), National Metallurgists’ Day Award (1981), Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize in Engg.Sciences (1989), Materials Research Society of India (MRSI) Medal (1990), G.D.Birla Gold Medal of The Indian Institute of Metals (IIM) (1997), Indian National Science Academy (INSA) Prize for Materials Science (2001), MRSI-Superconductivity and Materials Science Prize (2003), Indian Nuclear Society (INS) Award (2003), Padma Shri (2005), MRSI Distinguished Materials Scientist of the Year Award (2008), Indian Science Congress Association’s Excellence in Science and Technology Award (2010) and MRSI - CNR Rao Prize in Advanced Materials (2011). Notable among the international awards are Acta Metallurgica Outstanding Paper Award (1984) and Alexander von Humboldt Research Award (2004).

Dr.Banerjee had professional interactions with several research groups in India and abroad and has held some visiting positions overseas, such as the University of Sussex, Brighton, UK (as senior visiting Fellow), Max-Planck Institut fuer Metalforschung – Institut fuer Physik, Stuttgart and Forschungszeutrum, Juelich, Germany (as Alexander von Humboldt Foundation Fellow and Awardee), University of Cincinnati and the Ohio State University, USA (as visiting faculty).

Dr.Banerjee is a Fellow of Indian Academy of Sciences, Indian National Science Academy, National Academy of Sciences India, Indian National Academy of Engineering and Third World Academy of Sciences.

• Dr Mike Weightman FREng, Office for Nuclear Regulation

Abstract

The past 10 years have seen great change in the UK nuclear industry and across the world. Similarly, over this period society has changed significantly in its ability to communicate, the economy, attitudes, its concerns, and social norms. What does all this mean for regulating the UK nuclear industry? Mike Weightman will explain how the UK nuclear regulator has responded and intends to develop further to ensure that it is always fit for the future in a continuously shifting environment. The cornerstone for developing this sustained regulatory effectiveness is never to be complacent and always seek to improve. This principle also applies to industry and others if they are to continue to deliver high standards of nuclear safety and security. One year on from the nuclear accident at Fukushima, Mike Weightman will also present the lessons to be learned by the industry and the regulators based on his reports to government in May and September of last year.

Biography

Mike is responsible for securing the nuclear safety and security of the civilian nuclear industry (nuclear power reactors, nuclear chemical sites, such as Sellafield and nuclear research sites), and the safety of the defence nuclear industry (refuelling of nuclear submarines and Atomic Weapons Establishments at Aldermaston, Burghfield etc). He acts on behalf of UK Government at a variety of forums.

From May 2002 Mike also chaired the Investigation Board that oversaw the investigation into the Potters Bar rail tragedy.

Before 1988 Mike worked in the nuclear industry for 13 years fulfilling a number of management roles involved in research, operations and engineering projects. He also acted as a consultant for a major engineering consultancy and for the American Institute of Chemical Engineers.

Since taking responsibility for ONR (Office for Nuclear Regulation) and as Chief Inspector in 2005, he has been working to establish the Inspectorate as a modern regulator fit for further challenges. As part of this he pushed forward in 2006 the concept of Generic Design Assessment for new nuclear reactors. More recently, Mike has driven forward a Transition/Transformation programme to enable ONR to be able to operate as a more stand-alone integrated nuclear regulator, to better face the challenges of the future.

In addition, as part of his International work, Mike had the honour to lead an IAEA Team in July 2010 to assist the further development of the Chinese Nuclear Regulator, he has also recently lead an IAEA fact find mission to the Fukushima plant in Japan.

He is a Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering and a Fellow of the Institute of Physics.

• Lord Oxburgh of Liverpool FRS, House of Lords

Biography

Ron Oxburgh FRS (Lord Oxburgh of Liverpool) trained originally as a geologist and has worked as an academic, a civil servant and in business. He has taught and researched at Oxford, Cambridge, Caltech and Stanford and served as President of Queens’ College Cambridge. Between 1987 and 1993 he was Chief Scientific Adviser to the Ministry of Defence and from 1993 to 2001 Rector of Imperial College. He was non-executive Chairman of Shell Transport and Trading until the Company merged with Royal Dutch Petroleum to form Royal Dutch Shell in 2005. He is currently President of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and Chairman of 2OC and GEO – small greentec startups. He is a former Chairman of the Trustees of the Natural History Museum and of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. He is Foreign member of the US, Australian and German Academies of Science.

• Alex Larzelere, US Department of Energy, USA

Abstract

Since the beginning of the nuclear age, computational simulation has played an important role in understanding physical phenomena that was inaccessible to direct observation and measurement. However these simulations were limited by the lack of available computing power and memory. Since the early 1990s there has been an explosion in both of these with the invention of parallel processor computers. That has allowed simulations to become 3D, highly resolved, multi-physics, multi-scale, that are able to use models based on first principle physics. These simulations can be done with adequate spatial and temporal resolution to capture the complicated non-linear behavior of integrated systems. Nuclear energy models and simulations tools are currently being developed to take advantage of these advanced capabilities. These computational tools, combined with theory and experiments, offer a new means to understand the design and operation existing and new nuclear reactors.

Biography

Alex is currently the Director for Advanced Modeling and Simulation in the Office of Nuclear Energy within the U.S. Department of Energy. As such, he is responsible for working with the U.S. national laboratories, universities and industry to build new, 3D, high fidelity, predictive modeling and simulation capabilities to understand the performance and safety of nuclear energy technologies.

Prior to re-joining the Department in 2008 Alex spent 10 years in private industry. He first worked at SAIC and later was the founder and president of Exagrid Engineering. Alex’s first experience at the Department of Energy was with the nuclear weapons program where he helped to initiate the Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative.

Alex is a graduate of the U.S. Coast Guard Academy and served 10 years as a commission officer in the Coast Guard. Alex is also the author of “Delivering Insight – The History of the Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI).”

• Professor Peter Storey, Manchester University

Abstract

Research is a fundamental enabler to delivering the UK’s nuclear energy ambitions. The life extension of the current reactor fleet and the building of its replacement and then possible augmentation will be dependent on having the underpinning science and technology and nuclear capability to ensure that plants can be operated safely and securely and deliver affordable electricity to the public. Securing this new fleet of reactors will require public acceptability of nuclear power and this is dependent upon assurance that lessons have been learnt and implemented from the Fukushima accident and that there will be a permanent solution for intermediate-level and high-level nuclear waste.

However new reactor build and waste management brings commercial opportunities for our manufacturing, consulting and decommissioning industries on the back of UK activities. Success in our home market can provide a stepping -stone for global business as many other countries will implement new reactor build programmes and the decommissioning of closed reactor plants spreads across Europe. Having a research and capability edge on competitors will be fundamental to our commercial success.

Nuclear energy development can be of additional benefit strategically as it can safeguard the many tons of plutonium that exist from our weapons programme or are arising from spent nuclear fuel. Plutonium can be employed commercially in Mixed Oxide (MoX) Fuel and used in PWRs and FAST reactors and the waste can be secured in a repository when constructed. Research into advanced reprocessing techniques and involvement in a FAST reactor programme will be fundamental constituents to achieving this additional benefit.

The UK is at a turning point where its credibility now depends upon on its ability to describe what science it wants and then to put the necessary resources in place to deliver it. Fundamental to this will be the production of a road map that provides a plan, identifies the issues and concerns that need addressing and maps out the series of steps that need to be taken. This roadmap for research should be viewed as an enabler for and drawing from the Government’s Energy and Nuclear Energy road map. The ownership of this research road map should lie with Government and its key components will identify what needs to be done in the short, medium and long term to deliver nuclear energy to the end of the century.

Biography

After a career of 35 years in the UK’s Safety Regulator the Health and Safety Executive, I joined the Dalton Nuclear Institute at The University of Manchester as Professor of Nuclear Policy and Regulation. In this post at Dalton I have drawn upon 18 years of experience working within the Nuclear Regulator, The Office of Nuclear Regulation where I had responsibilities covering nuclear safety research, communications, radiation protection and strategy.

At Manchester I have been taking a lead on training development, Euratom research and a range of nuclear policy related research issues covering skills, research, safety and security. Currently I am involved in three EC funded collaborative projects, TRASNUSAFE covering the development of Safety Culture training programmes, ERASMUS covering the development of a Nuclear Security Masters programme and SARGEN IV covering the development of research needs for next generation nuclear reactors. I teach on the Mechanical Engineering (with Nuclear) course and a Waste postgraduate course. I also lead on a range of national and international collaborations with BIS and UK companies on behalf of the Dalton Nuclear Institute.

• Dr Lars Hallstadius, Westinghouse Electric Sweden AB, Sweden

Abstract

Contemporary cladding for Generation III (Light Water Reactor, LWR) fuel is made from zirconium-based alloys. This family of materials has evolved over its ~50 years of existence, leading to dramatic improvements.
The most limiting performance measure has been, and still is, hydrogen pickup associated with corrosion in water. Therefore, these phenomena are subject to extensive fundamental studies, e.g., within the MUZIC and MUZIC-2 programs, in collaboration between industry, universities and other partners.

However, in the perspective of further increased 235U enrichment, or other modifications leading to a significantly higher fissile content of the fuel, other cladding materials that are even more resistant to irradiation damage, corrosion and hydrogen pickup may be required. A slower degradation in a severe accident scenario is also desirable.
The ongoing development of Generation IV technology includes such new cladding materials, e.g., SiC composites, which could be “back fitted” into Gen III fuel, providing enhanced performance, economy and safety.
Due to the inherently greater complexity of Gen IV technology, e.g., the reprocessing infrastructure, the cost of electricity will be higher than for a Gen III LWR operating on a once-through fuel cycle, comparing the true un-subsidized economic bottom line. Calculations indicate that this financial imbalance, in favor of Gen III LWRs, may remain for at least hundreds of years.
In such a perspective, we propose to focus on developing and implementing Gen IV cladding technology, in particular SiCf/SiCm composites, for Gen III fuel.

Biography

PhD in 1979, at Lund University, Sweden.
Subject: Atomic physics; experimental studies of isotopic shifts in the visible spectrum from Magnesium, to learn more about the interaction between electrons and the nucleus.

1980 - 1986: Associate professor in Radiation Physics, at Lund University, Sweden.
I was mainly interested in exploring the transportation pathways of radioactive isotopes/elements (both man-made and natural) in natural systems (e.g., ocean, air, food chains). Also, radioactive elements were used as tracers for processes in the nature and inside living organisms. Among other things, we used effluents from nuclear installations, together with mathematical models, to quantify the details of ocean currents over many thousand kilometers from the source.

1986 - today: Westinghouse, and its precursors ABB Atom and ASEA Atom
Various positions, e.g., director of Research & Development for nuclear fuel, and director of PWR fuel products.

Since 2002, leader of Westinghouse global Centre-of-Excellence for Materials. One of my achievements has been to build and evolve fruitful research collaboration between Westinghouse and UK universities, e.g., Manchester, Oxford and Imperial College.

• Professor Bill Lee, Imperial College London

Abstract

A legacy of the UKs early nuclear programme is a variety of reactors and wastes. Many years of reprocessing spent fuel and decommissioning have left us with significant volumes of vitrified High Level Waste and cemented Intermediate Level Waste. The planned closure of the reprocessing facilities at Sellafield means we will also have to store and dispose of spent fuel from Advanced Gas-cooled and Pressurised Water Reactors along with other wastes including contaminated Pu and large volumes of graphite. In addition, wastes from any new build programme will have to be disposed of including potentially spent Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel. The Government’s Managing Radioactive Waste Safely (MRWS) programme implemented by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) aims to permanently dispose of our higher activity wastes in a geological disposal facility (GDF) but includes provision for safe and secure temporary surface storage. Before planning permission will be granted to construct a GDF, safety cases must be made covering transportation of wasteforms to the GDF, its construction and operation and its safety post closure. A key aspect underpinning these safety cases is that we understand how the wasteforms will change during the many decades of storage and hundreds of millennia after the GDF have been filled and sealed. This presentation will outline some of the challenges that must be met in a research programme to acquire this understanding.

Biography

Bill Lee is Professor of Ceramic Engineering and Director of the Centre for Advanced Structural Ceramics (CASC) in the Department of Materials at Imperial College London. He is also Deputy Chair of the DECC advisory Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM). Previously, at Sheffield University, he was director of the BNFL University research alliance, the Immobilisation Science Laboratory and he is leader of Work Package 3 (Materials) in the EPSRC DIAMOND consortium. He is co-author of 4 books and over 350 peer-reviewed publications; Fellow of the American Ceramic Society and the Institute of Materials and an IAEA technical expert in vitrification and novel wasteforms. Current nuclear research interests include spent fuel durability, vitreous and glass composite wasteforms and ceramic fuels in Generation IV reactors.

• Pallab Ghosh, BBC

Biography

Biography not yet available

• Wang Jun, State Nuclear Power Technology Corporation Ltd, China

Biography

Master in Reactor Engineering and Safety of Tsinghua University. He has served successively as Deputy Director General of the Department of Nuclear Safety of the State Administration for Environment Protection, Deputy Director General of the Department of Nuclear Safety of the Ministry of Environment Protection of China. In April of 2009, he served as the Chief Engineer of State Nuclear Power Technology Corporation Ltd. (SNPTC). Also he was appointed as the Chairman of State Nuclear Power Demonstration Plant Co. Ltd (SNPDP). He has more than 20 years experience of nuclear safety reviewing and supervision. He was once responsible for the nuclear safety reviewing and supervision of Qinshan NPP PhaseⅠ,PhaseⅡand PhaseⅢ(Candu), Daya Bay NPP, Ling’ao NPP and Tianwan NPP. Also he was once responsible for the nuclear license management of China. Now he is in charge of the safety and quality management of AP1000 NPP and the technical work of CAP1400 development.

• Professor Il Soon Hwang, Seoul National University, South Korea

Abstract

Emerging economies maintain their strong commitment to the introduction of nuclear power plants even after Fukushima accident. In Asia and Middle East, the nuclear power is seen as one of indispensable options of their energy mix in order to meet rapidly increasing electricity demand whiling dealing with decreasing oil production and increasing greenhouse gas emissions. In the developed world, nuclear power technology will face with serious challenges or with intensifying demand from the public to demonstrate solutions to safety, security and high-level waste. With the spread of nuclear technology and materials, it is anticipated that no county can be immune from the terror of nuclear weapons and/or radiological bombs. In order to keep nuclear power as a sustainable energy option, it is important to begin the development of 1) ultimately safe and secure reactors, 2) internationally controlled nuclear fuel cycle systems and 3) innovative means to eliminate high-level wastes. When these are done, it is believed that the nuclear power can save serious energy shortage and climate change as well as international conflicts rooted in energy security. As an illustration will be presented for innovative small modular reactors and advanced transmutation options. It will be emphasized that emerging technologies will also have to be controlled multi-nationally, in order to assure safety, security, safeguards and sustainability.

Biography

Professor Il Soon Hwang, a nuclear energy specialist, with Ph. D. from MIT and B.S. from Seoul National University, has expertise in nuclear plant integrity and nuclear transmutation. He has developed an innovative nuclear waste partitioning and transmutation technology, known as PEACER-PyroGreen, while serving as the Director of Nuclear Transmutation Energy Research Center of Korea. He chairs or co-chairs an OECD-NEA Task Force and an IAEA Advanced Partitioning Program,, the Forum on Climate Change and Energy Policy and the Summit of Honor on Atoms for Peace and Environment. He also a member of Korean National Academy of Engineering, International Forum on Reactor Aging Management, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards for Korea Nuclear Safety and Security Commission, and the Advisory Committee for the Seoul Nuclear Security Summit 2012.

• Kevin Hesketh, National Nuclear Laboratory

Abstract

All civil nuclear reactors and their associated fuel cycle facilities are subject to IAEA or Euratom safeguards measures, which comprise a suite of measures designed to allow independent verification that the plants are being used entirely for their declared purpose and that no nuclear material is being diverted for weapons programmes. As a rule, safeguards were not usually addressed explicitly
the design of the current generation of nuclear plants and have safeguards measures have mostly been implemented retrospectively and have had to fit within the constraints of designs that are already fixed. In developing the next generation of nuclear plants, safeguards, non-proliferation and security have risen in prominence. For example, the Generation IV Forum (GIF) and the IAEA INPRO initiative, which are intentional collaborations aimed at developing new innovative reactors with common standards, cite safeguards by design and inherent proliferation resistance as one of the key principles to guide development.

In the UK, there have been some tentative first steps towards incorporating proliferation resistance as one of the items to be addressed in the justification of new practices in the nuclear fuel cycle. It is likely that this would be would of the key attributes that would guide the selection of any future advanced reactor systems that might be constructed after the planned new build light water reactors. For this purpose it is important to develop a framework in which the inherent proliferation resistance attributes of different nuclear systems can be compared in manner which is as objective as possible.

This talk will explain the issues surrounding non-proliferation, safeguards and physical protection and will illustrate the sometimes conflicting requirements that can arise depending on the particular context being considered. It will then outline a methodology that has been developed by NNL to provide a relative performance ranking for different nuclear systems with respect to inherent proliferation resistance and inherent physical protection. The methodology highlights the key metrics and shows how this can be used to focus discussion.

Biography

My present position is that of Senior Research Fellow with National Nuclear Laboratory. My areas of expertise are reactor physics and fuel cycle technology. I graduated in physics from Manchester University in 1975. My career in the nuclear industry started in 1975, when I joined the Theory Division of UKAEA at Culham, working on magnetic confinement fusion. In 1980 I left to join BNFL where I remained until the formation of National Nuclear Laboratory. During my career with BNFL and now NNL I have worked on various reactor systems, including LWRs, HTRs and fast reactors and also spent time overseas with Westinghouse doing nuclear design work for US PWRs.

I am involved with many international organisations, especially IAEA and OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) and am presently the UK representative on the OECD/NEA Nuclear Science Committee (NSC) and chairman of the NSC Working Group on Reactor Systems. I am a Chartered Physicist and am a Fellow of the Institute of Physics.

• Professor Steve Cowley, UK Atomic Energy Authority

Abstract

The current EU roadmap for fusion aims to deliver the first fusion electricity around 2040. Plans in China and Korea aim to deliver first fusion electricity sooner. I will discuss the technical issues that must be solved to reach these goals. Many of the technical challenges in advanced fission and fusion are similar. This synergy will be addressed.

Biography

Professor Steven Cowley became Director of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's Culham Laboratory in September 2008 and Chief Executive of the UK Atomic Energy Authority in November 2009. He received his BA from Oxford University and his PhD. from Princeton University. Professor Cowley's post-doctoral work was at Culham laboratory and he returned to Princeton in 1987. He joined the faculty at the University of California Los Angeles in 1993 rising to the rank of Full Professor in 2000. From 2001 to 2003 he lead the plasma physics group at Imperial College London. He remains a part time professor at Imperial College. From 2004 to 2008 he was the Director of the Center for Multi-scale Plasma Dynamics at UCLA. His main research interest is in realising fusion power. He has also published over 150 papers on: the origin of magnetic fields in the universe, the theory of plasma turbulence and explosive behaviour in both laboratory and astrophysical plasmas. Professor Cowley co-chaired the US National Academy's decadal assessment of, and outlook for plasma science. He is a Fellow of the American Physical Society and the Institute of Physics. Currently he is also a member of the Prime Ministers Council on Science and Technology.

• Professor Geoffrey Boulton FRS, Edinburgh University

Biography

Professor Geoffrey Boulton OBE FRS FRSE is Regius Professor of Geology Emeritus at the University of Edinburgh. He chairs the Royal Society’s Science Policy Advice Group, was until recently a member of the UK Prime Minister’s Council for Science and Technology and has been a member of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. He chaired Royal Society reports on the Long Term Management of Nuclear Waste (2002, 2006) and Strategic Options for the UK’s Separated Plutonium (2007, 2008) He currently chairs a Royal Society inquiry entitled “Science as an Open Enterprise”, due to report in May 2012. His recent research has been in the fields of environmental change, glaciology and nuclear waste, and he has a major current project on processes beneath the Antarctic Ice Sheet.