Nuclear and uranium news roundup

This site recently mentioned that China’s new nuclear power generation target for 2020 is 70GW an increase from 40GW two years ago and 60GW last year. China is also planning to build or have in process of being built 100 AP-1000 nuclear reactors.

Electricité de France (EdF) finalises a joint venture with the China Guangdong Nuclear Power Company enabling it to co-own and operate two nuclear reactors at Taishan, the China National Nuclear Corp has announced work will start on another nuclear power station in Hainan by the end of 2009. So three nuclear reactors that each will generate 1650MW. In addition to the two Changjiang reactors, work is expected to begin on a further 14 units in China over the next two years.

Bannerman Resources has announced a fivefold boost in indicated resources at its Goanikontes deposit in Namibia. The overall resource estimate increased by 48%.

The company is proceeding to a definitive feasibility study for mining, due for completion by March 2009, with the intention of producing a reserve statement, and possibly moving to mine production in 2011. A preliminary study on mining the deposit was undertaken last year, and showed good prospects for an open pit mine producing 2500 to 3500 tU per year. A preliminary mine plan put production costs at around $60/kgU. Capital costs, including an acid plant, were estimated at $467 million.

Australia’s WildHorse Energy has joined with state-owned Mecsekérc to assess the feasibility of restarting uranium mining in the Mecsek Hills near Pécs in southern Hungary.

Exploration drives uranium resources up 17% Worldwide around 5.5 million tonnes of uranium that could be economically at $59/lb mined has been identified. The category of uranium that could be expected to be found based on the geologic characteristics of known resources has grown by 500,000 tonnes to 10.5 million tonnes.

22 million tons of uranium in phosphates and 4 billion tons in seawater

7 thoughts on “Nuclear and uranium news roundup”

  1. My prediction, that D-wave quantum computer will be or slower than usual computer or the same speed as classical computer.
    I was trying to understand, how much precision possible increase for analog computers and I make conclusion, that analog classical computer can’t work with accuracy greater than about +-0.5-1%. This means, that if we devide some peas of matterial with +-1% precision, then we wiil be able to devide this material in about 100 parts. There is known that for quantum computer precision need increase polinomialy (it’s means alsmost linarly) with number of qubits. Our eyes have about 100 adaptation levels to brightnes of light. And each cone in retina have also about 100-200 sensitiveness levels to red or blur or green light (computer this levels has 256). Even I can bet sinapses strenght can have about 100 levels. And probably one neuron “can fell” about 100 levels of voltage strenght. So all analog computer’s also don’t have greeter accuracy than about 100 levels. Now transistors soon be maded with 45nm technology and atom size is about 0.2-0.1 nm. So I can bet that transistors making technology don’t be smaller than 10 nm. Sot it’s means, that qubits can’t be controled with bigger than +-1-0.5 % precision. And if quantum computer consist of 100 qubtis then it’s accuracy will be 100 times smaller than one qubit controling accuracy and therefore quantum computation will be unable. Shor algorithm can be with 2^100=10^30 digits, easy simulated with classical computer and classical computer can easily break 30 digits RSA code. Quantum simulation on quantum computer also with about 30 electrons will be unprecisly on qunautm computer and you will not know wich of 100 answers is good.
    So all algorithms for quantum computer under about 100 qubits is the same or smaller speed than classical algorithms. So it is imposible control qubits with precision greater than 0.5-1 %, becouse it’s is imposible to build transistor which amplificate signal more with bigger than about +-1 % precision. Sound from speakers going which can be devided in about analog 100-200 levels. All technologies is with that precision. Litography have about 145nm lenght laser and making 45 nm transisotrs 145-45= 100 levels. If you controling large energy or materials then you can control this energy (voltage) in only about 100 levels range and if you controling small energies or materials you also can control only in about 100 levels range. So everywhere you can look all things is limited with about 100-200 levels accuracy. Why this must be exception for quantum computers (for qubits, spins or whatever)? Maybe first need ask to yourself, does in nature possible somthing control with bigger than about +-1 % precision, before building quantum computers?

  2. Source:

    Scientists at Florida State University’s National High Magnetic Field Laboratory and the university’s Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry have introduced a new material that could be to computers of the future what silicon is to the computers of today.
    The material — a compound made from the elements potassium, niobium and oxygen, along with chromium ions — could provide a technological breakthrough that leads to the development of new quantum computing technologies. Quantum computers would harness the power of atoms and molecules to perform memory and processing tasks on a scale far beyond those of current computers.
    “The field of quantum information technology is in its infancy, and our work is another step forward in this fascinating field,” said Saritha Nellutla, a postdoctoral associate at the magnet lab and lead author of the paper published in Physical Review Letters.
    Semiconductor technology is close to reaching its performance limit. Over the years, processors have shrunk to their current size, with the components of a computer chip more than 1,000 times smaller than the thickness of a human hair. At those very small scales, quantum effects — behaviors in matter that occur at the atomic and subatomic levels — can start playing a role. By exploiting those behaviors, scientists hope to take computing to the next level.
    In current computers, the basic unit of information is the “bit,” which can have a value of 0 or 1. In so-called quantum computers, which currently exist only in theory, the basic unit is the “qubit” (short for quantum bit). A qubit can have not only a value of 0 or 1, but also all kinds of combinations of 0 and 1 — including 0 and 1 at the same time — meaning quantum computers could perform certain kinds of calculations much more effectively than current ones.
    How scientists realize the promise of the theoretical qubit is not clear. Various designs and paths have been proposed, and one very promising idea is to use tiny magnetic fields, called “spins.” Spins are associated with electrons and various atomic nuclei.
    Magnet lab scientists used high magnetic fields and microwave radiation to “operate” on the spins in the new material they developed to get an indication of how long the spin could be controlled. Based on their experiments, the material could enable 500 operations in 10 microseconds before losing its ability to retain information, making it a good candidate for a qubit.
    Putting this spin to work would usher in a technological revolution, because the spin state of an electron, in addition to its charge, could be used to carry, manipulate and store information.
    “This material is very promising,” said Naresh Dalal, a professor of chemistry and biochemistry at FSU and one of the paper’s authors. “But additional synthetic and magnetic characterization work is needed before it could be made suitable for use in a device.”
    Dalal also serves as an adviser to FSU chemistry graduate student Mekhala Pati, who created the material.
    Note: This story has been adapted from material provided by Florida State University.

    Fausto Intilla

  3. there are numerous researchers working on adiabatic quantum computers.
    There are some others who are working on building some systems. Japan has a few who are trying to build things.

    How come there are not more. My theory. Quantum computers has mostly been difficult theoretical work. The field has broken up into many different approaches. It is difficult for many people to be able to have sufficient theoretical and practical capability to exploit any of the approaches and some may not be suited to make a good attempt on a possibly promising but still not completely proven area. This article indicates that if Dwave is right it could show a problem with the peer reviewed system.

    If I were a VC, then there would be no reason for me to fund another adiabatic quantum computer company. I would not be able to catch up to where Dwave is at before next year when they release and it would be not only a gamble on technology, new markets but also against a fairly well funded company with a lead.

  4. Interesting why nobody else don’t building adiabatic quantum computer? Or if building, why they can’t success?
    And about quantum computers with single atoms, I think, that we even don’t have memory with single atoms-spins and don’t have nothing from electronic on single atoms, and scientist still want build quantum computer, where qubits are single spins…
    By the if you heard about nuclear magnetic resonans (NMR) quantum computer I can say one thing, it is bullshit, becouse need exponentionaly time or energy like in optical quantum computer and about NMR quantum computer is part of scientists who think, that it was not quantum computer, but classical computer…

  5. I am fine with Dwave’s approach.

    1. They got the VC money years ago.
    2. They are trying to simplify the problem and challenges of creating a quantum computer and using shortcuts. The proof of whether too many corners were cut or whether it is too limited will be shown if they can or cannot provide solutions that people are willing to pay for.
    3. If you don’t have to make something perfect but can make something imperfect but useful and profitable then that if successful that is an excellent approach
    4. If the risk of failure does not kill anyone or destroy anything then I think there should as many affordable and quick attempts at more grand challenges.

    This is one of my complaints against Nasa approach of not enough high risk, low cost robotic flights. We should be using low energy transfer to get to the moon for 1/1000th the cost of building new, safer human rated rockets to the moon.

    Back to quantum computing. there are a dozen other approaches to QC and they are still funded through universities and government so there is no problem with VCs making a bizness bet.

  6. What do you think of D-waves approach to commercialization? Are these publicity blitzes helping them or trivializing the research?

Comments are closed.