Friday, May 10th 2013 - 06:17 UTC

Brazil and Argentina agree to jointly build two nuclear research reactors

Atomic power agencies from Brazil and Argentina signed an agreement to build two nuclear reactors for research and production of radioisotopes, according to the Ministry of Science and Technology (MCT).

Argentina is a leading country in developing atomic energy such as that from the Atucha plant

The agreement, signed by the Brazilian National Commission for Nuclear Energy (CNEN) and the National Commission of Atomic Energy (CNEA), is centred on the construction of two reactors: the Brazilian Multipurpose Research Reactor (RMB) and the RA-10 in Argentina, said a spokesman from the MCT.

The action meets the Bilateral Integration and Coordination Mechanism, established in the Joint Declaration of 2008 and signed by President Cristina Fernandez and Brazil's former president Lula Da Silva, said the source.

To carry out the project, both sides created the Bi-National Commission on Nuclear Energy (COBEN) which will be in charge of the construction of both reactors.

The atomic agencies of the two countries have closely collaborated since 2008. Argentina provides Brazil 30% of the Molybdenum 99 (Mo99) radioisotopes which are indispensable in the diagnosis and treatment of cancer.

Since 2011 both countries agreed to move forward on greater integration, and carry out a joint project to develop multipurpose reactors, demonstrating the mutual interest in increasing the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

Both reactors, once manufactured and functioning, will have a total capacity to cover 40% of the world radioisotope market. At present only France, Canada, South Africa, Australia and Argentina have the technology to produce radioisotopes.
 

31 comments Feed

Note: Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Comments should refer to article. Thank you.

1 toxictaxitrader2 (#) May 10th, 2013 - 07:07 am Report abuse
Have Brazil learned nothing from the Vale fiasco?
This will never happen!
The unions will make impossible demands,Argentina will not pay its share,and has not got the infrastructure to construct a complex project like this!
2 reality check (#) May 10th, 2013 - 07:35 am Report abuse
Would this be before or after they repair the YPF oil refinery?

I suppose they are going to finance it with some of the $160Bn windfall they are hoping to receive.
3 Pirate Love (#) May 10th, 2013 - 10:22 am Report abuse
Argentina money upfont of course........surely?
4 Bongo (#) May 10th, 2013 - 11:00 am Report abuse
BOOM!

South America glows in the dark.
5 yankeeboy (#) May 10th, 2013 - 11:40 am Report abuse
Made In Argentina
It does not instill confidence

Rgs can't even build washing machines that don't catch fire.

Yikes
6 warteiner (#) May 10th, 2013 - 12:49 pm Report abuse
@5: Get over it dude, she's not coming back... (you know what I'm talking about ;))
7 bushpilot (#) May 10th, 2013 - 01:47 pm Report abuse
?
8 ChrisR (#) May 10th, 2013 - 05:51 pm Report abuse
Ask Australia about the competence and safety of INVAP workmanship. In one word (all together now) CRAP.
9 Captain Poppy (#) May 10th, 2013 - 11:38 pm Report abuse
This must be the one previously reported to cost 60 million, which news now reports 483 million.......still sounds on the cheap.....equals shoody....means dangerous. Maybe the 60 million was Argentina share.....lol
10 screenname (#) May 11th, 2013 - 12:07 am Report abuse
Nuclear Power, and the safety needs that go with it, in the hands of Argentina.

Well I suppose it saves us ever having to bomb them...
11 Pheel (#) May 11th, 2013 - 12:47 am Report abuse
8 Chris R

Australian answers your request: www.ansto.gov.au/AboutANSTO/Safety/SafetyManagement/HowsafeistheOPALreactor/index.htm
12 DanyBerger (#) May 11th, 2013 - 10:24 am Report abuse
“Both reactors, once manufactured and functioning, will have a total capacity to cover 40% of the world radioisotope market. At present only France, Canada, South Africa, Australia and Argentina have the technology to produce radioisotopes.”

Not US or UK mentioned in this article...

I Just wonder, why?
13 Captain Poppy (#) May 11th, 2013 - 12:07 pm Report abuse
Researh it....the answer is there if you look. Too lazy?

news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/02/nuclear-reactors-not-needed-to-m.html
14 yankeeboy (#) May 11th, 2013 - 12:43 pm Report abuse
It is just like these idiots to dump $ into old technology.

Gee who do you think will come out with a better product Argentina/Brazil or GE?

I think GE has more scientists and a bigger research budget than these tow countries combined.
15 f0rgetit87 (#) May 11th, 2013 - 01:16 pm Report abuse
We are only too pleased to have the Argentines on board. They have the skills we can use.
16 ChrisR (#) May 11th, 2013 - 01:59 pm Report abuse
11 Pheel

That is the 'speel' from the main site.

Search Google for the fracture problems that closed their latest reactor for years and required a redesign because the argies ballsed it up.

@13 Captain Poppy

Do not be misled that these are POWER reactors, they are nothing of the sort. They are isotope reactors used for medical purposes, mainly for insertion in cancer patients bodies to kill the cancer.

@12 Dunny-Burger

Not US or UK mentioned in this article... I Just wonder, why?

Because its an isotope reactor you cnut! The whole core is less than a two drawer filing cabinet in size and has no measurable power output.

The market is too small to bother with and we have FULLSIZE reactors to do research on.

Idiota.
17 DanyBerger (#) May 12th, 2013 - 11:37 am Report abuse
“This is wonderful for Canada,” says Robert Atcher, director of the National Isotope Development Center at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. But Atcher questions whether the approach will work in the United States. For starters, he says, most Canadians live in metropolitan centers near large hospitals that have cyclotrons. By contrast, the U.S. population is more diffuse, and many outlying hospitals don't have access to a cyclotron. Tc-99 decays so quickly those hospitals would need to be continuously resupplied. In addition, many of the cyclotrons in the United States are not powerful enough to generate Tc-99. Shaffer counters that upgrading cyclotrons is less expensive than building a new nuclear facility, and outlying hospitals already receive regular supplies of fluorine-18 and other short-lived compounds.

Atcher adds that several other groups are exploring alternative non-reactor-based methods for producing Tc-99. It's still too early to say which option will come out ahead, he says. No matter which one does, it should lead to a more stable—and safer—supply of a compound that has become essential to modern medicine.”

So still not USA or UK mentioned... Just wonder why?

Idiot who?
18 Captain Poppy (#) May 12th, 2013 - 12:48 pm Report abuse
Chris I am aware it is a different reactor. When it was first reported they made it sound like it was a typical fission reactor.

We've never produced it.....before. Perhaps dumburger, you need to ask the author of the article why they did not write about the USA. Perhaps.....just perhaps it was a article about south america? AND......when we see the reactor.....then we will believe there is one.....built with the help of Argentina.............bahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Add some melted cheese to the burger.

www.nti.org/gsn/article/us-sets-deal/

www.asrt.org/main/standards-regulations/regulatory-legislative-news/2013/04/25/congress-passes-medical-isotope-production-act
19 ChrisR (#) May 12th, 2013 - 04:23 pm Report abuse
@17 Dunny-Burger

Did you actually read AND UNDERSTAND that piece you cut and pasted and the implications to the project?

Don't bother answering: I know the answer.
20 inthegutter (#) May 12th, 2013 - 07:03 pm Report abuse
#17 Oh Dany, you just reek of jealously - The UK has, probably, the best record of scientific advancement in the world, a legacy which continues to this day. From Francis Bacon and Newton, through Faraday, Maxwell and Darwin to Eddington and Dirac, to Hawking, Crick and Watson.
21 ChrisR (#) May 12th, 2013 - 09:17 pm Report abuse
20 inthegutter

Dunny-Burger will be confused about Maxwell, did't he own the Mirror?

LOLs
22 Captain Poppy (#) May 13th, 2013 - 12:52 am Report abuse
isn't Maxwell the guy with the silver hammer?

lol
23 DanyBerger (#) May 13th, 2013 - 07:06 pm Report abuse
Oh! boys

Still only France, Argentina, South Africa, Canada and now Australia thanks to a reactor (OPAL) sold by Argentina to them have the cutting edge technology to produce safe radioisotopes to be used in nuclear medicine.

US is the biggest consumer of this...

But still not US or UK in the list...

The answer it is quite obvious and is that not US or UK have the technology to produce them.

“The isotope is presently not produced in the United States, and is largely produced using highly enriched uranium by provider nations such as Canada.”

@ ChrisR

I do and you?

Only few countries in the world have developed the technology to produce safe “LEU Mo-99”.

France, Argentina, South Africa and Canada with own proprietary technology while other countries like Perú, Australia and Egypt acquired the tech from Argentina.

The list only shows 7 countries in the world, not US or UK still in there.

LOL
24 ChrisR (#) May 13th, 2013 - 10:06 pm Report abuse
@23 Dunny-Burger

Oh yes I do and your understanding of the real situation is lamentable in its scope and the depth of its strategic analysis worldwide.

The UK is not listed because we use European partners which your report has not named but the main purpose of the exercise; the production of the generator is done in the UK by GE Healthcare. The use of this material in the UK is relatively low when compared to the American requirement (approx 1/10).

The real problem with the whole situation is the forthcoming closure of the Canadian facility due to wrong footing itself when attempting to replace the aging RR with a novel concept reactor which should have worked but did not. Many millions of dollars have been lost and the technology was destined for other countries as well. While this does not impinge on the UK supply directly, any excess over local need will be sent to the USA and because of their over elaborate import checks reduces even further the strength of the Mo99 which eventually gets to the generator manufacturer.

The OPAL system is only of use for small countries due to its miniscule output and frankly I seriously doubt given the fiasco in Australia with their reactor that any of the western countries would risk it.

No, as usual you have relied on low level reports and not researched it adequately: no change there then.

Your claims regarding high power particle accelerators being used is fanciful in the least. The USA have tried and failed so far to make this technology work. Given the immense cost in money and energy that the process would demand it appears to be yet another false path. There have been so many of them over the years in the supply of Mo99 and that is without the half-life decay during the fastest transport possible / close coupling to – the generators. The UK does not suffer that unless the usual reactor is off line for service then an alternative source is readily available.

So the best mark I can award you is 3 / 10 and mus
25 DanyBerger (#) May 14th, 2013 - 05:07 am Report abuse
@ChrisR

Why are you trying so hard to explain something that you harder can understand?

What have to do low output generators, General electric with having LEU technology?

You can produce i Mo-99 from HEU or LEU. Many HEU reactors like in Canada, Belgium, France, Netherlands, etc are so old and have to be shut down for safety reasons.

In Canada Maple 1 and 2 projects showed to be a major failure in design, security risk and never entered into operation for safety reasons. So the Canada govt had to extend NRU Reactor licence (which entered into production in 1957) turning it into the oldest facility sill running in the world what it is a major safety issue and have to be shut down ASAP.

That had triggered a crisis in IM0-99 supply worldwide and most of the supply have been switched to South Africa.

This is the current critical situation of supply from HEU IMo-99 and Tc-99m.

Report from 2009 from the USA National Academy of Sciences concluded that “LEU targets that could be used for large scale production of 99Mo have been developed and demonstrated.”

That demonstration have been done by Argentina, who since the 1990 have been researching in that field.

Since 2002 Argentina had been producing LEU Imo-99 from “aluminium dispersion targets”.
And currently is routine procedure in Argentina.

Now US the major importer of Imo-99 and Tc-99 started to put pressure on Canada to adapt its facilities to LEU and also to stop imports from Russia major supplier to Canada of HEU material.

“The Canadian government is pursuing studies on LEU-based medical isotope generation.”
www.nti.org/gsn/article/canadian-imports-russian-heu-criticized-nuke-security-grounds/

And that is the big news that is referring this article the join venture of Argentina and Brazil in the production of non HEU MI to supply 40% of the world market, turning Argentina and Brazil into the biggest producer in the world.

Can you see why not US or UK are in the list now?

I hope so..
26 ChrisR (#) May 14th, 2013 - 11:39 am Report abuse
@25 Dunny-Burger

You must be reading stuff from a parallel universe.

I was responding to the UK situation and the post is accurate, despite your whining response.

“Report from 2009 from the USA National Academy of Sciences concluded that “LEU targets that could be used for large scale production of 99Mo have been developed and demonstrated.”

YES, that is what the report stated but since then has been proven to be erroneous, so please provide me with a link to the University / commercial company which IS capable of this, NOW, not in 5 years time IF IT WORKS.

“Both reactors, ONCE MANUFACTURED AND FUNCTIONING, will have a total capacity to cover 40% of the world radioisotope market.”

This is like saying “how long is a piece of string’ there is NO date given for this venture to actually produce the goods! I can see this being another high-speed train exercise in futility.

Please answer this: what is the largest PROVEN, functioning capacity from a reactor of the type suggested in Brazil, whether it be argie or some other manufacturer or will the 40% of the world capacity be another failure to do what Argentine says. When has IVAP ever been on time and within budget? I suspect the next time will be the first.
27 DanyBerger (#) May 14th, 2013 - 06:41 pm Report abuse
@ChrisR

“YES, that is what the report stated but since then has been proven to be erroneous”

How can you say that? Based on...?

Argentina since 2002 is producing LEU Mo-99 in LEU facilities and supplies Argentina’s market and also the 50% of Brazilian market, Uruguay, Paraguay and Chile.

Also until 2011 Argentina had developed and built 6 LEU reactors and many facilities at home and worldwide.

And also have provided LEU reactors with Irradiation plates target facilities to Egypt and Australia.

“so please provide me with a link to the University / commercial company which IS capable of this, NOW, not in 5 years time IF IT WORKS”

Are you joking again?

CNEA and subsidiaries (Argentina), ANSTO (Australia OPAL), AEA (Egypt ETRR-2), Necsa Group (South Africa, SAFARI-1).

South Africa in 2009 managed to turn SAFARI-1 from HEU to LEU and in 2010 entered into production gain getting into the selected club of LEU I mo-99 producers in the world.

“Radiation Science and Applications Cluster
The Necsa Group, through NTP and with the SAFARI-1 research reactor playing a key role,
continued to be a reliable, leading supplier of radiochemicals to the global healthcare market.
NTP remained a leading supplier in the world with the ability to produce 99Mo at industrial scale
using a process entirely based on LEU (Low Enriched Uranium). The SAFARI-1 research reactor
operational availability average more than 300 days per annum at an average reactor power..”
www.necsa.co.za/Portals/1/Documents/b2fbedc9-f66f-4962-a3f5-b43faac5a05d.pdf

The 2 reactors will be designed and manufactured by Invap and Argentina will transfer the technology to Brazil.

INVAP haven any failure the thing is that you don't understand.

The Opal reactor in Australia was a conversion and a very difficult task that only few countries in the world can successfully archive.

And before you start with your British crap UK was not able to do so and the Australian bought the reactor from AR.

LOL
28 ChrisR (#) May 14th, 2013 - 10:03 pm Report abuse
@27 Dunny-Burger
“Are you joking again?”
No, and you have still to provide a link that PROVES this technology works.
““Report from 2009 from the USA National Academy of Sciences concluded that “LEU targets that could be used for large scale production of 99Mo have been developed and demonstrated.”
NOTE IT'S IN AMERICA! NOW PROVIDE A LINK - YOU CANNOT.

”The Opal reactor in Australia was a conversion and a very difficult task that only few countries in the world can successfully archive.“

Bullshit, as usual. This from an ANSTO source under the heading 'Shifty Plates'

”The aluminium-uranium plates, which are swaged (cold-welded) into place in slots in the assembly, shifted out of their slots because of vibrations in the heavy water surrounding the core. ANSTO describes the malfunction as a combination of inadequate design and manufacturing faults with the Argentine fuel rods.“

”The fuel assembly has now been redesigned with a double stopper across the top of the box-shaped apparatus, so that plate movements would be confined to just a few millimetres if the welds were to break again.“

This should have been bread and butter to INVAP and they failed!

So, the other question is ”when will the reactors for Brasil be up and working”, 5 years, 10 years, 20 years like the INVAP 'power' reactor in the Thyssen 1700 sub, never? Guess what I and the rest of the real world thinks?

And you still don't get it that the UK with only 10% of the USA usage does not need one of these devices and certainly not argie crap.
29 DanyBerger (#) May 15th, 2013 - 01:13 pm Report abuse
@ChristR

From ansto.gov.au
“Independent analysis

Because of its size, its design and integrated safety features, OPAL is extremely safe. The safety analysis shows how the design of the OPAL reactor meets design safety requirements, and necessary licensing requirements. This safety analysis has been subject to independent review and approval by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA).”
www.ansto.gov.au/AboutANSTO/Safety/SafetyManagement/HowsafeistheOPALreactor/index.htm

Not much to say about the subject...

Well lets see you of course as so many topics you post about have no idea of what you are talking about because if so you alone will realise how silly your comment are.

There is a page in internet with a transcription of a debate from Physicians from Russia, Argentina, South Africa, etc. about the difficulties to incur to reconvert a HEU to a LEU reactor.

The only 2 countries to archive that successfuly at the moment were Argentina in 2001 and South Africa in 2010. The rest including Canada, US, etc are in the stage consideration and research about it.
Don't be lazy and google for it.

You asked me about links what kind of links are you talking about?

All these reactors are operational and producing I Mo-99 since 2001 in Argentina, Since 2007 in Australia and since 2010 in South Africa

Sample OPAL AU made by INVAP SE (Argentina)
www.ansto.gov.au/AboutANSTO/OPAL/DevelopmentofOPAL/index.htm

Learn more about OPAL facilities
www.youtube.com/watch?v=1F9Nx4zDt_A

Oh! you need it and desperately as UK faced shortage in recent years of Imo-99 due to the shut down of Netherlands reactor main supplier.

Form now on till 2015 many reactors will be shut down like the Canadian one and will not be replaced because they will have to turn to LEU reactor and that cost money and years of research until you can build one functional.

So in the following years Argentina and Brazil will supply the 40% of IMo-99 market.
30 Captain Poppy (#) May 15th, 2013 - 04:04 pm Report abuse
How much are they currently producing....Brazila and Argentina that is?
31 ChrisR (#) May 15th, 2013 - 04:12 pm Report abuse
@29 DunnyBurger

Skewed Selectivity 101 must have been a mandatory course at Camping-it-up and you must have passed ‘with honours’.

There is no point whatsoever in continuing this dialogue with someone like you.

So, I suggest that we await developments between AR and Brasil and see what happens when the Brasilians get pissed off with the excuses from INVAP why they haven’t started, have cocked something up like the fuel rods for OPAL, run out of Brasils money, it’s the day to scratch their backsides, anything, just anything that puts pressure on Brasil to cough up more money.

YOU know this ALWAYS happens with argie programmes, why should this one be any different?

What is the betting we never hear anything of it again.

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!

Advertisement

Get Email News Reports!

Get our news right on your inbox.
Subscribe Now!

Advertisement