NA-YGN announces 14th annual Roddy Nuclear drawing contest

By Laura Scheele

The 14th annual North American Young Generation in Nuclear (NA-YGN) drawing contest is now underway! The drawing contest teaches 4th and 5th grade students about the wonders of nuclear science and technology by engaging them creatively. This year’s theme is Roddy Nuclear Builds Tomorrow—with an emphasis on the importance of new plant construction for the future of nuclear and growing energy demands.

Roddy Nuclear is a nuclear fuel pellet cartoon character who can fit into the palm of a child’s hand. Roddy provides as much energy as almost 2000 pounds of coal and 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas. NA-YGN also offers classroom resources, such as a PowerPoint presentation, to introduce nuclear energy topics to middle school students (see links below).

Click to Enlarge

Don’t delay—the deadline for NA-YGN Chapters to host their area contests and submit their top 10 drawings is Friday, October 26! The top 5 drawings will be showcased at the 2012 ANS Conference in San Diego, Cal., on November 11-15 (so be sure to register now). Winners will be selected online at Clean Energy Insight and announced by December 1 .

The 2013 NA-YGN Annual Contest Winning Submission

For More Information

NA-YGN’s announcement of the 2012 Roddy Nuclear drawing contest

Contest guidelines, instructions and awards

How to host the drawing contest (for Educators)

How to host the drawing contest (for Parents and Students)


Laura Scheele is the Communications and Public Policy Manager for the American Nuclear Society’s Communications and Outreach Department. She also serves as the ANS Liaison to North American Young Generation in Nuclear.

4 thoughts on “NA-YGN announces 14th annual Roddy Nuclear drawing contest

  1. Rod Clemetson

    Roddy Nuclear needs to include THORIUM in his “energy equivalents” list. Thorium is everywhere. Dig up a cubic meter of dirt anywhere in the world (including your own back yard) and you’ll find 2 grams of thorium with energy content equivalent to 30 cubic meters of oil. Thorium is dirt cheap — because it IS dirt. Roddy Nuclear needs to read this book — Thorium: Energy Cheaper Than Coal —

    Uranium fuel rods provide, at best, only 3% of their potential nuclear energy before they have to be replaced. A Thorium Reactor is the most efficient furnace design ever conceived. A molten salt reactor, burning 99% of its thorium fuel in breeder and recycling processes, will provide baseload electricity with 50% of its heat, PLUS enough industrial heat left over to make fertilizer, distilled and desalinated water, synthetic fuel, medical isotopes, and backup electricity for renewable energy sources SIMULTANEOUSLY! Molten salt operating temperatures are three times higher that LWR/PWR designs, but so little heat is wasted that the MSR can be air-cooled.

    Roddy can check out the whole story with Kirk Sorensen and Flibe Energy at the TEAC4 conference —

  2. lscheele Post author

    @Rod Clemetson, thank you for the thorium information and the link! I should note that the energy equivalents graphic in the blog entry is the graphic shown on ANS pellet cards and is not the product of Roddy Nuclear. Since Roddy Nuclear is the kid-friendly face for energy density, I added the graphic as a visual for the energy equivalency discussion.

  3. James Greenidge

    Re: “Roddy & Friends”
    Not knocking the super talent and effort in this campaign, but I hope there’s a parallel effort to get a real live PSA nuclear spokesperson (ie a “Carl Sagan” type) to educate and explain nuclear technology on the adult level such as taking the bull by the horns in explaining why Fukushima and rare meltdowns are no Doomsdays and was no real “disaster” as oil refinery explosions wiping out towns and plane crashes are and more properly fit that definition. Sure, it’s nice explaining how much energy a pellet of uranium has, but I think the public would be much more positively impressed by a grass-roots spokesperson citing comparative industrial mortality rates as explaining since the first nuclear reactor went on line, less people have been killed worldwide in 60 years of nuclear power than perish in a single plane crash as opposed to a hundred thousands of workers/public casualties incurred by fossil fuel accidents within the same period, etc. Such yumming comforting facts as that move people ever assaulted by FUD salesmen.

    Re: Thorium
    Look, I’m four square for Thorium, but not to further bemuse and confuse an already nuclear clueless public by muddling the general nuclear power PR campaign with a additional technology options that is not even on the NRC or nuclear industry’s plate now or for a while. Until there’s a provable and profitable commercial Thorium reactor chugging away out there, I wish Thor folks would discretely keep with the program and help promote current nuclear plants with their enviable enough safety and reliability records to get the public on board with accepting these plants. Thor techies have to realize that to the science-illiterate public, Thorium is just another “dangerous” nuke-thing by another magic name, so it behooves Thors to get on board and help hawk our present crop of reactors if just to pave the way for the public to accept Thorium ones when they show their worth. It really is a self-interest thing by not promising/teasing/confusing the public with a technology not in place or even on serious industry drawing boards.

    James Greenidge
    Queens NY

  4. Engineer-Poet

    Changing the subject completely, but I don’t know where else to ask:

    Recently, somewhere in the blogs which contribute to the Carnivals of Nuclear Energy, I encountered a comment or link which went to a list of moderator materials and their neutron losses in percent. I thought I bookmarked it but now I can’t find it. If anyone knows where this is, I’d really appreciate a pointer. Thanks in advance.