Made-in-Ontario nuclear power

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Made-in-Ontario nucle

They still make DU munitions though, Juan. We shouldn't be shipping any waste down there until we can verify that it isn't used for that purpose. It is an illegal weapon, we've signed on to treaties making it illegal, and yet we provide the raw materials to a country that we know makes and uses the illegal weapon.

Until we can deal with the long-term possibility of contamination, we shouldn't be using nuclear energy...at least not so much of it. We have a responsibility to not create those two headed, fourteen toed, neighbors.

 

[bevvyd]

CANDU reactors are very safe.

One of the reasons they are safe is that the heavy water they use is both a coolant and part of the reaction mechanism. If a CANDU reactor loses the coolant, it would also lose the critical mass so it has a kind of built in safety factor. Given the choice, I would sooner live near a CANDU reactor than a coal-fired generator plant.

While BC was building the pumps for the CANDU's I got to watch via closed circuit TV the LOCA test (Loss of Coolant Accident), man it was wild to see all the steel shaking like shyte, but it held together and even after dismantling the pump we found NO cracks or breakage, so you can rest a little easier now.

 

[bevvyd]

More made in Ontario nuclear power coming:

http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?articleID=2054795&pageID=canada_archive

 

[snoproblem]

For me, the issue isn't so much with safety as it is COST.

The nuclear program in Ontario is outrageously expensive, and the consumer pays through the nose.

For the umpteen billions spent on the nukes, we could have blanketed rooftops everywhere with solar panels - like those new Spheral panels that are flexible, cheaper and more durable than the old kind. We could have built wind farms wherever wind conditions make it feasable. We could have accelerated the cellulose methanol and biodiesel programs, and have had both widely available yesterday.

And no radioactive waste in sight.

But nooo. Politics as usual strikes again, and practical solutions take a backseat to pork-barrel, lobby-group bullshit.

 

[#juan]

Hi Bev

It's interesting that we are shutting down the coal fired plants and the Americans are building another thirty of them.

Sounds like you had an interesting job. I'm not a physicist but I did do a bit of consulting work on some heat exchangers that were used on CANDU reactors.

 

[bevvyd]

It was an interesting project, but when another one came alone I chose not to work it. We had a saying in the pump business "When the paperwork out weighs the pump, ship the pump", but that doesn't apply to ASME Section III pumps. My paperwork used to get offloaded by forklift some days.

 

[MMMike]

For me, the issue isn't so much with safety as it is COST.

The nuclear program in Ontario is outrageously expensive, and the consumer pays through the nose.

For the umpteen billions spent on the nukes, we could have blanketed rooftops everywhere with solar panels - like those new Spheral panels that are flexible, cheaper and more durable than the old kind. We could have built wind farms wherever wind conditions make it feasable. We could have accelerated the cellulose methanol and biodiesel programs, and have had both widely available yesterday.

And no radioactive waste in sight.

But nooo. Politics as usual strikes again, and practical solutions take a backseat to pork-barrel, lobby-group bullshit.

I'm with you there! They never seem to have a good handle on the cost to build, maintain, or retrofit these things. I'm not sure the economics work in the end.

 

[#juan]

snoproblem wrote:

For the umpteen billions spent on the nukes, we could have blanketed rooftops everywhere with solar panels - like those new Spheral panels that are flexible, cheaper and more durable than the old kind. We could have built wind farms wherever wind conditions make it feasable. We could have accelerated the cellulose methanol and biodiesel programs, and have had both widely available yesterday

We could cover every building in Ontario with solar panels and they would provide only a small part of the energy required to heat them and solar panels are not cheap. Methanol, while cleaner than gasoline, is only a partial answer. All the things you mentioned are partial answers. When you consider that we would still need the nuclear plants or some other form of generating system, the costs would probably be higher. Hey, I don't say these are things not worth doing, but the reality is that our energy needs are still there.

 

[#juan]

Rev

The Americans already have enough DU to last for the next hundred years. I think the use of DU weapons is one of the things that I hope will bite them in the ass sometime soon. The sooner, the better.

 

[#juan]

Bev, I always thought "shop drawings" would bury us. Shop drawings and addenda would generate paper by the ton. When computers came in it was thought that it would reduce the paper. Did it hell. We probably have more because everybody wants a print out that will eventually find the shredder. Gee it's nice to be retired... :wink: :lol:

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Made-in-Ontario nucle

They still produce DU munitions, Juan.

The partial answers that Snoproblem brings up are important because they will reduce overall consumption. Combined with conservation programs, they can have a relatively large impact. That's something we fon't do enough of.

Another option is an east-west grid. This has been an on-again/off-again issue between Manitoba and Ontario. It is cheaper than nuclear power in the long-run. The drawback is that it cannot produce enough power for all of Ontario, but combined with other options it can keep overall costs down.

We have a habit of looking for a single solution when addressing evergy concerns. That's just silly, really. We should be using a variety of methods because that will leave us less vulnerable to unforseen problems in the future.

 

[MMMike]

Re: RE: Made-in-Ontario nucle

We have a habit of looking for a single solution when addressing evergy concerns. That's just silly, really. We should be using a variety of methods because that will leave us less vulnerable to unforseen problems in the future.

Big time! Gotta decentralize our power generation, improve efficiencies, two-way smart meters. Successive Ontario governments have so badly mismanaged or ignored the energy file that we are in deep shit now. Now they can do nothing but scramble for quick solutions.

 

[Tresson]

Re: RE: Made-in-Ontario nucle

That's very true, Evan. I wouldn't be overly concerned about living next to a Candu reactor. I'd be nervous as hell about living next to where they store the waste, or the route the waste is shipped on.

You seem to know a fair bit about this. Maybe you can answer a question for me. Why is there waste? Presumably if the material is still radioactive it's still giving off energy. Why aren't we harnessing that energy and using it as well? Is anybody working on a way to do that?

Actually Rev the containers that they ship the waste in are very safe. They are, I believe, lined with lead to stop any radioation to leak out, plus they are nearly indstructable.

Here's an example of how they tested it. They figured that the thing that could happen to the container in normal situations would that the container would get hit by a large frieght train. So they parked the container across some railway tracks and had a fully packed train hit it.

Afterwards they found the container a couple miles away in a farmers field. Besides a large dent in one side of the container it was still alright. There wouldn't have been any leaks or loss of of the waste if it had been an actual accident.

Since the energy expened when the train hit the container is the equlivant of a very large bomb I think it can be safely said that you have worry more about the container landing on you then it leaking or losing the waste it's carrying should there be an incident, accidental or otherwise.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Made-in-Ontario nucle

It's not just Ontario, Mike. They have the biggest problem because they have had the biggest growth, but it's a problem in 7 of the 10 provinces. BC, Manitoba, and Quebec get a pass because of hydro power, but that's as much an accident of geography as anything else. Most of the US states are in worse shape than Ontario is.

We've become electricity pigs, really. The computer, the TV, the stove, the fridge, the stereo, the washer and dryer. We have lights in every room. Out here we plug in our cars in the winter. When I built the wall unit in my house, I put an entire circuit in just for it because I knew that there'd be more stuff coming that needs to be plugged in.

That's just residential...industry and business is even more dependent on electricity.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Afterwards they found the container a couple miles away in a farmers field. Besides a large dent in one side of the container it was still alright. There wouldn't have been any leaks or loss of of the waste if it had been an actual accident.

Yup, but there have to be valves to put the waste in and take the waste out. Those can fail and, more importantly, are subject to human error. The thing about controlled tests like that is that they can only, by their very nature, address the forseen. The unforseen is the problem.

 

[MMMike]

Yup, but there have to be valves to put the waste in and take the waste out. Those can fail and, more importantly, are subject to human error. The thing about controlled tests like that is that they can only, by their very nature, address the forseen. The unforseen is the problem.

Unforeseen complications and human error apply to complex systems, but a container is anything but. Its simple, safe, and beats the hell out of any alternative (smokestack) solutions. Irrational fear should not stand in the way.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Made-in-Ontario nucle

It's not an irrational fear, Mike. Shipping of any product is prone to problems. In the case of nuclear waste those problems have serious ramifications. That's not to say that it can't be made safe, but if they shipping nuclear waste in trucks on public highways, or by rail when CN can't keep cars on the tracks, there is a potential problem.

Again, there seems to be a real reluctance to address concerns in this area though. "Everything will be fine," is not an adequate answer.

 

[MMMike]

I don't think I'm saying that everything will be fine. You ship the waste, provide protection against radiation leaks, and then provide a formidable backstop (i.e. these impact resistant containers) if anything does go wrong with the transport.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Made-in-Ontario nucle

Supporters of nuclear energy have a tendency to answer exactly that, Mike. You are saying that the safeguards we already have are sufficient. A lot of people do not feel that the safeguards are sufficient though. We've all seen too many things go wrong with other allegedly safe systems.

 

[MMMike]

Rev, I really do think it is irrational fear. You're right, of course, that there are no absolutes when designing against failure. But the same concepts used for designing a safe nuclear waste container are used to design all of our buildings, bridges, roads, towers etc.... Do you think about that everytime you are in a highrise building, or crossing a bridge in your car? The difference here is that the factor of safety for the nuclear container is probably an order of magnitude higher. The actual risk of failure becomes so low as to be meaningless.