Made-in-Ontario nuclear power

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Made-in-Ontario nucle

We had two environmental disasters this summer, Mike. One in Alberta, one in BC. We were previously told not to worry, that everything was fine.

We've seen bridges collapse and buildings cave in.

None of those things is as dangerous as having a load of nuclear waste escape.

 

[MMMike]

Yeah Rev, I guess it is possible that the container will get hit by two trains simultaneously near a major population centre. :roll:
While you lay awake at night pondering that, let's keep firing up the coal or natural gas plants. Don't worry about the exhaust gases, though, they go bye bye in the sky.

 

[Durgan]

THE NUCLEAR ENERGY OPTION

Check out this link, Rev. I think you'll find it very informative - I did!

I read the story completely. It seems to me it has all the answers. I would very much like to see a refutation of his arguments by somebody with equivalent qualifications.

I only wish some of the politicians would increase their knowledge and not shoot from the lip (Hampton on CBC a couple of days ago). Some of the comments make one shudder, when so much ignorance of the subject is spouted.

Duran.

 

[Durgan]

THE NUCLEAR ENERGY OPTION

Check out this link, Rev. I think you'll find it very informative - I did!

I read the story completely. It seems to me it has all the answers. I would very much like to see a refutation of his arguments by somebody with equivalent qualifications.

I only wish some of the politicians would increase their knowledge and not shoot from the lip (Hampton on CBC a couple of days ago). Some of the comments make one shudder, when so much ignorance of the subject is spouted.

Duran.

 

[Durgan]

Nuclear Power Generation NOW.

Burning fossil fuels as a primary source for the energy we use is the main cause of world air pollution. Much of the current pollution is caused by the automobile and the fossil fuel generation of electricity. Eliminating these two sources of pollution would improve the health of the world.

Electricity is one of the most sought after forms of energy. Its use drives the engines of the industrialized world. Many areas of North America have experienced electrical power outages, and users have suffered the adverse effects first hand. These effects are shattering, and are a clear indication of what might happen if the supply of electricity fails due to lack of generating capacity.

Burning of the fossil fuel cases massive air pollution in world simply due to the quantities burned. Many people are of the opinion that the electric car is non-polluting, indeed it is, but the electricity for charging the bank of batteries required to drive the vehicle comes from burning fossil fuels. The pollution is still there, and may even be greater, (due to losses when converting from one form of energy to another) than that produced by the fuel used to drive a typical gas driven automobile of equivalent size and power. All that has been accomplished by electric car use is the pollution has been created in an area usually far away, and not in the user’s immediate vicinity. The net reduction in pollution is zero. Note: Direct burning of hydrogen is basically air pollution free, but electricity is required to produce the hydrogen in any quantity; therefore use the hydrogen fuel cell is not pollution free.

World reserves of fossil fuels are massive, and will probably be available for many years at our current or projected consumption. A few examples are coal, oil and natural gas. Oil reserves, the one of which is used the most, are declining. Not so subtle wars are being fought over access to these reserves at the present time.

One might ask, so what? Let’s just build more fossil fueled plants and let life continue, after all there is plenty of fossil fuel available. But, and this is the big but, the burning of fossil fuels causes massive world air pollution. The world cannot withstand this polluting onslaught indefinitely. There are many indicators that the world is approaching a crisis situation e.g., ozone layer depletion, ice cap melting, and ocean warming to mention a few. Clearly, the current level of burning fossil fuels must be reduced. Many people will suggest conservation, which should be practiced, but this is alone is not sufficient. At best it is a silly political suggestion.

Pollution free generation of electricity is probably the solution to reducing the massive pollution caused by burning fossil fuels. There are attempts to produce pollution free electricity. Examples are hydro, solar, and wind power. Almost all the world’s water power energy has been developed; further, hydro development causes much environmental damage, indicating that is not really the pollution free source many believe. Wind power is simply not sufficient to meet the demand (when the wind fails the ice cream melts). Back-up is always required for 100% reliability. It is air pollution free,but has some adverse effects like killing birds. Solar is not a viable option for large scale generation. When it is dark no power is produced. In general electricity cannot be stored for future use.

We are left with considering the only realistic source for producing electricity in the quantities required to meet the demand. This is Nuclear Power Generation of electricity. Nuclear power use is not pollution free. It has its potential liabilities, which are well known; an example, Chernobyl (Ukraine) and Three Mile Island (USA). Nuclear power will have to be used more extensively in the immediate future beyond any doubt. Its use has risks that have to be balanced against the massive air pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Nuclear power does not cause air pollution, the main concern, unless an unforeseen accident occurs.

Nuclear power production leaves behind a by-product, radioactive waste, the disposal of which is the cause of some controversy in the publics mind, most of which is fear-mongering ,not based on science. The final depository of this waste product will probably be in pre-Cambrian rock formations, with safeguards dictated by the technology of the day. It is mostly an hysterical non- issue.

Concurrent with getting nuclear power generation of electricity on-line for the immediate and moderate future a massive effort should be undertaken to research and develop other fuels. Solar and hydrogen appear to be two promising areas. This will take large amounts of money and political decision making to determine the true potential. There are other, lesser known sources of primary energy, where research funds should be allocated,e.g. super-conductivity.

Summary: Production of air pollution free electricity using nuclear energy is an immediate necessity. More nuclear plant construction should be started forthwith, incorporating the latest technology. The ultimate objective is the reducing in number of fossil fuel generating plants. Once this electricity is on-line in sufficient quantities; the electric automobile powered by hydrogen fuel cells or batteries could eventually replace the fossil fuel engines. Failure to act, or waiting too long to act, invites misery and major disruption in the industrialized world, and the world at large.

Canadian propaganda is strong regarding the merits of the CANDU, yet the two plants in Ontario have used money faster than the mint can print it. I have no idea how CANDU reactors can be exported and yet the two plants in Ontario don't work without unending breakdowns and maintenance.

Ontario's huge electrical generating debt can be attributed to the nuclear part of electrical generation. What cause such financial disaster? The Nuclear power generation financial disaster is an enigma to most people. What happened and why probably needs a public enquiry. This financial disaster took place under the auspices of all political parties.(Liberal, NDP, and Conservatives).

From studing the success of reactors in France and Japan, it appears to me our governments should contract out any new construction to both or one of these countries. Yes, I hate to admit it, but from the evidence Canadian built reactors or Canadian workmanship is sadly wanting in this area.

Quote
Nothing in this world is perfectly safe. But in comparison with other methods available for generating electricity, or with the risks of doing without electricity, the dangers of nuclear power are very small. They are also hundreds of times smaller than many other risks we constantly live with and pay no attention to. Unquote (Bernard L. Cohen,Professor Emeritus,University of Pittsburgh 1990).

Durgan

 

[Durgan]

Nuclear power? Don't dismiss it

We cannot afford to dither any longer about the impending energy crisis. All governments must act now

Henry Porter
Sunday November 27, 2005
The Observer

URL to full story: http://cupurped.notlong.com

The great game of the 21st century is being played out before our eyes, but few seem to notice.Last week, Tony Blair hinted that he was prepared to go ahead with a new generation of nuclear reactors at an as yet unknown cost.

Durgan.

 

[iamcanadian]

They are safer than flying in a passenger jet, driving a car, walking down a sidewalk, or taking a shower standing up, which everyone does without thinking about the hazards.

Nuclear power after fifty years has proven to be safer than anything else. More people have died from every other form of energy production in the same period of time. Oil, Coal, Gas, Wind etc.

 

[MMMike]

What choice does Ontario really have?
All the options seem to have downside
Dec. 10, 2005. 01:00 AM
IAN URQUHART


The report of the Ontario Power Authority — all 1,100 pages of it —landed with a thud at Queen's Park yesterday and launched the province on a new nuclear journey.

In its long-awaited assessment of Ontario's future electricity needs, the power authority said nuclear power should definitely remain a major part of the supply mix.

And with today's nuclear reactors reaching the end of their operational lifespans within 15 to 20 years, that means the province should soon begin the process of building new nuclear facilities.

The Star

 

[MMMike]

Put $35B in nuclear power, report says
Must supply half Ontario's needs, report says
Total cost to build electricity sector will be $83 billion
Dec. 10, 2005. 10:29 AM
RICHARD BRENNAN AND JOHN SPEARS
STAFF REPORTERS


The energy crunch is coming at Ontario so fast it has no choice but to rely on nuclear energy to supply half its needs, a report to the provincial government says.

That means overhauling or replacing all of the nuclear reactors in the province at a cost of up to $35 billion, the 1,100-page report from the Ontario Power Authority said. The report, made public yesterday, estimates it will cost $83 billion to rebuild Ontario's electricity sector over the next 20 years.

And consumers will be picking up the tab to the tune of 16 per cent a year extra on their hydro bills in the future just to pay for the new generation capacity.

The recommendation that Ontario continue to rely on nuclear power for 50 per cent of its energy needs will be controversial. But the report tries to balance that by recommending a boost to renewable energy as well.

Renewable sources such as wind, solar and water power should go from 23 per cent of electricity supply to 43 per cent by 2025, the report said. The OPA was told by the government not to consider coal as an alternative since the Liberals want the existing coal-fired power plants closed by 2009.

here

sorry - bloody link doesn't work. Go to thestar.com and follow link from there.

 

[nitzomoe]

RE: Made-in-Ontario nucle

i wish they hadnt put so much money into bruce to open 2 or the reactors, such a waste could have built a new unit altogether.

 

[Durgan]

Howard Hampton is the Leader of the Ontario New Democratic Party. Every time he babbles about energy requirements in Ontario, he exhibits almost total ignorance about the problem. Unfortunatley, he has a forum and his message is uninformed and totally misleading. I find his uninformed ramblings embarrassing to hear.

His periodic one minute media exposures are emotional, hysterical babble, and does a great disservice to informing the public about the pressing issue of primary power generation in Ontario.

The solution will not be found in emotional public hearings, but cold practical realistic factual thinking. It is time for action by our elected political people. The problem is highly technical and calls for political will to implement action in building reliable generation capacity now. I sincerely hope Mr. McGuinty holds the course.

Durgan.

 

[iamcanadian]

The problem is highly technical and calls for political will to implement action in building reliable generation capacity now.

Hence we have a problem. The non-elected administrators respond to corporate interest for maximising tax revenues. Government gets less taxes if energy is produced cheaply, such as with Nuclear Power. Furthermore, it puts the energy production in fewer hands and therefore the public money flow easier to scrutinize and manage.

Bureacrats don't like things simple and easy to follow, so they recommend against it and justify more wasteful and damaging ways to satify the energy needs, for their personal self-interests of maintaning and amplifying bureaucracies and fragmented tax revenues tha are harder to keep track of.

 

[Durgan]

Today 14 Decemver 2005. Ontario Power Generation is down and we are buying US Coal Fired power.

This is an indicator of what is coming, unless action is taken soon by the Provincial Liberal Government.

It would be interesting if the US couldn't supply the needed power.

Durgan.

 

[TenPenny]

"Sorry for my ignorance on the issue, I just know these plants aren't the safest thing in the world."

Yup. Whatever you do, don't ever let ignorance get in the way of a firmly held belief. You never, ever want to do that. As far as I'm concerned, that sums up the need to ignore this whole thread.

 

[Durgan]

Re: RE: Made-in-Ontario nuclear power

"Sorry for my ignorance on the issue, I just know these plants aren't the safest thing in the world."

Yup. Whatever you do, don't ever let ignorance get in the way of a firmly held belief. You never, ever want to do that. As far as I'm concerned, that sums up the need to ignore this whole thread.

When the light go out?
Durgan.

 

[iamcanadian]

Re: RE: Made-in-Ontario nuclear power

"Sorry for my ignorance on the issue, I just know these plants aren't the safest thing in the world."

In fact they are the safest thing in the world. I don't think mankind has ever built anything safer to produce energy in any given quantity.

 

[MMMike]

Fallout seen if Ontario shuns Candus
By MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT

Monday, December 19, 2005 Posted at 3:30 AM EST

From Monday's Globe and Mail

TORONTO — Building a nuclear power plant in Canada has always meant one thing: buying a Candu, the Canadian atomic reactor with the patriotic-sounding name.

But the Ontario government sent shock waves through the nuclear industry last week by suggesting it will consider foreign designs for new stations.

It would be a dramatic change, as all of Canada's reactors are Candus, with plants in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick. The technology, with a name suggestive of getting things done, has been a point of pride in the country's nuclear industry for more than four decades. Even a furtive glance at foreign reactor types up to now has been considered beyond the pale.

"I think it would be a staggering blow to the Canadian nuclear industry if Ontario went with an alternate reactor technology, or even seriously considered a [non-Candu design]," observed David Martin, an energy analyst at Greenpeace Canada.

Globe and Mail

Let the best technology win.

 

[Jay]

I'm suprised at the Liberals in Ontario. I wouldn't have thought they would even consider anything other than Candu.....good for them.

 

[Reverend Blair]

The upside of Candus, compared with other designs, is that they can be refuelled without having to be turned off, and they use a less expensive form of uranium fuel.

That's an important consideration as well. Does it, or will it in the future, save money because of that?

 

[Durgan]

Other than Canada there are few Candus in operation. Romania is a disaster, India to make atomic bombs and I forget the third. There are non in the USA. Expensive to build and maintain is the apparent experience of these propagandized units.

The ones that are in foreign countries were subsidized by the Canadian tax-paper as a bribe for those countries to buy them.

The Candus in Canada cost about ten to thirty times their value and are down today. We are buying electricity in Ontario at 30 cents a KWH as oppossed to 8 cents. Candus anybody? It appears the better types of reactors are in France and Japan.

Candu propaganda is overwhelming and is not justified in practice.
Durgan.