New Nukes for Ontario

[jdobbin]

http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/444474

Power-hungry Ontario wants new sources of electricity near Toronto. Hard-hit Durham Region wants jobs. Those factors won out over environmental fears and huge costs yesterday as the province announced that the Darlington nuclear plant will be expanded to accommodate two giant reactors.

Canada's first new reactors in two decades are expected to generate up to 3,200 megawatts of power. That is almost enough to power all homes and businesses in Toronto and nearly doubles Darlington's current capacity.

I think this is is a smart decision in terms of Ontario reducing its carbon and meeting the energy demands of the province.

There are certainly other environmental concerns and financial concerns about this decision and the project should be scrutinized at all times to make sure it doesn't soar over budget or run a shoddy operation in terms of safety.

[Oleg Bach]

http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/444474

I think this is is a smart decision in terms of Ontario reducing its carbon and meeting the energy demands of the province.

There are certainly other environmental concerns and financial concerns about this decision and the project should be scrutinized at all times to make sure it doesn't soar over budget or run a shoddy operation in terms of safety.

Take a canoe tour of the water around a Nuke...it's hot and it is akin to sewage - all life is dead except that which is filthy and likes artifical hot water..there is a price for nuclear power..heat pollution!

[jdobbin]

Take a canoe tour of the water around a Nuke...it's hot and it is akin to sewage - all life is dead except that which is filthy and likes artifical hot water..there is a price for nuclear power..heat pollution!

And the price for coal plants: air pollution and carbon emissions.

Take your pick. Or turn off your computer, your lights and your power and sit in the dark. Do your part to save the planet.

[Wild Bill]

Take a canoe tour of the water around a Nuke...it's hot and it is akin to sewage - all life is dead except that which is filthy and likes artifical hot water..there is a price for nuclear power..heat pollution!

Something tells me you're not a fisherman. Anglers have been having a ball since Darlington was created. The warm water is perfect for giving fish a longer feeding and growing season!

Great Lakes are HUGE! Darlington only manages to raise the temperature of the water close to the plant by a couple of degrees. We're talking an enormous heat sink here. To the fish however, it makes all the difference in the world.

Perhaps things are different where you live. Maybe your nukes are built by small ponds.

[Oleg Bach]

And the price for coal plants: air pollution and carbon emissions.

Take your pick. Or turn off your computer, your lights and your power and sit in the dark. Do your part to save the planet.

Hey I remember living without power for a few months out in the country with my young family - It was wonderful and we talked and cooked and played music. Frankly I am so poor now that I do not have a computer...and I biked over to one of the kids to walk the dogs and do some posting...I live on 50 bucks a month...being the proto-type of things to come...I am adapted and you are behind.....You can not get something for nothing in this world..that idea of constant energy consuption for no good reason is not sustainable..in time we will choke in our own pollution....we have to be human again and not dawn these artifical bodies called cars..or sit in an office tower pretending we are creating wealth. As far as saving the planet..it starts with saving yourself my friend.

[jdobbin]

Hey I remember living without power for a few months out in the country with my young family - It was wonderful and we talked and cooked and played music. Frankly I am so poor now that I do not have a computer...and I biked over to one of the kids to walk the dogs and do some posting...I live on 50 bucks a month...being the proto-type of things to come...I am adapted and you are behind.....You can not get something for nothing in this world..that idea of constant energy consuption for no good reason is not sustainable..in time we will choke in our own pollution....we have to be human again and not dawn these artifical bodies called cars..or sit in an office tower pretending we are creating wealth. As far as saving the planet..it starts with saving yourself my friend.

I guess we could do the Monty Python thing and say: You are so rich that you live for $50 a month!? And I would say: I live in a hole in the ground. To whit you would answer: You can afford to live in a hole in the ground?! I wish I was that rich.

We can make as grand statements as we like. It doesn't offer solutions when we say grandly: We should all live in peace! Tell us something we don't know. It is how people get to that peace which is important and that requires coming up with solutions.

Ontario needs energy now. The province should be looking to reduce energy needs as a top priority but even aggressive work in that regard won't completely preclude the need for new energy plants. At the moment coal does more damage to the environment. Nuclear would address that and help clean up that problem.

The solution to this problem as I was sarcastically trying to make is not to turn off the lights for everyone because that would be a revolutionary and probably violent. I doubt very much it would result in a wonderful life if people didn't make it their personal choice.

Edited June 17, 2008 by jdobbin

[Oleg Bach]

I guess we could do the Monty Python thing and say: You are so rich that live for $50 a month!? And I would say: I live in a hole in the ground. To whit you would answer: You can afford to live in a hole in the ground?! I wish I was that rich.

We can make as grand statements as we like. It doesn't offer solutions when we say grandly: We should all live in peace! Tell us something we don't know. It is how people get to that peace which is important and that requires coming up with solutions.

Ontario needs energy now. The province should be looking to reduce energy needs as a top priority but even aggressive work in that regard won't completely preclude the need for new energy plants. At the moment coal does more damage to the environment. Nuclear would address that and help clean up that problem.

The solution to this problem as I was sarcastically trying to make is not to turn off the lights for everyone because that would be a revolutionary and probably violent. I doubt very much it would result in a wonderful life if people didn't make it their personal choice.

Thanks for the laugh - you are very clever and funny! Solutions??? - take the mayor of Toronto who is supposed to be very GREEN and a socialist...what a fraud...He does what he is told to do. Prime example is that on my one way street they hand out 300 dollar fines to those on a bike that ride slowly up the side walk..and they ticket cars repeatedly that are not effecting traffic flow..Government must return to the old principle of real service of the people. The attitude these days is to get into power and suck the power out of the people..that is not a noble or kingly mindset. Humanity is not a "human resourse" for a select few to feed on as if Ontario was a badly run Draconian private estate...The estate of Ontario is poorly managed..because of the fact we are treated as private property whose soul purpose is to consome needlessly to enrich those that are beyound material wealth - the men that run the place are habitualists and have lost sight of what power is - real power is the granting of power back and forth as a real and benevolent social contract..we have no proper contract and no proper judical system...clean this up and people will do more than shop untill they drop and maybe black kids will find self resepect and stop killing those that seem to have more.

[jdobbin]

Thanks for the laugh - you are very clever and funny! Solutions??? - take the mayor of Toronto who is supposed to be very GREEN and a socialist...what a fraud...He does what he is told to do.

I can't speak for Toronto as I don't live there. However, if you don't like the situation, you should run for office. I did.

[madmax]

I think this is is a smart decision in terms of Ontario reducing its carbon and meeting the energy demands of the province.

If you are interested in Carbon Footprints, then you should know this.....

http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/new...48-fb29b66d9323

Nuclear energy's dirty secrets

The Leader-Post

Published: Wednesday, August 08, 2007

It's astonishing that the Canadian Nuclear Association is allowed to falsely advertise nuclear energy as "clean." Pro-nukes want us to believe nuclear energy, in contrast to coal, doesn't produce greenhouse gases (GHGs).

This is nonsense. From mining to milling to enrichment, from reactor construction to decommissioning, nuclear uses vast amounts of fossil fuels. Expansion of nuclear power would involve mining lower-grade ore; this would require even more fossil fuels.

And consider this: all Saskatchewan uranium exported to its biggest customer -- the U.S. -- is enriched by two dirty coal plants in Kentucky.

That nuclear energy is being promoted for the production of Alberta's heavy oil should put to rest the nonsensical view it is a magic bullet for solving global warming.

There are certainly other environmental concerns and financial concerns about this decision and the project should be scrutinized at all times to make sure it doesn't soar over budget or run a shoddy operation in terms of safety.

When has that happened. Nuclear will always be overbudget and a costly boondoggle to provide energy.

Once again the Liberals are governing by polls.

Including the chosen site.

[M.Dancer]

If you are interested in Carbon Footprints, then you should know this.....

http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/new...48-fb29b66d9323

When has that happened. Nuclear will always be overbudget and a costly boondoggle to provide energy.

Once again the Liberals are governing by polls.

Including the chosen site.

I would not put much weight on a op ed from an environmental studies prof....now if he had a science degree rather than one that allows you to be an PR hack....

Edited June 18, 2008 by M.Dancer

[fellowtraveller]

Why does Ontario need so much new power, given that its manufacturing base is contracting at an unprecedented rate?

[jdobbin]

If you are interested in Carbon Footprints, then you should know this.....

When has that happened. Nuclear will always be overbudget and a costly boondoggle to provide energy.

Once again the Liberals are governing by polls.

I would much rather Ontario buy their power from Manitoba but the NDP of Ontario cancelled that deal and I don't know if they support it now.

What was the NDP governed by when it cancelled Conawapa?

I have no doubt that nuclear does have some carbon footprint. Is it worse than coal? My thoughts are no.

As for cost overruns, it is a problem. I hope that whatever government decision on power is made that the budget is closely monitored.

What is the NDP policy on power in Ontario? Conservation? Will that meet the needs of the population? Will it mean continued operation of coal plants?

[jdobbin]

Why does Ontario need so much new power, given that its manufacturing base is contracting at an unprecedented rate?

Unprecedented in relation to what? What are you comparing it to?

Ontario was still experiencing growth in population last year as well as continued economic growth. They are struggling a bit now but they were already in need of extra power in the 1990s and have had to rely on coal plants working harder to meet demand.

[Wild Bill]

Why does Ontario need so much new power, given that its manufacturing base is contracting at an unprecedented rate?

Well, maybe because we've been a net buyer rather than seller for some years now! When I was a lad we made a healthy profit exporting power but that was so long ago I was actually thin!

[madmax]

Why does Ontario need so much new power, given that its manufacturing base is contracting at an unprecedented rate?

Ouch!

[Wild Bill]

I would much rather Ontario buy their power from Manitoba but the NDP of Ontario cancelled that deal and I don't know if they support it now.

What is the NDP policy on power in Ontario? Conservation? Will that meet the needs of the population? Will it mean continued operation of coal plants?

The problem with buying Manitoba power is that we would need to build a new and long corridor of high voltage transmission line towers to get the power to where we need it. That's a large capital investment and takes a few years. Dalton would certainly want to dodge that one. Since most folks have no idea that power needs wires to get to the cities they wouldn't give him any credit for building those lines.

As for the NDP, from what I've heard they've been calling for the elimination of all coal fired plants with absolutely no mention of replacement power. All they ever seem to talk about is conservation, which of course is a mug's game anyway. How much power do they think conservation would offer?

Conservation is really just another word for efficiency. Even if every one of us bought enough extra insulation to bring our homes up to R2000 standards it wouldn't be nearly enough to meet our growing needs. One steel plant or aluminum smelter makes our residential demands look like chicken feed in comparison.

Besides, what if we achieved 100% efficiency? Not a single watt of power was wasted. We became 100% conservers! Now, how do we cope with growing demand?

Consider a farming community of 100 people. They have a certain finite amount of cleared farmland available to grow food for everyone in the community. One spring they wake up and there are 5 new babies in the community.

So they get a bit more conscientious about their farming and improve their efficiency. The babies are fed and grow just fine. They eventually marry and one spring there are 15 more babies!

More "conservation" tactics are applied. They get more out of each plowed acre and they stop throwing away the potato peels and make them into restaurant appetizers.

25 more babies are born and 50 relatives retire and come to the community to live with their relations!

See what's happening? Sooner or later there are no practical conservation efficiencies left! Without new land everybody will start to get hungry.

Just as without new power sources we will have blackouts in our growing cities.

Edited June 18, 2008 by Wild Bill

[madmax]

I would much rather Ontario buy their power from Manitoba but the NDP of Ontario cancelled that deal and I don't know if they support it now.

What was the NDP governed by when it cancelled Conawapa?

Are you talking about the Manitoba NDP cancelling the above Conawapa?

As for buying power from Manitoba, there is enough power in Northern Ontario to be self sufficient and sell to southern Ontario, except its not on the grid.

Regardess, I am no expert, but why not buy power from Manitoba if its producing excess cap.

I have no doubt that nuclear does have some carbon footprint. Is it worse than coal? My thoughts are no.

I guess you will have to get some documentation from the Nuclear Lobbiest to back that up.

As for cost overruns, it is a problem. I hope that whatever government decision on power is made that the budget is closely monitored.

I am still paying DEBT on those Nuclear reactors. I am still subsidizing Bruce Power even though it is "Privatized".

You want to make a case for Manitoba power. Start shouting loud. If there is money to waste on this dogs breakfast, I am certain it could be better spent helping your province develop the above Conawapa.

Nuclear Waste is not safe.

[madmax]

The problem with buying Manitoba power is that we would need to build a new and long corridor of high voltage transmission line towers to get the power to where we need it. That's a large capital investment and takes a few years. Dalton would certainly want to dodge that one. Since most folks have no idea that power needs wires to get to the cities they wouldn't give him any credit for building those lines.

Ditto.

But it could be done. Unfortuneately the Nuclear Lobbiests have more say, and McGuinty has no courage.

The nuclear lobbyists wants the taxpayers monies and McGuinty is going to give it to them.

[madmax]

I would not put much weight on a op ed from an environmental studies prof....now if he had a science degree rather than one that allows you to be an PR hack....

You know him?

Here some other stuff to consider.

Alan Roberts taught physics and environmental science at Monash University. His sources are cited in full in a longer article in Arena Journal No.23.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/uns...8796587593.html

Unsafe, unsound and unattainable

October 13, 2005

The real danger of going nuclear is diverting policymakers from developing non-polluting alternatives and cutting waste, writes Alan Roberts.

NOW that the world has generally accepted the overwhelming evidence for climate change, a number of the usual and unusual suspects are proposing we develop safe nuclear power as a safe option and as a fallback if oil runs out soon. The nuclear industry has found some surprising friends, including James Lovelock, developer of the Gaia hypothesis, who hopes that nuclear energy will become a bridge to cleaner, safer technologies.

Debate about the morality of nuclear power has become intense. However, it's purely academic. There's no point in arguing about whether nuclear power should be used to replace fossil fuel. The truth is it can't — it won't do the job, and there isn't enough uranium.

Let's examine a few facts.

A shift to nuclear power — even if it were possible — would have no effect on the bulk of the greenhouse gases emitted because most of these gases come from outside the electrical power industry. For example, the 15 countries of the European Union would still be pouring more than 3 million tonnes of greenhouse gases into the air each year — close to 80 per cent of their present emissions. California's trucks and cars emit more than 3½ times as much greenhouse gas as its electrical plants, and the humming of all-electric cars is still music of the future. Assuming that no one is suggesting developing car-sized nuclear reactors, emission levels will go on rising.

But what about the fossil fuel use nuclear power can replace? Again, there's a lot of illusion here. The construction of a nuclear station, and the mining and processing of the fuel to supply it, requires significant energy and the associated emissions. A detailed study by van Leeuwin and Smith (cited in Arena Journal No.23) found that for poor grades of ore, more energy is needed to process the uranium than the uranium delivers. If you decide to build a nuclear power station, be prepared to wait 10 years. This, plus the years of operation before energy output exceeds the energy taken to build it, means that shifting to nuclear would initially worsen fossil fuel emissions.

Not even touching the environmental problems of Nuclear.

Edited June 18, 2008 by madmax

[M.Dancer]

You know him?

No....but environmental studies people are basically flacks with high school level science...something anyone with a PR background can do....and if he's got Caldicott's endorsement...so much the worse. She's the one that claims Cruise missiles have DU warheads....

[jdobbin]

Are you talking about the Manitoba NDP cancelling the above Conawapa?

No, I am talking about the Ontario NDP cancelling the project. They cancelled the agreement that Peterson had made to sell power to Ontario in the 1990s.

As for buying power from Manitoba, there is enough power in Northern Ontario to be self sufficient and sell to southern Ontario, except its not on the grid.

Once again this is the Ontario NDP's doing when they cancelled Conawapa and several other measures to build a grid.

I'll cite Hansard but there are several other sources for this information. The Manitoba NDP was incredulous that the NDP of Ontario put the kibosh on the deal. All the parties in Manitoba were.

http://hansardindex.ontla.on.ca/hansardeissue/38-1/l087b.htm

The NDP record is abysmal. Between 1993 and 1995, Ontario Hydro phased out all conservation initiatives. The NDP also cancelled a major green hydroelectric project, Conawapa, which would have given access to 1,250 megawatts of clean renewable power. This would have helped Ontario become less dependent on dirty, coal-fired generation. The NDP increased hydro rates by 40% in just three years, and added $4.2 billion to Ontario Hydro's stranded debt.

Regardess, I am no expert, but why not buy power from Manitoba if its producing excess cap.

It is almost getting too late now. Conawapa will go ahead with power sales to the U.S.

I guess you will have to get some documentation from the Nuclear Lobbiest to back that up.

I'd like to see an independent study done on that. Perhaps the NDP of Ontario will push for that. The attitude in Manitoba is that the NDP of Ontario have a lot of gall when they talk about the lack of a green initiative in Ontario. The deal they cancelled would have been good for two provinces and the very coal plants that Ontario relies on now would not have to be working overtime to meet demand.

I am still paying DEBT on those Nuclear reactors. I am still subsidizing Bruce Power even though it is "Privatized".

I can't speak to past mistakes. I can only say that government is continually being taken to the cleaners on contracts and that has to stop.

You want to make a case for Manitoba power. Start shouting loud. If there is money to waste on this dogs breakfast, I am certain it could be better spent helping your province develop the above Conawapa.

Manitoba has made the case and continues to make the case. We once had a deal. What is the NDP policy now?

Nuclear Waste is not safe.

No, it is not. However, it is my belief that it has less of a carbon footprint and causes less less air pollution than coal. I'd welcome a study on that if you know of one.

Edited June 18, 2008 by jdobbin

[madmax]

No....but environmental studies people are basically flacks with high school level science...something anyone with a PR background can do....and if he's got Caldicott's endorsement...so much the worse. She's the one that claims Cruise missiles have DU warheads....

Does it matter if DU is in a tank shell or a cruise missile?

[madmax]

No....

Oh, I thought you knew this person when you called him a hack and passed judgement. So, that is why I provided the environmental science professor who said basically say the same thing but had the credentials you wanted.

Nuclear is Nuclear, I don't buy the false marketing. Tell it for what it is, how much it costs, and the problems it still creates. Nuclear power comes with warts.

And it is not Sustainable in the long term so.... why bother.

[madmax]

Manitoba has made the case and continues to make the case.

Obviously not well enough for the Ontario Liberals. They have chosen Nuclear heavy water over Manitoba clean water .

No, it is not. However, it is my belief that it has less of a carbon footprint and causes less less air pollution than coal. I'd welcome a study on that if you know of one.

A common myth is not fact. I too thought that nuclear created less of a footprint. Apparently it does not, ..as the article earlier in this thread highlights. I too used to believe that these nuclear doorstops provided good value for the energy the produced.

That is why we don't need another. I wouldn't recommend Manitoba get any either. No matter who is in power.

Edited June 18, 2008 by madmax

[M.Dancer]

Does it matter if DU is in a tank shell or a cruise missile?

umm..orange?

DU is a kinetic weapon. It is effective as the point of an extremely fast projectile. I would be highly surpised if it is used in a cruise missile, never the less anti nuclear crusader and supposedly expert , Helen Caldicott likes to believe they are...