New Nukes for Ontario

[M.Dancer]

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.

The science prof is making somewhat different claims, notably he ain't appealing to bleeding hearts by claiming that sask's reactors make DU weapons. Anyway, I would have thought the anti nuke type would support recycling....

[jdobbin]

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

They still might end up buying power from Manitoba since Conawapa will probably on stream earlier due to U.S. sales. Manitoba has begged Ontario and the Feds to support the dam and transmission line which would help create an eat west corridor and help with greener energy.

It seems only north south trade is supported.

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.

I am comparing the situation to coal and oil. It produces one fifth of the carbon once the plant is built.

It isn't better than renewal energies.

What is the NDP policy aside from criticism? Do they support Conawapa now? Do they think windmills and solar will be able to meet the demand?

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

Manitoba doesn't need nuclear power. Cost overruns can affect any energy project though. Even hydro.

[segnosaur]

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

Not even touching the environmental problems of Nuclear.

...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.

Out of curiosity I did a bit of research on this.

If Roberts is basing his analysis on the work of van Leeuwin and Smith, he could be dealing with some bad data...

From: http://uninews.unimelb.edu.au/articleid_3096.html (University of Melbourne)

...findings showing that hundreds of times more uranium could be available than was predicted in a widely quoted study by van Leeuwen and Smith. Associate Professor Sevior says Van Leeuwen and Smith also seriously overestimate the energy needed to mine uranium and construct nuclear power plants.

...

The scientists find that the energy cost to build a power plant would be ‘paid back’ within one and a half months of its establishment, and that the disposal of nuclear waste would add just one and a half more months to that total. Van Leeuwen and Smith predicted that nuclear power plants would take 7 - 10 years to 'pay back' these energy costs.

They also investigated the energy cost of mining uranium from the Olympic Dam mine in South Australia and found that it is at least 10 times smaller than predicted by van Leeuwen and Smith.

Granted, its quite possible that the study out of Melbourne is overly optimistic; still, this was done by academics (rather than people directly involved in the nuclear industry, although its quite possible some do privately funded research.)

Edited to add:

Upon doing some research, I found even more conflicting information with the van Leeuwen and Smith study. Someone found problems with the way they handle some of the conversions of energy units, as well as flaws in some of their data. (Note: this source is a blog, but it does refer to the actual data provided in the study. Take it for what you will.)

http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2008/0...-egregious.html

Edited June 18, 2008 by segnosaur

[madmax]

Anyway, I would have thought the anti nuke type would support recycling....

[madmax]

Out of curiosity I did a bit of research on this.

If Roberts is basing his analysis on the work of van Leeuwin and Smith, he could be dealing with some bad data...

What would we do without Google...

Your research could be correct.

[madmax]

I am comparing the situation to coal and oil. It produces one fifth of the carbon once the plant is built.

I don't wish to wade into being a nuclear expert. However, I will start talking with my friend who was an engineer in the nuclear plant, currently recovering from Brain Cancer for details on these questions.

In the meantime, are you separating the Uranium Mining from the Process?

[M.Dancer]

In the meantime, are you separating the Uranium Mining from the Process?

Or for that matter, coal mining?

[jdobbin]

I don't wish to wade into being a nuclear expert. However, I will start talking with my friend who was an engineer in the nuclear plant, currently recovering from Brain Cancer for details on these questions.

His brain cancer is linked to the plant? I'm sorry to hear that.

In the meantime, are you separating the Uranium Mining from the Process?

I don't think you can separate anything from the process of producing energy. For example, even hydro's carbon footprint is higher if you calculate how much forest might be flooded.

It is like the people who buy a Prius and don't realize that the batteries crisscross the planet as they are processed. It actually makes their carbon usage fairly high compared to buying a Civic.

[jdobbin]

Meanwhile, this interesting little bit of news.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25251529/

Sen. John McCain called Wednesday for the construction of 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030 and pledged $2 billion a year in federal funds "to make clean coal a reality," measures designed to reduce dependence on foreign oil.

In a third straight day of campaigning devoted to the energy issue, the Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting also said the only time Democratic rival Barack Obama voted for a tax cut was for a "break for the oil companies."

[Argus]

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.

Yes, only five years after he came to power promising to close down Ontario's coal plants within the year. These nuclear plants won't be on line until 2018, so that is the bare earliest he will actually be able to close down those coal plants.

BTW, at their current speed of construction, China will build 1000 new coal fired power plants between now and 2018.

Somehow, I think the environment will be minimally affected by the closing of a few Ontario coal plants.

[jdobbin]

Yes, only five years after he came to power promising to close down Ontario's coal plants within the year. These nuclear plants won't be on line until 2018, so that is the bare earliest he will actually be able to close down those coal plants.

Very true. He did move slow on the plants.

Guess he underestimated the damage done by the previous PC government.

BTW, at their current speed of construction, China will build 1000 new coal fired power plants between now and 2018.

Somehow, I think the environment will be minimally affected by the closing of a few Ontario coal plants.

You think? Seems that those coal plants do a lot of local damage in Ontario.

I think China will soon find that it needs alternatives as they choke on the results of that much energy coming from coal.

[Argus]

Very true. He did move slow on the plants.

Guess he underestimated the damage done by the previous PC government.

You think? Seems that those coal plants do a lot of local damage in Ontario.

Uh, so you're suggesting what exactly? That McGuinty didn't realize you can't close down power plants without replacing them with something? That he didn't realize, as has been obvious since the blackout some years back, that we have barely enough power and distribution to cope with present demands?

You seem to be suggesting McGuinty is either a bald-faced liar or a complete moron. Which is it?

[Wild Bill]

Uh, so you're suggesting what exactly? That McGuinty didn't realize you can't close down power plants without replacing them with something? That he didn't realize, as has been obvious since the blackout some years back, that we have barely enough power and distribution to cope with present demands?

You seem to be suggesting McGuinty is either a bald-faced liar or a complete moron. Which is it?

More than that, Dalton's a hypocrite! There's scrubber technology already developed that will clean up the lion's part of the emissions from the coal plants. You'd think that if he was going to let them run for 15 years past his initial renege on his promise the least he could have done was to clean them up!

But NOOOOOOOOOOOO! That would just draw attention back to his broken promise and be embarrassing! Obviously, dirty laundry is more important than dirty air.

[jdobbin]

Uh, so you're suggesting what exactly? That McGuinty didn't realize you can't close down power plants without replacing them with something? That he didn't realize, as has been obvious since the blackout some years back, that we have barely enough power and distribution to cope with present demands?

You seem to be suggesting McGuinty is either a bald-faced liar or a complete moron. Which is it?

Actually, I was going to say how the Tories left the province so crippled by deficit spending that it took so long to dig out.

[Argus]

Actually, I was going to say how the Tories left the province so crippled by deficit spending that it took so long to dig out.

I'm sure you wouldn't have said that because that would have been a blatant lie. You wouldn't be that dishonest, would you?

[jdobbin]

I'm sure you wouldn't have said that because that would have been a blatant lie. You wouldn't be that dishonest, would you?

So Ontario didn't have a $5.5 billion fiscal deficit in 2003 left by Flaherty?

[Argus]

So Ontario didn't have a $5.5 billion fiscal deficit in 2003 left by Flaherty?

No, it didn't. What the Liberals did (why are Liberals almost universally dishonest?) was to first pretend that they had no idea there was a debt, which was a lie, and then take the mostly temporary deficit (distinguished from systemic deficits) caused by a number of unusual, one-time factors like the blackout, Sars, etc., then lump in the debt from Ontario Hydro, future debts not yet incurred, and everything else they could find to make it seem as if the debt was much larger than it actually was.

Now trumpeting this "massive debt" the Liberals went back on their pledge not to raise taxes "to pay for the deficit" and then vastly increased program spending at the same time. As they continued to increase taxes they continued to increase spending, all the while bemoaning the "tory debt" which forced them to keep raising taxes.

Not, btw, that any of the above has ANYTHING to do with why McGuinty promised he'd close power plants in a year and didn't. Even the provincial Liberals have never even insinuated that they were putting off closing down those plants and bringing new ones on line because of the debt. That's nothing but you weaseling around the fact that McGuinty broke yet another promise, and has again displayed that incredible Liberal efficiency by taking 5 years to make a decision.

[jdobbin]

No, it didn't. What the Liberals did (why are Liberals almost universally dishonest?) was to first pretend that they had no idea there was a debt, which was a lie, and then take the mostly temporary deficit (distinguished from systemic deficits) caused by a number of unusual, one-time factors like the blackout, Sars, etc., then lump in the debt from Ontario Hydro, future debts not yet incurred, and everything else they could find to make it seem as if the debt was much larger than it actually was.

Now trumpeting this "massive debt" the Liberals went back on their pledge not to raise taxes "to pay for the deficit" and then vastly increased program spending at the same time. As they continued to increase taxes they continued to increase spending, all the while bemoaning the "tory debt" which forced them to keep raising taxes.

Not, btw, that any of the above has ANYTHING to do with why McGuinty promised he'd close power plants in a year and didn't. Even the provincial Liberals have never even insinuated that they were putting off closing down those plants and bringing new ones on line because of the debt. That's nothing but you weaseling around the fact that McGuinty broke yet another promise, and has again displayed that incredible Liberal efficiency by taking 5 years to make a decision.

I see the usual bile thrown in for good measure. Just as one might expect.

The only ones I hear saying the Tories left a clean financial slate when they were booted out of office is Flaherty and his supporters.

As for the promise to eliminate the coal plants, it likely came smack dab against the need to control spending. It was probably not the smartest thing to promise such a quick turnover on the plants but then again, Flaherty had said Ontario was in surplus.

[Wild Bill]

I see the usual bile thrown in for good measure. Just as one might expect.

As for the promise to eliminate the coal plants, it likely came smack dab against the need to control spending. It was probably not the smartest thing to promise such a quick turnover on the plants but then again, Flaherty had said Ontario was in surplus.

I vividly remember the promises to close the coal plants. No mention was made of deficits and finances. The promise was to shut them down IMMEDIATELY upon taking office!

This is not at all surprising. We're talking a technical issue here and to be fair I'm sure that if the circumstances were reversed the Tories would have made a similar stupid and ignorant promise.

Politicians are rarely technical people. Chuck Cadman was about the only one I ever heard of. They are poli-sci people. Artsies, not engineers. They could not be trusted to replace a plug on a lamp.

I'm sure Dalton had to have it explained to him that they could not simply shut the coal burning plants down and replace their output with a few 2w solar cell re-charger panels from Canadian Tire. Likely so would have John Tory. It's an absolute certainly that the entire NDP caucus couldn't build a crystal radio let alone understand about power plants.

The idea of having money available is not only moot but irrelevant with such people.

[Argus]

I see the usual bile thrown in for good measure. Just as one might expect.

The only ones I hear saying the Tories left a clean financial slate when they were booted out of office is Flaherty and his supporters.

I'm not saying they left a clean slate. I'm saying the deficit was a short-term affair (wildly exaggerated by Liberals) brought about by unforeseen circumstances - as opposed to the long-term deficits created by Liberals who put expensive programs in place but don't fund them.

As for the promise to eliminate the coal plants, it likely came smack dab against the need to control spending. It was probably not the smartest thing to promise such a quick turnover on the plants but then again, Flaherty had said Ontario was in surplus.

Nice fiction. The promise to close the coal plants had absolutely nothing to do with economics. It was party of the Liberal Party's "green campaign", to reduce CO2 emissions and pollution.

You are the most frequent poster here and I don't think you've ever put a post in place that didn't have some kind of dishonest aspect to it. No wonder you were a Liberal candidate! And no doubt will be again.

[jdobbin]

I'm not saying they left a clean slate. I'm saying the deficit was a short-term affair (wildly exaggerated by Liberals) brought about by unforeseen circumstances - as opposed to the long-term deficits created by Liberals who put expensive programs in place but don't fund them.

Considering that Flaherty insists there was no deficit at all that is some kind of admission.

Nice fiction. The promise to close the coal plants had absolutely nothing to do with economics. It was party of the Liberal Party's "green campaign", to reduce CO2 emissions and pollution.

Nothing to do with economics? Isn't that what the Tories keep insisting about in regards to emissions: That they can't really do too much because of the threat to the economy?

I believe McGuinty made dumb promises on taxes and the coal plants without knowing what the books said in Ontario. The people of Ontario can thank Flaherty for being dishonest about the province being in surplus.

In any event, the switch from coal plants to other energy was going to require a large capital investment of some kind and McGuinty should have made that plain. It was also going to take time to build that new energy source.

You are the most frequent poster here and I don't think you've ever put a post in place that didn't have some kind of dishonest aspect to it. No wonder you were a Liberal candidate! And no doubt will be again.

And you never fail to personalize and become angry and insulting. And no doubt will do it again.

Edited June 22, 2008 by jdobbin

[Topaz]

Didn't Ontario get an ok from Martin that they would help with the Nuclear power but he lost the election and Harper cancelled it and that put Ontario in a bad position??

[madmax]

No, it didn't. What the Liberals did (why are Liberals almost universally dishonest?) was to first pretend that they had no idea there was a debt, which was a lie, and then take the mostly temporary deficit (distinguished from systemic deficits) caused by a number of unusual, one-time factors like the blackout, Sars, etc., then lump in the debt from Ontario Hydro, future debts not yet incurred, and everything else they could find to make it seem as if the debt was much larger than it actually was.

Now trumpeting this "massive debt" the Liberals went back on their pledge not to raise taxes "to pay for the deficit" and then vastly increased program spending at the same time. As they continued to increase taxes they continued to increase spending, all the while bemoaning the "tory debt" which forced them to keep raising taxes.

Not, btw, that any of the above has ANYTHING to do with why McGuinty promised he'd close power plants in a year and didn't. Even the provincial Liberals have never even insinuated that they were putting off closing down those plants and bringing new ones on line because of the debt. That's nothing but you weaseling around the fact that McGuinty broke yet another promise, and has again displayed that incredible Liberal efficiency by taking 5 years to make a decision.

An accurate portrayal of Ontario Politics and Liberal Behaviour.