Nuclear Energy and Ontario

[Brandon716]

http://www.thestar.com/article/642209

Ottawa sanctions Atomic Energy overhaul

Employees fear partial privatization of Candu could wipe out years of Canadian innovation

May 29, 2009 04:30 AM

TYLER HAMILTON
ENERGY REPORTER

It was anything but business-as-usual at Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.’s headquarters yesterday after Ottawa announced it would go ahead with a long-studied restructuring of the troubled Crown corporation, including a partial privatization of its commercial Candu business.

I was reading about energy and wanted to think about nuclear energy as an option for helping meet future energy needs. This article really doesn't represent what I'd like to discuss, such as what happened with McGuinty's plan to build nuclear energy in Ontario.

In the past I strongly opposed nuclear energy, but as I keep learning about it my opinions have changed. I think nuclear is a better option than fossil fuels like natural gas, coal, and oil; however, I think we should prioritize solar, biomass, wind, geothermal as options that work with nuclear instead of just one of the other.

BTW, what exactly did happen with McGuinty's plan to build nuclear? I think it would be wise, but hopefully they build a plant north of Barrie or somewhere remote and use transmission lines to bring it in, I don't feel comfortable having it near population centers as Pickering is.

France has went nuclear and its seemingly a good option... Anyone have an opinion?

 

[unimaginative2]

While I'd like to see Ontario sign more contracts to import hydroelectricity from its neighbours, nuclear power done right is generally speaking a better option than burning fossil fuels. The current plans are for two new reactors each at Darlington and Bruce. Right now, they're deciding which type of reactor to build. The two main contenders are the advanced CANDU and the French/German EPR. Basically, Ontario will buy the CANDU if AECL (and by extension the federal government) agrees to a fixed-price contract. It's looking like they will and the final decision should be out any week now.

 

[confusion]

I agree, nuclear is the better option. The pros outweigh the cons easily. I'm actually surprised there are so many treehuggers against nuclear. It is the best option for the environment.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

burning coal releases radioactive material in the air. there are trace amounts of uranium and all kinds of toxic metals in coal.

also, lets not forget how many people die mining coal every year.

 

[unimaginative2]

You're absolutely right about the toxic brew of chemicals coal releases into the air, including radioactive materials and heavy metals. Though to be fair, while many do die in China, few people in North America die in coal mining accidents these days. That's partly because of better safety standards and partly because most of our coal now comes from open pits, rather than much more dangerous underground mines.

 

[Epi]

Nuclear is fine. If we build our plants deep in the Canadian shield that should be pretty safe. We're lucky we have this huge area of 2km thick granite to put things so close to the surface in Ontario.

 

[Whoaccio]

Nuclear is fine. If we build our plants deep in the Canadian shield that should be pretty safe. We're lucky we have this huge area of 2km thick granite to put things so close to the surface in Ontario.

I think you are mistaking nuclear plants for nuclear waste storage. Nobody has ever seriously proposed burying nuclear plants in the craton. In short, the shield is too far from the industrial areas of Ontario, excavating large caverns can be cost prohibitive, the operations of nuclear plants usually requires it to be above surface and near a body of water (building a parabolic cooling tower underground=ridiculous) and plant design always requires reactor walls capable of containing a meltdown.

It has been proposed to shove high level nuclear waste in some abandoned mines, like the Yucca Repository. That is about as likely as nuclear fusion though

 

[Epi]

I think you are mistaking nuclear plants for nuclear waste storage. Nobody has ever seriously proposed burying nuclear plants in the craton. In short, the shield is too far from the industrial areas of Ontario, excavating large caverns can be cost prohibitive, the operations of nuclear plants usually requires it to be above surface and near a body of water (building a parabolic cooling tower underground=ridiculous) and plant design always requires reactor walls capable of containing a meltdown.

It has been proposed to shove high level nuclear waste in some abandoned mines, like the Yucca Repository. That is about as likely as nuclear fusion though

Ooops you're right. For some reason I thought the shield extended down south of Thunder Bay.

 

[Whoaccio]

^
Are you thinking about North Bay? Thunder Bay is the farthest Ontario city of any significance from Toronto (~1400km...) and south of it is Lake Superior.

 

[Epi]

No I just mean I thought the shield extended down to Lake Huron. Been a while since grade 9 geography

Although it would be quite possible to do all this if we built... the supergrid!

 

[Hydrogen]

It has been proposed to shove high level nuclear waste in some abandoned mines, like the Yucca Repository.

If you mean in Canada, hardly.

http://www.nwmo.ca/

 

[adma]

No I just mean I thought the shield extended down to Lake Huron. Been a while since grade 9 geography

Well, it does, if you take Manitoulin into account. Heck, it goes all the way to the St Lawrence out Gananoque way...

 

[ShonTron]

Well, it does, if you take Manitoulin into account. Heck, it goes all the way to the St Lawrence out Gananoque way...

Plus most of Georgian Bay. One could potentially see a nuclear plant somewhere around Parry Sound (further south is largely provincial and national park and prime cottage country) - wouldn't be much further to Toronto than Bruce. But I think the plan to expand Bruce and Darlington makes the most sense for now.

 

[unimaginative2]

Back in the "Balance of Power" days, they looked at a site on the North Channel of Lake Huron north of Manitoulin Island, somewhere near Blind River, for new nuclear reactors. The employment and economic development benefits are obvious, as well as the distance from population centres, but the cost of major new transmission infrastructure was seen to outweigh the benefits.

 

[adma]

Plus most of Georgian Bay.

Obviously true; but for the sake of argument (and to try to grasp what the original post was getting at), I was strategically factoring out Georgian Bay and North Channel...