Skip to main content

Canada Nuclear Update

By Eric McErlain
As we reported on Monday, Dwight Duncan, energy minister for Ontario, announced a 20-year plan to upgrade the province's energy infrastructure yesterday, one that includes provisions to build new reactors and refurbish exisiting nuclear capacity, while investing an equal amount of money in renewable energy.

The plan is getting a positive reception. Here's the Toronto Star:
Energy Minister Dwight Duncan has developed a prudent blueprint for ensuring Ontarians will have an increasingly clean supply of power to meet their needs over the next 20 years. The plan is a mix of power sources --— nuclear, hydro, natural gas, wind --— that strikes the best long-term balance considering cost, reliability and environmental concerns.

Under the plan unveiled yesterday, the province has opted over the next 20 years to refurbish existing nuclear plants, build new reactors on those sites, double the amount of renewable power from sources such as hydroelectric and wind, and heavily promote conservation.
And from the London Free Press:
While details remain sketchy, the Ontario government appears to be taking a balanced, sensible approach to meeting the province's future energy needs.

A reliable energy supply is vital to Ontario's economy. And the massive disruption that can be caused in ordinary people's lives was made abundantly clear by the blackout of 2003.

Energy Minister Dwight Duncan's plan calls for a broad mix, including increased nuclear power and a push for conservation -- with less nuclear and more conservation than expected.
And despite the fact that the plan relies on "more conservation than expected," all the usual suspects are lining up in opposition.

Stephen Aplin says he's ready for the debate:
Until now, the Ontario electricity debate has been long on politically correct platitudes about renewable and alternative forms of generation coupled with conservation, and short on credible plans for filling the ten-thousand-megawatt gap between electricity demand and supply. There has been almost no regard for actual, believable numbers -- either in terms of the amounts of electricity Ontarians need to continue living as an advanced, industrial society in a middle-latitude climate, or the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with electricity generation.

In such a void, anybody can say anything -- and they have. But now that the battle is well and truly joined, we'’ll see which arguments stand and which collapse from their own internal contradictions.
Keep your cool my friends, because the facts are on our side. Click here for a statement from Patrick Moore.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more