Skip to main content

Deal on New Nuclear in Ontario Could Be in the Offing

Both Stephen Aplin and The National Post seem to think a deal between the federal Conservatives and the Ontario Liberals on nuclear energy may be imminent. Stay tuned.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , , , ,


Simon Schotsman said…
If Ontario is planning to go Nuclear it has a hard time convincing a lot of people that going Nuclear is an environmental friendly idea. Nuclear is not!
Consider the amount of heat that is pumped into the Lakes in its effort to cool reactors. And what about the heat that rises out of their enclosures and heat the atmosphere continually? Tell me, is that not part of what we call "Global warming?" Consider Europe. Some reactors had to be shut down because the water levels had dropped so low that it was no longer possible to cool the reactors. Even shipping was affected. Do the politicians think us that dumb that we can not reason out that by continually dumping in heated water from the reactors cooling processes into the waterways and Lakes, it increases the rate of evaporation?
Both the prime minister and the premier have been informed that there is an alternative way to create electrical power without causing air pollution, global warming and wasting more of our non-renewable fuel sources. And how do we do that? By using a free and endless resource available world-wide, providing a constant reliable electrical power source, not dependent on solar or wind conditions. Furthermore, have we not learned our lesson as to the debts we incurred going Nuclear?
Take a look at your monthly hydro bill. Those charges named "Debt reduction" will be forever on our bills because we have not even started paying on the costs of de-commissioning existing Nuclear Generating Stations.
The remaining debt on having gone Nuclear is stil 35 billion dollars and all our payments made, don't seem to make an iota of difference!!
Gentlemen, be careful. You are playing with the future of many generations to come!
There is a better way. And it certainly will not even come close to the staggering costs of building Nuclear facilities. We have a better answer.
I liked Alpin's point, "If the rumour is true, then Stephen Harper and Dalton McGuinty will make Ontario’s power generating sector better than Kyoto compliant, and put the entire province within easy reach of becoming the first advanced industrial economy to achieve the critical Kyoto target." That is quite a statement.
Anonymous said…
Who in the hell is Stephen Aplin?
Anonymous said…
In answer to Simon Schotsman, global warming has NOTHING to do with the heat released by man-made activities and everything to do with the heat-trapping gasses released by man-made activities. Nuclear doesn't release greenhouse gases. The heat wave in Europe was not caused by manmade "thermal" pollution. The heat generated by manmade activities is small potatos compared to the solar energy striking the Earth. Moreover, during the California heat wave this past year, much of the wind capacity was sitting idle waiting for a breeze to blow (that tends to happen during heat waves).
Brian Mays said…
Simon Schotsman said...

If Ontario is planning to go Nuclear it has a hard time convincing a lot of people that going Nuclear is an environmental friendly idea. Nuclear is not! ... Consider the amount of heat that is pumped into the Lakes in its effort to cool reactors. And what about the heat that rises out of their enclosures and heat the atmosphere continually? Tell me, is that not part of what we call "Global warming?"


If you're going to try to be an "environmentalist," at least be prepared to learn a few of the key points to make yourself sound credible. I can understand if you flunk the test on nuclear (many "environmentalists" do), but you should at least know the alleged causes of "global warming." Go ask a climate scientist -- you just got an "F".

And in case you have not figured out, the answer to your last question (quoted above) is NO.
Jim Hopf said…
All thermal power sources; nuclear, coal, gas, geothermal, solar thermal, etc… discharge heat into the local environment. It is an unavoidable fact for almost all types of power plants. Thermal discharge into the air and/or water, however, has a negligible impact on global warming. Emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 or methane are all that matters. All non-fossil sources (nuclear or any renewable) are basically equal in their ability to reduce global warming, as all the power they generate is emission-free.

In the European heat wave, overall nuclear capacity had to be scaled back a few percent for lack of sufficient cooling water. Solar thermal (or geothermal) plants would have suffered the same fate. Meanwhile, overall wind power production was virtually zero throughout the heat wave. Winds are usually low or non-existent during heat waves, when power is needed most. The notion that renewables are less vulnerable to variations in weather is absurd, as “the weather” is basically the source of their power.

All plant decommissioning and waste management costs are fully paid for by the industry (in the US anyway) and are included in the price of power. The cost is only about 0.25 cents/kW-hr. The costs of solar PV, solar thermal and even wind power are as high or higher than nuclear even when all costs are considered.
robert merkel said…
Simon, nuclear reactors do tend to be slightly less efficient converting heat into electricity than contemporary coal-fired or gas-fired power stations, so for a given amount of electricity generated you end up with more surplus heat which needs to be disposed of.

This means you need more cooling water, and can indeed more evaporation from lakes. However, if this is a problem, there are cooling tower designs that use air, not water, to cool the plants; and, furthermore, the efficiency loss that will be incurred if we ever actually build "clean coal" power stations will probably result in the coal-fired power stations using the same or more water than nuclear.

In any case, however, this is not what is causing global warming, according to climate scientists. The amount of heat dumped *directly* into the atmosphere by humans is miniscule compared to the amount provided by the sun (yes, even in Canada...). The problem with global warming is all about the increased amounts of CO2 and other gases in the atmosphere not letting heat escape into space as readily as it used to.

Popular posts from this blog

Sneak Peek

There's an invisible force powering and propelling our way of life.
It's all around us. You can't feel it. Smell it. Or taste it.
But it's there all the same. And if you look close enough, you can see all the amazing and wondrous things it does.
It not only powers our cities and towns.
And all the high-tech things we love.
It gives us the power to invent.
To explore.
To discover.
To create advanced technologies.
This invisible force creates jobs out of thin air.
It adds billions to our economy.
It's on even when we're not.
And stays on no matter what Mother Nature throws at it.
This invisible force takes us to the outer reaches of outer space.
And to the very depths of our oceans.
It brings us together. And it makes us better.
And most importantly, it has the power to do all this in our lifetime while barely leaving a trace.
Some people might say it's kind of unbelievable.
They wonder, what is this new power that does all these extraordinary things?

A Design Team Pictures the Future of Nuclear Energy

For more than 100 years, the shape and location of human settlements has been defined in large part by energy and water. Cities grew up near natural resources like hydropower, and near water for agricultural, industrial and household use.

So what would the world look like with a new generation of small nuclear reactors that could provide abundant, clean energy for electricity, water pumping and desalination and industrial processes?

Hard to say with precision, but Third Way, the non-partisan think tank, asked the design team at the Washington, D.C. office of Gensler & Associates, an architecture and interior design firm that specializes in sustainable projects like a complex that houses the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys. The talented designers saw a blooming desert and a cozy arctic village, an old urban mill re-purposed as an energy producer, a data center that integrates solar panels on its sprawling flat roofs, a naval base and a humming transit hub.

In the converted mill, high temperat…

Seeing the Light on Nuclear Energy

If you think that there is plenty of electricity, that the air is clean enough and that nuclear power is a just one among many options for meeting human needs, then you are probably over-focused on the United States or Western Europe. Even then, you’d be wrong.

That’s the idea at the heart of a new book, “Seeing the Light: The Case for Nuclear Power in the 21st Century,” by Scott L. Montgomery, a geoscientist and energy expert, and Thomas Graham Jr., a retired ambassador and arms control expert.

Billions of people live in energy poverty, they write, and even those who don’t, those who live in places where there is always an electric outlet or a light switch handy, we need to unmake the last 200 years of energy history, and move to non-carbon sources. Energy is integral to our lives but the authors cite a World Health Organization estimate that more than 6.5 million people die each year from air pollution.  In addition, they say, the global climate is heading for ruinous instability. E…