Skip to main content

Bruce Power and OPG File for Up to Eight New Reactors

By Eric McErlain
From the Globe and Mail:
The two companies that operate nuclear power plants in Ontario are seeking the green light to build up to eight new reactors, a far more ambitious plan than that touted by the McGuinty government.

Energy Minister Dwight Duncan said last year that a large portion of the $40-billion it plans to spend addressing the province's looming electricity shortage would be earmarked for refurbishing existing nuclear reactors. He said only two new reactors would be built.

However, Bruce Power and Ontario Power Generation have each applied to Canada's nuclear safety regulator to build four new reactors. Company officials played down their expansion plans, saying they merely give them the option of building new reactors or refurbishing existing ones.

But the spectre of up to eight new reactors is fuelling concerns among nuclear-energy opponents that the province will be much more dependent on nuclear power than previously believed.
Interesting. As always, this is something to keep an eye on. Meanwhile, other areas of the province dealing with the prospect of job losses if Ontario goes ahead with plans to shut down a number of coal-fired plants, are making plans to try to attract new plants. From the Toronto Star:
The McGuinty government is determined to close all coal plants in the province, including the massive Nanticoke Generating Station that employs 600 workers in the area. Surrounding communities, fearful of more job loss, are cautiously exploring their options as a 2014 shutdown deadline approaches.

Desperate, they keep coming back to one controversial word: nuclear.

"There's a lot to consider," says Bernie Solymar, one of more than 300 locals who packed a community centre in Port Dover recently for a nuclear "information" session. "I don't think the community has had time to form an opinion."
One thing is for sure: You can't shut down baseload generation and expect to replace it with a non-baseload generation source.
Labels:

Comments

Randal Leavitt said…
More advice for the Ontario government has been offered:

http://tinyurl.com/3bn2yk
May 9, 2007 at 10:47 PM
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