Skip to main content

Bruce Power and OPG File for Up to Eight New Reactors

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.

Comments

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

http://tinyurl.com/3bn2yk

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…