Skip to main content

Reasons to Be Thankful

Cornucopia-Print-C10353551[2] Shall Canada be thankful?

The government of Ontario, Canada’s most populous province, announced plans to spend billions of dollars more on nuclear reactors, wind and solar projects and to eliminate coal plants by 2014.

This is consequential, as the story notes that Ontario generates a third of Canada’s electricity (largely, I guess, because it holds a third of the country’s population.)

Nuclear energy is to receive the largest chunk of capital spending at C$33 billion, followed by C$14 billion for wind power, C$9 billion for solar power and C$4.6 billion for hydro- electricity. The plan also marked C$12 billion for conservation, C$9 billion for transmission lines, C$4 billion for biomass, and C$1.88 billion for natural gas.

The goal here is to keep nuclear energy generation stable at about 50 percent of the total – Ontario has 10 plants currently and will increase to 12 under the plan - with renewable energy picking up for fossil fuels. The end result: the plan fulfills “the government’s pledge to eliminate 6.4 gigawatts of coal power in four years”.

Now, to be fair, this plan sets idealistic goals and the target for nuclear energy appears to depend on factors that will need to be resolved:

But as [Provincial Energy Minister Brad] Duguid acknowledged about the new nuclear plants, he’s not even sure whether the preferred buyer – Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. – will be around in its current form to make a sale.

The federal government has put it up for sale, and some buyers may not be interested in new construction.

But of course, they might well be interested. It just isn’t known yet – Ontario is signaling what it wants to happen and will help to have happen and that may be determinative in who buys the company and how it proceeds. So there are wait-and-see factors.

You can read more about the plan here.

---

Shall China be thankful?

The China Nuclear Energy Association has recommended the government adopt a 2020 target of 70 gigawatts of nuclear power capacity, but companies in the sector are pushing for more, association Vice-Chairman Zhao Chenkun told Reuters on Wednesday.

And that’s about all I could find about this. Many may well consider it enough, but I’ll follow up when more emerges.

---

And say, what about the United States?

U.S. nuclear production rose to a seven-week high on output gains at Progress Energy Inc.’s Robinson 2 reactor in South Carolina and Entergy Corp.’s FitzPatrick plant in New York, a Nuclear Regulatory Commission report today showed.

Output from U.S. plants since Nov. 19 increased by 2,619 megawatts, or 3 percent, to 89,310 megawatts, or 88 percent of capacity, according to the report from the NRC and data compiled by Bloomberg. Twelve of 104 plants are offline.

Bloomburg provides a list of plants. Here’s a taste:

Exelon Corp. boosted its 1,112-megawatt Peach Bottom 3 reactor in Pennsylvania to 95 percent of capacity from 1 percent on Nov. 19 after crews replaced one of the unit’s transformers.

Peach Bottom 2, another unit at the plant located about 18 miles south of Lancaster, is at full capacity.

Southern Co. raised output at its 851-megawatt Farley 1 reactor in Alabama to 80 percent of capacity from 30 percent on Nov. 19. Another unit at the site, Farley 2, is operating at full power. The plant is located about 18 miles south of Dothan.

And it goes on like that. No holding back the cranberry sauce this Thanksgiving.

---

Travel safely, eat plentifully, appreciate your loved ones gratefully. And happy Thanksgiving.

Comments

Rod Adams said…
If I was a Canadian, I would be thankful that I was served by leaders who recognize that established nuclear facilities are valuable enough to refurbish rather than destroy.

If I was from Illinois and had paid elevated rates for years to help Commonwealth Edison purchase nuclear power plants, I would be wondering why Exelon was insisting that it would be too expensive to even think about refurbishing Zion since it has proven itself to be fully capable of owning, operating and improving its other nuclear plants.

Reasons to be thankful and reasons to ask questions all at once.

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

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...

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

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...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

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...