Ontario drops plans for 2 new nuclear reactors

[bananas]

Source: CBC

Citing ballooning costs and its responsibility to the taxpayers of the province, the Ontario government says it is indefinitely mothballing plans to build two new nuclear reactors at the Darlington power station.

<snip>

Smitherman said the price was too high, though he refused to say by how much.

"I will answer your question this way — substantially. Certainly by a measure of many billions . We'll know the right price when we see it — and we ain't seen it yet."

<snip>

The nuclear reactor decision will have no effect on Ontario's plans to get rid of coal-fired plants by 2014, nor will it change the energy mix in the province or the reliability of electricity, Smitherman said.

<snip>

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/06/29/onatario-nuclear.html

[jpak]

1. "the price was too high"??

who knew??

:evilgrin:

[underpants]

37. Liability is too high

that is why not a penny of private money has ever built a nuclear reactor in this country

the powers that be have seen fit to pass laws lowering the liability for operators ....gee wonder what cau$ed them to think of those poor poor power companie$

[MARALE]

2. That is too bad

Nuclear is a very clean energy supply when done correctly.

[Jimbo909]

4. "Clean Energy?"

Nukes are not clean energy and definitely not cheap.

All of the easy to get uranium has been mined - so to get uranium these days you have to go deeper which is more expensive & disturb more of the surrounding rock which releases more toxic contaminants into the environment.

We also still haven't figured out what to do with the spent fuel.

You didn't mention cheap which would be incorrect also - if anyone remembers the 70's - most of these boondoggles had incredible cost overruns which were passed onto the consumers.

You didn't mention safe either (if you live next to one of these - you might want to check the fine print in your home owners policy).

[Auggie]

7. Welcome to D.U. Jimbo909

:hi:

[jpak]

10. Those boondoggle nukes cost US ratepayers $112 billion

some folks want you to forget this....

[Strong Atheist]

30. Welcome to DU!

:toast:

[KamaAina]

35. Not to mention the front matter of your phone book

(if you live next to one of these - you might want to check the fine print in your home owners policy)

It used to amaze me whenever Mom and I would travel to southeastern CT, home to the Millstone nuke plants, that the front of the New London-area phone book had detailed instructions about what to do in case of a nuclear emergency. :scared:

[enviralment]

52. Recylced Uranium

i guess you didn't hear?
You can recycle Uranium. The French, who supply 80% of their electricity with Nuclear power have been recycling uranium for decades. This greatly reduces the CO2 emissions of mining uranium and also reduces the problem of storing 'spent' nuclear waste.

[ProudDad]

61. You might want to check it out...

The French have been UNABLE to recycle fuel on a cost effective basis...

It costs more to "reprocess" than new fuel.

And besides, it's a depleting resource.

You wanna' go from one depleting resource to another?


Power Down, Right-size the economic systems...

www.transitionus.org

[enviralment]

65. Compared to what?

Cost effective compared to what? Oil, Natural Gas, Coal?

Also recycling plastic isn't cost effective. We recycle because it lowers our overall waste, and reduces our carbon footprint.
Cost-effective no, but overall it lowers the emissions that mining uranium creates thus making nuclear a more viable option.
We need a large energy mix, renewables and community based, power down initiatives are only part of the solution.

[madokie]

5. Nothing clean about nuclear power

all the way from when it comes from the ground to when the waste should be back in the ground. Very energy intensive process all the way around. If you only look at one facet of it sure it's pretty clean but so is coal when you only look at the transportation of it from the ground to the power plant. There is nothing about nuclear energy that is worth the downsides of it. It is all one big boondoggle, nothing more. IMHO

[kegler14]

6. So what should we use? Wind and solar won't cut it, and even wind

has drawbacks with those ugly turbines that kill birds.

[jpak]

8. "Wind and solar won't cut it" - nonsense

Global wind turbine capacity is now 120,000 MW and growing by double digits each year.

Global PV (solar cell) production is now 6000 MW per year and doubling every 2 years - and solar works EVERYWHERE in the US.

PV module prices are declining rapidly - new nuclear plant costs are soaring.

US nuclear reactors currently use 62 million pounds of uranium oxide per year - US mines produce only 2 million pounds per year - the rest is imported.

The now defunct Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository would have cost taxpayers $100+ billion to build on operate.

Solar and wind can "cut it".

Nucular can't and won't...

[WriteDown]

11. You ignore the differences in power usage...

Wind and solar may power light bulbs but they cannot handle factory operations such a factory full of arc welders. The peak power usage is way too high and wind and solar cannot even come close to meeting it. They are good ancillary power sources, but they will never support a manufacturing or technological base.

[Tesha]

34. As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.

There's nothing magical about megawatts and one megawatt looks just like another.

Tesha

[WriteDown]

38. Science isn't your forte is it?

Ever wonder why they don't use wind power to make wind turbines?

[bananas]

39. Science isn't yours.

They do use wind power to make wind turbines.

[WriteDown]

40. Link?

Wind power cannot power things like arc welders and metal fabricating equipment. Wind power is good for slow, steady power, but anything with a big draw needs something else.

[Tesha]

41. Maybe the wind turbine at your neighbor's house can't power an arc welder.

After all, a nice big-ass arc welder usually requires 50 Amp, 240 V service
(so about 12 KW peak power):

http://content.lincolnelectric.com/pdfs/products/literature/e260.pdf <- Stick
http://content.lincolnelectric.com/pdfs/products/literature/e754.pdf <-- MIG, Note: 52 Amps

Now that's a lot for a home wind turbine. But the story is a bit different for
big commercial wind turbines. Let's use the upcoming Cape Wind project
as an example:

http://www.capewind.org/FAQ-Category4-Cape+Wind+Basics-Parent0-myfaq-yes.htm#21

As you can see from their FAQ, *EACH TURBINE* will generate up to 3.6 Megawatts.
That would power 300 of our typical arc welders *SIMULTANEOUSLY*. The entire
project is expected to deliver an *AVERAGE* of 170 Megawatts; I'll let you do the
math.

As I said, a megawatt is a megawatt.

And you don't know what you're talking about.

Tesha

[WriteDown]

42. Ugh...

Now your confusing watts with amps. The problem with wind power lies in storage and adaptability. You can't make a wind turbine spin faster at will and there are days that they will just turn slowly. Something that requires high amperage just won't be able to use a wind turbine unless its really humming at that point in time.

I would be surprised if the Cape Wind project is EVER built. Its a great idea, but too many poweful NIMBY's.

[Tesha]

44. You're only making things worse for yourself.

A watt is a watt is a watt and wind turbines aren't like the
generator on your '65 Volkswagen; they use electrical systems
that are a bit more sophisticated than that so that they can
produce output power over a wide RPM range.

In fact, the latest turbine installations tend to use an HVDC
(High Voltage Direct Current) bus among all the units in the
installation; each turbine forces onto the bus such power as
that turbine unit can momentarily generate. Then, a separate
inverter unit generates perfectly standardized, three-phase,
constant voltage, constant-frequency bus-synchronized,
60 Hz power from the HVDC bus. An HVDC bus is particularly
advantageous if the wind turbines are connected via buried
or submarine cables because it eliminates losses due to
capacitive reactance with the surrounding ground or water.

Honestly, it's clear you don't know what you're talking about
so you'd be better off giving up on your argument.

Tesha

[WriteDown]

45. They are truly amazing...

So they can produce power even when there is no wind is blowing?! Why not just forget the wind turbines and use perpetual motion machines on those posts. :rofl:

[Tesha]

46. Placed in the right locations, the wind is pretty reliable.

And with enough wind turbines bussed together over a large enough
area, it's almost a certainty that the wind is blowing somewhere.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126990.500-from-ac-to-dc-going-green-with-supergrids.html?full=true

But that wasn't your initial claim. Your initial claim was that wind
power wasn't up to industrial-sized loads. Have you finally given
up on that claim so now you're trying ing to introduce a new
argument and hope everyone won't notice?

By the way, I've been giving you links/citations along the way
supporting what I'm telling you. Where's your "offer of proof"
to anything *YOU* are claiming?

Tesha

[WriteDown]

47. My offer of proof...

simple physics. Wattage is a unit of power, amperage is a unit of current. Anyone who pays an electric bill should recognize that wattage remains constant, but amperage varies. I am unaware of any way to get wind turbines to turn faster on demand (aside from an attached gas engine).

[Tesha]

48. In other words, what you're saying is that "(You) have no idea what you're talking about".

Thanks, I think you've pretty well proven that. Have a nice life!

Tesha

[WriteDown]

49. Look at the puppy!!

Please continue to research. Windmills are still a good idea, but are not a 100% solution.

[ProudDad]

64. You're right

we have to power down

www.transitionus.org

http://www.postcarbon.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_down

[enviralment]

57. Denmark and wind

Denmark supplies up to 20% of its electricity form wind. Yet, this beacon of renewable energy hasn't shut down a fossil fuel plant, or made any reduction in Co2 emissions. The problem with renewables is what you decide to base-load them with when the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining. Because Denmark base-loads with natural gas they won't be able to reduce Co2 emissions. That is why we should be base-loading with nuclear. It's a viable, pragmatic approach.

[ProudDad]

63. You don't know much about what's going on, do you?

Haven't you ever heard of the various storage modalities they're working on...

Compressed air/gas, heating salts, etc.

There will be lots of storage media if only we could wrest the dollars pissed away on subsidies and give-aways to the nuclear, oil and coal mafia...

[TankLV]

50. ahh - tell that to the FRENCH - they have been using solar for HEAVY INDUSTRIAL for DEDCADES...

as usual, you don't know WTF you're spewing...

[WriteDown]

53. Odd...

Considering that the French have something like 90% of their power needs met by breeder reactors.

[enviralment]

56. the french and nuclear

the french supply 80% of their electricity with nuclear, and they export nuclear power to Germany, Britain and Switzerland. So yeah they can invest in solar but they sure aren't base-loading with it.

[TankLV]

58. The French have one of the largest and most powerful solar plant that has been specifically powering

factories among other users for DECADES...

[winter999]

12. My electric comes from Nuclear.

I've had no outages, brown-outs, issues. It's cheap, reliable and supports a million-plus residents. I have no problem with Nuclear power and wouldn't mind if/when they expand (2 active reactors and space for 3 more).

[TankLV]

51. you know what you can do with your WASTE...

just keep it out of MY backyard, HA!

[AtheistCrusader]

19. And photovoltaics are made from completely clean unicorn farts.

Still need mining, and some rather unpleasant chemicals. For wind power, again, mining, advanced materials manufacturing, then there's the 'not on my skyline' people like Ted Kennedy (my one gripe with the man), and the, I feel, demonstrated impact to bird life.

There is no completely 'clean' power source. Even the hydroelectric power that is running my computer right now, came at a cost of habitat, and is still impacting Salmon runs.

Everything's a tradeoff. Nuclear is available 24x7, where you have to build far beyond daytime capacity to store solar for the nighttime... etc.

Right now, if it's not producing tons of CO2, it's ok in my book, and that puts nuclear power on the table, at least until we don't need it anymore. I think the US is behind the curve in breeder reactors and other technologies that let us burn as fuel, the waste from the 70's. But that's another discussion I guess.

I'm upwind from my state's active reactors, but I'd be pefectly happy living downwind. Never been a major problem.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

25. Unicorn farts? Really! I never knew. Thanks!

[MARALE]

43. Yes, there are pros and cons to all energy sources

And if we reprocess and recycle the waste, there is a lot less waste than most people realize there would be. People were afraid that the reprocessed waste could be used in nuclear weapons and would not be able to be monitored. Nuclear is a cleaner choice than coal by far if all the recycling techniques and new technologies can be used. I also like wind, but there are many efficiency issues with wind as well.

Here is a good article.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.02/nuclear.html

[enviralment]

55. Can't base-load with wind.

Here's the problem JPak.
The difference between output and capability. In Ontario we have wind providing, on an average day about 0.08% of our energy. That is actual output of all the wind turbines in the province. The 'capacity' of wind in the province is about 5%. Wind,being intermittent can only produce about 20% of its capacity, making it an unreliable source for base-load power. Wind and renewables are great for residential and small commercial energy needs. But it doesn't compare with the ability of nuclear.

[madokie]

9. Ugly is in the eye of the can't do it's

Personally I find wind turbines to be very pretty and graceful. If they would not have put all the money and time that has been spent in trying to convince us that nuclear is safe and had put it into alternate sources we would not be where we are today. We would be for the most part, energy independent.

I grew up being told I can do it, never was I told I can't do it, maybe thats the difference, I don't know.

[mbperrin]

13. Yes, the clean white lines of the turbines are much more attractive than

the 100,000 pump jacks, tank batteries, company roads, dikes, dams, spills, leaks,explosions, fires, waste pits, chromium contamination of the ground water, salt water leakage from injection into the water table that surround my home here in the Permian Basin of Texas.

Ugly fucking oilfield shit spilling, spewing, farting, and shitting on and in the landscape. Oops, forgot to mention the occasional giant sinkhole that appears around well sites, too, hundreds of yards across and hundreds of feet deep, swallowing telephone poles, state highways, and oil equipment as they go.

Birds? The tips of the turbines travel between 2 and 6 mph; must be some pretty fucking stupid birds to fly into those. Wanna see dead birds? Go to any airport. Perhaps we should shut them instead, if birds are a big worry. Never have seen a dead bird at the foot of any of the hundreds of turbines here locally, but I've seen a lot of them stuck in the crude oil of waste disposal pits used in the oil field. The crude looks like water from above. Birds hit it, get stuck, and die.

Yeah, those turbines are terrible!!!

[madokie]

17. Oh yeah

I don't even want to hear anything else anyone has to say after I hear or read from them how ugly a wind turbine is or how they're nothing but a bird grinder. Ain't gonna hear any facts from this voice is all that I think from that point on. I became interested in nuclear energy when PSO wanted to build a nuclear power plant in my back yard. I protested it then and would today if need be. I still read and hear the same lies about all phases of the nuclear power industry as answers to the questions I was asking back then, early '70s. I don't buy that nuclear energy is the way to go and I doubt that I ever will.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Fox_Nuclear_Power_Plant

:hi:

[winter999]

18. Have they figured out how to

stop a crazy Spaniard on a donkey from attacking it?

[boppers]

59. What a Quixotic post.

:evilgrin:

[kegler14]

29. I was wrong about the birds. But I sure as hell don't want them on my mountains.

[kegler14]

28. Yeah, right. I live in the mountains. In that setting, turbines are just as ugly

cell phone and transmitting towers. No thanks.

[Terry in Austin]

32. What should we use to what?

The usual premise is that we'll just continue at our same level of energy per capita, preferably more. Then it's simply a technical question of what fuel/energy source to use. Funny how that turns out, though -- none of them seem to cut it.

The likelier premise is that we won't, and we'll just have to adapt to a drastic reduction in energy use.

It's been a great party, and no one wants it to be over. Can't blame them, but there it is.

:party:

[ProudDad]

62. Power down

and those beautiful turbines do NOT kill birds...

[donquijoterocket]

26. thanks

You make quite well the point I was going to bring up that nuke enthusiasts only wish to talk about nuke energy at the point of generation but rarely say anything about the whole cycle including the long-lasting environmental effects of uranium mining and processing( Ask the Pueblo Indian people of the four corners region about that one).I once again see the critics of wind generation acting like wind can only be utilized as a replacement for a more traditional source in a system of centralized production and distribution when the most efficient use is in an integrated small scale system applied at the point of consumption.

[NinetySix]

24. The only "right way" to do nuclear is through the fusion process.

The by-products of fusion are energy and helium, which is not a pollutant, and which disposes of itself by rising through the atmosphere to the periphery, and then into space. Unfortunately, that process has been said to be 'about 40 years away' for the last several decades. Currently, it's wind power that is taking off in Canada as the new alternative energy source.

No, except for interplanetary probes and possible future moon bases, fission power is simply not feasible where there are human beings who can be poisoned by its waste products leaching into the groundwater. In addition, it is also not economically feasible, due to a) the necessity of heavy taxpayer subsidization, and b) the insurance industry's unwillingness to underwrite nuclear facilities for catastrophic failures and meltdowns.

But other than that, it's great.

[Terry in Austin]

31. Good luck with that

Fusion offers the prospect of virtually unlimited, cheap energy. Okay.

Aside from the fact that practical fusion seems to stay 25 years in the future, few ever question the idea that unlimited, cheap energy is A Good Thing. But we need to consider the fact that it was the abundant, cheap energy of oil that drove overpopulation, globalization, and industrial overshoot.

Fusion would mean more of the same, guaranteeing that we would slam up hard against the natural limits we're already chafing at.

Yeah, it's nice to have cars and air conditioning, but the place is a mess!

[Tesha]

36. Practical fusion is a lot closer now than it has been.

ITER -> DEMO -> Practical fusion.

http://www.iter.org/default.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

We'd be a lot farther down the road today had Reagan not
defunded the American tokomak fusion program.

Tesha

[GDAEx2]

3. I expect Ontario is looking

to the private sector to get this done.

[enviralment]

54. Private sector failings

Well the two other firms that were involved in the bidding process, Westinghouse and Areva both had higher bids than AECL. This is just the provincial government trying to squeeze the federal into providing more money for the projects, or guaranteeing that they don't have cost overruns.

[ensho]

14. good - sanity reigns in Canada

no more nuke plants and their forever toxic waste

[winter999]

15. Jini's out of the bottle. It'll never go back in.

[HEyHEY]

16. Pff, it was just a scam to hide the country's nuclear weapons program anyway

[ImOnlySleeping]

21. Now

Now to begin work on our solar panel/death ray!

[HEyHEY]

22. Oh, they'll pay... they'll ALLLL pay.

[xchrom]

20. good -- nt

[Dave From Canada]

23. They want more federal assistance because of the way the economy is as a result of the recession. n/

[TrogL]

27. Good - let's wait for new technology

(found the link)

Fusion appears to finally be on its way

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell

[bananas]

33. Three-part post by FogerRox the other day

Part 1: Polywell Proton Boron fusion reactor approved
Part 2: A Polywell fusion primer. Disrupt this technology.
Part 3: US funds Polywell Fusion as ITER bogs down

[ProudDad]

60. It's silly to keep relying on depleting resources... (n/t)

[enviralment]

66. Everything is depleting

You don't think that renewable rely on depleting resources. Silicon which is used for PV cells is depleting.
Also renewables aren't stable enough to be considered a viable solution to coal and natural gas. Nuclear is though.