Canada's nuclear waste management plan looks good on paper. Will it ever go beyond the planning stage?

Whooee! Well, friends an’ foes, the other day, I tweeted calling attention to an article in StraightGoods.com, Canadians can't afford Candu complacency, by Paul McKay. One of my Twitter followers took exception to a number of points in the article and since it’s dang tough to give a detailed response in 140 characters or less, I’m using this blog post to kick off a more in-depth discussion.

The first point of contention relates to a quote from Paul McKay’s artcle:

Some may contend that since our generation has already built two dozen Candu's that must be entombed some day, and created some 60,000 tonnes of lethal nuclear wastes, adding more is no big deal.

That might be plausible if there was a proven, safe method of dismantling defunct Candu reactors, and permanently isolating nuclear wastes for millenia. But there is not, and virtually no thought or resources are being devoted to such solutions.

Meanwhile, the Canadian inventory of hellishly dangerous radioactive materials grows — and that is a fact for which our grandchildren will almost certainly curse us.

The bold text is the part my Twitter friend took issue with. To dispute the veracity of McKay’s statement, his tweet linked to Canada’s Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) website. According to the NWMO website, the “Government of Canada (GoC) selected Canada’s plan for the long-term management of used nuclear fuel in June 2007.”

Okay, so there’s a plan. The timing begs a question, though. We’ve been accumulating highly radioactive spent fuel since Canada’s first nuclear power plant (NPP) was commissioned in 1954. In the 1970’s, 80’s and 90’s, most of Canada’s nuclear power plants were brought online and began creating 100’s of tonnes of waste annually. Doesn’t 2007 seem a bit late in the game to just be selecting a plan for dealing with such toxic and dangerous waste?

Considering the immediacy and severity of the waste problem, the mere fact that NWMO has a plan does not, at least to me, indicate a significant expenditure of thought or resources. Waiting until 60,000 tonnes of waste have accumulated on site at NPPs in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick before deciding on a plan borders on reckless endangerment… at least that’s how I see it.

So, how’s that plan progressing? Well, stage one of the plan is to find a willing host community that wants to have all of Canada’s nuclear waste stored underground nearby. Although NWMO and the GoC selected a plan back in 2007, they didn’t start actively soliciting for a willing host community until 2010. If – and it’s a big if – a willing host community comes forward and says it is willing to receive all present and future high-level nuclear waste, the geological conditions must be suitable. So, not only do we need a willing host community, that community must be located in an area with very specific physical attributes.

If the elusive willing community is found and if public resistance to harbouring deadly material is overcome, the plan then calls for building the deep geologic repository to safely contain the waste, isolated from ground water, for thousands of years.

Bruce Power's SWAT Team

Like the current stored spent fuel, the deep geologic repository will need to be kept secure by use of a well-equipped, well-armed security force. SWAT teams are on duty today safe-guarding our 60,000 tonnes of nuclear waste from those who could very easily fashion a dirty bomb from a small quantity of spent fuel.

Another big question: if the deep geologic repository is eventually built, how is highly radioactive waste going to be transported to the facility? Are the public highways and/or waterways to be used for carrying this deadly cargo? Will municipalities do as many European and American municipalities have done and declare themselves nuclear-free zones, thereby prohibiting the transportation of high level radioactive materials on their roads and highways?

Those 60,000 tonnes were created producing electricity that’s been used and paid for. Who pays for the construction of the waste storage facility? Who pays for the centuries of SWAT teams needed to secure that waste? Who pays for the transportation?

The expected lifespan of a nuclear power reactor is 40 years. That said, real life experience has shown that 25-30 years is more accurate. With costly, time-consuming refurbishments, it is conceivable that a reactor could deliver 60 years of service. The waste created during those 60 years, however, requires secure, safe storage for 100’s of years beyond the lifespan of the reactor. When the reactor is decommissioned, it obviously is no longer generating electricity… or revenue. There is a logical disconnect when we create an ongoing expense without creating an ongoing revenue source.

For what it’s worth, I can understand how this waste problem got to where it is. Back in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s, the energy sector was brimming with optimism. Hiroshima and Nagasaki demonstrated that we could derive massive amounts of energy from tiny bits of nearly inexhaustible fuel. Nuclear electricity generation was going to make energy so inexpensive that it would be “too cheap to meter.”

The early investors, developers and scientists were aware of the problem posed by spent nuclear fuel. But they were understandably confident that a solution would be found relatively quickly. After all, the atomic age was upon us. Nuclear weapons proliferation and “Atoms for Peace” were both employing the world’s brightest minds. Remarkable strides had been made in the past 10 years. Einstein was involved, for heaven sakes. Surely, a small problem like spent fuel would be solved in short order. Five years was a widely accepted prediction.

Fast forward 50 years to 2011 – or 2007, if you prefer – and we’re not a whole lot further ahead when it comes to permanently storing waste. We’re keeping it in concrete and steel water-filled tanks and circulating cool water over it for anywhere from 1 to 10 years. At some point, it becomes cool enough to transfer to dry cask storage.  It is these dry casks that will be moved to that deep geologic repository… someday, somewhere, if a suitable location is found.

But hold on a minute. The waste inside the dry casks will remain hazardous to human health for thousands of years. How about the dry casks? How long are they expected to last? The manufacturers of the dry casks say they’re good for 100 years. Nuclear waste management professionals feel that’s a modest estimate and that the casks should be good for at least 150 to 200 years. What then?

I will concede that having a plan is better than not having a plan. But a plan is not a storage solution. It is a storage solution on paper. It requires a whole series of happy events to actually achieve fruition: willing host, suitable geology, continued public investment and perhaps most important, the forgiveness of future generations for saddling them with a radioactive toxic legacy.

The mere existence of a plan is held out by the nuclear industry as proof that the waste issue is being handled. In fact, the waste issue is only being temporarily handled and the permanent disposition of waste is still, almost inexplicably, in a very early stage – the planning stage. A plan is not a solution and, in my opinion, does not constitute justification for building even more NPPs and generating even more high level radioactive waste.

Well, friends an’ foes, I done rambled on longer than I thought I would. You might say my plan for a concise rejoinder didn’t quite come to the quick and easy fruition I planned for. I got more arguments to make against nuclear energy. Next time, I plan to post something about the relationship between nuclear power generation and nuclear weaponry.

JimBobby

Think CANDUs are safer than anything else? Think again.

It is a popular Canadian myth that CANDUs are exponentially safer than other reactor designs. Is nationalistic pride trumping real evidence? Or, has the massively funded PR machine of the nuclear industry convinced an all-too-gullible public with its "Don't worry. Be happy" corporate bullshit? If CANDUs are so safe, why can't AECL turn a profit? One would think a super-safe nuclear reactor would be the obvious choice but even Ontario is leaning away from CANDU heavy water technology and toward other designs.

Greenpeace's Shawn-Patrick Stensil has an excellent Q&A on whether Canada is safe from a nuclear accident. Here's what he tells us about the CANDU.

Canada’s CANDU nuclear reactor is no safer than any other reactor design. 

Following the accident at the American Three Mile Island nuclear station in 1979, an all-party committee of the Ontario Legislature (the Select Committee on Hydro Affairs) investigated Ontario’s nuclear policies.  In its 1980 report to the legislature, the committee concluded that:  

“It is not right to say that a catastrophic accident (in a  CANDU  reactor) is impossible ... The worst possible accident could involve the spread of radioactive poisons over large areas, killing thousands immediately, killing others through increasing susceptibility to cancer, risking genetic defects that could affect future generations, and possibly contaminating, for further habitation, large land areas... 

Accidents, mistakes and malfunctions do occur in [CANDU] nuclear plants: equipment fails; instrumentation gives improper readings; operators and maintainers make errors and fail to follow instructions; designs are inadequate; events that are considered `incredible' happen...no matter how careful we are, we must anticipate the unexpected.”

Additionally, the spent fuel storage pools that must circulate cool water over hot waste for 10-15 years are essentially the same at CANDU facilities as at every other facility. We have no deep geologic repository for spent fuel. All spent fuel in North America is being stored on site at nuclear power plants.

Spent fuel will remain hazardous for 1000's of years past the time when the plant responsible for creating it has ceased production. No production means no income... obviously. Yet today, we have SWAT teams guarding nuke plants to ensure bad guys don't get their hands on spent fuel. Who will be paying for the SWAT team and keeping the SWAT team armed with advanced weaponry 100 years from now? 200 years from now? 250,000 years from now? Remember, the most optimistic lifespan of a nuke plant is 60 years, including refurbishment.

BTW, all of Canada's plants are about the same age as Fukushima's 1971 reactors. They're failing. Pickering's CANDU leaked 73,000 liters of contaminated water into Lake Ontario this week. NB's Pt Lepreau refurbishment is years behind schedule and costing millions and millions more than estimated. Bruce Power's refurbishment is 18 months behind schedule and 100's of millions over budget.

Pro-nuke spinmeisters and vested interests are flailing desperately. It's their death throes. AECL was already on the auction block at a fire sale price with precious few (2) qualified bidders. Right now, I don't think we could give it away.

No Nukes in Nanticoke - Yippee!!

Whooee! Well friends an' foes, OL' JB ain't been doin' too much boogin' lately on accounta I been busy fightin' a bigass nuclear war down here in Nanticoke. Now, I ain't gonna say we won the war but I'm sayin' the other guys lost. Leastwise, they turned tail an' run away. Good riddance, sez I.

Bruce Power abandoned its proposal to build a new nuke plant in Nanticoke. -- Public opposition was mounting. -- The estimated price tag went from $7 billion last November to $10-$15 this May. -- Nuke investors have been walking away from proposals all over the place.

According to our MPP, 76% of folks down this way were opposed to the plant. The Ontario government said it wasn't going to buy any electricity from the dumbasses. Bruce was probbly hoping to sell the power to the Merkans. If that happened, the Merkans'd get the power; the fatcats'd get the profits; and Nanticoke'd get to store tonnes of deadly radioactive waste for a few hundred thousand years.

Over in Port Dover, they're dancin' in the streets an' gatherin' up some driftwood for a bigass bonfire on the beach.(My ol' Grannie was a Dover girl, born in 1894. I reckon she and/or some of her sisters might be in this here pitcher. I'll ask my Mum if she recognizes anyone.)

In Port Dover, they don't mince words:

Secret, Schmecret -- AECL's Incompetence Further Revealed

Whooee! Well, friends an' foes, everybody's talkin' 'bout dumbass Lisa Raitt leaving secret papers behind at CTV. Par for the CPC course. Their talent pool's pretty shallow, after all. While the fact that another of Harper's Ministers can't keep tabs on secret stuff is damning, what is more interesting is the stuff itself.

Underlying all of this security breach stuff is the fact that AECL is as incompetent as the minister in charge. The AECL refurbishment up at Bruce is now known to be more than 400 days behind schedule and hundreds of millions of dollars over budget. Par for the nuclear course, I realize, but how can Ontario even consider AECL's unproven ACR-1000 design for its ridiculous $26.6 billion commitment to unneeded new nuclear builds?

That $26 Bn will undoubtedly turn into 10's of billions more and we all know who pays for these cost overruns.

Of course, Ontario could choose France's Areva to build the new reactors. They're 42 months behind schedule on their only contract to build the same new generation EPR reactor that is being considered for Ontario. Areva's Finnish project is running 60% over budget. On top of that, Finland was depending on Areva to be on time so that Finland would not face multi-million dollar penalties under Kyoto. In addition to the cost and time overruns, the Areva build also has safety shortcomings.

Governments need to face up to the fact that nuclear is the most expensive and least reliable option for meeting energy needs. We dole out lavish corporate welfare to these nuclear giants and, in turn, they use that money to lobby governments and mount public relations campaigns aimed at convincing decision makers and the public that they are selling a viable product.

The secrecy surrounding nuclear costs is only the tip of the iceberg. What are we not being told about lapses in safety and nuclear security? We are creating stockpiles of highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel without any permanent storage solution. These stockpiles are guarded by paramilitary swat teams who must constantly upgrade their capabilities to stay ahead of terrorists and rogue states. We are saddling countless future generations with these security costs all so we can continue to waste energy like there's no tomorrow.

As far as the isotope crisis goes, watch for Harpoleon to pull a rabbit from the hat. The research reactor at McMaster Universty is to be upgraded with a paltry $22 million and part of that sum is intended isotope production.

In a statement, McMaster University said, "As Canada's only nuclear reactor outside of Chalk River capable of producing medical isotopes, the funding will be used to upgrade McMaster's physical infrastructure to expand Canada's isotope research and production capacity, to enhance research activities and train personnel for the nuclear industry and health care sectors."
(Source)

There's just one little problem. The Mac reactor, like the Chalk River dinosaur, is 50 years old. Throwing good money after bad seems to be the singled-minded goal of both the federal Conservatives and the Ontario Liberals.

What is somewhat surprising, though, is that when Minister Raitt was being grilled in QP the other day, she seemed to know nothing about the plans to upgrade the Mac reactor. More incompetence? Tony Clement failing to step up and defend his collegue? One hand unaware of what the other hand is doling out?

JB

Renewable Energy Could Replace 5 Nuclear Plants: UK Gov Study

Whooee! Well friends an' foes, I'm all for renewable energy and all against nuclear energy so when I seen this item over at Brian Gordon's Green Party blog, it grabbed my attention.

Microgeneration could rival nuclear power, report shows

• John Vidal
• guardian.co.uk,
• Monday June 2 2008

British buildings equipped with solar, wind and other micro power equipment could generate as much electricity in a year as five nuclear power stations, a government-backed industry report showed today.

Commissioned by the Department for Business, Energy and Regulatory Reform (DBERR), the report says that if government chose to be as ambitious as some other countries, a combination of loans, grants and incentives could lead to nearly 10m microgeneration systems being installed by 2020.

Such a large scale switch to microrenewable energy could save 30m tonnes of CO2 – the equivalent of nearly 5% of all UK electricity.

The report estimates that there are nearly 100,000 microgeneration units already installed in Britain. Nearly 90,000 of these are solar water heaters, with limited numbers of biomass boilers, photovoltaic panels, heat pumps, fuel cells, and small-scale hydroelectric and windpower schemes.

If no action is taken, says the report, Britain can expect about 500,000 microunits to be installed by 2015 and 2-3m by 2020. But, with the right incentives, nearly one in five buildings in Britain would effectively become mini power stations, feeding electricity into the grid, or generating enough to be largely self-sufficient. Some of the greatest gains would be in combined heat and power units which are suitable for large blocks of flats, estates and businesses.

Britain has been widely criticised for not doing as much as other countries to encourage a mass market for small-scale renewables. The few existing schemes have failed to kick-start the industry. But the report says this could be swiftly changed: Germany has invested nearly £10bn in photovoltaic technology and Sweden has made it very attractive for consumers to install heat pumps.

The small-scale energy revolution will depend on the government stimulating the market with a range of consumer-friendly financial incentives schemes. "For widespread uptake of microgeneration to occur in the UK, sustained policy support will be required," says the report.
The Guardian

Makes sense to me. Buildings are just standin' there blockin' wind and soakin' up sunshine. Why not use what's already there? Here's an example from Milton, Ontariariario. The turbine is supposed to generate 5kw. That's dang good output for a small residential unit.

JimBobby

AECL Throws in the Towel - Medical Reactors Scrapped

Whooee! Well, friends an' foes, the chickens is comin' home to roost. Everybody remembers the big Isotope Crisis where the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission blew the whistle on AECL's mismanagement of the reactor at Chalk River and that led to a shut down and that led to Harper callin' all MP's to override the safety folks and start up the nuke plant despite non-compliance with safety orders. We all remember how Linda Keen was fired in the middle of the night a coupla months later.

Underneath all that was the assurance that Chalk River's aging NRU reactor was to be replaced by two shiny, new specially-designed medical isotope reactors: Maple 1 and Maple 2. Back in February, those reactors were 8 years behind schedule and $400 million over budget. But, don't worry, AECL assured us.

Experts and informed observers were saying that the Maples had a serious design flaw and would likely never come online. Hogwash, said AECL. The new reactors would be churning out isotopes by late 2008. There were just a couple of minor problems, they said.

Greg Weston wrote about it for the Sun.

The old Chalk River reactor has been patched and repaired since it was first tagged for the scrap heap almost two decades ago -- after a serious accident in 1991 when a broken weld spilled 18,000 litres of contaminated heavy water into the reactor building.

The reactor was formally scheduled to be taken out of service the minute the new Maple reactors were in service which, 17 years later, still has not happened.

The federal agency that owns and operates all three reactors, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., still claims the first of the new atomic marvels will be ready for service by the end of this year.

But government sources told Sun Media both of the new reactors -- called Maple 1 and 2 -- have a serious design flaw, and would cost taxpayers a fortune.

A source close to the issue says flatly: "You can bet you will never see those in service. Ever."

The growing consensus that the new reactors are duds is the latest chapter in what may be one of the longest-running government boondoggles in history.

In 1996, MDS Nordion, a Canadian company that markets medical isotopes, agreed to pay Atomic Energy $140 million to build two Maple reactors that were to be in commercial service no later than 2000.

MDS would own the reactors, and Atomic Energy would get a share of the proceeds from the sale of medical isotopes across Canada and around the world.

But by 2005, costs had spiralled out of control, and still the Maple reactors were plagued with technical and other problems.

In 2006, after a lengthy legal fight with Atomic Energy, MDS Nordion did something that should have sounded alarm bells about the reactors.

The company simply wrote off the staggering $345 million it had invested in the Maple reactors, and handed Atomic Energy the keys -- and all future financial responsibility for the project.

In return, MDS got a guaranteed 40-year supply of isotopes.

MDS Nordion's share price went up on the announcement.

At that time, Canadian taxpayers had at least $150 million in the Maple project, bringing the total project cost to just over $500 million.

In 2007, officials at the federal agency predicted it would cost the public purse another $130 million to get the new reactors in service.

But senior government sources say the figure is closer to another $400 million, bringing the total cost to around $900 million -- an overrun of about 650% from the original contract price.

"There is no way those (reactors) make any economic sense for commercial isotope production," says one federal official close to the situation.

"Taxpayers would be subsidizing them forever."

Sources also warn that even investing $400 million more would not guarantee the reactors would actually work.

The biggest technical problem, in simple terms, causes the nuclear reaction to speed up as the reactor speeds up, creating a cycle of ever increasing power that may not have a happy ending.

Atomic Energy officials argue that the problem is only slight, and can be rectified.

But one federal official points out the world has already seen the phenomenon in action once, albeit on a far larger scale than anything that could occur at Chalk River.

"It was called Chernobyl."

Well, folks, AECL has finally thrown in the towel. They are scrapping the $600 Million white elephants. They're gonna walk away from the Maples just like MDS Nordion did in 2006, after MDS had invested $345 million.

AECL is a crown corporation and all the losses associated with this colossal screw-up have been at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer. They've spent 12 years collecting hundreds of millions in welfare while building a coupla pieces of junk. We can't sue them because we ARE them.

AECL aborts reactor development

The Canadian Press

May 16, 2008 at 11:34 AM EDT

MISSISSAUGA, Ont. — Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. is scrapping development of its two new MAPLE medical-isotope reactors at its Chalk River, Ont., laboratories.

The decision “is based on a series of reviews that considered, among other things, the costs of further development, as well as the time frame and risks involved with continuing the project,” the federal Crown corporation said Friday.

The MAPLE reactors, described as the first in the world dedicated entirely to medical isotope production, were intended to be capable of supplying the entire global demand for molybdenum-99, iodine-131, iodine-125 and xenon-133.

AECL said the decision to abort them “will not impact the current supply of medical isotopes.”

It said contracts with MDS Nordion provide for production to continue at AECL's existing National Research Universal reactor in Chalk River.

So, we're not only tossing out the two flawed Maples, we're planning to honour the 40 year supply contract with MDS. I guess we're planning on keeping NRU Chalk River running for another 38 years. The reactor was built in the 50's and was scheduled for decommissioning in 2000, when the Maples were to have replaced it. Now, they'll never replace it.

Let's all remember that Dalton Ginty has AECL on the short list, along with General Electric and Areva, to bid on $40 billion dollars worth of new nuclear power generation in Ontario. They are said to be the hometown favourite with their newly-designed, never-built ACR-1000 CANDU.

Harper wants to sell all the crown corps. AECL's been on the block for a couple years. Looks like somebody'll be able to snap up a bargain. Confidence in and value of AECL must be at an all time low.

Disgustin', sez I.

JimBobby

Canada Signs Bush Nuke Plan, Hidden Agenda Glowing in the Dark

Whooee! Well friends an' foes, I can hardly keep from poundin' my fingers through the keyboard. I'm pissed off. Dang pissed off. This morning, I learned that our country has signed on to the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). If you never heard of it, I ain't surprised. Whenever anybody's asked about it, the HarpoonTossers clammed up. Just this September at the APEC Summint, they was asked and they wouldn't even say if they were sending a representative to a Vienna GNEP meeting.

Now, they've announced that we're part of Bush's nuclear energy policy. They say it's a done deal.

There was no parliamentary debate. There was no public consultation. There was no public information campaign.

Major international energy agreements that encompass all aspects of a dangerous and controversial technology cannot appear out of thin air. Canada's involvement is now a fact. Canada's involvement up til now has been shrouded in secrecy.

So, yer askin', what's wrong with GNEP?

Since the 1970's, Canada has had a moritorium on the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. This is because reprocessing spent nuclear fuel creates an unacceptable security risk. The reprocessed fuel can be fashioned into a nuclear weapon. I ain't talkin' about just a dirty bomb. I'm talkin' about an A-bomb. GNEP fosters reprocessing.

Canada is the world's largest producer of uranium. GNEP requires uranium producers to repatriate spent nuclear fuel. Canada will become the world's largest nuclear waste dump.

GNEP may be the first step towards Canada dismantling AECL, the crown corporation responsible for the development and sale of CANDU reactors. Avro Arrow, anyone?

A hat tip to Politics'n'Poetry and Accidental Deliberations.

Chewin' nails an' fartin' tacks,

JimBobby

NUCLEAR POWER SPEEDING UP GLOBAL WARMING

Whooee! Well friends an' foes, I'm on a email mailin' list where I get info about nuclear power an' alternative energy an' that sorta stuff. I got one today that was written by a good ol' boy name o' Ziggy Kleinau. I seen ol' Ziggy speak at a meetin' over in Jarvis a coupla few months back where they was talkin' about puttin' a nuke plant here in Nanticoke. Ziggy's been livin' off the grid fer somethin' like 12 years. I don't think he has a boog so I'm gonna share what he had to say to the email list.

NUCLEAR POWER SPEEDING UP GLOBAL WARMING.

Much has been made of the power contained in a single uranium fuel bundle used in Ontario’s CanDU reactors to produce electricity.

It is supposed to be able to generate as much electricity as 380 tonnes of coal or 1,800 barrels of oil (Canadian Nuclear Association website "Nuclear Facts").

Compared to the burning of fossil fuels to produce the steam to generate electric power the fuel bundle undergoes a fission process, splitting the uranium atoms to produce heat to fabricate the steam to drive turbines connected to the generators in a complicated process of electricity generation.

Matter-of-fact so much heat is produced by the fission-activated neutrons that – to keep the fuel from uncontrolled meltdown – there need to be huge amounts of cooling water drawn from Lakes Huron and Ontario.

The 6 operating Bruce Power reactors, by the way, are drawing close to 17 million litres of lake water A MINUTE( ! !) to keep the process from overheating (Golder Associates Ltd. Consultants).

What happens to this cooling water? Most of it is discharged back to the lake, but not in the same condition – it goes back out up to 12 degrees Celsius warmer! This so-called thermal plume has been heating up the Lakes for decades, 24/7, 365 days a year.

Very little ice has been forming on Lake Huron and Georgian Bay over successive, even colder, winters, resulting in lake water evaporation over the full 12 months instead of the normal 8 months of ice-free water. Without ice cover solar irradiation will also have the effect of additional warming of the open waters, while ice cover would have reflected the sun’s rays!

No wonder lake levels continue to drop, now at record low levels, affecting the economy of shipping companies and marinas, with waters getting warmer, resulting in increased evaporation and cloud forming.

That powerful fuel bundle – and there are 5760 of them in each reactor – can remain productive for just over 12 months, at which time it has to be removed BY REMOTE CONTROL because the fission has made it so highly radioactive that it would kill a person, standing as close as 3 metres, instantly.

When it is removed it still contains over 99% of potential energy,"but to extract it out costs a lot more than just to take it out and put it under water" (Jeremy Whitlock, past President, Canadian Nuclear Society, quoted on New Media Journalism website).

That ‘spent fuel’ bundle is so hot (37,000 watts – AECL 1994, NWMO Study ‘Choosing a Way Forward – 2005) that it, together with its compatriots, has to be kept in huge swimming pools, called irradiated fuel bays, for at least 10 years to bring the heat down to 5 watts, at which point it is supposed to be safe to store it above ground in heavy concrete containers.

So this impressive energy contained in the fuel bundle creating all the heat – how much electricity does it actually produce? Figures quoted generally pertain to primary power generation only.

This writer has toured the Bruce Power plant several times, also the huge Waste Management Facility adjacent to the reactors. There are a large number of auxiliary buildings absorbing lots of power, huge pumps sucking the cooling water from the Lake, stand-by power yards, fire fighting equipment – of course computers are running all the functions on site – all these together consume about one third of the electric power generated.

Together with transformer and transmission line losses and with the THERMAL POLLUTION HEAT LOSS, only about 33% of the heat released by that fuel bundle, while in the reactor, reaches the end user as electricity! ("Nuclear Heat", Issue Brief, Union of Concerned Scientists, August 2006).

Talking about efficiency – EFFICIENTLY HEATING UP OUR ENVIRONMENT WITH A HUGE AMOUNT OF WASTE HEAT!

IS NUCLEAR POWER REALLY THE SOLUTION TO GLOBAL WARMING ??

Ziggy Kleinau, Coordinator for non-profit organization Citizens For Renewable Energy(CFRE) has taken part in Environmental Assessment and licensing hearings before the Atomic Energy Control Board(AECB) and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission(CNSC) for over 12 years.

Yeow! Ol' Ziggy sed a mouthful. I reckon there's a few things Ginty and his bunch might wanna look into before they mortgage our grandchildrens' futures with their bigass push to spend $40 billion bucks on nuke power.

JimBobby

Olaf's Great Debate: Nuclear Power, Yes or No?

Whooee! I was just over to a new site called The Great Canadian Debate where they got a interestin' idea. They get two bloggers to make their case on a topic and then the readers go on a discussion board to comment. Olaf from The Prairie Wrangler is behind the site and I say kudos to Olaf fer a dang good idea.

Today, the debate's on nuclear power. John of Dymaxion World is arguing against nukes. Frank Cybulski is on the pro-nuke side. Since I'm a lazyass and a recycler, I lifted my comment from there and I'm pasting it here.

Frank said: However, it can be assumed from both evidence and logical deduction that those single two incidents are the two blotches on an otherwise flawless safety record,

Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are the two most well-known nuclear accidents. The industry's safety record is anything but flawless. A simple wikipedia search for nuclear accidents would tell even the most casual investigator that there have, in fact, been hundreds of accidents. To suggest that the nuclear industry's safety record is "flawless" is to insult the reader. After reading that genuinely offensive piece of disinformation, I very nearly quit reading Frank's argument.

If I had quit, though, I wouldn't have seen the next falsehood: The main example in favour of nuclear is that of France.

During heatwaves in 2003 and again in 2006, many of France's reactors had to be shut down due to a lack of cooling water. This was at the time when they needed the most energy for AC, refrigeration, fans, etc. In the 2003 heatwave, thousands of French citizens died from heat related problems.

Not enough cool water caused reactors to shut down in Michigan in 2006.

Groundwater in the French Champagne wine and dairy district is seven times more radioactive than EU standards permit. An entire industry, centuries old, faces collapse due to leaking radioactive contaminants.

Here in Canada, we have the Cameco situation. Cameco is a processor of raw uranium into nuclear fuel. Their Port Hope, Ontario plant has been leaking radioactive toxins into the ground and the plant has been shut down while they try to find the leak. They are being forced to drill holes through the sides of their various buildings and structures looking for the source. They've been looking for about three weeks, now.

The notion that nuclear energy production is carbon neutral is flat out wrong. Uranium mining is one of the most CO2 intensive of all mining operations. Transportation and refining of uranium are CO2 emitters. The construction of new nuclear plants takes years and is anything but carbon neutral.

Ontario's Environment Commissioner, Gordon Miller, says we should be looking at smaller, localized sources of power rather than large, centralized generators. The loss of power in transmitting across hundreds of miles amounts to more than 10%. Buyilding those transmission routes is another CO2 emitter and also takes valuable agricultural land out of use. McGuinty has chosen not to take the advice of his environment commissioner.

Frank goes on: Much is made of nuclear waste, but the miniscule amount of waste created by nuclear is insignificant when properly taken care of,

It's not the quantity. It's the toxicity. As far as "properly taken care of", nobody's figured out how to do that, yet. They've been looking for a way to properly take care of this waste for 60 years but, so far, temporary on-site storage is what we're doing. Even industry insiders say this is not a good permanent solution.

Nuclear waste must be guarded 24/7 by armed guards. Why? So terrorists or other criminals don't steal it to use as the dirt in a dirty bomb... or worse. Ontario Power Generation is training its own security force to takeover this responsibility from police.

No nuclear project in Canada has ever come in on time or on budget. The cost over-runs have been in the bilions. Reactor lifespans were said to be 40 years and when the existing Ontario reactors were built, the cost was prorated over 40 years. After 20 years, however, they began to fail. No reactor in Ontario has lasted more than 25 years. This has effectively doubled the cost to the taxpayer. Ontarians pay a charge on every monthly bill for "Ontario Hydro Debt Repayment." This money is entirely going to pay off bad investments in nuclear energy.

Shall I get into the cancer rates (200%-300% above average) in locales near nuclear plants? Shall I note all the times there were accidents and the public was left uninformed of the danger they were in (think way back to the Japan earthquake a couple weeks ago.) Shall I tell how the industry wines and dines local municipal government officials when a plant is proposed (Manitoba councillors flown out east for lobster dinners before a critical vote in which they approved a nuclear application)?

No nukes!

JimBobby

Nuke Accident Downplayed -- As Usual

Whooee! Well friends an' foes, here we go again. Over in Japan, they had an earthquake an' they had a fire an' leaks at the world's biggest nuclear power plant.

First, the nuke plant operators said there were no leaks. For several hours after they knew they had a problem, they kept their mouths shut.

Then, they said there was a tiny leak that didn't pose any threat.

Then, they said that the leak was 50% bigger than they first said it was but it's still nothin' to worry about, sez they. 325 gallons of radioactive water just got washed in to the ocean. Drop in the bucket, sez they.

Then, they said there was about 100 barrels of low level radioactive waste that fell over and some of the lids come off.

Then, they said it was really 400 and not 100.

Then, the mayor of the city where the nuke plant is shut down the plant indefinitely. He ain't too happy about the way the plant operators kept the public in the dark fer so long. Maybe he ain't too sure they ain't still coverin' up. I know I ain't. Some industry watchers is sayin' it's worse than Three Mile Island.

Here in Nanticoke, Ginty's all gung-ho about buildin' a new nuke plant so's he can shut down the smokin' chuggin' coal-fired generator we got pollutin' the air. I reckon this situation in Japan oughta make ol' Dalton take another look. If he thinks we're ready to accept that sorta risk an' he won't run into a bigass fight, he's dreamin' in radioactive technicolour.

But, we don't have earthquakes in Ontariariario, so we ain't got nothin' to worry about. Right?

Wrong. We do have earthquakes and tremors here in GintyLand and also out in Lake Erie and just across the pond over in Ohio an' Pennsylvania. There's a whole whack o' faults under Lake Erie and in Southwestern Ontariariario. Out on the lake, they got a few gas wells. Some farmers got gas wells on their property 'round here, too. That travels underground in the faults. If there weren't faultlines, there wouldn't be any natural gas down there.

Why does Ginty wanna put Ontarians into the same jeopardy and danger as them poor Japanese?

JimBobby

Nuclear Power is Not the Answer

Whooee! Well friends and foes, I posted up a big comment to yesterday's post and I'm dragging it out for today's post. I got the more easily decipherable James Robert to write most of it. BigCityLib asked me if I was mostly concerned about the way nuclear's being crammed down our throats or if my objections are against nuclear, in general.

Nuclear power is not the answer to global warming.

To replace all of its current oil, gas and coal use, the world would have to build about 80,000 medium-sized reactors. It would take over 200 years to build them even at the rate of one a day, and the cost would be staggering. And common sense tells us that we must not trade one environmental problem for another.(Source)

The projected time frame for nuclear conversion in Nanticoke ranges from 8 - 14 years. Much quicker, cheaper, less-objectionable methods are available. If we put billions into nukes, we take away precious funding that could be used for a better solution.

Nuclear power generation is not emission-free as often claimed by industry advocates and also by Diane Finley --

"...a nuclear facility with its zero emitting technology..."

Minister Finley is getting her information solely from industry advocates. The Sierra Club of Canada informs us that nuclear energy is by no means emmission free.

"Routine emissions from nuclear reactors include a number of different elements such as carbon-14 and tritium. The long half-lives of these radioactive elements (5730 years for carbon-14 and 12.3 years for tritium) allow them to accumulate in the environment and in living tissue. Over the years, leaks around nuclear reactors in Canada have raised levels of tritium, a known carcinogen, well above background levels.

Spent fuel from CANDU reactors contains over 200 deadly radioactive elements - byproducts of the fission process - including uranium, plutonium, cesium, and strontium. Plutonium, for example, has a half-life of 24,400 years. Other waste byproducts have half-lives as long as 710,000 years (uranium235) or 15.8 million years (iodine129). High-level nuclear waste will remain toxic for periods far longer than recorded human history." Sierra Club

What about the increased availability of nuke waste and fuel as contaminants in a dirty bomb or even a "clean" A-bomb?

The connections linking nuclear power and weapons is more than political or historic. Consider: l FISSIONABLE MATERIALS: It is the same nuclear fuel cycle with its mining of uranium, milling, enrichment and fuel fabrication stages which readies the uranium ore for use in reactors, whether these reactors are used to create plutonium for bombs or generate electricity. In the end, both reactors produce the plutonium. The only difference between them is the concentration of the various isotopes used in the fuel. Each year a typical 1000 mega-watt (MW) commercial power reactor will produce 300 to 500 pounds of plutonium -- enough to build between 25 - 40 Nagasaki-sized atomic bombs.

As Dr. Amory Lovins, director of the Rocky Mountain Institute in Colorado points out, "Every known route to bombs involves either nuclear power or materials and technology which are available, which exist in commerce, as a direct and essential consequence of nuclear power."

2 In order to get plutonium for weapons, one needs a reactor, whether it is a "research" reactor (such as the one which provided India with the fissile material for its first atomic bomb) or a commercial reactor. (Source)

Many countries have phased out or are in the process of phasing out nuclear power generators. They have proven to be too costly, too unreliable, -- several of Ontario's existing reactors are either kaput or awaiting $billion+ repairs -- too dangerous and too unpopular with citizens. I believe there are only 2 reactors being built presently in the entire world - one in Finland and one in Taiwan. These were the first new starts in something like 25-30 years. The industry spends much of its corporate energy attempting to woo governments because without massive subsidies, nuclear cannot be implemented.

Waht about the risk to nearby people and property?

Nuclear installations are, by law, free from financial liability in the case of a nuclear accident. Private property insurance specifically excludes nuclear accidents from all homeowner and farm policies. It is not purchasable at any price. In the event of an accident forcing residents to abandon their property, there is absolutely zero compensation available.

The industry has already been using "temporary" waste storage while it supposedly tries to find permanent solutions. This has been happening since the very first nuke plant went online about 50 years ago. It's an accident waiting to happen.

What about Return on Investment of taxpayer money?

Over a fifty year period (from 1953 to 2002), government subsidies to AECL Atomic Energy of Canada Limited ) totaled $17.5 billion (in 2001 dollars). Cost overruns on the last nuclear station to be built in Ontario at Darlington were in the billions of dollars. Debt incurred by Ontario Hydro (the predecessor to OPG) in the operations of its power reactors amounted to over $35 billion dollars. The public cost of decommissioning nuclear reactors and attempting to contain the waste products over extended timeframes has yet to be determined. Sierra Club

And now, McGuinty is at it again along with the support of MP Finley and presumably the federal government. The financial situation vis-a-vis Canadian investment is typical of the poor ROI experienced by other countries, like the US.

The Nanticoke coal generator is only about 35 years old. If replaced by a nuke plant, the existing plant will be totally demolished. This will cost millions. If we'd known 35 years ago what we know now, it would not have been built. We do know now all the reasons why building a multi-billion dollar nuclear facility is wrong-headed. In 50 years (the industry-projected life span of a new nuke plant), we'll be spending billions to decommission nuke plants.

About 3 years ago, a wind farm proposal came before Norfolk council and was approved. Those 70-80 windmills are already pumping out enough power for tens of thousands of homes. A multi-acre solar farm has just been announced and approved for development. It will come online before the drawings could be completed for a nuclear Nanticoke.

Reduction and energy efficiency are the real answers.

(N)uclear power is seven times less cost-effective at displacing carbon than the cheapest, fastest alternative -- energy efficiency, according to studies by the Rocky Mountain Institute. For example, a nuclear power plant typically costs at least $2 billion. If that $2 billion were instead spent to insulate drafty buildings, purchase hybrid cars or install super-efficient lightbulbs and clothes dryers, it would make unnecessary seven times more carbon consumption than the nuclear power plant would. In short, energy efficiency offers a much bigger bang for the buck. In a world of limited capital, investing in nuclear power would divert money away from better responses to global warming, thus slowing the world's withdrawal from carbon fuels at a time when speed is essential. (Source)

Don't forget, that's our money that Ontario is investing. We could be getting seven times better ROI.

James Robert (for JimBobby)

Diane Finley's Plan(?) for a Nuclear Nanticoke

Whooee! Well friends an' foes, there’s a bigass shitstorm brewin’ in my neighbourhood — Nanticoke. Ginty’s all gung-ho on nuke power fer Ontariariario. They’re talkin’ about turnin’ Nanticoke into a nuke plant.

Scotty Tribe is tellin' about a dumbass idea t' bury spent nuke fuel in the Canajun Shield. I gotta wonder if this great idea o’ storin’ radioactive pollution in the Shield ain’t mostly a pre-emptive strike against the anti-nuke argument concernin’ nuclear waste.

Diane Finley’s all gooey over the Nuclear Nanticoke idea. She an’ the MPP an’ the local mayors is all gettin’ the royal ass-kissin’ treatment from the nuke industry lobbyists. Residents is gettin’ one-sided “information” meetings set up by the Chamber of Commerce where there’s the CEO of Bruce (he’s also pres of the Cdn Nuclear Association) as the one an’ only spokesperson/expert. Haldimand County council already passed a resolution welcomin’ a nuke plant. Nanticoke sets just across the Norfolk line in Haldimand.

There's a meetin' in Port Dover on Wednesday an' there's at least gonna be one feller there from Greenpeace. I'll be goin'. I'm hopin' Diane'll be there. I wanna ask Minister Finley about somethin' in her press release --

The next step in the plan to bring the nuclear power investment to Haldimand and Norfolk includes holding information meetings around the two counties.

What plan?

I been hearin' Ginty say nothin's gonna happen without local consent but now I'm hearin' there's a plan t' bring nukes t' Nanticoke. I wanna know who's plan it is an' what are the details an' why ain't we had any say-so in decidin' if there oughta be nuke investment in our county.

It’s sure as hell lookin’ like they’re tryin’ t’ cram a nuclear Nanticoke down our throats.

JimBobby