Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Haldimand "Is Nuclear Power a Bad Bet"

The following is a Letter to the Editor from a resident. It is a good read and I certainly learned a few things reading this letter. It also left me asking more questions. This is an issue that we should all be paying close attention too. I would like to thank Grand Erie Energy Quest for sending me this information. Please visit this site by clicking on the interesting links!

Going nuclear is a bad bet

The Kingston Whig-Standard
Monday, June 23, 2008

Section: Editorial/Opinion

Column: Letters to the Editor

Premier Dalton McGuinty's plan to increase Ontario's dependency on nuclear power smacks of the actions of an inveterate gambler poised to roll the dice one last time for that elusive "big score." Why else would he bet the farm on a technology that could bankrupt the entire country in the event of a single catastrophic accident?

The minimum bid to get into McGuinty's high-stakes game, $45 billion, could easily top a mind-boggling $135 billion given the nuclear industry's history of at least tripling initial cost projections.

But what makes the optics of McGuinty's gamble especially egregious is that he is rolling the dice on the health of unsuspecting Ontarians, since he is betting that a Chernobyltype explosion will not occur on his watch.

Since investing in conservation creates seven times more jobs, causes a four-times-greater reduction in greenhouse gases and conserves seven times more electricity than his nukes will ever produce, Ontarians should ask their premier some tough questions.

For example, if nuclear power is such a "sure thing," why have investors avoided it like the plague for the past 30 years?

Why did McGuinty choose to announce his plan to the highly secretive Bilderberg Group rather than to the people of Ontario who will foot the bill for his roll of the dice? Unless it was to assure these well-heeled high rollers that this nuclear pie is so enormous that everyone will get a piece of the action?

Why has McGuinty exempted his new nukes from those pesky environmental assessments unless it was to avoid the inevitable findings that the hazards of nuclear power far outweigh its benefits?

And what about the odds of a reactor meltdown? Two of the world's 439 operating nuclear reactors have already experienced a meltdown, a fact that makes a mockery of the industry's claim of only one in 100 000 years of operation.

Even more worrisome are the 22 major accidents that have occurred since Chernobyl, many of which have released cancer-causing isotopes into the air we breathe and the water we drink.

There have been seven major nuclear incidents in Ontario alone, including, most recently, this May when highly toxic arsenic and uranium haxafluoride leaked from Cameco's nuclear waste storage site into the groundwater in Port Hope.

If nuclear power plants are as safe as the experts claim, why do insurance companies refuse to underwrite their liability? What do they know that McGuinty is not sharing with Ontarians? Could it be that the damage from just a single nuclear catastrophe is so enormous that it would bankrupt the entire industry? Is that why the government of Canada enacted the Nuclear Liability Act in 1974, which exempts the nuclear industry from all but token liability? The data from Chernobyl certainly supports that hypothesis.

The effect of the Nuclear Liability Act, incidentally, was to make Canadian taxpayers the "insurers of last resort," since it is you and I who will pay the bills in the event of a catastrophic nuclear accident -and they will be enormous.

More than 371,000 people were evacuated from within Chernobyl's 37- kilometre "exclusion zone." and damage estimates range to an astronomical $235 billion.

An explosion at Pickering would render most of the Greater Toronto Area a nuclear wasteland and would necessitate the immediate evacuation of between three and four million people, 10 times the number displaced by Chernobyl. A staggering 10 per cent of the population of Canada would require new housing, new jobs, new hospitals, etc.

The cost of a nuclear explosion at Pickering could run as high as $3 trillion, nearly three times Canada's gross domestic product. It could literally bankrupt the entire country. That is the "inconvenient truth" about nuclear energy that the insurance industry has known all along, and the "inconvenient truth" that Ontarians will never hear from their premier's lips, since he knows it would "nuke" his misguided gamble to build more nukes.

Yelda Miedema Simcoe Island

Let's follow Germany's example

It distresses me that Ontario is headed toward an increasingly nuclear-powered future. Nuclear power is not green. Uranium mining releases toxic effluent into waterways and leaves behind highly dangerous tailings that remain radioactive for centuries. A great deal of energy is required to mine, separate and process the uranium extracted.

The building of nuclear power plants requires enormous amounts of cement, and it is generally acknowledged that producing cement creates a lot of greenhouse gases. These plants release enormous amounts of heat. Lake Ontario water is used as a coolant. There is also the radioactive waste that is produced. The latest scenario is to seal it in containers and bury it in deep pits. This has yet to be done anywhere in the world.

It is worth noting that Areva, one of the companies that will submit a bid to build Ontario's new reactor, is two years behind schedule and incurring huge overruns on the construction of a new power generator in Finland. There have been problems with the quality of the cement and the metal used. Areva has also run into problems with the cement in the construction of a nuclear generator in France. And Atomic Energy Canada Limited has finally shelved its Maple reactor project because it couldn't solve the technical problems.

The suggestion is that whichever company wins the Ontario contract, the government will have to pay at least some of any cost overruns incurred.

TheWhigstory "New nuclear reactors to be built near Toronto" (June 17) quotes the provincial energy minister as saying in reference to the various bids: "They will give us firm costs on reasonable parts of the project. There will be opportunities for change where no reasonable person could expect to have anticipated that change."

We are being put on notice. The more than $600 million in cost overruns at the Bruce project doesn't inspire confidence.

My biggest concern is for what we are leaving behind for our children and grandchildren. Is it not enough that we have depleted the ozone layer?

There are alternatives to nuclear power. Germany has put more renewable power on its grid than our fossil fuel, nuclear and renewable power generation combined. It has built a thriving industry that employs 230,000 people. The Germans have decided to go nuclear-free and carbon-free.

To move to a sustainable future, we need political vision. Let's find out how Germany is doing it. I want energy that offers my grandchildren a healthy and sustainable future.

Eleanor Archer Westport

Kudo's to Eleanor! Great Letter!

14 comments:

  1. I have just a few comments:

    1) Too expensive to build and maintain;
    2) No plans for disposing of radioactive waste;
    3) Other proven solutions exist that are less expensive like hydroelectric;
    4) When nuclear goes down like during the blackout it takes many days to restart.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good letter Donna. I am amazed at the $600 million dollar overrun at the Bruce project. Is the government hiding this information from us. I do believe that it would cost around $3 million dollars to upgrade the coal plant in Nanticoke, this is a mere pittance compared to $600 million. Give your head a shake we have the run person running the this province.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Although your comment have great merit, many of the items you comment on in regards to McGuinty, knowing he is just a damn liar, and the governing bodies in this country from the smallest local to the federal will lie thought their corruptible teeth to get their agenda passed,you still need to check your facts on nuclear reactors.
    Their are several different types of reactors out there and the Russians used a type that can meltdown, Frances are the same. Canada's reactors are one of the safest in regard to meltdown and explosion. Shortcuts in the even more corrupt Soviet Union are thousands of times worse than in Canada. Comparing these type of reactors together does not apply.
    The fact is that the Canadian government put so many restrictions on the industry that it takes several more times the money to comply, Some necessary and some absolutely insane. The same nut and bolt that you and I can buy for $2.00 in the store probably costs $200 by the time it goes though the regulations set in this industry. That's what happens when you have bureaucrats set policy on something they know squat about. This applies to everything the government gets their hands on because rather than stand up and be counted in this country we sit back an whine and ask the government to bail us out. The more you ask the government to do, the more your freedoms diminish.
    We as Canadians are one of the most politically naive in the world. I don't think this is by accident, but more by design.
    In closing, is nuclear power bad or good? I'm not sure on way or the other, but so long as we have a government that is not accountable for its action and the majority of Canadians don't give a damn, the questions and B.S. will continue. All I ask from very intelligent organizations of the such that wrote this article, is get your emotional agendas in check, research your facts more closely. "Just the Facts Mam"
    Donna, as usual, thanks for the read. Iain G

    ReplyDelete
  4. I have just a few comments:

    1) Too expensive to build and maintain; .......... all energy is expensive to bulld now... but nuclear power is far from the cheap and "clean and green option: that it is claimed to be... Nuclear works only because of governemtn support and large subsidies far in execess of those in place for renewables..

    2) No plans for disposing of radioactive waste; .. There are plans in place for deep storage in the sandstones of southern Ontario.. problem is that this method requires a host community and that there is no quarantee that monitoring and maintenance will be maintained for the life of the waste (thousands of years)

    3) Other proven solutions exist that are less expensive like hydroelectric; .. this again is debatable and depends and who works the numbers and the subsidies (many hidden)... There are no attractive hydroelectric sites in southern ontario that are close enough to load centres to be developed... There are in the north but there is not enough load to develop econimically. Transmission costs to the south are just too costly to build for the amount of power that is available

    4) When nuclear goes down like during the blackout it takes many days to restart.

    Nanticoke coal was to be shut down in the 1980's... However with poor nuclear reliability they had to keep all coal fired units to back up nuclear foreced outages. Also the load shifted from peaks in winter to summer peaks with air conditioning load which made it necessary to modify nanticoke to run from base laod to 2 shift/load following operation.

    There is no clear cut answer to plan for power system expansion these days ,,,

    The best is to have a balanced diversified system which could have some nuclear, but not all eggs (investment) in one basket like Ontario has planned for nuclear... This implies all economic options should be looked at and supported , Conservation is the cheapest option but Ontario now serious as well as renewables... only lip service

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks for your comments everyone.

    I find the whole Nuclear issue very confusing. Confusing as to who to believe and who not to believe. Regardless being educated is the best tool we have.

    Iain thanks for this statement;

    "I'm not sure one way or the other, but so long as we have a government that is not accountable for its action and the majority of Canadians don't give a damn, the questions and B.S. will continue".

    I feel the same way, well said!

    ReplyDelete
  6. excellent discussion.

    So how does CO2 from wind power compare to nuclear power?

    The social and environmental costs of energy options can be quantified
    e.g. External Costs-Research results on socio-environmental damages due to electricity and transport - EUROPEAN COMMISSION 2003

    http://www.externe.info/externpr.pdf

    There are also economic factors to consider...capital, operating costs, depreciation and financing.

    There are different demands on the electrical system and unless you balance demands with the power supplies closely (voltage & frequency) the electrical system blacks out, ie. when wind speed slows the wind generators produce less. Even a 1% change must be adjusted for using another source of energy.

    What are we using to back up the wind generators? The Germans are building new coal plants. Former energy minister Dwight Duncan said only Neanderthals' use coal. So Ontario will back up wind with natural gas plants like at the Portland's in downtown TO. The gas plants get built near residential neighbourhoods. Of course that doesn't make people living by the gas plants happy and who can blame them.

    We should base decisions on a rigorousness assessment of the FACTS looking at the entire mix of options and decide what works best based on all costs-including health and environmental. How many is it OK to make sick or kill with emissions or make their homes inhabitable on account of noise from a wind farm? If the World Health Organization says noise outside a bedroom window should not exceed 45 dBs, why does Ontario allow twice the level of noise pollution? Because the wind industrialists lobbied the government for the lax rules so they could squeeze more wind turbines into wind farms and increase their bottom line.

    These different self-interest groups lobby the government and spin myths to the public to shape public opinion. Within government you have bureaucracies who are looking after themselves. Solar collectors and micro generators cut into their action. Then you have politicians in charge of bureaucracies and political appointments to top positions. After the 2003 election, the Liberals created the Ontario Power Authority and put Jan Carr in as CEO. Jan Carr is a former fundraiser for Dalton McGuinty.
    “Whatever else one may think of Lyn McLeod and Jan Carr, no one can believe the premier’s claim they stand at arms-length from the governing Liberal Party” Howard Hampton.
    Ontario Minister of Energy Gerry Phillips appointed James Arnett as the new chair of Hydro One, effective March 31-2008. Arnett was fundraising chair for Michael Ignatieff’s bid for the Federal Liberal Leadership. If I recollect correctly, Ignatieff was supported by Dalton and David (MP) McGuinty.

    Mike Crawley, President and CEO of industrial wind farm developer AIM is also President of the Liberal Party of Canada (Ontario) http://www.lpco.ca/story_13472_e.aspx

    AIM is busting up wind projects into 10 MW parcels to capitalize on the government program that pays twice the spot price of electricity.

    Ontario premier David Peterson was also a supporter of Igantief. Peterson is chairman of wind farm developer VENTUS Energy.

    How many more politicos have entrenched themselves and are using their political influence to cash in on the energy bonanza.

    The wind industrialists are working hand in hand with the gas producers and pipelines. Many are Alberta companies that will use carbon credits earned in Ontario to expand operations in the tar sands.

    Would Ontario have different energy policy if the Conservatives were in charge? Of course yes. If the NDP were in charge? Again YES. Why is our energy policy based on politics vs. an assessment of the facts?

    Political parties use energy policy to attract voters and yes they spin the facts to get elected and then put programs in place to help out their big business friends and donors.
    That’s how politics works. How are the parties financed? It cost $ millions to run election campaigns. Do the corporate donors hand out the money with no expectations in return?

    Would Ontario be better off weatherproofing homes or converting hot water heaters instead of building wind farms that get backed up by gas plants? Absolutely. But the bankers, stock promoters, manufacturers, energy producers, lawyers, consultants would be cut out of the action. Instead we tack another $10 month onto the hydro bill. Another $5 here for smart meters. Another $7 for carbon tax. People will have to run faster or do with less. When government energy policy commits you to burning natural gas and then government taxes you for burning natural gas...what option do you as a consumer have. Not cook? Not bath the kids in warm water?

    Is there need to start the process for a new build nuclear plant at this time? The jury is out. The numbers the Ontario Power Authority has come up with have been questioned by many others. The plan by the OPA doesn’t count on the power available from Manitoba. Meanwhile PM Harper gave Dalton McGuinty $500 million and Dalton said he would use the money for an east west grid to bring power from the north to southern Ontario. BUT THE OPA PLAN DOESN”T INCLUDE THIS power source. This is an example how the government and bureaucracy feed us crap and keeps us in the dark.

    Credit to IAIN for identifying the root of the problem. It's the Ontario public- the electorate. Until we change how we vote-nothing will change.
    Ron M

    ReplyDelete
  7. 1. Nuclear power produces 100 times less radioactive waste than coal power plants and less than a million times less toxic waste than coal power plants, and of course no greenhouse gases.

    2. Through water electrolysis and carbon dioxide convection towers, nuclear power can be used to produce gasoline, diesel fuel, aviation fuel,and methanol, and by simply extracting nitrogen from the atmosphere they could also produce fertilizer for crops. Check out the Green Freedom pdf:
    http://www.lanl.gov/news/newsbulletin/pdf/Green_Freedom_Overview.pdf


    3. There's enough uranium in terrestrial and sea water resources to power the entire planet forever.

    4. Nuclear electricity becomes cheaper and cheaper over the years because it appears these reactors last a lot longer than originally thought. Reactors built to last about 30 to 35 years now appear to able to last at least 60 years and probably longer. So future generations are likely to inherent electricity from these facilities that is cheaper than it is today.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Great conversations! It seems that most of everything I’m reading, I agree with, excepting of course, Marcel. If Russian and French reactors have meltdown characteristics and as the Dr. Greening reports 1 & 2 state ( http://www.energyquest4nanticoke.ca/green1.htm ) & ( http://www.energyquest4nanticoke.ca/green2.htm ) about Candu reactors, that the only reactors of choice left would be Westinghouse or GE (I haven’t read any published dirt on these reactors yet).

    Bottom line to those who think like Marcel, or who might be fence-sitters or to those who may accept that the jury is still out on nuclear power. As was so well put in some of the above postings, in politics, the jury is in! However, in real terms, whether here at Nanticoke or elsewhere there is the moral issue of nuclear waste. There is no proven science and no realistic time frame that ensures the security of this waste for the millenniums to come.

    Earp

    ReplyDelete
  9. I agree with the above posters, Great conversations.

    Thank you everyone for your comments.

    ReplyDelete
  10. A terrorist attack on a coal fired plant only cuts power to those that use it. A terrorist attack on a nuclear plant does the same, PLUS kills hundreds of thousands of people around it, and renders the area uninhabitable. Given the Provincial and Federal government's inability to get a handle on terrorism of any kind, my vote is no!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thanks for this article Donna and the lead to that great site, I have book marked it.

    I also totally agree with the last poster. I was pretty well sitting on the fence but I am swaying stronger to the NO side!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Wow, all I can say is wow.
    Do you really believe all this? Why do people keep quoting Chernobyl? Please do some research and understand the technology before posting regurgitated dribble.

    �But what makes the optics of McGuinty's gamble especially egregious is that he is rolling the dice on the health of unsuspecting Ontarians, since he is betting that a Chernobyltype explosion will not occur on his watch.�

    Canada will not build a �Chernobyltype� reactor, it was a horrible disgin when it came out, had a massive negative void coefficient and used primary coolant to generate electricity. This RBMK reactor was never allowed to be built anywhere else except in the USSR, It�s main purpose was to create Plutonium PU for nuclear weapons and used graphite as a moderator (which is was burned for so long after being exposed to air). THIS CAN�T HAPPEN WITH A CANDU REACTOR!

    �And what about the odds of a reactor meltdown? Two of the world's 439 operating nuclear reactors have already experienced a meltdown, a fact that makes a mockery of the industry's claim of only one in 100 000 years of operation.

    Even more worrisome are the 22 major accidents that have occurred since Chernobyl, many of which have released cancer-causing isotopes into the air we breathe and the water we drink.�

    All these accidents have been with A) bad design reactors, B) with research reactors and C) highly enriched research reactors. The other 2 that you site were Chernobyl (which was just a very bad reactor design) and Three Mile Island, again I personally believe that the Westing House AP100 is not the best design either and was caused by poor maintenance and lack of knowledge of what was happening.

    �There have been seven major nuclear incidents in Ontario alone, including, most recently, this May when highly toxic arsenic and uranium haxafluoride leaked from Cameco's nuclear waste storage site into the groundwater in Port Hope.�

    Canada doesn�t use Hexafluoride � this is used to create UF which use then put through a centrifuge to enrich uranium. We don�t currently enrich uranium as we use natural UO2 (uranium oxide) in our reactors.


    �An explosion at Pickering would render most of the Greater Toronto Area a nuclear wasteland and would necessitate the immediate evacuation of between three and four million people, 10 times the number displaced by Chernobyl. A staggering 10 per cent of the population of Canada would require new housing, new jobs, new hospitals, etc.�

    Again this wouldn�t happen � our reactors are Generation 2 and 3, any problem in the reactor and it can be scrammed and shut down, 2-3 large butterfly valves will open in the bottom of the reactor, pressurized helium (He) gas forces the Deuterium water (dH20) moderator out of the reactor in to a holding tank and the nuclear reaction stops, coolant keeps the fuel bundles cool. If you actually take the time to look at how our CANDU reactors are setup and the technology works you will be quite impressed.

    �Let's follow Germany's example�

    Why? They are currently looking at �Clean coal, solar and wind� power in Germany (We have an office in DE, just outside of Stuttgart and our last power bill electricity was 23.4 c/kw) I don�t believe Germany has it figured out. Their solar insulation 6MW only produced 4% of it expected 20% and the company went bankrupt and was taken over by the government. All the installed wind turbine only produced 20% or it�s expected total last year; Oh and that�s only 20% or the expected 28%. Power from these sources is much more expensive than Nuclear, Gas and Coal.

    �There is also the radioactive waste that is produced. The latest scenario is to seal it in containers and bury it in deep pits.�

    Ok, I know everyone wants to call it waste, but it isn�t. Think of it as a 10 Billion (YES BILLION) dollar investment, we know where it is, and we will want to use it again. We use natural uranium which is 0.7% U235, we use it until it�s approximately 0.5% U235 and then remove it from the reactor, we need to reprocess it and build the Advanced CANDU reactor so we can use all this fuel again, and again with a Thorium reactor (India which uses our reactor design has just brought online a Thorium reactor which is 100% fuel cycle rather than the Uranium which is 0.2%, MUCH less waste)

    Some more notes

    The biggest problem is we can look around our house and say yes I can conserve and put up a windmill in the backyard and solar on the roof and get all our heat from natural gas BUT our homes ONLY use 26% or all the power consumed, we have to deal with Base Load power and that required for our industry and to keep industry in Canada the energy must be affordable, and solar/wind won�t just won�t be enough. This is Canada we are Nuclear inventors, we were the second country to have a working reactor and then created our own successful reactor. The amount of research done in the country is amazing and shouldn�t be demonized. Let�s make sure that all the Nuclear in Canada is CANADIAN!

    I implore you to learn more about how the technology works and what work is being done in Canada a great site to find more information - http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/
    I don�t believe Nuclear should be the only source for power, but it is required and is cheaper and cleaner than Natural Gas and Coal.

    If you truly believe that Germany has it right then get ready to multiply your electricity bill by four! I know I currently can�t afford that. I�m sure I could afford 10-12 c/kw but not 23.4c/kw (and that�s in Euros)....

    Note: Company blown away by Ontario
    June 20
    While Minister of Natural Resources Donna Cansfield seems keen to plonk windmills in Lake Ontario, there are no comments from the technical and economic experts at the Ontario Power Authority and the Independent Electricity System Operator. Compared with nuclear power plants, windmills require many times the amount of steel and concrete per installed megawatt, more than 10 times the weight of steel and nearly five times the volume of concrete even for the less demanding land-based windmills. With the costs of both materials on the increase, the economics of wind power and its manufacturing base must be reviewed.
    Donald Jones, Mississauga

    ReplyDelete
  13. Well Donald, It is obvious you work in the nuclear industry and you are a believer in the science. However this science has not proven itself and will not for thousands upon thousands of years. This is the risk for the planet as your industry waits for the science to use-up the next phase of nuclear waste!! What will be the next nuclear mutant waste from that phase?

    Energy really should not be the argument of now, because it is just the result of global warming politics. (this is the reason for all of man’s energy woes today)

    You tote nuclear as clean and cheap. HA! Your passion is interesting. Save it, because you have politics on your side. It isn’t the worker like you that that is the problem. It is the opportunistic political blindness brought on by the consensus of global warming. Time will tell…

    I don’t know about you, but I’m finding it a bit chilly this Summer.

    Earp

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thanks again for your comments.

    I am certainly getting an education reading these postings.

    I must say that I was at one time sitting on the fence, but it seems to me that Nuclear is more "Political" than "Practical".

    ReplyDelete