Bruce Power files with Canadian Government for new nuclear reactors.

[NNadir]

As the world moves toward new nuclear fuel cycles - especially those that are thorium based - CANDU reactor technology with its high neutron economy will be increasingly valuable.

Although the ability to be continuously fueled gives CANDU technology more proliferation risk than most other commercial nuclear reactors - the never again to be built RBMK type reactor excepted - this risk is in fact relatively small. Under IAEA supervision, the CANDU, with its ability to incorporate thorium can actually have a net proliferation reduction capability. The reactor is suitable as a thermal breeder (with U-233), can burn "once through" spent uranium without the need for re-enrichment, and can be a net plutonium consuming reactor. It is very likely that CANDU's will also have utility as burners of minor actinides, which dominate the long term radiotoxicity of spent nuclear fuels.

Therefore it is encouraging to note that a Canadian nuclear power company has, for the first time in a generation, entered into the regulatory process for the construction of new reactors. Several reactors in Canada have been refurbished for longer periods of use, but the new reactor is the first "from the ground up" project to enter into the approval process for several decades.

Actually 4 new reactors are contemplated:

TORONTO (Reuters) - Bruce Power, which runs six Ontario nuclear power units and is refurbishing two more at a complex on the shores of Lake Huron, said on Thursday it is seeking regulatory approval to prepare a site at the facility for the potential construction of new reactors.

ADVERTISEMENT

Any decision on building new reactors is years away, but the price tag could be C$8 billion ($7.1 billion) to C$10 billion in the case of four new 1,000-megawatt units, Bruce Power President and Chief Executive Duncan Hawthorne said at a Toronto briefing.

Any application to build new reactors is subject to a federal environmental assessment, a process that could cost about C$10 million and take up to three years, Hawthorne said.

Bruce Power wants to get the green light from regulators for site preparation so it can weigh various options for refurbishing existing reactors or building new ones in differing combinations...

...Hawthorne conceded that non-government organizations opposed to new nuclear development could jump into the environmental assessment process.

"I expect that some people will, because it's probably fair to say that people see any new nuclear plant in North America as the beginning of a whole set of new nuclear plants," he said.

But local support for past refurbishment work at the Bruce Power site has been very strong, he noted...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060817/wl_canada_nm/canada_utilities_canada_nuclear_col_2

[Massacure]

1. CANDU can fissil off spent fuel without reenrichment?

How difficult would it be to get a CANDU reactor approved for use in the United States?

[NNadir]

2. Yes, the CANDU can burn natural uranium, as well as uranium from spent

fuel, which is still enriched with respect to natural uranium.

Nuclear fuel does not stop working because the U-235 in it has been consumed. It stops working because of the accumulation of fission products like Samarium-149 which are neutron absorbers.

Thus, if reprocessed the spent fuel from a nuclear reactor, and separated the fission products from the uranium that remains in the reactor - spent fuel is typically more than 95% unreacted uranium - you could use it directly in a CANDU.

There would be a slight reactivity penalty to pay because spent nuclear fuel contains considerable amounts of U-236, an isotope that is generally not found in nature. U-236 in thermal reactors is a net neutron absorber. It absorbs a neutron to give U-237 which rapidly decays to neptunium-237. In thermal reactors neptunium-237 absorbs a neutron to give plutonium-238, the isotope that is used on space missions like New Horizons to the now non-planet Pluto, and Cassini to the still planet Saturn.

Pu-238 puts out about half a watt per gram. It can be allowed to decay to give U-234 which can be inserted back into a reactor to achieve very high burn-ups.

If not launched into space Pu-238 can absorb yet another neutron to give Pu-239, which is generally fissioned by neutrons in both the fast and thermal spectra.

All of these processes are not perfectly efficient. Very often one of these nuclei will fission in the fuel because there is always a fraction on unthermalized fast neutrons in the reactor, and because they all have small fission cross sections even for thermal neutrons.

Once through uranium is not recycled into CANDU's right now because uranium is so cheap. When and if uranium becomes expensive, this option will certainly be explored.

[Viking12]

3. Those precious nuke whores, always lookin' to save the environment

http://www.friendsofbruce.ca/Commentaries/Energy_Sector_Marriage.html

The Joining of Fossil Fuels and Uranium
AECL Targets the Tar Sands

There is a proposed new marriage in the Energy sector, or at least a proposed co-habitation. And some public sector marriage brokers are stepping forward to praise the union.

Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has proposed that a nuclear reactor be built beside the Alberta oil sands to provide the power needed to separate out the petroleum from the sludge.

[Dead_Parrot]

4. Yeah, these new plants will be used for all those Ontario tar sands

Try reading the OP. If you're still confused, Google "Map of Canada".

[Viking12]

5. Yes, because the intended expansion is isolated to Ontario

for strictly utopian purposes. If you're still confused, google "Sucker".

[Dead_Parrot]

6. Depends on your definition on "Utopian", I guess...

http://www.energy.gov.on.ca/index.cfm?fuseaction=english.news&body=yes&news_id=100

TORONTO – The McGuinty government’s aggressive plan to replace coal-fired generation with cleaner sources of energy and conservation will clean up our air, improve the health of our citizens, and contribute to the sustainability of our environment while ensuring a reliable supply of electricity, Energy Minister Dwight Duncan said today.

“We are leading the way as the first jurisdiction in North America to put the environment and health of our citizens first by saying ‘no’ to coal,” Duncan said. “ And as we have said all along, maintaining reliability is the first principle of our plan. It's a prudent and responsible path that will ensure cleaner air for the province.”

“Our government’s plan will reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada by up to 30 megatonnes a year – which is equivalent to taking almost seven million cars off the road or removing every car and small truck in Ontario,” said Environment Minister Leona Dombrowsky. “ The closure of Ontario’s coal-fired generating stations is expected to provide up to half of the province’s greenhouse-gas-reduction contributions under the Kyoto Protocol . ”

The first of the five coal-fired plants, Lakeview Generating Station (GS), was officially closed in April. The plan released today will see three out of the four remaining coal-fired generating stations close by the end of 2007, with the remaining station, Nanticoke GS, to close in early 2009.


Google "pulling thier thumbs out of their arses and doing something useful".

Unless you really are a big coal fan, of course. I always assumed that was a causual jibe that NNadir threw around, but here's an litmus test for you.

[bananas]

8. They're switching from coal to gas, not nukular

Google "reading comprehension".

[Dead_Parrot]

9. Hmmm.

"Nanticoke GS, representing 3,938 megawatts, will have units closed through 2008 with the last unit to close in early 2009. In addition to new generation capacity, transmission upgrades in southwestern Ontario are necessary for the closure of Nanticoke."

Guess my reading isn't up to scratch, then, because I can't see the word "gas" in there anywhere. Not that this necessarily what the OP article is talking about. I mean, It's possible they're planning to spend US7.1 billion just for the sheer hell of it, not because there's any need for it.

In fact, they have a special form of Canadian gas that lasts forever, doesn't produce CO₂ when you burn it and isn't subject to huge price fluctuations...

[bananas]

11. I'll let "Nuclear Energy International Magazine" explain it to you.

But first, I highlighted the word "gas" in the article you linked:

Under the coal replacement plan:

* Lakeview GS, representing 1,140 megawatts of generating capacity, was closed in April 2005, following completion of projects to strengthen the transmission system in the Toronto area.
* Thunder Bay GS, representing 310 megawatts, will be replaced by gas-fired generation in 2007.
* Atikokan GS, representing 215 megawatts, will close by the end of 2007, following the replacement of Thunder Bay units and necessary transmission upgrades, with no direct replacement necessary.
* Lambton GS, representing 1,975 megawatts, will be replaced by the end of 2007 by two combined-cycle gas-fired generating stations in the Sarnia area announced as a result of the government’s request for proposals for clean energy capacity.
* Nanticoke GS, representing 3,938 megawatts, will have units closed through 2008 with the last unit to close in early 2009. In addition to new generation capacity, transmission upgrades in southwestern Ontario are necessary for the closure of Nanticoke.

To support the replacement of coal-fired generation in Ontario, theMcGuinty government has put the wheels in motion to produce well-over 7,500 megawatts of cleaner, more diversified power. Between 2004 and 2007, Ontario will secure more new generating capacity than any other jurisdiction in all of North America.


Hmm, I don't see the word "nuclear" there at all.
Where are these mystical new nuclear plants being built in the next 3 years?
They're not.
I'll let the Sierra Club explain it for you:

There is much confusion as to the role of nuclear power in the phase out of coal-fired power plants. Briefly stated, the Ontario commitment to phase out coal is a relatively short-term goal and due to be completed by 2009. A new nuclear power plant would take at least ten years to open from the date of announcement.
http://ontario.sierraclub.ca/campaigns/green_energy


But since the pro-nukes hate the Sierra Club, what does a pro-nuke website say?
How about "Nuclear Energy International Magazine":

The plan describes how the government intends to replace the current 6400MWe of coal-fired capacity by the beginning of 2009 – slightly later than its election pledge of 2007. However, the scheme relies on only 515MWe of nuclear capacity – which is provided by the now completed restart of Pickering A unit 1.
http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectionCode=188&storyCode=2032324


That NEI article has much more detail.

[NNadir]

12. Oh Gee. We wouldn't want to look at the date of the article would we?

The four new reactors were announced last week.

The grand renewable future and the imminent demise of the nuclear industry was announced in the 1970's, the 1980's, 1990's, and the early 2000's.

The fact is that there is only one kind of energy that is suitable to displace fossil fuels. That would be the safest continuously scalable form of energy: Nulcear energy.

The pro-fossil fuel anti-nuclear lobby always says they have a plan to replace fossil fuels, but throughout modern history the opposition to nuclear energy has always meant more fossil fuels. Renewables would have a better case if they delivered rather than endlessly promised. Promises are not enough. Since fossil fuels are known to be vastly more dangerous than nuclear energy, this is a call to commit murder.

The four reactors will displace fossil fuel plants that would otherwise be built. Every reactor that is not built will require the building of more fossil fuel plants.

You guys can't face reality.

We will see many similar announcements around the world, probably hundreds of them more in the next few years, and every time on is put in front of your face, you will respond as you always respond: Denial and prayer. I try to post new nuclear plant announcements as often as I see them, but I really can't keep up, the pace of such announcements is accelerating so rapidly. In any case, if you really want to organize resistence to reality, you really should organize a cult.

[bananas]

14. LOL - the date of the article is Nov 2005 and it's completely accurate

It even mentions the Bruce plants which you claim were just announced four weeks ago. Do you think those "pro-coal anti-nuclear" nuclear engineers are psychic? Try to keep up!

We're discussing two seperate things - Dead_Parrot mistakenly thought Ontario's coal phase-out involved replacing the coal plants with new nuclear plants - it does not. They are being replaced with gas.

Your original post was about some proposals for new nuke plants, which are mainly to replace the old nuke plants that will be retired. They won't be replacing fossil fuel plants - they'll be replacing nuclear plants.

Here's a July 28 2006 article from "Nuclear Engineering International" Magazine:
By emphasising the preference for conservation and the use of renewable energy technologies, the report concludes: “Together, conservation and new renewable resources would more than meet all of Ontario’s growth in demand for electricity by 2025. This would not, however, replace the loss of capacity from the retirement of other supply sources.”
<snip>
The conclusion of the OPA advice is that by 2025, the share of nuclear on an energy basis should remain about the same as it is today.
http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectioncode=76&storyCode=2037804

Hmm - that's exactly what Al Gore said - nuclear won't contribute more than it does now.

[Massacure]

16. And natural gas is running out.

There are 265 trillion cubic feet left of natural gas in North America. The United States consumes 640.9 billion cubic METERs per year, roughly 22.6 trillion cubic feet. Canada uses just under two trillion cubic feet per year. There is little more than 10 years worth of natural gas left on North America. How much natural gas based electricity do you believe we will have in say 2015?

[NNadir]

20. August 17, 2006 is the same as Nov 2005?

That is a surprise.

The OP article, from Yahoo, refers to a new announcement from about a week ago.

The anti-nuclear crowd always looks to the past and fixates on them - unless the past involves millions who die from fossil fuels, be they from air pollution, oil wars, coal mine collapses or dam collapses.

Look at what the pro-coal anti-nuclear squad regards as the only energy disaster involving energy: Chernobyl, chernobyl, chernobyl.

The Bruce Power company, like the most rational people on earth, is unimpressed.

It's pretty typical of the level of perception that we see from the pro-fossil fuel nuclear crowd.

This reminds of the articles about how the Rancho Seco opponents "replaced" the closed nuclear power plant with "solar power:" 3 watts (peak) is the same as 937 watts 24/7.

Now we have "Aug 17, 2006 is the same as Nov. 2005."

What was it that the main agent of the "renewables will save us and nuclear is as dangerous as fluoride" told us, oh yeah: Bush is the same as Gore. That's another good one.

And so on.

Up is down. War is peace. Truth is lies.

Here is the Bruce Power press release to which the Yahoo article referred:

http://www.brucepower.com/pagecontent.aspx?navuid=1211&dtuid=83230

It has a date, as does the Yahoo article in the OP. The date, again, is August 17, 2006. Now maybe in an alternate universe that is the same as Nov, 2005 but I'm certainly not going to accept that this state of affairs exists in this universe.

In fact, I'm not sure that Bruce Power even read the NEI article - that is dated November 2005 which is the same as August 17, 2006 - which you interpret in a classic of typical hear-what-you-want-to-hear thinking. I am, as usual, impressed with a spectacular misreading of what the article says. I have never been impressed with the ability of the pro-coal anti-nuclear squad to read of course. Mostly they make stuff up, but sometimes they merely engage in silly misinterpretation too.

But nevertheless, the NEI article is merely pointing out the facts: In a time of global climate change, nuclear power does not supply 100% of Ontario's energy. It should, if one is doing reasonable risk assessment, provide whatever cannot be supplied by hydroelectric, but it doesn't.

This is true if you accept the status quo, if you think things as they are are just peachy keen, righty oh, just wunderbar.

I don't think that. I don't think the status quo is working. In fact, I think it's killing us.

To the credit of the Ontarians, they are planning to phase out coal, which right now supplies about 25% of the electricity in Ontario. They are doing exactly what I think they should do. They have courage. They have vision. They are announcing new nuclear power plants. Why? Because they want to phase out coal. Why do they want to phase out coal? Because it's dangerous.

My argument is that we should phase out all fossil fuels. You seem to think they're OK. That is why I am having such fun pointing out that the anti-nuclear argument is primarily a pro-fossil fuel argument.

It's obvious.

[Dead_Parrot]

17. Take a deep breath...

...and re-calibrate your cerebrum. You see the quote about Nanticoke? We've both posted it. Does it mention new gas plants? No, it doesn't. You'll notice you put in bold the phrases about gas in the points about Thunder Bay and Lambton. You'll notice you didn't put in bold the phrase about gas in the Nanticoke point, because it isn't there.

With me so far? Good.

As for not seeing the word "Nuclear", let's take a look at the very next sentence:

The government is also currently reviewing a tentative deal with Bruce Power for the refurbishment of two laid- up nuclear reactors, which together represent more than 1,500 megawatts of additional capacity.

Do you see the word "nuclear" now? Good. Now jump back and read the OP again:

TORONTO (Reuters) - Bruce Power, which runs six Ontario nuclear power units and is refurbishing two more at a complex on the shores of Lake Huron...

You will notice that the "reviewing a tentative deal" on 15 June, 2005 has turned into "is" by Aug 17, 2006. That's the way the universe works: Time passes, things change. Sorry if this is a shock but you'll have to learn to deal with it. Maybe you should take a break and have a cup of tea, we don't want to rush this.

When you've had a rest, look at the rest of the first sentence of the OP article:

"...it is seeking regulatory approval to prepare a site at the facility for the potential construction of new reactors."

Hopefully, with you're googled comprehension skills, you will understand that this is as well as the two refurbished plants.

Now, you're right that even in the wildest dreams of Westinghouse, nuclear reactors are not going to spring up like mushrooms in time for a 2009 shutdown of Nanticoke. In fact, apart from the revived reactors, they don't seem to have any firm plans for replacing the capacity, which seems a little careless. I'm guessing they will need to use gas as it's the only option that fits in the time-frame, but there is a slight difference between what an article says and what you want it to say, or what I think it implies.

The other issue, which you carefully avoided, is that natural gas is a fossil fuel. There is a limited supply, and it produces CO₂ when you burn it.



See that big red bar on the left? See all those little red bars on the right? Can you tell which is big and which is small? Trust me, it's not one of those optical illusions, The 'gas' bar really is bigger.

Gas is better than coal, in the same way that being shot in the lungs is better than being shot in the head. Now, I know that you are quite happy for mankind to continue burning fossil fuels for the next 50 years while we wait for the tooth fairy to invent ZPE or TWh storage systems, but meanwhile, time is passing and things are changing. Ask the polar bears. Ask the residents of Tuvalu or NOLA. Ask the insurance analysts in FL. Ask the skiing instructors in Switzerland. Ask the farmers just about anywhere. Or for what it's worth, ask the Ontario government who are looking at building four new reactors.

[bananas]

21. I'll let "Nuclear Energy International Magazine" explain it to you again

You posted a link about their coal phase-out.
I said they're replacing coal with gas.
You don't seem to believe it.

See the black triangle labelled "coal"?
See how it's being replaced with a blue stripe labelled "gas"?
Notice how the triangle labelled "nuclear" gets smaller as time goes on?
That plus growth leaves the white triangle labelled "gap".


They plan to replace nuclear with nuclear (refurbish and new build),
and use renewables to cover the growth.


There's your nuclear utopia - in 2025, they will get 1/3 of their electricity from nuclear, the same as they do now.

[Dead_Parrot]

22. Quite how a magazine graphic

"Trumps" a more recent news article is beyond me, I'm afraid. Perhaps you'd like to link to an article, it might clear things up.

Why you think I don't know that they have built new gas plants is also a mystery, But I'll give up on trying to get you to understand that burning gas is a bad thing. Maybe you just don't give a shit. I guess you live in a giant bubble up in the mountains: it would explain a lot.

[bananas]

23. None of these articles conflict with each other.

Those charts come front the July 28 2006 article I linked to in my reply to NNadir above:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=65500&mesg_id=65647
http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectioncode=76&storyCode=2037804
I should have put that link in my reply to you, sorry about that.

None of the articles trump the others, they are all in agreement.

[bananas]

7. "Any decision on building new reactors is years away"

"Canada's nuclear regulator has not licensed a new nuclear power plant in more than 25 years, according to its Web site."

[NNadir]

10. Gee, I thought that the pro-coal anti-nuclear squad was generous with

time lines.

Here is one of the perennially empty promises that the pro-coal folks at Greenpeace:

By 2040 more than 5% of the world’s electricity demand could be satisfied by solar thermal power.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/Concentrated-Solar-Thermal-Power

You're perfectly patient about waiting 36 years for that bit of solar nirvana even while the climate is collapsing now. Note that Greenpeace - consisting largely of landowning upper class comfortable trust fund luddites - never comes up with a renewable scheme that "could" produce 100% of the world's energy. They always leave an unacceptably large fraction to fossil fuels. We have seen by experiment, in places as far apart as Maine and Germany that the anti-nuclear fraud has left the world more dependent on fossil fuels.

I predict that if that "5% by solar concentrator" by 2040 comes to pass, it will be in spite of the Greenpeace retards.

I heard this bit about "years off" about the US nuclear program as well, from the same people who tell me all about the imminent death of the nuclear industry worldwide. Earlier this month though, US utility began to order system components for their new reactors:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=64089

Companies usually don't order expensive components for systems they do not intend to build.

[bananas]

15. More flawed logic

"Companies usually don't order expensive components for systems they do not intend to build."

Only if they have to pay for those components themselves.
Thanks to sugar-daddy Darth Cheney, it doesn't cost them anything.
This NYT graphic gets it right: "none have made a firm commitment yet",
see my post in this other thread:
10. The only reason these "proposed" plants are even being discussed
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=65306&mesg_id=65506

[NNadir]

19. I'm sure that Cheney accounts for all of the reactors in Japan, Argentina

Bulgaria.

The pro-coal anti-nuclear "we'll only pretend we have renewables" squad is still relying on logical fallacies.

I am, as always, amused to be lectured on what is and is not flawed logic by you. I have offered a great many posts in which I have specifically identified the flawed thinking on which nearly every pro-fossil fuel anti-nuclear argument depends.

I don't know how many times I've identified the logical fallacy of "guilt by association" which, I believe, is covered in high school level classes in logic. Repeating "Dick Cheney" one zillion times will not erase the wastes of coal, nor will it produce a single case of death from the storage of spent fuel.

That the winner of the 2005 Nobel Peaceworld to turn to nuclear energy. The world including vast portions of it where Dick Cheney is powerless is turning to nuclear energy.

It is a useless, exercise to link again one of the thousands of websites that now attempt to teach through this exercise in weak thinking, but I will post it once again: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html

You will not, of course, understand this, just as you are unable to understand that there is no such thing as risk free energy; there is only risk minimized energy and that energy is nuclear energy. You will, instead, continue to argue with all you have left: Denial.

[Viking12]

24. Hey, while you're at fallacyfiles look up

False dilemma, strawman, ad hominem, wishful thinking, and begging the question. It may help you because it appears that the utilization of such fallacies is your primary mode of demagoguery, err, I mean argumentation.

[jpak]

18. Really???

"Companies usually don't order expensive components for systems they do not intend to build."

117 US nuclear reactors were canceled in the 70's and 80's - many of them "half built".

More nuclear power plants were CANCELED (117) in the US than were completed (104).

So companies DO order things they don't intend to build.

The stranded costs of US canceled nuclear plants are >$112 billion - with rate payers picking up the tab of course.

Gee - how many PV/solarthermalelectric/wind/biogas/biomass/geothermal/solarhotwater/EnergyStar systems could we buy with $112 billion???

(clue: a shite load)

[jpak]

13. This statement is false

"Although the ability to be continuously fueled gives CANDU technology more proliferation risk than most other commercial nuclear reactors - the never again to be built RBMK type reactor excepted - this risk is in fact relatively small."

India uses CANDU reactors (and CANDU technology) to produce plutonium for its nuclear weapons program. (The plutonium used by India's "peaceful" explosion in 1974 was diverted from a Canadian supplied heavy water research reactor: Cirus).

http://www.ccnr.org/exports_3.html

India built a reprocessing facility at Tarapur dedicated to extracting plutonium from CANDU spent fuel in 1982.

They have built (but not yet operated) another CANDU fuel reprocessing plant at the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR) near Madras.

http://www.ieer.org/ensec/no-2/india-b.html

India has tons of undeclared plutonium in its inventory, much of which is dedicated to their weapons program.

http://www.isis-online.org/global_stocks/plutonium_watch2004.html

The proliferation risk from CANDU reactors is not "small" it is large and real.

BTW Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan and most of the Indian scientists the work in India's nuclear weapons establishment were trained in Canada.