Nova Scotia’s success with wind power
Wind Power Helps Nova Scotia Set Renewable Energy Record, North American Windpower by NAW Staff January 28, 2016 Nova Scotia Power (NSP), the Canadian province’s primary electricity provider, says wind power helped it achieve a new renewable energy record in 2015, with 26.6% of the electricity used by Nova Scotians coming from renewable resources last year. “We’re becoming cleaner and greener,” says Mark Sidebottom, NSP’s vice president of power generation and delivery. “Nova Scotians depend on us to provide the electricity they need for their homes and businesses every day, and they want that electricity to come from more sustainable sources.”
NSP says its performance on renewable energy exceeded the legislated 2015 requirement of 25% renewable electricity, as well as positions the company well to meet the 40% renewable requirement that takes effect in 2020. As recently as 2007, only 9% of Nova Scotia’s electricity was renewable. Also by 2020, NSP will have reduced greenhouse-gas emissions by 25%.
“We have made remarkable progress in Nova Scotia,” states Sidebottom. “No other utility in Canada has made this rapid of a transition. In 2020, we will have a greater percentage of our electricity coming from renewables than Germany, which is often recognized as a world leader in renewable energy………Nova Scotia’s growth in renewable electricity has been largely through the development of wind power. According to NSP, there are now 294 commercial wind turbines producing electricity in Nova Scotia. Most are independently owned. At times, wind power has accounted for as much as 50% of the province’s electricity.
However, there are other times when almost no electricity is coming from wind, so the utility has to have other generation sources on hand for backup to supply customers: NSP says the Maritime Link, delivering hydroelectricity from Muskrat Falls, will provide a firm source of renewable electricity, and help push Nova Scotia Power to more than 40% renewable electricity by 2020. http://nawindpower.com/wind-power-helps-nova-scotia-set-renewable-energy-record
Electric vehicles not green if they’re fuelled by nuclear power
Disadvantages lurk in push for nuclear power http://www.thestar.com/autos/2016/03/18/disadvantages-lurk-in-push-for-nuclear-power.html
Electric cars are only as eco-friendly as the fuel powering our electricity grid, By: Peter Gorrie the Star, Mar 18 2016 I’ve recently focused on electric vehicles, especially Ontario’s steps to promote them with more charging stations and bigger incentives. The tone generally has been that the moves are positive, helping to pave the way for greater use of electric vehicles as part of a greener, more sustainable future.
But EVs are only as green as the electricity that powers them. If it comes from coal-burning generating stations, they can be responsible for more toxic and greenhouse-gas emissions than internal combustion engines.With stations fuelled by oil or natural gas, it might be a wash. Things are supposed to improve as you travel along the scale from nuclear power to hydro, and then, in the best case, wind, solar and other renewable sources. Ontario claims to be on the greenest end of the spectrum, since most of our electricity comes from hydro and nuclear generation, and we no longer burn coal.
Not so fast.
A few weeks ago, Premier Kathleen Wynne, in an unsuccessful bid to boost the Liberal candidate in the Whitby-Oshawa byelection, announced a $13 billion refurbishment of the Darlington nuclear generating station.
A similar amount is to be spent on the Bruce Nuclear station near Kincardine on the shores of Lake Huron.
What’s wrong with this?
- Nuclear power is far from pollution-free. It creates toxic greenhouse-gas emissions as uranium is mined, shipped and processed, and the plants are built, operated and dismantled.
- It raises safety issues, particularly from radiation releases. That danger is acknowledged by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, which now requires that potassium iodide pills — to reduce the threat of thyroid cancer after radiation exposure — be distributed to everyone within 10 km of nuclear plants, and available to anyone within 50 km.
- Despite decades of expensive research, there’s still no consensus on how and where to store the most radioactive waste from these facilities.
- The plan to store low- and medium-level waste at the Bruce site is raising concern all around the Great Lakes.
- The $26 billion estimate for the two Ontario refurbishments is a lot of cash. Worse, the actual total will likely be far higher, given the history and apparent inevitability of cost overruns. Construction and refits at Darlington and Bruce have ranged from 50 to 350 per cent over budget. Even taking inflation into account, the overruns are substantial.
All this makes nuclear power dangerous, uncertain and very expensive.
Many reports suggest alternatives — including conservation, hydro, and renewables such as wind, solar and biofuels — could ensure we have the electricity we need, at far less cost and risk. They say EVs, with their ability to store electricity and level fluctuations in supply and demand, could be part of a solution.
It’s at least worth an objective, open look. But pouring so much into nuclear power kills the chance to even consider other options. Sadly, while renewables spark growth and jobs elsewhere, that’s the route we’re on. We need to stop and examine all the choices
Which brings us back to EVs. They can only be considered truly green if they’re fuelled by the greenest-possible power sources, which is what we should demand.
Strontium 90 <0.2 bq/kg Found in British Columbia Wild Salmon
試料 名 Sample:
野生サーモン-シロザケ-メス
（フリーズドライ）
Wild Chum Salmon – female
(Freeze Dried)
採取 場所 Origin: Kilby Park, BC Canada
採取年月 Sampling date: 2014 年11月30日 (November 30, 2014)
測定日時 Date Tested : 2015 年3月31 日 (March 31, 2015)
測定時間 Duration : 57,600 秒(seconds)
試料容器 Container: 500mLマリ ネリ容器(Marinelli)
試料重量 Sample weight: 144.2g
乾燥前 Before dehydration: 2010g → 700g
測定日時 Date Tested : 2015 年9月15 日 (September 15, 2015)
測定時間 Duration : 10時間 (10hours)
試料重量 Sample weight: 25g
Tested by Iwaki Radiation Measuring Center, Trachine with SL300/SLL – coordinated by Citizen Radioactivity Measuring Station, Shinjyuku-Yoyogi
新宿代々木市民測定所いわき放射能市民測定室たらちね
測定時間 Duration : 4時間 (4hours)
試料重量 Sample weight: 0.105g
Tested by Iwaki Radiation Measuring Center, Trachine with SL300/SLL – coordinated by Citizen Radioactivity Measuring Station, Shinjyuku-Yoyogi
新宿代々木市民測定所いわき放射能市民測定室たらちね
But it’s not telling you a whole story about contamination….
Wind power prices dropping below nuke re-build costs in Ontario.
Ontario Clean air Alliance 10 Mar Angela Bischoff, 11 Mar 16 Today Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) announced that it has signed five contracts with private sector companies for wind power at costs ranging from 6.45 to 10.55 cents per kWh.
According to Ontario Power Generation (OPG), the cost of electricity from a re-built Darlington Nuclear Station will be 7 to 8 cents per kWh. However, every nuclear project in Ontario’s history has gone massively over budget – on average by 2.5 times. If history repeats itself, the cost of electricity from re-built Darlington reactors will be 15 cents per kWh . That would make even solar power acquired through the new Large Renewable Procurement (LRP) process competitive with nuclear.
And, of course, solar and wind companies are on the hook for any cost overruns on their projects, unlike OPG which expects provincial electricity ratepayers and taxpayers to still pick up the tab for its inevitable cost overruns.
Also, renewable energy costs are projected to continue to fall rapidly so by the time the IESO undertakes its next LRP round a year from now, we will likely see even greater savings over costly and slow nuclear re-build projects. In fact, what the current LRP round has told us is that the Ontario government should be steering toward the off ramps for nuclear re-build projects as quickly as possible given the astonishing – and continuing — decline in green energy prices.
If we are smart, we will combine energy efficiency and water power imports from Quebec with made-in-Ontario renewable energy to build a much more cost effective, responsive and responsible electricity system for Ontario.
Deep seated concern about Canada’s nuclear safety
Can the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission do better? http://www.waterkeeper.ca/blog/2016/3/2/can-the-canadian-nuclear-safety-commission-do-better by Mark Mattson.
If your drinking water comes from Lake Ontario, then you’re one of the millions of people who count on the Canadian Nuclear Safety Committee to do its job perfectly. The same is true for other Canadians who work in the nuclear industry or live near a facility.
In an interconnected, hi-tech world, we rely on regulatory agencies to keep us safe. We assume that buildings are well constructed, that toxic products will be banned, that the water coming out of our faucets will be safe to drink – and if any of these things doesn’t happen, we assume we will be warned.
When we are wrong, the consequences can be grave. Think of the Walkerton tragedy or the crisis in Flint.
Of course, the consequences of poor regulation aren’t always obvious. They may be difficult to detect or very distant from the root cause. Imagine low levels of a carcinogen (say PFOA) in a town’s drinking water, for example. If the regulator fails to prevent this, it is unlikely that the residents will detect its presence. Even if rare cancers begin to appear, making the connection can be difficult.
The CNSC is responsible for protecting Canadians from the risks associated with the nuclear industry. This means ensuring that Canada never has to deal with the pandora’s box of problems that would stem from a complete or partial meltdown, or major release of radioactive material into the environment. It means protecting Canadians from those insidious, day-to-day harms that are harder to detect, like low level radiation or the slow release of radionuclides into the watershed. It also means protecting Canadians from the impact of non-nuclear contaminants, habitat loss, and environmental destruction.
If you’ve followed some of our previous work, you’ll know that Waterkeeper questions whether the CNSC effectively serves the public as an impartial regulator. We believe the CNSC relies on an inadequate licensing process, demonstrates limited appreciation of environmental risks, and has a tendency to downplay or ignore concerns raised by the public.
When regulatory agencies show signs of failing to meet their public duties, it’s important to speak up. In fact, any individual or organization that has such concerns has an obligation to share them. After all, you rely on us to help keep you safe, too.
For this reason, Lake Ontario Waterkeeper is joining Greenpeace Canada, Ecojustice, the Canadian Environmental Law Association and others in calling on Prime Minister Trudeau to initiate a twenty year review of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. This is the legislation that dictates how the CNSC operates.
Reviewing the Act would provide an opportunity to address deep-seated concerns about the CNSC and improve nuclear regulation in Canada. You can read the open letter that has been sent to Prime Minister Trudeau below. (on original)
Trudea called upon to fix Canada’s nuclear law and oversight
Groups urge Trudeau to fix Canada’s nuclear law and oversight, National Observer By Mike De Souza March 8th 2016 Canada needs to fix its nuclear safety law and put a stop to internal political strategizing by its industry watchdog that is putting public safety at risk, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was told in an open letter released on Tuesday.
The groups released the letter along with a federal strategy document showing that staff at the watchdog were recommending that management consider the “political environment” in 2015 prior to developing any changes needed to improve nuclear oversight.
Greenpeace Canada said this indicates there was political strategizing by the watchdog, theCanadian Safety Nuclear Commission, and demonstrates why the Liberal government has to clean up Canadian nuclear oversight………
All 14 groups, including MiningWatch Canada, EcoJustice and the Canadian Environmental Law Association, said that Japan and the European Union have increased the independence and transparency of their nuclear watchdogs in the wake of the disaster. But the groups argued that the previous federal government, led by former prime minister Stephen Harper, failed to keep pace with the other jurisdictions to prepare the country for any similar disaster in Canada.
“While the (Canadian watchdog) carried out a review of the technical failures that led to radioactive releases at Fukushima, it did not consider how institutional failures and industry-led regulation caused the accident,” said the letter to Trudeau. “This should be addressed as part of a public review process leading to the modernization of the (law).”…..
Greenpeace Canada nuclear analyst Shawn-Patrick Stensil said Trudeau needs to put a stop to the commission’s internal strategizing.
“In public the CNSC says Canada’s nuclear safety laws are fine, but behind closed doors they’re strategizing on how to amend the law without public input,” Stensil told National Observer. “If they’re not being honest with the public about things like this what else are they trying to hide? This is why Trudeau should clean house at the CNSC.”……..http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/03/08/news/groups-urge-trudeau-fix-canadas-nuclear-law-and-oversight
No straightforward answers to nuclear waste – except to stop making it
More money and some jobs would be offset by the stigma inevitably attached to radioactivity and by the risks involved, including accidents, radioactive leaks to underground water systems, and radioactive emissions to the air.
Recent accidents at nuclear waste dumps in Germany, New Mexico and France are deeply concerning. It is difficult to credibly predict cumulative environmental effects should a radioactive incident occur underground.
There are no straightforward answers. Given the dangers of radioactive waste, McKenna should invoke the precautionary principle which is enshrined in environmental laws worldwide. It states projects should not be undertaken if they might have serious adverse consequences, even if we don’t know whether these consequences will happen.
The next step would be to stop making more nuclear waste.
Dealing with nuclear waste is so difficult that phasing out nuclear power would be the best option http://www.lfpress.com/2016/02/26/dealing-with-nuclear-waste-is-so-difficult-that-phasing-out-nuclear-power-would-be-the-best-option Erika Simpson and Ian Fairlie, Special to Postmedia Network Environment Minister Catherine McKenna has dealt a setback to Ontario Power Generation’s plan for a nuclear waste burial site on the shores of Lake Huron. In a letter to interested parties last week,
McKenna delayed a decision on whether to approve the proposed deep geologic repository (DGR) for low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste and set a short April 18 deadline for OPG to furnish a timeframe within which it could provide an updated list of commitments to mitigate potential damage from the site.
Furthermore, she stated she will seek a further extension for the review from cabinet at a later date. We are probably in for long delays. Continue reading
New Canadian govt still backs nuclear industry
She was speaking on behalf of Minister of Natural Resources Jim Carr yesterday.
The federal government has asked for more information about the planned underground nuclear waste storage site in Kincardine before giving final approval…….https://blackburnnews.com/midwestern-ontario/midwestern-ontario-news/2016/02/26/federal-support-confirmed-for-nuclear-industry/
Cesium 137 found in 7 fish near Canada’s West Coast, but not in salmon
Radiation from Fukushima nuclear disaster not found in B.C. salmon http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/radiation-from-fukushima-nuclear-disaster-not-found-in-bc-salmon/article28846578/ MARK HUME VANCOUVER — The Globe and Mail Feb. 23, 2016 Five years after the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan, radioactive contaminants continue to circulate across the Pacific to Canada’s West Coast, but not at dangerous levels.
A B.C. scientist monitoring fish for tell-tale traces of cesium-134 said the radionuclide, which is the fingerprint of the Fukushima disaster, has been found in seawater but not in recent samples taken from 156 salmon.
Steelhead, Chinook, sockeye and pink salmon were collected by First Nations from locations spread along the B.C. coast last year as part of an ongoing monitoring program.
He said tests did find low levels of cesium-137 in seven fish, but cesium-134 was not also found in those salmon.
“Because no c-134 was detected in these fish it is not possible to say whether detectable c-137 can be attributed to Fukushima contamination, or simply normal variability in contamination owing to nuclear weapons testing fallout,” Dr. Cullen said.
“The vast majority of c-137 that’s in the environment today came from weapons testing; fallout from atmospheric weapons tests last century,” he said. “And also there is an imprint of the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 in the Pacific.”
Dr. Cullen said seawater far offshore and in coastal waters continues to show low levels of contamination from 2011, when an earthquake and tsunami caused a nuclear meltdown at Japan’s Fukushima power plant. The accident released a pulse of radioactive material into the Pacific Ocean and the atmosphere. Debris has drifted across the ocean and for the past few years has been washing up on West Coast beaches.
Dr. Cullen said tests in recent months have shown that the levels of radioactive contamination in sea water are low, but are varied depending on where the samples are taken.
“Offshore the contamination is much more evenly distributed, from place to place.
“Along the coast, probably because of complex water circulation and freshwater inputs, we see it show up in certain places more often than in others,” he said. Dr. Cullen said none of the measurements raises any health concerns.
“It’s thousands of times below the maximum allowable [level] of cesium in our drinking water. It’s still a very trace level. In order for us to detect it, we have to use the most sensitive techniques that we have,” he said.
“The amount of radioactivity from these isotopes from Fukushima in our water or in our fish [is] a fraction of the count you’d get using a Geiger counter.”
Dr. Cullen said the level of contamination in the Pacific off the West Coast continues to rise, but that was anticipated.
“Given the time that it takes for the ocean currents to bring that contamination as it spreads across the North Pacific this is when the models predict those levels should be peaking,” he said.
“The heart of that contamination is just arriving offshore.”
Dr. Cullen, who works with a network of researchers from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Health Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the University of B.C., the University of Ottawa and UVic, said monitoring of both seawater and fish will continue and shellfish will be added to the testing this year.
The research group is known as InFORM, for Integrated Fukushima Ocean Radionuclide Monitoring Network.
“The goal of the InFORM project is to continue to monitor the water and fish because this information is … useful for determining what the risk might be to the ecosystem or to humans who rely on fish,” he said.
Inadequate environmental assessment for Kincardine nuclear waste site
Kincardine nuclear waste site’s paused timeline not enough for opponents, The Star.com
Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna has said the environmental assessment is insufficient. By: Jennifer Wells Business Columnist, Feb 21 2016
For opponents of the Deep Geologic Repository proposed by Ontario Power Generation, the news that Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna has “paused the timeline” on the project is not good news enough.
Opposition voices have been crying for an outright “no” from Ottawa, as the deadline loomed for what had been promised as a March 1 decision on the plan to bury 200,000 cubic metres of low and intermediate-level radioactive waste approximately 1.2 km from the Lake Huron shore.
Yet in asking for further studies McKenna has signalled that the Environmental Assessment Report of the joint review panel, four years in the making, is insufficient, a decision that hardly seemed likely in the Stephen Harper era. And her request for additional technical studies and information on potential environmental effects highlights what has always been a fundamental flaw in OPG’s proposal: that no other site was drill-tested and environmentally assessed.
OPG’s plan as is consists of constructing a crypt on the Bruce nuclear power site, plunging 680 metres deep beneath sedimentary rock to a strata of limestone. The DGR would be the first in the world to use limestone as the host rock…….. http://www.thestar.com/business/2016/02/21/kincardine-nuclear-waste-sites-paused-timeline-not-enough-for-opponents.html
Push to not just postpone nuclear waste burial near Great Lakes, but to stop it altogether
Critics want feds to kill nuclear-waste bunker after time extension sought http://www.metronews.ca/news/canada/2016/02/19/critics-want-feds-to-kill-nuclear-waste-bunker-after-time-extension-sought.html By: Colin Perkel The Canadian Press Published on
TORONTO — Groups opposed to the burial of nuclear waste near Lake Huron are calling on the federal government to kill a proposal for an underground storage bunker rather than ask for more information on the project.
In a statement Friday, one group said the environmental credibility of the new Liberal government under Justin Trudeau is at stake.
“It is unfortunate that the government is not listening to what the people and Great Lakes communities are telling them: to reject this plan,” said Beverly Fernandez with Stop the Great Lakes Nuclear Dump.
“No matter what process is followed, burying and abandoning radioactive nuclear waste in the Great Lakes Basin will always be a bad idea.”
The statement comes after the federal government said it needs more information before deciding whether to approve plans to build a giant underground storage bunker for nuclear waste near the Lake Huron shoreline.
That means a decision on the project, decried by scores of communities around or near the Great Lakes, will be delayed well beyond what had been a March 1 deadline.
A notice posted by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency says Environment Minister Catherine McKenna wants more details and further environmental studies for the proposed deep geologic repository near Kincardine, Ont.
A review panel last May had given the go-ahead, but a decision rests with the McKenna.
“The minister has requested that the proponent, Ontario Power Generation, provide additional information on three aspects of the environmental assessment: alternate locations for the project, cumulative environmental effects of the project, and an updated list of mitigation commitments for each identified adverse effect,” the notice reads.
“The minister’s request for information from the proponent has paused the timeline for an environmental assessment decision to be issued.”
A decision had been expected in September, but the former Conservative government extended the deadline to March 1 to allow for last fall’s federal election.
McKenna has now given the utility until April 18 to provide the environmental assessment agency with a schedule for fulfilling the information request. When she might make a decision is still to be determined.
Ontario Power Generation proposes to construct and operate the underground facility for the long-term management of radioactive waste at the Bruce nuclear site.
The proposal calls for hundreds of thousands of cubic metres of so-called low- and intermediate-level nuclear waste to be buried 680 metres underground in the bedrock.
Proponents argue the rock is geologically stable and would provide a hermetic seal to prevent any radioactivity reaching the lake about 1.2 kilometres away for tens of thousands of years.
However, almost 200 communities and environmental groups have argued that such a facility, despite OPG’s arguments, would be too risky given the proximity to Lake Huron. Any contamination, they say, could threaten drinking water for millions of people.
Radioactive packages lost or stolen in Canada
Nuclear and Radioactive Packages Keep Going Missing in Canada, VICE News By Justin Ling
February 13, 2016 If you’ve ever lost your wallet or car keys, you’ve got something in common with the people who run Canada’s nuclear facilities, who keep misplacing nuclear and radiological material.
Last year alone, 14 radioactive packages were lost or stolen, according to the annual report from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), and less than half were later recovered. That’s on top of the dozen of other nuclear packages from recent years that have yet to be found.
The report doesn’t detail the circumstances of the losses or thefts, except to say that they were either “sealed sources” — a secure container carrying nuclear or radioactive material — or “radioactive devices.”
The lapses, at a time when security services pledge neurotic devotion to tracking and recovering dangerous goods that could reach the black market, are thanks in part to a handful of private companies that are mishandling radioactive material. n the nuclear watchdog’s 2014/2015 annual report, it identified 27 companies that were mislabeling or mishandling nuclear material, or which had inadequate security protections.
In some cases, CNSC lightly rapped the knuckles of companies, including a New Brunswick brewery which, according to the government body, had “several non-compliances related to safety requirements for nuclear gauges.”
Pump House Brewery, at the time, told CBC News that the problem amounted to some missed paperwork.
In other cases, the problems were more serious and resulted in fines…….https://news.vice.com/article/nuclear-and-radioactive-packages-keep-going-missing-in-canada
Will the government listen to 92,000 Petitioners against Great Lakes Nuclear Dump?
Group opposed to nuclear waste facility presents petition containing
92,000 signatures, January 31, 2016 By Jim Bloch, The Voice, Ontario As a single individual, it’s often hard to imagine that you can affect national events. But if you join together with 92,000 others, your impact can grow.
That’s the hope of Beverly Fernandez, founder of Stop the , the nonprofit organization dedicated to derailing the plans of Ontario Power Generation to bury 200,000 cubic yards of low- and intermediate-level nuclear waste in a 2,200-foot-deep repository in Kincardine, Ontario, within a mile of Lake Huron.
On Jan. 19, Fernandez, on behalf of STGLND, delivered a petition containing more than 92,000 signatures and more than 31,000 comments to new Minister of the Environment and Climate Change Catherine McKenna.
“The signatures and comments send a very clear message to the Canadian government,” Fernandez said. “OPG’s nuclear waste burial and abandonment plan poses unacceptable risks to the drinking water of 40 million Canadians, Americans and Indigenous Peoples and must be rejected.”
McKenna is scheduled to make a decision about the proposal by March 1. ……….
“This petition stands alongside the more than 22 million people represented by 184 resolutions opposed to OPG’s plans to bury and abandon nuclear waste, some of which will stay toxic for 100,000 years,” said the letter to McKenna.
Resolutions opposing the nuclear waste facility have been passed by nearly every city, township and county in the Blue Water Area, as well as the Michigan Senate. Continue reading
Why the Nuclear Lobby and Australian Politicians want Australia as world’s radioactive trash dump
from CaptD 31 Jan 16 The first reason is MONEY and I mean BIG Money. Politicians are always gear for Nuclear 
Payback*
* http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nuclear+payback
Those that support nuclear power because nuclear power somehow supports them; no matter what the health implications or other “costs” are for others.
The “other” reason is that the Nuclear Industry and their Utilities are desperate to create a radioactive waste dumping site for waste is that they are going to want to site Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) very soon, which companies like SD’s General Atomic are now working on. Since CA has a law that says no more nuclear reactors, until a waste site is developed, the lack of a disposal site is the biggest roadblock they face preventing them from deploying SMRs in CA.
I believe that most Utilities will want to phase out Nat. Gas fired Peaker plants and install SMR’s “because they don’t emit CO2.” That is, unless they are going to be making big money using nat. gas like SDG&E will be, since they already have a contract to import Nat. Gas from Mexico (which Sempra owns a share of, so they will be kind of buying Nat. Gas from themselves) for use in their two new state of the art Billion Dollar Peaker Plants that the CPUC just approved for them (despite the fact that the cost of Wind and Solar generation continues to drop almost monthly)!
SCE just had the CPUC decide against approving a Nat. Gas Peaker plant for them, so you can bet that they are now getting “very excited” about installing one or more SMR’s at San Onofre, since the grid wiring connection is already in place and they are going to be guarding that “nuclear waste” site for decades to come.
http://www.kpbs.org/news/2016/jan/08/oceanside-takes-stand-relocating-san-onofres-nucle/
BTW: All waste facilities should be run by the Government, that way they will always be responsible for it, since Big Waste Corp.’s can go out of business any time they want as as everybody knows Radiation is FOREVER since 50 or more than 100 years is forever to everyone living today.
Nuclear scientist – it’s unwise to rebuild Ontario nuclear plant
Scientist calls $12.8B rebuild of Ontario nuclear plant ill-advised, CTV News, The Canadian Press January 27, 2016 TORONTO — The proposed $12.8-billion refurbishment of four nuclear reactors at the Darlington generating station is an ill-advised make-work project that will end up soaking taxpayers, a retired nuclear scientist says.
In a letter to Ontario’s energy minister, obtained by The Canadian Press, Frank Greening warns of the formidable technical hazards he says will undermine rosy projections for the project.
“I am quite mystified that you would consider the refurbishment of Darlington to be some sort of solution to Ontario’s economic woes, when in fact the premature failures of (nuclear reactors) are a major cause of Ontario’s economic problems,” writes Greening, a frequent critic of the industry.
“Spending billions of dollars trying to patch up Darlington’s four dilapidated reactors will simply continue the bleeding.”
Earlier this month, the province’s publicly owned generating giant, Ontario Power Generation, announced plans to start refurbishing Darlington — situated east of Toronto on Lake Ontario — this fall. The project aims to extend the life of the CANDU reactors, scheduled for permanent shutdown in 2020, by 30 years……..
Greening argues the units are in need of rebuilding prematurely because their pressure tubes and feeder pipes will soon fail fitness tests. He also warns the reactors’ massive steam generators, which are not part of the proposed project, have had a less than stellar track record and will more than likely need replacement.
“Replacing these steam generators is fraught with very serious problems, both technical and economic, that could prevent the continued operation of Darlington beyond 2030,” says Greening, a senior scientist with OPG until he retired in 2000.
“The decision to proceed with the refurbishment of Darlington could prove to be a disastrous mistake if it is discovered that steam generator replacement is in fact needed in the next 10 to 15 years.”
Environmental groups also argue such projects always run massively over budget and have cost taxpayers untold billions in the past and refurbishment is simply not worth the potential radiation risk to public safety.
The Ontario cabinet has so far given the green light to refurbish one of Darlington’s reactors. OPG would need separate approvals for each of the other three units……….http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/scientist-calls-12-8b-rebuild-of-ontario-nuclear-plant-ill-advised-1.2754272
1 This Month
26 April – Chernobyl: Inside the Meltdown airs on National Geographic on Sunday 26th April from 4pm
29 April – Nuclear Expert Webinar #1 – Radiation Impacts on Families with Mary Olson and Cindy Folkers
- 12:15 PM MT – 1:45 PM MT
- Location: Virtual – REGISTER TODAY
4 May -West Suburban Peace Coalition to discuss Iran war at May Educational Forum
Monday, May 4, 7:00 – 8:00 PM Central Standard Time
Title: : How Trump’s Narrative Tries to Shape the Reality of the War on Iran.
Contact Walt Zlotow, zlotow@hotmail.com 630 442 3045 for further information
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
Pine Ridge Uranium is the real threat, not Tehran- Tell Burgum: Stop the Extraction.
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- April 2026 (327)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 
