News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.3K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.5K     0 

honestly that organization has been dragging its feet for so long. The government should tell them to select a site or they clean house, because clearly they are milking the system at this point.
There is no permanent disposal site approved by regulatory authorities for Ontario's nuclear waste, all the current sites are at the plants and considered 'interim'.

**

This is the body charged with making a decision:


They have currently deferred a final decision for the upteenth time, now claiming they will announce a preferred site in fall '24

so created in 2002 and will supposedly select the location in 2024 (12 years). Then 10 years of to get permits with construction starting in 2033. They did a good job make this into a secure lifer job. If they only put as much effort into actually doing it, canada would have full nuclear lifecycle capacity.
 
Last edited:
honestly that organization has been dragging its feet for so long. The government should tell them to select a site or they clean house, because clearly they are milking the system at this point.

They have, but the problem they invariably encounter is one of more, better organized opposition than they expected, every single time. Opposition that if doesn't get to the org. itself, gets to their political masters

Example, one of the two sites under consideration is near the Bruce Plant. Relatively speaking, there isn't that much opposition locally..........except, they've attracted ferocious opposition in the U.S. (no, I'm not kidding). There are folks across the border lobbying heavily against this site.

Its worth noting the U.S. doesn't yet have a permanent site either. (They did build a pilot one, and are supposed to be looking at Yucca Mountain), 'technically' it was approved in 2002, but the 2011 Congress pulled the funding, and there is considerable state-level opposition.

 
Nuclear can be, and probably should be part of the mix of power generation for this province. Nuclear has the advantage of supplying steady streams of power, and does not suffer from the influences of cloud and darkness, water level and wind speed variations,

Most of our lifestyle and are economies are dependent on having power generation on call I.e. flick a switch. Tesla’s are an interesting idea in transportation until there is a lack of recharge supply. Creating hydrogen requires large supplies of electricity.

Growing food requires large amounts of energy as well, much of it electricity. Growing food on an industrIal scale is required to feed this world (not that we do it perfectly and there is always room to improve and adapt), but energy is key.

Bruce has the advantage of being an existing plant and adding to existing infrastructure has benefits.

All power generation has detrimental effects, be it considered green or not. (I would exempt tidal power at this point, but development is slow currently)

As Northern Light has suggested, a general decreasing population would have beneficial effects on the ability of the planet to support populations. The worlds economy might experience some rocky times, as most economies are built on growth (Canada‘s charge to 50 million people for example).

I think splitting some atoms would be a beneficial idea.
 
I can’t believe people are arguing against nuclear energy here. It’s completely unfounded.

There is a difference between arguing against it versus recognizing it has huge impacts and risks, and wanting to be sure that these are properly managed, and not making the problem bigger than it absolutely has to be. Most of the comments here are in the latter category.

In a province where government won't even divulge the particulars of delays in LRT construction, there is good reason to mistrust.

The population growth in this province to 2050 is pretty certain to happen, so without addressing the future of the planet, I would lean to the belief that some amount of new base load generation is needed - and on the scale of a few new reactors, I don't think we are abusing our share of the responsibility for a better planet by considering nuclear.

- Paul
 
Do you have evidence it's not been managed properly at this point?

I am pro-nuclear in this instance, but the then Ontario Hydro's nuclear division was definitely not beyond reproach:


AoD
 
Oh, the Thanos approach. Bold.

You're a piece of work aren't you?

Do you know you're telling a lie or are you just incapable of knowing the truth?

I specifically said I was not advocating a calamity, but rather advocating that we allow the population to fall naturally by failing to intervene.

I said that, word for word. Either you chose not to read it, which would be wilful blindness or you chose not to be honest. I'm uncertain which is worse.
 
I've been going down a rabbit hole reading about the Ontario electrical grid today and it's really interesting stuff. My initial thought: why not just buy more cheap hydropower from Quebec? Turns out that won't be a viable option because Quebec will likely run out of surplus capacity in the coming decades as they electrify everything. It's also not necessarily as climate friendly as it might seem, because we'd be consuming power that Quebec would have otherwise exported south of the border, offsetting generation in states whose grids are already much dirtier and more carbon-intensive than ours. Also, as we electrify home heating, Ontario's demand peak will move to the winter, as Quebec's peak is now, which makes cheap solar a less viable option than it is today with peak demand in the summer. Some fascinating further reading on Quebec imports here.

I strongly support more renewables. I think we need to invest heavily in solar and wind and it's a shame that renewables make up such a small proportion of our current generating capacity. But at the same time, electrification of of homes and transportation will require a whole lot more baseload power, and it will be difficult to meet that demand with intermittent sources. Conservation is good, but it can only get us so far when we're talking millions of new heat pumps and electric cars. We'll need every tool in our toolbox over the coming decades: more renewables, more conservation, and probably a lot more nuclear too. I'm treating this announcement as good news. Let's put every low-carbon option on the table.
 
I've been going down a rabbit hole reading about the Ontario electrical grid today and it's really interesting stuff. My initial thought: why not just buy more cheap hydropower from Quebec? Turns out that won't be a viable option because Quebec will likely run out of surplus capacity in the coming decades as they electrify everything. It's also not necessarily as climate friendly as it might seem, because we'd be consuming power that Quebec would have otherwise exported south of the border, offsetting generation in states whose grids are already much dirtier and more carbon-intensive than ours. Also, as we electrify home heating, Ontario's demand peak will move to the winter, as Quebec's peak is now, which makes cheap solar a less viable option than it is today with peak demand in the summer. Some fascinating further reading on Quebec imports here.

I strongly support more renewables. I think we need to invest heavily in solar and wind and it's a shame that renewables make up such a small proportion of our current generating capacity. But at the same time, electrification of of homes and transportation will require a whole lot more baseload power, and it will be difficult to meet that demand with intermittent sources. Conservation is good, but it can only get us so far when we're talking millions of new heat pumps and electric cars. We'll need every tool in our toolbox over the coming decades: more renewables, more conservation, and probably a lot more nuclear too. I'm treating this announcement as good news. Let's

I take no issue w/what you've expressed, because I see it as balanced, I might nitpick at the edges.......(Quebec offered us its (now) surplus power first, before going to the U.S, I'm not sure why the latter shouldn't fix its own issues w/in its borders)......

I might also note that a huge amount of projected power growth is population growth which I largely oppose.

That said, my advocacy is for a balanced, well-thought out plan, based on the facts, and a desired outcome; and I appreciate your efforts to read up (not meant condescendingly in any way, but perhaps as modest admonishment to those less well read)
 
Last edited:
1688614200470.png





1688614252159.png


*****

FWIW.............you've all made me open the IESO's projections through 2043...........I'll report back tomorrow on my take of same..........you lot really don't want me to get much sleep do you? LOL
 
I would like to see global population decline, significantly.
I think 3 billion is a reasonable number of humans.

To be clear, I'm not advocating for calamity, I'm arguing that we stop trying to increase population and we start letting it fall naturally. It'll be just fine, we'll make less stuff, they'll be fewer jobs, but they'll be fewer people to buy stuff, to feed and to house. Great. Less pollution, lower housing costs, better work-life balance.
I actually agree with you in that I hate how western society is so completely focused on growth and expansion at all costs. I personally don't think population decline and economic stagnation(re: Japan one of the best places to live on Earth) is a bad thing. But 3 billion, a natural decline of 60%, is an entirely unrealistic figure within our lifetimes. Maybe that's a goal the world should shoot for in the future but that's not and won't be a world we live in, we can only make plans for what we have to deal with.

Population decline is already happening in many developed nations including Canada where our birth rate is below replacement level at 1.4 There's little anyone can do to change that trend or accelerate it as it's the result of cultural and social-economic factors that have been coalescing over decades.

Many countries including Canada are taking steps to counter this trend by increasing immigration and there is certainly a serious discussion to be had about that. However even if Canada reduced immigration to zero the population will not decline by much over the coming years and decades because the death rate in Canada is still very low - last year there were 368,000 births and 323,000 deaths, a net population increase. Eventually deaths will exceed births but its going to be a slow trend. So it's safe to say your not going to see a population decline of 60% or anything even remotely approaching that figure within your lifetime Northern Lights, even if we are successful in drastically curtailing immigration(which I agree is much too high right now).

Essentially there is nothing that is going to stop the huge growth in electrical consumption we're about to experience from reducing our carbon emissions. As mentioned previously, electricity currently only provide 17% of our energy needs, the scale of how much more power we're going to need to achieve this goal is mind boggling. Continued improvements in efficiency, dramatic increases in solar and wind power and new nuclear to provide a large share of stable base load capacity, will all be needed going forward.
 

Back
Top