[JasonParis]

This seems to be a false conclusion, most likely based on Rob Ford having coached at a Catholic high school. There does not seem to be any actual evidence of him, his siblings or his parents being Catholic. On the other hand there is considerable evidence to the contrary - e.g., none of Rob and his siblings attended Catholic schools, neither Rob nor Doug were married in Catholic ceremonies (Randy has never married; I can't find any info on Kathy is this regard), Rob's and his father's funerals were not in Catholic churches, neither Doug Sr. nor his father are buried in a Catholic cemetary, etc.

As already discussed, I was basing it on the Maclean's article which seemed to say so.

 

[tiffer24]

#Breaking: The Ford government is extending the life of the Pickering nuclear station beyond its planned 2024 closure, the Star has learned. The plant, subject of a botched mobile emergency alert Sunday, is one of the oldest in the world still in operation.

https://www.thestar.com/politics/pr...a&utm_campaign=&utm_campaign_id=&utm_content=

 

[Northern Light]

#Breaking: The Ford government is extending the life of the Pickering nuclear station beyond its planned 2024 closure, the Star has learned. The plant, subject of a botched mobile emergency alert Sunday, is one of the oldest in the world still in operation.

https://www.thestar.com/politics/pr...a&utm_campaign=&utm_campaign_id=&utm_content=

Completely unacceptable.

No 'nuke bashing' here; that plant is simply way past its best before date. Its already had more than one 'life extension'.

The risk of a 'serious' nuclear incident is quite low w/CANDU technology. That said, pushing the equipment far beyond its intended lifespan is surely tempting fate in an unreasonable way.

Further, we don't need the financial cost of yet another life extension. Extending outmoded nuclear tech in this province is the leading source of electric bill increases.

There are myriad more promising ways to meet our power needs, at a much lower cost; and with a lower risk profile.

 

[W. K. Lis]

From link.

 

[SunriseChampion]

The risk of a 'serious' nuclear incident is quite low w/CANDU technology. That said, pushing the equipment far beyond its intended lifespan is surely tempting fate in an unreasonable way.

Serious question as I couldn't even guess as to the answer: Is there anywhere else in the world where 2 nuclear plants are basically attached to an urban area as populous as here?

I'm all for nuclear but I'm not sure having them be built in a massive urban centre is the best idea ever.

 

[SunriseChampion]

From link.

Scott Morrison!

 

[Northern Light]

Serious question as I couldn't even guess as to the answer: Is there anywhere else in the world where 2 nuclear plants are basically attached to an urban area as populous as here?

I'm all for nuclear but I'm not sure having them be built in a massive urban centre is the best idea ever.

This list is for the United States only; but suggests that the answer to your question is yes; there are many nuclear power plants located relatively close to major urban centres.

Nuclear neighbors: Population rises near US reactors

Who's afraid of nuclear power? Not the American people, judging by where they choose to live.

www.nbcnews.com

This piece has a hard to read graphic but dated from 2011 links European population density with nuclear power plant sites:

A population density map to help provide context for the nuclear power plant proximity analysis : News blog

 

[zang]

I'm all for nuclear but I'm not sure having them be built in a massive urban centre is the best idea ever.

Building them close to areas of greatest need is certainly the most efficient way of doing it. Then your transmission losses are reduced, and you have less room for problems (see: ice storms, etc). Ideally, power generators would be built inside cities. There’s a concept that’s been floated around about having underground micro reactors every couple of city blocks—think hydro vault with a very small amount of nuclear material in it.

 

[pud99]

As already discussed, I was basing it on the Maclean's article which seemed to say so.

Yes. I meant that the Macleans writer (not you) drew a false conclusion in order to make the statement that they did.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Building them close to areas of greatest need is certainly the most efficient way of doing it. Then your transmission losses are reduced, and you have less room for problems (see: ice storms, etc). Ideally, power generators would be built inside cities. There’s a concept that’s been floated around about having underground micro reactors every couple of city blocks—think hydro vault with a very small amount of nuclear material in it.

One thing we should have been taking advantage of is reusing the waste heat from the reactors.

AoD

 

[zang]

One thing we should have been taking advantage of is reusing the waste heat from the reactors.

AoD

Indeed. Recoup energy using steam turbine.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Indeed. Recoup energy using steam turbine.

I don't mean that way - but through district heating and other industrial uses.

AoD

 

[zang]

I don't mean that way - but through district heating and other industrial uses.
AoD

Well, that too. My concern would be the excess heat in the summer.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Well, that too. My concern would be the excess heat in the summer.

Well, obviously you'd have to use a different circuit in summer

AoD

 

[zang]

Well, obviously you'd have to use a different circuit in summer

AoD

Heated sidewalks in the winter would be nice...