Nuclear Waste storage in Kingston?

[Bill(2)]

This morning's Whig reports that Kingston (among others) is a possible area to locate nuclear waste. It needs to be kept in storage for 100,000 years until it becomes safe enough to handle without all of those silly safety precautions.

Well, how about that? The rent and taxes for the storage facility would most definitely be guaranteed income for a while. Jobs created. All that good stuff. But, where to put it is the question. Council chambers (or underneath) may work, but some nights there is enough heat generated in the chamber without the help on spent uranium rods. Then again, the proximity might encourage the meetings to move along swiftly.

All kidding aside, I'm not to thrilled about having that stuff too close. Yes, properly handled there are no issues. But what happens when it is improperly handled? Or an accident occurs. Or some natural disaster (earthquake). Nope, the current plan of building storage facilities in the hard rock of the Canadian Shield is better, simply because it does not affect populated areas. I'm not being NIMBY here - it can't be in anybody's back yard. Better solution would be to blast if off into space. Aim it for good old SOL. The extra energy might give us a couple milli-seconds of daylight (don't forget the sun-block).

At least, that's how I feel about it.

[Dogma]

Number one.

The assumed "waste" - is unfortunately because of our Canadian environmental groups ignorance during the 70's , and the non proliferation signing resulting from the US / Cold War - which basically says that waste cannot be "traded" or re-used (or recycled).

In most other countries (who have not resigned the non proliferation act) i.e France etc. Can recycle waste or spent fuel rods. The "world market" of waste would be better served and safer if Canada could recycle its and others waste.

Infact; the former founder of Green Peace says and most experts say 95% can be reused as fuel. And this is being done today!

5 % of the "less spent" waste (or non recyclable waste) - is slightly radio active for only 300 years. It is and could be encapcalated in glass and metal balls and buried. With no undue risk to the enviromenment or biological life. Infact; the soil now is radioactive and we walk, garden and play on it every day.

Maybe we could put these "balls" under Fort Henry to give it some real historial significance.

The only thing I will add is I hope we never build another CANDU Reactor in this world.

They are one of the worse "reactors" in the world.

Do you wish to ask me why? Oh Canadian pride you?

[Bill(2)]

They are one of the worse "reactors" in the world. b Do you wish to ask me why? Oh Canadian pride you?


OK - I'll bite. Why.

[BornAndRaised]

http://ewh.ieee.org/reg/7/millennium/candu/candu_environment.jpg

I agree with Dogma to an extent that nuclear isn't our best solution. It seems that nuclear energy being less harmfull to the air that we breathe seems to be a saviour in the looming energy crisis. My only worry is that the government will fall into the nuclear trap and not focus on the alternative energy sources which, I agree, are not as productive as nuclear, gas or coal fired stations but they will turn our heads to the real problem. Alternative energy is being given the chance lately with many areas allowing people to sell hydro back to the utilities but until the cost of producing hydro from the grid is charged, it won't be appealing enough for people to take the risk. The cost recouperation will be two-fold as those producing thier own power will not pay the higher cost of hydro from the grid and will get in return the higher cost for the extra that they do not use. This system promotes energy consumption which should help reduce overall consumption to sustainable levels. At least in my little world, that is

The problem is not that society doesn't produce enough electric power. It is that people use too much of it.We use too much because we are not paying the full costs of it in our bills. Appliances that we buy are filled with features and conveniences that require them to be always hooked up to outlets in the home drawing power even when they are not in use. How many clocks do most people have in the kitchen? Maybe one on the microwave, the stove, the coffee-maker, one on the dishwasher, even some fridges have clocks. In our society there needs to be a demand for low energy use products or an incentive for companies to provide these types of products.

[Dogma]

The Candu "platform" - is based on an "original concept & design".

The French, U.S and other platforms are not so "custom designed".

A custom designed platform needs custom components.

Thus, more modular type of platform tend to have less custom items and thus are not just one off's manufactured parts.

i.e Costing more to make one instead of 100 - and costly to R&D.

There are "to many customized parts in a Candu" which make it more expensive (if no incentives are offered to other Counties i.e tax breaks , environmental reports etc) to build and long term maintain a facility.

Maintenance is (more expensive and requires custom, specialized vendors) and they (depending on the "Nuke Market Place" come and go over time.

Thus older parts become difficult to find and costly. Political flavours for power tend to do this.

And so overruns in the billions to maintain the existing Candu;s are evident.

A new generation of Candu's maybe less parts and less custom oriented.
- but I am afraid the old custom platform likely in many forms remain.

Simply on long term costs and design - I would recommend a US or French one first.

[BornAndRaised]

CANDU Reactors are rated as being one of the safest reactors built and also have great versatility when it comes to fuel choices. There are several places to learn more about CANDU Reactors including the following

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candu

which itself has several links to substantiate the information it provides. There are 29 CANDU Reactors around the world and many derivatives of them as well. From the information I have read I am proud to say that the CANDU Reactors are Canadian. If I am being sorely misled, please enlighten me.

[Dogma]

Thank you for your "pride" of CANDU...I agree I had the same feelings during that era of Mega projects Canada went through..i.e CN Tower, James Bay watershead dams, Skydome etc.

And in some ways the pride of building these things and its required infastructure is identified as being "Canadian Made".

But, if you read even your fast link info (Industry Driven) - you will see I do have some points of the traditional design.

Although the design is somewhat innovative and has advantages for continuous running time is well known.

Because such an "innovative design" issues of parts and custom components = costs mitigate its overall long term = ROI or cost of operation to the taxpayers.

And as you know we needed to pay and still are for the cost overruns of the CANDU programs. 90% of the reactors are deployed here in Canada.

Some CANDU plants suffered from cost overruns during construction, primarily due to both external issues, technical problems and redesigns added about another billion to the resulting $14.4 billion price.


And this is precisely my concern.



As it stands, the article makes several broad claims about the CANDU which are at odds with reality. In short, it states that the up-front cost of building a CANDU is somewhat higher due to the need for heavy water and larger cores, but that those up-front costs will be offset due to lower cost of operation, primarily due to on-line refueling.
Now there was certainly a time, the 1970s, where this general line of reasoning could be effectively argued. But it is true no longer. At the absolute best, using only the most favourable numbers, based solely on new-ish CANDU 6's, the CANDU system meets the uptime numbers of the average US fleet. And let's not forget that the US fleet is not comparable in age to CANDU-6, but the older units like Pickering and Bruce.

When you compare those fleets head to head, CANDU is by any definition a dud.

But even if you accept the comparison, which I don't, AECL's own pages put the uptime of the CANDU-6 fleet at 87%, whereas the US fleet is just over 90%.

Operating costs in the US decreased by 44% between 1990 and 2003, a period in which the cost of CANDU supplied power in Ontario was skyrocketing due to construction problems and refurbs that were much more expensive than anyone predicted.

So if there was an advantage due to online refueling, it has clearly been lost over the last 20 years.

And where does that leave us?

The Economist, based on data from Richard Knox IIRC, rated CANDU as the most expensive Western reactor design in terms of $/kW.

The Canadian Nuclear Association's latest comparison (2004) based on AECL work for DOE states that a dual CANDU-6 is $CAN 2,972/kW, and the unbuilt ACR-700 is $CAN 2,347/kW.

For comparison, the U.S Westinghouse AP600 is estimated to be $US 1,400/kW, ~ $CAN 1,550/kW.
And if you wish to comment on the "recycling" or storage of the fuel in Kingston would also be appreciated.

Oh, I would suggest - that most of the link is by: Nuclear Associations Groups or the industry. NOT by independent groups.

[BornAndRaised]

I am researching as I go along and I do not profess that I am an expert on the matter by any means.If you want to argue a point, please do so by adding your source of information. Your information makes sense but there are so many different factors to consider with such a complicated subject such as safety costs of harvesting or enriching fuel, nuclear proliferation can also make a difference as to the possible reactor type and the additional costs that go along with it.

All that aside, IMHO the governmaent should make some changes to the way people pay for the power consumption. This will force everyone to reduce their consumption to levels which would not require more power plants and would allow people to generate their own power economically.

As to the burial of waste in kingston, I don't know enough about this to form an opinion. I will soon enough I am sure. Are they choosing Kingston because the rock beds in the area are stable? How will Kingston benefit from the whole deal?

Personally the idea scares me since I don't know enough about it. I don't buy the fact that nuclear waste is fairly harmless or the reactors would be built to store the waste in bunkers.

[Dogma]

Yes, I believe that there is a lot of misinformation out there. And the link previously supplied by yourself is what I was referring to.


And infact you are correct - the "root cause" for having more [power lies in the hands of us who overconsume it or waste it.

There is not a culture of conservation of energy here.

Even at the open house for the 87 windmills planned for Wolfe Island - there was alot of opposition to this project. And frankly ignorance with regards to "flight" [patterns of migratory bird, butterflies and alike.

To me it makes more sense to have a variety of sources of energy for both safety and enviriomental reasons.

The Nukes provide 50% of Ontario's power now. Is that enough? I believe that is enough...BUT The difficulty is that because we are so late in adopting alternative sources i.e wind power, increasing rates, putting in more efficent lighting and generally conserving etc.

That we are forced to increase use of other sources.

Shutting down the coal power plants is not an option immediately. And the expanding market for power to the U.S and Canada mitigates any radical downsizing. Housing is finally offering alternative options for home consumption. Wind, solar and thermal heating. But, it can add 30,000 to the cost of a home. And Canadians will not send that kind of extra money for this innovation or environmental investment.

Its high time we should. Maybe instead of giving Bombardier loans for polluting aircraft in the billions, that we give it to people for incentives for homes.