Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby yellowcanoe » Wed 31 May 2017, 11:56:19

Nuclear power is like any other technology -- it takes time to mature. The earliest power reactors had top physicists and engineers involved in their construction and operation. Large scale deployment of power reactors brought in engineers and managers who didn't have the same level of understanding of nuclear power and/or whose previous experience was with thermal generating plants that didn't have the same complexity and safety concerns that nuclear power did. The result was two very serious accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl plus a large number of less serious accidents. The safety record of nuclear power has improved significantly since those days and yet as a society we've written off further development of nuclear power.

The situation reminds of the introduction of iron bridges in the 18'th century. Engineers switched to using iron as it allowed larger and stronger bridges than could be built from wood or stone. However, they did not foresee the phenomena of brittle fatigue which could cause a railroad bridge to fail catastrophically without warning. Thousands of people died in bridge collapses and yet society did not demand that use of metal in bridge construction be stopped. Engineers eventually discovered that steel was a much better material for bridge construction than iron. I am rather annoyed that we simply gave up on nuclear power rather than trying to improve it.
yellowcanoe
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 476
Joined: Fri 15 Nov 2013, 13:42:27
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Wed 31 May 2017, 14:59:20

I don't understand why you consider TMI a "serious accident". YES the reactor melted - but it was within a reinforced concrete containment structure. The only radioactivity released was some unknown (but fairly small) amount of Tritium vented from the dome. No adverse environmental impacts were ever found.

Chernobyl was a disaster. As accidents go, this one killed a few dozen people. It does not hold a candle to a hydropower dam failure, which have killed 100's of thousands of people via sudden flooding. It also doesn't compare to the 12,000 or so people each year in the USA killed by toxic coal emissions. Chernobyl doesn't even compare to the dozens of people killed by falls each year installing rooftop solar in the USA alone.

Nuclear energy, far from being a problem, is the safest form of energy production by a country mile.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4264
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby Simon_R » Sat 03 Jun 2017, 02:04:55

If nuclear is as safe as touted, then surely the sensible thing would be to build the plants in the middle of population centres so they can provide without any transmission loss adjustment factor, also providing work for the unemployed, you could have one in DC one in Manhattan, London etc etc.
Land could be obtained under eminent domain, its gonna be a bright future

That I would support safe clean etc etc etc
Simon_R
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu 16 May 2013, 08:28:06

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Sat 03 Jun 2017, 04:26:33

The problem with nuclear energy is irrational hysteria, caused by ignorance and decades of movies about nuclear wars, mutants, and Godzilla. That there is absolutely no connection between these things and commercial nuclear power plants is a fact most people don't even know, or bother to understand.

I happen to agree with you. I am currently house hunting in Wisconsin, and I would not want to live within a dozen or so miles of a coal power plant that has been spewing toxics for decades. But a nuclear plant I would have no problem with as a neighbor.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#39161e4f709b
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4264
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Tue 06 Jun 2017, 12:06:15

KaiserJeep wrote:The problem with nuclear energy is irrational hysteria, caused by ignorance and decades of movies about nuclear wars, mutants, and Godzilla. That there is absolutely no connection between these things and commercial nuclear power plants is a fact most people don't even know, or bother to understand.

I happen to agree with you. I am currently house hunting in Wisconsin, and I would not want to live within a dozen or so miles of a coal power plant that has been spewing toxics for decades. But a nuclear plant I would have no problem with as a neighbor.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#39161e4f709b


The problem with nuclear energy is that its not a cash dispenser like you think it is. This system is run by hard currency (certain types of oil) and nothing else. The purpose of renewables is preparation to MASS BANKRUPTCY. Notice how all energy "transition" is to devices that require NO personnel? Its because everyone will be broke once the hard currency of conventional oil is gone. Same goes for that crap called automated ev ride-sharing...people with a few electronic "money" in their accounts.

But hey you know better, the fools of France need another 5 university degrees before they stop listening to people like you and figure out that they are flat broke.
Plan B is now being implemented: It is called Looting.
StarvingLion
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Tue 06 Jun 2017, 15:20:53

Still, it should be your goal to live somewhere debt-free, with a vegetable patch, a few fruit trees, a well, and a wind turbine or solar PV setup, and whatever else you desire for your comfort.

Best case, you'll be a survivor. Worst case, the world won't go to Hell, but you'll still be slim and fit with no debt.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4264
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Wed 14 Jun 2017, 16:01:44

The nuclear reactor has no fuel. Fuel rods, trisco particles, and the liquid salts either are totally unreliable or burn basically almost nothing of the original uranium stock.

The whole industry is a boondoggle and completely dependent on massive oil input.

Imagine a completely new design that is somehow possible. It take 40 years to see if it worked reliably in a series of pilot plants that would cost over a trillion dollars.

Meanwhile, Scamerica has to shut down all coal plants to fund more funny derivatives money.

BANKRUPT.
Plan B is now being implemented: It is called Looting.
StarvingLion
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby vox_mundi » Mon 31 Jul 2017, 15:20:29

S.C. utilities stop building $16B V.C. Summer nuclear expansion

Image

S.C.Electric & Gas and Santee Cooper have decided to stop construction at the proposed V.C. Summer Nuclear Station expansion, but customers could remain on the hook for up to $9 billion already sunk on the project.

Santee Cooper’s board acted first, announcing it would proceed with neither of the two nuclear reactors under construction at the site at this time. SCE&G, a subsidiary of SCANA Corp.reacted shortly thereafter, acceding to that decision.

The fate of the project has been closely watched in the industry, which considered it a bell-weather for whether new nuclear construction would be economical in the United States. Duke Energy Corp., which still has the massive W.S. Lee Nuclear Station proposal in its long-range plans, has said it is following developments at Summer closely as it decides whether to proceed with its own project. And executives have said the final resolution there could have a significant impact on Duke's decision whether to proceed with its own project.
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late.
User avatar
vox_mundi
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3696
Joined: Wed 27 Sep 2006, 02:00:00

EIA Forecasts Growth in World Nuclear Electricity Capacity

Unread postby AdamB » Thu 09 Nov 2017, 23:34:45



Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook 2017 Reference case. Note: OECD is the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. EIA’s International Energy Outlook 2017 (IEO2017) projects that global nuclear capacity will grow at an average annual rate of 1.6% from 2016 through 2040, led predominantly by countries outside of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). EIA expects China to continue leading world nuclear growth, followed by India. This growth is expected to offset declines in nuclear capacity in the United States, Japan, and countries in Europe. Electricity demand growth plays a central role in decisions to build new nuclear reactors and retire existing reactors. EIA expects electricity demand growth in China, India, and the Middle East to exceed growth in the United States, Europe, and Japan. EIA’s projected higher electricity demand growth for non-OECD member countries is the result of comparatively higher growth in gross domestic product and population relative


EIA Forecasts Growth in World Nuclear Electricity Capacity
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 3384
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Looking Ahead to 2018 for Nuclear Energy

Unread postby AdamB » Thu 30 Nov 2017, 23:05:58


Each year this blog looks ahead to issues it will follow in the coming 12 months. What this look into the future does is to provide some check marks on the page of news about nuclear energy to return to from time-to-time to see what’s going on. Readers also know that this blog presents a “realist” perspective and, while pro-nuclear in perspective, it also faces facts as they are and not as some may want them to be. This list of issues is not exclusive nor does it represent a set of predictions. Here without further fudging is the 2018 list. China is outpacing all other countries except Russia in the development of advanced nuclear reactor technologies. The U.S. has lost its place as global leader in this field. China is placing multiple bets on advanced reactors including HTGR, Molten Salt, and other types of


Looking Ahead to 2018 for Nuclear Energy
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 3384
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Looking Ahead to 2018 for Nuclear Energy

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Fri 01 Dec 2017, 14:10:32

AdamB wrote:
Each year this blog looks ahead to issues it will follow in the coming 12 months. What this look into the future does is to provide some check marks on the page of news about nuclear energy to return to from time-to-time to see what’s going on. Readers also know that this blog presents a “realist” perspective and, while pro-nuclear in perspective, it also faces facts as they are and not as some may want them to be. This list of issues is not exclusive nor does it represent a set of predictions. Here without further fudging is the 2018 list. China is outpacing all other countries except Russia in the development of advanced nuclear reactor technologies. The U.S. has lost its place as global leader in this field. China is placing multiple bets on advanced reactors including HTGR, Molten Salt, and other types of


Looking Ahead to 2018 for Nuclear Energy

Well, maybe success in China for something like Molten Salt reactors could wake people up to a better way to produce nuclear power as part of a greener portfolio to help meet insatiable global demand as green energy grows in coming decades?

On the other hand, LOTS of claims in the article, but the ONLY links I see are pointers to a "New Way" blog that is all about promoting this stuff.

So I'm disappointed in the lack of real substance and the big lack, apparently, in objectivity.
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4196
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: Looking Ahead to 2018 for Nuclear Energy

Unread postby StarvingLion » Mon 04 Dec 2017, 21:26:27

Outcast_Searcher wrote:
AdamB wrote:
Each year this blog looks ahead to issues it will follow in the coming 12 months. What this look into the future does is to provide some check marks on the page of news about nuclear energy to return to from time-to-time to see what’s going on. Readers also know that this blog presents a “realist” perspective and, while pro-nuclear in perspective, it also faces facts as they are and not as some may want them to be. This list of issues is not exclusive nor does it represent a set of predictions. Here without further fudging is the 2018 list. China is outpacing all other countries except Russia in the development of advanced nuclear reactor technologies. The U.S. has lost its place as global leader in this field. China is placing multiple bets on advanced reactors including HTGR, Molten Salt, and other types of


Looking Ahead to 2018 for Nuclear Energy

Well, maybe success in China for something like Molten Salt reactors could wake people up to a better way to produce nuclear power as part of a greener portfolio to help meet insatiable global demand as green energy grows in coming decades?

On the other hand, LOTS of claims in the article, but the ONLY links I see are pointers to a "New Way" blog that is all about promoting this stuff.

So I'm disappointed in the lack of real substance and the big lack, apparently, in objectivity.


Gee, Outcast, the last time I looked Nuclear definitely was not a member of Team Green.

Makes you wonder, Saudia Arabia claims to building 17 nuclear reactors as well as going Total Solar Paradise. If nothing can compete with "cheap" solar, why is that?
Plan B is now being implemented: It is called Looting.
StarvingLion
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: Looking Ahead to 2018 for Nuclear Energy

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Mon 04 Dec 2017, 22:38:42

StarvingLion wrote:-snip-

Gee, Outcast, the last time I looked Nuclear definitely was not a member of Team Green.

Makes you wonder, Saudia Arabia claims to building 17 nuclear reactors as well as going Total Solar Paradise. If nothing can compete with "cheap" solar, why is that?


Nuclear has always been a member of Team Green. It only releases about 15% of the carbon as coal, and only 40% of the carbon as Natural Gas. This is fuel burned in mining and refining uranium. Then it's hands down the safest form of power generation.

What nuclear does well is "baseline" power generation, 24X7. It does not throttle up well for peak daytime loads - but solar shines there, and if you need A/C, solar putput conveniently peaks with the solar radiance heating up your living space.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4264
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby GHung » Tue 05 Dec 2017, 13:40:02

More gridweenie problems.....

PSC staff says cancel Vogtle if project remains ‘uneconomic’

Analysts appointed by the Georgia Public Service Commission to evaluate progress at plant Vogtle in Augusta say the project should be cancelled as Georgia Power failed to manage it in a “reasonable manner.”

“Completion of the project is no longer economic given the additional costs and schedule delays,” the analysts said in written testimony to commissioners.

They recommended that a reasonable Total Project Cost be set at $8.3 billion, $3.9 billion less than what Georgia Power estimates for project completion.

The experts opposed Georgia Power and partner company requests to shift the projects financial risks resulting from contractor’s failures to customers as some costs “incurred by the company were not reasonable to allocate to customers.” Instead, they said Georgia Power and it’s shareholders should shoulder the risk.

The company has not provided justification in its requests to apportion ratepayers 100% of its forecasted costs, the analysts said.

Georgia Power through spokesperson John Kraft argued the company shared in the “financial risk of the Vogtle project,” citing “severe consequences for delays in place under an agreement with the Georgia PSC.”

The analysis, based on Georgia Power reports presented during the November commission hearings also showed the company was not “effective on a consistent basis in assuring that all the key project commitments were being met by the Contractor on a timely basis.”

The testimony comes weeks after Georgia Power CEO Paul Bowers’ assertion before commissioners that completing the project presented the best economic option for customers. CEOs of companies parterning with Georga Power — Oglethorpe Power, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia (MEAG) and Dalton utilities — appealed to commissioners to approve the new project costs and have customers continue funding the project.

In November, Bowers asked commissioners to rule on whether the new estimates by Georgia power and its partners were reasonable, before the company, which owns 45.7 percent of Vogtle continues spending additional dollars on the project.

As of June, Total Project Costs incurred on the project stood at $5.85 billion. Georgia Power estimates Total Project Costs at completion to be $12.2 billion, with completion dates for units 3 and 4 set for November 2021 and 2022 respectively.....

more: http://www.myajc.com/business/psc-staff ... U5jgrPwKO/


The two new AP-1000 reactors at Vogtle were supposed to be state-of-the-art and help jump-start a new nuclear renaissance in the US.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1881
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby pstarr » Tue 05 Dec 2017, 13:50:39

"They recommended that a reasonable Total Project Cost be set at $8.3 billion, $3.9 billion less than what Georgia Power estimates for project completion."

What's a $billion here? What a $billion there? Sell a few shares of Apple and build the damn thing :x 8)
Haven't you heard? I'm a doomer!
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26543
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby yellowcanoe » Tue 05 Dec 2017, 16:55:26

GHung wrote:The two new AP-1000 reactors at Vogtle were supposed to be state-of-the-art and help jump-start a new nuclear renaissance in the US.


These reactors along with the two units for South Carolina Electric and Gas were the first power reactors ordered in the US since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979. With an entirely new reactor design and no recent experience in building power reactors, I am not surprised that these projects are over budget. That the cost overruns were enough to put Westinghouse into bankruptcy protection speaks volumes about how much the nuclear industry in the US has shrunk.

The two units for SCE&G have already been cancelled while the future of the two units at Vogtle is still in question. I am sure the shareholders and customers would have been happier if both companies had elected to go with natural gas generation instead of nuclear. However, just because gas is the cheaper option right now does not mean it would remain cheaper over the expected lifetime of the nuclear reactors. Natural gas generation also emits carbon dioxide and the production and transportation of natural gas involves some leakage of methane, a much more potent greenhouse gas.

To rejuvenate the US power reactor business, the Federal Government should have agreed to pickup the cost over-runs on the first few units. Loan guarantees clearly were not enough. However, neither political party is willing to provide strong support for nuclear power. Too many democrats are anti-nuclear. Republicans believe in leaving decisions to the market place. For most power companies, that means going with coal or natural gas as they are much cheaper in the short run than nuclear.

Phasing out nuclear in Germany has resulted in a greater dependency on burning lignite -- the dirtiest form of coal, despite the massive investment Germany has made in wind and solar power. If the US cannot resume construction of new nuclear reactors to replace those that are reaching their end of life, generation of power with coal and natural gas can only increase.
yellowcanoe
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 476
Joined: Fri 15 Nov 2013, 13:42:27
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 09 Dec 2017, 10:29:18

yellowcanoe wrote:
GHung wrote:The two new AP-1000 reactors at Vogtle were supposed to be state-of-the-art and help jump-start a new nuclear renaissance in the US.


These reactors along with the two units for South Carolina Electric and Gas were the first power reactors ordered in the US since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979. With an entirely new reactor design and no recent experience in building power reactors, I am not surprised that these projects are over budget. That the cost overruns were enough to put Westinghouse into bankruptcy protection speaks volumes about how much the nuclear industry in the US has shrunk.

The two units for SCE&G have already been cancelled while the future of the two units at Vogtle is still in question. I am sure the shareholders and customers would have been happier if both companies had elected to go with natural gas generation instead of nuclear. However, just because gas is the cheaper option right now does not mean it would remain cheaper over the expected lifetime of the nuclear reactors. Natural gas generation also emits carbon dioxide and the production and transportation of natural gas involves some leakage of methane, a much more potent greenhouse gas.

To rejuvenate the US power reactor business, the Federal Government should have agreed to pickup the cost over-runs on the first few units. Loan guarantees clearly were not enough. However, neither political party is willing to provide strong support for nuclear power. Too many democrats are anti-nuclear. Republicans believe in leaving decisions to the market place. For most power companies, that means going with coal or natural gas as they are much cheaper in the short run than nuclear.

Phasing out nuclear in Germany has resulted in a greater dependency on burning lignite -- the dirtiest form of coal, despite the massive investment Germany has made in wind and solar power. If the US cannot resume construction of new nuclear reactors to replace those that are reaching their end of life, generation of power with coal and natural gas can only increase.


I agree with all of the above and will just add that Canada needs to stop changing its mind about building the next generation of CANDU units or it will find itself in the same situation within a decade.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14115
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby dissident » Sat 09 Dec 2017, 12:49:19

The western nuclear industry is afflicted with the same price gouging disease as the US MIC and Big Pharma. And the reasons are rather similar. The MIC leverages fear of the "enemy", Big Pharma leverages "disease and death", and the nuclear industry leverages the irrational fear of nuclear accidents. The spineless western governments who oversee the expenditure of public money demonstrate no propensity to counteract these rackets. They can't even properly haggle down the prices but engage in BS bidding processes that are trivially easy to abuse when it comes to oligopolies (as opposed to actual free markets).
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4972
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby yellowcanoe » Sat 09 Dec 2017, 15:07:35

Tanada wrote:
I agree with all of the above and will just add that Canada needs to stop changing its mind about building the next generation of CANDU units or it will find itself in the same situation within a decade.


Ontario is so deeply in debt and hydro rates have increased so much due to privatization of generation and excessively high tariffs for renewable energy that it is extremely unlikely that any future government would commit to building new nuclear plants. It's already too late to prevent a reduction in nuclear capacity as two of the 550MW reactors at Pickering are scheduled to be shutdown in 2022 and the remaining 4 units in 2024. I expect the lost generating capacity will be replaced primarily with natural gas fired generators. A project to refurbish the four units are Darlington is underway and it is likely that the Bruce units will also be refurbished.
yellowcanoe
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 476
Joined: Fri 15 Nov 2013, 13:42:27
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby dissident » Sat 09 Dec 2017, 16:16:05

yellowcanoe wrote:
Tanada wrote:
I agree with all of the above and will just add that Canada needs to stop changing its mind about building the next generation of CANDU units or it will find itself in the same situation within a decade.


Ontario is so deeply in debt and hydro rates have increased so much due to privatization of generation and excessively high tariffs for renewable energy that it is extremely unlikely that any future government would commit to building new nuclear plants. It's already too late to prevent a reduction in nuclear capacity as two of the 550MW reactors at Pickering are scheduled to be shutdown in 2022 and the remaining 4 units in 2024. I expect the lost generating capacity will be replaced primarily with natural gas fired generators. A project to refurbish the four units are Darlington is underway and it is likely that the Bruce units will also be refurbished.


Ontario is on a one way ticket trip to massive energy problems in the future. What you describe is the usual kick the can down the road nonsense that impacts public infrastructure in general. What I want to know is how the government could afford anything in the past if it never had enough money. Of course, the real story is the entropy of obligations. Governments take more and more on with various do-gooder programs over time. But nobody rationalizes these programs by fully retiring obsolete ones, instead new ones are hammered on top. Both the federal and provincial governments are raking more money in real terms than ever before, but screech for more as if they are paupers.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4972
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 8 guests