How About Hosting Some Wastes From A Nuclear Power Plant?
By Doug Draper
To all of those vocal opponents of wind energy in Niagara, Ontario and other regions of this province and others in Canada and the United States, here is a question for you.
The Darlington nuclear power plant cost Ontario energy consumers billions in over-riding costs
If not wind or solar in your backyard or the backyard of someone else’s community, then what are the alternatives? Would you settle for more nuclear, coal or gas-fired plants to answer an ever-growing energy demand, unless we are prepared to turn off those air conditioners, etc. and get into some radical energy conservation.
Would you be prepared to host a nuclear, coal or gas-fired facility in your community? How about accepting a depository for the spent radioactive waste from a nuclear power plant in our community?
I would hope that those who oppose wind and solar would be among the first to show their faith in these more conventional energy sources by offering up their communities as energy generating and waste sites. Unless they plan to get off the grid and get back to the 19th century of candles, kerosene lamps and wood-burning stoves and fireplaces, of course.
I asked similar questions of wind energy opponents in a column I wrote for Niagara This Week about a year ago and had some of them email back with a response to the effect of – ‘What does my opposition to wind turbines in my backyard have to do with any of that?’ Well, quite a lot I would say. If you flick on electrical switches in your home, that energy is coming from somewhere. I have friends and relatives who live in Pickering, Ontario near a nuclear power plant, and as much as they have questions about it, that energy is going out to you.
Another anti-wind energy argument I hear and read all of the time, aside from the controversial questions over whether these facilities cause health problems, is the amount of public money it is costing to “subsidize them.” I have little doubt that there is a considerable cost involved in getting these newer energy sources up and running for the present and future. But where have the people making this argument been on the high cost for the public of subsidizing nuclear, coal, gas and even hydro (check out the cost of the Big Becky tunnel dig in Niagara Falls that came in at about $1.6 billion and almost $600,000 over budget). Who do they think is paying for that? It is we, the hydro consumers of Ontario, of course. And what about the billions of dollars in cost over-runs, going back more than three decades, for building, operating and upgrading the province’s nuclear power plants.
The Pickering nuclear plant has been a sink hole for Ontario energy consumer dollars too. And oh, by the way, would you like to bury some of the spent radioactive rods in your community? How bad is wind energy looking now?
This November 27, Niagara At Large received a piece from the Ontario Clean Air Alliance, a citizens group based in Toronto. Its submission more or less continues along my theme as follows –
The Real Energy Scandal Is Nuclear
A Submission from the Ontario Clean Air Alliance
The provincial opposition parties used much of the all-too-brief fall legislature session to hammer the Liberal government on its decision to relocate two gas-fired generating stations at a reported cost of $230 million. But nary a word was said about a much bigger scandal: the government’s full steam ahead pursuit of high-cost nuclear, including giving SNC Lavalin a sole-source $600 million contract just to plan the rebuilding of the Darlington Nuclear Station.
If this project proceeds, the money spent on relocating those two gas plants will look like spare change when compared to the waste involved in the completely unnecessary rebuilding of aging nuclear reactors.
So why aren’t the opposition parties asking some hard questions about this project? It’s not like there is any shortage of cheaper and safer alternatives – from improved energy efficiency and Made-in-Ontario green power to hydro imports from Quebec.
The NDP in particular needs to step up on this issue. It asks for a “business case” for the multi-billion nuclear rebuild project, but hasn’t explained how it will avoid the usual nuclear cost shell game of one price in the window, and a much, much bigger bill once all the cost overruns come home to roost. We think NDP Leader Andrea Horwath needs to clarify why her party – which smartly opposes new nuclear plants on the grounds that they are too expensive and dangerous – would even consider rebuilding Darlington. If you agree, please send Ms. Horwath a message asking her to oppose wasting public money on another bloated and unnecessary nuclear project.
P.S. Please help us distribute our new pamphlet, $35 billion to rebuild the Darlington nuclear station vs. $16 billion for 2.3 million home energy retrofits, across Ontario. Order some here – they’re free and contain postcards to Andrea Horwath.
P.P.S. Please send me an email if you can help distribute pamphlets door-to-door in Toronto from Beaches to High Park.cdf za
(NAL invites you to share your views on this post. Please Note that we only post comments by individuals who also share their first and last name with their comment.)
Niagara At Large 
Kudos to you Doug, for so clearly showing the problems we face when criticizing alternative energy sources, and somehow neglecting to see the huge costs and dangers of nuclear in all its life cycle- mining, operating nuclear reactors, decommissioning and then storing dangerous nuclear wastes for hundreds of thousands of years.
And thanks to the Ontario Clean Air Alliance for spotting the extraordinary lack of interest by all parties in the costs and cost over- runs of nuclear power- in effect these are subsidies. If one looks at one’s hydro bill you will see each of us is still paying off the $40 billion costs and cost over- runs of the nuclear plants pre – and through the Harris years.
I find it inexplicable that the Liberal government could go full speed ahead with nuclear plans i.e. contract the new -nuclear-build at Darlington out to SNC Lavelin , a company that is in press quite regularly these days , before the Canadian Nuclear Safety Hearings on the Darlington retrofit and life extension have been held , and before the planned reactor design is off the drawing table, and very importantly, a safe method/place for the disposal of hazardous nuclear waste is found. Oh, if only all that spent and planned investment/subsidization of nuclear were to be invested in energy conservation and efficiencies efforts (projected to be able to fill between 30% and to 40% of our needs) geothermal, wind, solar and co-generation of electricity!!
LikeLike
Electrical energy production contamination of our environment is relative issue. Water sources have their problems as does solar. But Nuclear is less destructive than uncleaned coal stacks or wind. Wind only produces power 11% of its operating time during peak hours (@13 c/kwh). The rest of the day wind power is sold outside of this provice for 2-3 c/kwh. But Ont. taxpayers must pay 13 c/kwh to the wind energy producers for that energy.
Nuclear power comes in at about 5-6 c/kwh. Hope those numbers have some meaning to you.
Writings of uniformed idealest can do more harm than good.
LikeLike
The premise of your argument is that the financial cost of wind is not worth it’s idealism? Who adapted the notion that every little spike on your utility bill is an affront to society? Aren’t there better places than energy planning to penny pinch in our society?
A reply from NAL publisher Doug Draper – I am not quite sure who Karl is responding to here but if it is to my column, I was attempting to make a point to those who oppose wind turbines on the grounds that they come with costly subsidies from power consumers that nuclear power has been a very costly source of energy for consumers too.
To Mr. Draper from Karl Dockstader;
I want to clarify my comments on your “So you are against turbines…” article. I was responding to Ed Engels comments about the “true cost of nuclear” that I hear all the time. My point was that short term costs should not always be at the heart of energy planning:
Ed Engel | November 27, 2012 at 11:53 pm | Reply
Electrical energy production contamination of our environment is relative issue. Water sources have their problems as does solar. But Nuclear is less destructive than uncleaned coal stacks or wind. Wind only produces power 11% of its operating time during peak hours (@13 c/kwh). The rest of the day wind power is sold outside of this provice for 2-3 c/kwh. But Ont. taxpayers must pay 13 c/kwh to the wind energy producers for that energy.
Nuclear power comes in at about 5-6 c/kwh. Hope those numbers have some meaning to you.
Writings of uniformed idealest can do more harm than good.
Karl Dockstader | November 28, 2012 at 3:25 am |
.
The premise of your argument is that the financial cost of wind is not worth it’s idealism? Who adapted the notion that every little spike on your utility bill is an affront to society? Aren’t there better places than energy planning to penny pinch in our society?
LikeLike
Just as the Danes love windmills and the Dutch have used them for century’s for me they mean freedom!!!! you put them in the logical places,along rail road tracks like Europe did, or Canal banks, the new versions don’t have any of the drawbacks of the older types., the Dalton Gang as usual did no selling of Wind energy and rammed it down peoples throats,. guaranteed to make people hysterical.,you will get a backlash for sure.The Dalton Gang are a high handed bunch and never learned anything in diplomacy.
LikeLike
Transitioning to a low carbon economy would create too many jobs, and make too much sense, for it to ever be deemed acceptable or worth pursuing.
LikeLike
I’m one of the few that believes in an environmentally friendly alternative that does not include windmills. Windmill installations consume a sizable chunk of coastlines, farmland, and other spaces that could be preserved by promoting building integrated photovoltaics.
Add to that the inconsistency of wind (speeds of 5m/s required for most windmills) near some of our most populated spaces – or the installation of thousands of kilometers of wire – solar comes up as an option that can be added to populated spaces.
Mechanical defects and wear and tear add unforeseen costs to these large wind projects. Just as we transitioned to transistor radios, LED lighting, and SD Cards (flash memory) we will see greater revenues and energy security by harnessing solar radiation with solid state technologies.
If you’d like a windmill on your property I can respect that choice. What I cannot respect is the insistence that the governments should yield land and money for projects that that do not serve the public interest. If Wainfleet votes no on windmills then so be it – they can have 30 cent per kilowatt hour energy prices while cities like Welland and Niagara Falls enjoy affordable solar and hydroelectric power. Environmental regulations combined with the re-regionalization of the energy grid will protect the environment and encourage communities to make choices and take responsibility for themselves.
As much as George Jardine blames the “Dalton Gang” our current energy framework is semi-privatized. The provincial government shouldn’t bear the risk and responsibility of producing energy, they should only regulate demand and environmental risks. Just as how I applaud how municipal governments regulate land use – even if it means that a permit application exclusively for windmills is rejected. It is good to feel nostalgic for the days of the government monopoly, as long as nostalgia doesn’t negatively interfere with the lives of others.
LikeLike
A couple of decades ago a very intelligent Democrat President began a massive Green energy SOLAR project in a huge valley in central USA. It was state of the art and is basically the same as what is envisioned today. That President was defeated after his first term and his successor dismantled the Greening project with little or actually NO fanfare. At the time I wondered why and it was soon after that it began to dawn on me….Money, money and pay back to the money corporations whose support basically was conditional.
I hope that sanity begins to shine a light and some of, or Yes certain
people begin to realize we are daily killing this planet.
Maybe it is those folk who want to find a “NEW” planet and to hell with the rest of the peoples.
I do have a few Kerosene lamps that could work……..Amen
LikeLike
Doug you mentioned conservation –How about lowering the speed limit –wouldn’t that save the burning atleast 20-25 % of the fuel we use today painlessly. It would certainly make alternative transportation more appealing. WE are surounded by water have access to underutilized bus and rail –How much more oil would would not be consumed if we used these to their full potential as the rest of the world seems to be able to do! You mentioned that would you rather have a gas plant located next to you or a wind mill? The ONLY reason that people are now going to have not just one but 17 of them built near them is because wind mills cannot operate without gas back up!
LikeLike
There is a lie out there, that wind energy cannot be stored, that is untrue, Ballard Energy solutions have marketed an unit that stores wind energy or solar energy and releases the stored electricity, when supply is low, it is a hydrogen unit that is a lot like a huge battery,.,nay sayer’s have this mantra wind power or solar power has to be used when the sun shines or when the wind blows, gullible people buy that old refrain.
LikeLike
That in my opinion George makes the most sense to use wind in a most cost effective way. By not hooking up to our grid along with eliminating the extra expense of 17 CO-GENS these wind mills could be located in willing jurisdictions and their power uesed to create clean hydrogen gas . This could be stored or transfered by existing pipe lines to urban areas to be used to create clean power on days of high polution.
LikeLike
Wow some amazing responses to this question. Thank you Doug for bringing it up.
George you are right… Dalton did attempt to shove this down our throat with his “my way .. the highway” approach to diplomacy.
Ed, you are right too. We now have too much energy which we sell at a discount to everyone but ourselves. Sometimes we pay to dispose of it. That logic escapes me.
In answer to Doug’s question, I have to believe that putting these things in the lakes (Erie and Ontario) would make the most sense. Additionally, there are expanses in rural Ontario where density/population issues do not exist. You don’t have to put these things up next to a school or someones lifelong home to get this deal done. Sure it will run up the costs to install and operate, but the end result does not run roughshod over the rights of citizens, their property and the plans that municipalities have for their future.
Seems to me we have plenty of resources to give away all our excess energy, spending some more on doing the job right would seem to make sense.
In my opinion the same is true for other forms of energy be it nuclear or otherwise. Put them somewhere where populations won’t be affected by them.
Great question… Just sayin….
LikeLike
Since the City of Toronto uses so much power why not put the windmills on top of the skyscrapers instead of out in the country.. Save an extra big one for the roof of the Parliament building.
LikeLike
How about geothermal? It’s often ignored.
LikeLike
The only knock against geo thermal Linda has been that it is location location location due to the fact that these plants must be close to geo themal activity . Hence Iceland has been blessed with most of its needs being met with this source . The same is true in Northern Califonia . The difficulty drilling farther than 15 KM under the earths crust into granite rock has made this form of CLEAN POWER beyond the reach of most populated areas . But there is new technology that uses a new way to drill using extreme heat instead of the old tungston drill bits . Hopefully in the future we will be able to drill far enough down to reach the earths untapped heat source. Every one who posts on this blog should encourage the Government to spend some of their subsidy money to perfect this form of power source that can produce clean BASE LODE power . As opposed to spending billions on intermitant power sources and DIRTY base lode producers that are subsidized now .
LikeLike
Maybe if we increased the price of home retrofits and wind turbines (by billions), they would be perceived as being the better alternatives that they are. Perhaps we should also make them uninsurable (like nuclear), to add to the appeal. If those steps worked, we could ramp it up with the fear card: people fall off buildings during retrofits, climbing turbines to effect repairs could have Fukashima like consequences etc. The evidence-based/science based approach is clearly not working.
LikeLike
Until we see thousands of wind turbines all along the GTA area from Hamilton to Oshawa and all along the shoreline, there should not be one more of these 500 foot monstrosities shoved down the throats of rural Ontario.
But we’re never going to see that happen, because the GTA is the biggest mob of green energy hypocrites on the planet. They’re all for wind turbines as long as they don’t intrude on their view of the harbour or from their comfy condos.
The residents of the GTA are the biggest power gluttons in this province but instead of stepping up to the plate to help produce some of their own power, they expect rural residents to fall on that sword for them.
No more IWT’s in rural Ontario if the GTA refuses to do their share.
LikeLike
Perhaps I’m just a contrarian, but I think that those who want to beat up people who don’t want to wind turbines installed near where they live should darned well shut up until and unless they are in a similar situation. And yes, Doug, that goes for you and Mark and Ms. Bischoff herself. It’s easy to be high-minded when it doesn’t affect you personally. Nuclear power and wind are apples and oranges, as you well know — the reason it’s so hard to get rid of nuclear is that it does supply a large amount of energy. And it will be a long time before the renewable sources we have now can come anywhere near to satisfying that kind of demand; I doubt that that will happen until there is some way of storing wind and solar for later use. Right now solar power is being dumped on the U.S. at rock-bottom prices while the big companies producing it dine out on the huge subsidies they get from the FIT contracts, while our hydro bills soar. Don’t get me wrong — I have always opposed nuclear energy. I am in favour of doing everything we can to move towards save renewable energy sources. BUT — and it’s a big but — the McGuinty Green Energy Strategy was a mess from the beginning, and has only served to divide Ontario into two camps. Let’s not follow the Liberal divide-and-conquer strategy in the energy sector, gentlemen — we don’t buy it when it comes to hospital services, do we? As for Bischoff’s postcards: the NDP is already on side. Let the OCAA produce postcards addressed to Chris Bentley and I’ll personally make certain that he gets hundreds of them. How about getting Ontarians concerned about nuclear to lobby all the candidates for the provincial Liberal leadership? It might actually work: McGuinty fell in love with nuclear at a young age, I’m told, but his would-be successors are each distancing themselves from his policies as fast as they can. Let’s see what, say, Gerard Kennedy or Kathleen Wynne has to say on retiring those nuclear power plants.
A note from Niagara At Large publisher Doug Draper – I will admit to Fiona that I may have come across as somewhat “high-minded” in my criticism of some of those who don’t want energy facilities – renewables like wind and solar facilities, in particular – in their backyard. However, I would simply like to remind readers that I have gone on record a number of times and columns, and I believe I repeated so in the column now under discussion, that I oppose the sections in the Ontario government’s Green Energy Act that deny local municipalities and their residents any real say, through a formal planning and environmental assessment process, in where wind and solar facilities are located. Regretfully, the Ontario McGuinty government and NDP party led by Andrea Horwath voted against a private members’ bill tabled a year or so ago by the Conservative government of Tim Hudak to amend the Green Energy Act to restore a fair review process for local municipalities and their residents. I understand that one of the reasons the NDP sided with the Liberals is that it believes in renewable energy and wants to move forward with it with as few roadblocks as possible. But that cannot stand as a reason for over-riding a longstanding principle of granting residents some form of home rule in development planned for their community – at least not in my view.
Having said that, I remain a supporter of a mix of renewable energy projects and energy conservation as a path into a more sustainable future. Simply cutting and pasting together worst case scenarios for these more progressive energy paths without sufficenct proof that they are more costly or damaging than nuclear, coal and other more traditional energy generating operations should not cause us to retreat from exploring more sustainable energy alternatives.
LikeLike
Ok, Fiona, let’s talk jobs then. Never mind that Hurricane Sandy just finished ripping up the east coast. Nuclear plants leak; it creates cancer, and it isn’t reported. Global warming is killing the planet for human habitation. I’m sick of this NIMBYISM. I’d love a wind turbine, and I find them beautiful; I’ve stood beneath one and it was like the sound of a library, where I go often to read the truth instead of FOX and other news propoganda shit. People need to think into the future dystopia that we’re creating, and the future is more than rich petro co. quarterly reports and the Federal gov’t of Canada which is a Lobbyist for the petro industry. This country is an international embarrassment because we are IGNORANT to scientific realities and the need for progressive change.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Ok Mark maybe everyone is not as well versed as you about the things that YOU believe in to be right . But your atypical rash response to Fiona does not serve or enlighten anyone on either side of this issue!
LikeLike
Thank you John for your comments re geothermal energy. I found it so interesting that it was widely used for home heating, power, etc in New Zealand but of course they are on the “Ring of Fire”, not enviable for other reasons.
There is also SO MUCH waste of power. I was astonished to see in Nepal that such a remote country was so eco conscious. They recycled water, had night sky friendly lighting that conserved energy by not illuminating the sky and there was a lot of recycling. A poor country like that can do it but Canada seems to think we are so big that our resources and clean air are infinite.
I would not mind a wind turbine in my back yard if there are no health risks. There is just so much misinformation out there that I don’t know what to believe. I think they are actually elegant and do not find them the least bit noisy even at the base. I know there are concerns re birds and bats but there must be simple solutions to those problems.
I just find it disgusting that we still rely on gas and oil. Nuclear is cleaner but there is still the waste disposal problem and possibility of accidents. With today’s technology there must be alternatives out there. The same with electric and hjybrid cars. What happens to the expired batteries and chemicals?
LikeLike
Linda I have always felt that the cheapest and most expedient way we could lower our Candian Carbon Footprint would be to lower the speed limits on our highways and our city streets . Also the cheapest way to monitor it would be to bring back Photo Radar . I know I will be trying to make it a point of discussion at the liberal leadership and I would hope that you would too . —-Take Care –John–
LikeLike
John, I did not mean to be rude. Sorry if I offended …
Mark
LikeLike
No worries Mark I have a lot of respect for the passion and information that you always bring to these discussions . —Take Care Friend –John–
LikeLike
Nepal is an inspiration to the entire world, their King started out years ago to make that tiny country a leader in self sufficiency , the leader ship should come from the top down.
LikeLike
This is a good discussion, people — I hope we can keep it going. The issue of renewables is not black-and-white but complex and multi-facetted. Most local people I know are not opposed to renewables, but they are opposed to certain types and kinds of installation in particular locations. Let us find out more about their concerns. And can we agree that any solutions have to be acceptable to those living with them?
LikeLike
John Mitchell.
There are better wind turbine alternatives than what’s being promoted just now. They are called Vertical Axis Wind Turbines (VAWTs) and are rapidly becoming leading edge alternatives. By pairing them as contrarotating pairs and locating them in a computed pattern they produce more Watt hours on less acreage than the present giants and don’t have to be set as high as the present turbines. A similar principle has been applied in aircraft propellor design, but, doesn’t lend itself to the very large turbines scattered about the present landscape….VAWTs are ideally suited and more efficient as well as less intrusive.
LikeLike
VAWTs suffer from a design flaw – they break more frequently and lose efficiency to mechanical wear much faster. Rather than burning coal you’re burning stainless steel.
Magnetic levitation VAWTs were seen as the solution to this conundrum and were going to be manufactured in Grimsby by Mag-Wind. It failed. While the technology is sound the cost difference between conventional props and Mag-Lev VAWTs is too high and will not go down (technological advancements in one can feed to the other maintaining this difference).
It is the same gimmick as the micro-inverter craze in the solar world. Greater numbers of smaller modules require more human effort. When microinverters fail or VAWTs literally grind to a halt the entire community loses.
VAWTs are a great fix for sociologists but fail to stand the test for engineers and underperform against the alternatives for purchasing managers. VAWTs are old. Steel blades are old. Old technology is not a part of the new solution.
LikeLike
Microinvertors have not proven to be a failure. I think they would actually be easier to install and tend to lower maintenance cost by doing a great job monitoring panels individually as opposed to by the whole array. The manufacturers are standing by this product and have provided pretty solid warranties that take a lot of the financial risk off of the installers. I have only talked to a few guys, but the micro-invertor seems to be a good example of adaptive advancement of technology. I think that I will try to do a an “Energy Basics” over on Renew Niagara on microinvertors to take a hard look at some numbers, when I do, I will credit you for the idea Samuel.
LikeLike
Lets hope the Pond Scum Test projects happening at St Mary’s Cement as well at US Steel in Hamilton can decrease Green House Gases .
LikeLike
With all due respect, you’re talking of the past. The VAWTs mentioned are not steel, they’re composite. They’re shape shifters and the paired configuration is at the leading edge of the technology. An understanding of the major advances over the past 5 years woiuld help you see things differently.
LikeLike
Now this is what I call a really useful community forum discussion. And I hope that you can keep this topic going via your excellent blog, Karl. As for the major advances in the technology of renewables — could we have an open public forum/workshop sort of session on that very topic, to be held somewhere in central Niagara? I know that small businesses in the field of renewables have lots of fairs, but I guess I’m thinking of something with a broader focus…intended to educate the general public on what’s been happening in renewables over the past few years.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Renew Niagara's Energy.
LikeLike
I agree that this should be a broader discussion. I have really enjoyed coming to this site and learning more about the side of Renewable Energy that I haven’t heard or could stand to understand better. It is hard when I read an article posted in the Standard and people are commenting about: “The windies are pigs at the public trough. And like pigs, they will trample their own children in a frenzy to get to get to it.” and the poster is named Bonbon…what is Bonbon trying to accomplish? I will keep the conversation on sites like this, where while I may not agree with opinions contrary to my own, there is a measured level of interest in advancing the conversation.
LikeLike
Agreed. Niagara At Large is an important forum for serious exchange of views. It is unfortunate that Niagara’s dailies, lacking the resources to edit their on-line comments, fall down on that front, as on so many others…
LikeLike