Being up to speed is irrelevant. Today's fresh crop of state of the art
nuclear reactors, and their advanced waste management protocols still
generate from an industry with capacity for great life-destructive
force. Not unlike the bio-weapons business, except this industry is
everywhere.
The unforeseen, natural disasters (as with Unit 4, Fukushima--still
leaking, open to the air and may blow big time) and human and technical
errors will continue to trigger that which causes and has potential to
cause long-term disaster. CANDU's may be a lot safer, compared with the
GE operations, or the Seattle WW II Manhattan project facility, but I
wouldn't underestimate their potential for contamination. There is no
longer any excuse to continue with new builds, is the point. Safety
assurances from experts mean nothing when something goes wrong--and it
always does.
Your defence of Canadian facilities' track records reminded me of the
heavy water leak into recreational water at Bruce Nuke in the
mid-nineties--of which the public was not informed till well after the
fact. Now I see that it was leaking again in 2012 after they tried
starting up the facility again. Fortunately, this time, the leak was
allegedly contained. Check below for a few more Canadian accidents..
Canada may not be refining isotopes for weapons, but sales of nuclear
energy reactors to other countries have resulted in same. BTW, the Fed
no longer owns the CANDU nuclear reactor business. It was sold to SNC
Lavalin in 2011 for a mere $15 M, writing off 10's of $ B's of tax payer
investment because they couldn't deal with cost overruns. $Billions that
could have been put into renewables. Such waste into a potentially
deadly business, now in the hands of private industry.
I guess all those technological lessons learned finally paid off for
Canada. Do you suppose the US will ever unload their pooches? Especially
when they can sell them to developing countries, where lessons learned
will have no relevance.
Natalia
http://www.thestar.com/business/2012/03/19/bruce_power_reactor_leaks_halts_start_up.html
By: John Spears Business Reporter, Published on Mon Mar 19 2012
The start-up of a long-dormant nuclear reactor at Bruce Power has been
halted by Canada's nuclear regulator after a leak was discovered.
But a spokesman for the company operating the reactor says the setback
should be overcome "in a matter of days."
The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission says the moderator leak was
discovered Saturday morning, the day after Bruce Power received
clearance to start bringing the reactor back to life.
Canadian-designed nuclear units use heavy water as a moderator. The
moderator controls the speed of neutrons released by the uranium fuel,
allowing a controlled reaction to take place.
The CNSC says there was no release of radioactive material outside the
designed confinement area. No plant workers received any dose of
radioactivity.
Once the leak was discovered, the reactor was shut down. It will remain
shut down until the leak is investigated. Staff of the nuclear safety
commission were in the control room when the leak was discovered.
John Peveers, spokesman for Bruce Power, said the leak was discovered in
a pump that circulates and filters heavy water in the reactor's
calandria -- a giant tank honeycombed by tubes holding the uranium fuel.
Heavy water surrounds the tubes, moderating the nuclear reaction. Heavy
water is also pumped through the tubes containing the fuel, to carry the
heat from the nuclear reaction to a steam generator. That steam is used
to drive electricity generators.
Peevers said Bruce Power takes the issue seriously, but said some
hitches are to be expected.
"There's a whole host of systems that we're starting up, warming up
pressurizing," he said.
"When you're starting a reactor that has been shut down since 1995,
we're not completely surprised that there are some things that require a
little extra attention."
But Greenpeace energy campaigner Shawn-Patrick Stensil said the early
halt in the start-up process demonstrates "lax oversight" by the safety
commission.
"This leak, which should have been caught by CNSC inspectors, shows that
there should have been more public scrutiny before the restart," he said.
The reactor is one of two units at the Bruce A station that Bruce Power
hopes to return to service this year, both idle since the 1990s. The
second reactor is a few months away from being started.
The Bruce A station has four units in all. Two are operating, and were
unaffected by the leak.
The other two needed extensive repairs. The project of returning the two
units to service is behind schedule and over budget.
http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/nuclear-free/reactors/nuclear-and-clim-chg-6-01.html
*Canada's Nuclear Industry -- Fifty Years of Failure
*
*
*
History shows that there have been no real benefits from nuclear power
in Canada. This is a compelling argument for excluding nuclear power
from the Kyoto Protocol.
/*Economics*/ : There are currently 22 reactors operating in Canada,
with eight of these in long-term shutdown. Nuclear power generated only
12% of Canada's electricity in 1998, and this has come at a very high
cost. The total subsidies (1952-2000) for Canada's state-owned nuclear
company, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) were $16.6 billion ($Cdn
2000)[4]
<http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/nuclear-free/reactors/nuclear-and-clim-chg-6-01.html#_ftn4>.
This does not count hidden subsidies such as federal nuclear liability
protection, tax breaks, and provincial debt guarantees for nuclear
utilities.
At the time of its dissolution in 1999, Ontario Hydro left a massive
debt of $38 billion -- most of it from nuclear power. In order to allow
Ontario Hydro's successor companies to remain viable in a competitive
market, they were relieved of $22 billion of this nuclear debt (known as
"stranded debt"). Ontario Power Generation (Ontario Hydro's successor on
the generating side) is owner of 20 of Canada' s 22 power reactors. It
has estimated its decommissioning and radioactive waste liability at
about $20 billion (Cdn) - a figure that will undoubtedly rise in coming
decades.
Canada's CANDU reactor export program has also fared poorly. Only 11
reactors have been sold since the early 1960s. In 1995, AECL announced
that it would sell "ten reactors in ten years". Since that time only two
reactors have been sold to China, and attempts to sell more reactors to
Turkey, South Korea, and China have failed. The company admits that it
has no sales prospects in the foreseeable future.
/*
Safety*/ : An unsafe technology is not sustainable. Here are a few of
the devastating accidents that have plagued Canadian CANDU reactors:
* In 1983, a pressure tube in Pickering Reactor #2 ruptured, dumping
coolant into the reactor building. This accident resulted in the
retubing of all four reactors at the Pickering "A" Nuclear Station,
at a cost of about $1 billion (Cdn) -- more than the original cost
of the station.
* In August 1992, a tube-break in Pickering Reactor #1 dumped 2,000
litres of heavy water contaminated with 2,300 trillion becquerels of
radioactive tritium into Lake Ontario. It was the largest tritium
release in CANDU history, shutting down a nearby drinking water
plant, and raising tritium levels in Toronto drinking water. Tritium
causes cancer and birth defects.
* In December 1994, Pickering reactor #2 had a major Loss of Coolant
Accident (LOCA) spilling 185 tonnes of heavy water. The Emergency
Core Cooling System (ECCS) was used for the first time ever at a
CANDU reactor to prevent a meltdown.
* In May 1995, a valve failure caused a 25 tonne leak of radioactive
heavy water at Bruce Reactor #5. This accident involved the same
equipment which caused the December 1994 LOCA at Pickering reactor #2.
* In February 1996, 500 tonnes of water spilled from the Pickering #6
reactor. Primary and backup heat sinks were lost in the reactor
core. A 30 kg. valve component blew two metres into the air,
narrowly missing a worker, and service water shot up to the reactor
building dome.
* In April 1996, Pickering reactor #4 had a heavy water leak that
released 50 trillion becquerels of tritium into Lake Ontario. The
level of tritium in local drinking water reached 100 times
background level.
/*Radioactive waste*/ : Canadian reactors produced about 35,000 tonnes
of high level radioactive waste (spent fuel) by the end of 2000. Despite
a ten year study, and the expenditure of $700 million for research, a
national environmental assessment in 1998 failed to support the nuclear
industry's proposal for deep-rock storage of radioactive waste. The
waste will be hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years.
/*Proliferation*/ : Canadian reactors exports have led to nuclear
weapons proliferation. By giving the CIRUS reactor to India in 1956,
Canada allowed India to manufacture the plutonium for its first nuclear
bomb, exploded in 1974. The Canadian government ignored indications that
Turkey might use CANDU technology for nuclear weapons, and continued
trying to sell two reactors (unsuccessfully as it turned out).
India and Pakistan conducted nuclear weapons tests in 1998. They refuse
to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or the Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty. They operate unsafeguarded nuclear facilities, have active
nuclear weapons programs, and are subject to international restrictions
on nuclear trade (to which Canada is a party). Despite these facts,
Canada has continued to allow nuclear technical exchanges with India and
Pakistan, and has spearheaded a campaign with them to allow carbon
credits for nuclear power under the CDM, thus making the Kyoto Protocol
a driver for nuclear weapons proliferation.
On 24/02/2013 1:12 AM, pete wrote:
I disagree, in as much as problems at Hanford do not reflect
anything about the current state of nuclear technology.
Hanford is not a commercial power station, it is a federal
research establishment and part of the weapons infrastructure.
The closest Canadian equivalent would be Chalk River, but
there is really no equivalent as we made no attempt to refine
isotopes for weapons in Canada.
But Chalk River was a reasearch institute active during the
early years of exploring nuclear energy, and it also has
great warehouses full of hazardous materials.
We have learned much from the activities in these projects,
and no one today would consider storing nuclear wastes as liquids
in tanks, certainly not from power plants, which shouldn't
produce such material.
Canadian heavy water reactors, which I might remind you, can
run quite happily on what is considered the spent fuel of a US
light water reactor, typically run on unenriched uranium, which
requires no exotic processing to prepare, and when spent, in
a CANDU reactor, it is really quite spent, and can be prepared
as a solid waste block encapsulated in glass, and stored
underground in the same mines from which it was extracted,
nested in gravel beds in the Canadian Shield, where there is
zero risk of groundwater contamination nor exposure via earthquakes
or whathaveyou.
I don't have any really strong opinions about the adoption of
nuclear energy one way or the other, but most criticisms I hear
of the industry just aren't up to speed with the current state
of the technology. Pointing at 60 year old mistakes as a reason
to dismiss the current technology makes no sense.
-Pete
On Sun, 24 Feb 2013, Keith Hudson wrote:
It was good to read this because I think it comes just at the right time to
permanently affect new build in the advanced countries. The news of these
leaks comes on top of the realization of universal shale gas and ought now to
finally stop the bleatings (and false propaganda) of the wannabe power station
constructors (who, be it noted, are not the slightest bit interested in
running them once built).
Keith.
At 21:56 23/02/2013, Natalia wrote:
Most of you have probably read this by now. Given what this news reveals,
how can more new builds of such plants be justified?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57570857/wash-state-governor-6-underground-nuclear-tanks-leaking/
Natalia
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
