Stupid Environmentalists!!!!!

Reading The Toronto Star online today I came across this article.

"Environmentalists vow to fight plans for new reactors
Greenpeace, Sierra Club warn McGuinty they’ll fight any new nuclear power plants

CANADIAN PRESS

Environmentalists warn Premier Dalton McGuinty that he’ll be committing “political suicide” if he decides to build more nuclear plants to meet Ontario’s power needs.

McGuinty says he would agree to build more nuclear stations if the Ontario Power Authority makes that recommendation when it reports on the issue in December.

Dave Martin of Greenpeace Canada says McGuinty will kick off the “environmental battle of the millennium” if he does decide to build more nuclear power plants.

Elizabeth May of the Sierra Club of Canada believes McGuinty is “floating a trial balloon” that she says must be shot down.

A coalition of environmental groups, under the banner Nuclear Waste Watch, say nuclear power is the most expensive and least reliable way to produce electricity.

On top of that, the coalition says governments still have no real plan to deal with 40,000 tonnes of highly radioactive waste currently being stored at Canadian nuclear stations.

Ninety per cent of that nuclear waste is in Ontario, and the environmental groups warn people will fight any attempts to build a nuclear waste storage dump in their communities.

They say much of that radioactive waste is stored at the nuclear stations in surface pools, which the environmentalists warn is a potential catastrophe."

Now, I have some problems with the comments that speakers for Green Peace Canada and Sierra Club Canada made. First, having lived in Ontario and worked in the power industry, I know a thing or two about power generation. Dalton McGuinty's idea for getting rid of the coal plants isn't a bad one; However, not having a decisive upgrade plan in place is just awkward for the situation. The environmentalists views and opinions are based on misinformed and skewed facts.

- "A coalition of environmental groups, under the banner Nuclear Waste Watch, say nuclear power is the most expensive and least reliable way to produce electricity."

I'll admit, to build a nuclear plant is expensive- however, the operational cost of nuclear is far less than natural gas or wind power (which is the most expensive to run and maintain). The order of cost to run, from least expensive to most is: hydro, coal, nuclear, petroleum, and finally wind. This list is from an administrator, in a power marketing position, at my current place of employment. Coal is considered a dirty power source, though OPG has had prototypes for superclean scrubbers that, when installed, reduces emissions by 99% since the 1970's. There are a lot of discussions about wind power. It is interesting to note that generating capacity is not mentioned in these discussions: a large wind turbine can only produce 8 MW at 30% efficiency (efficiency in this industry means how long in a year the turbine is suppling power to the grid. NOT how efficient it runs). I personally would like my furnace/appliances to run more than 30% of the time in the year.

-"On top of that, the coalition says governments still have no real plan to deal with 40,000 tonnes of highly radioactive waste currently being stored at Canadian nuclear stations."

40,000 tonnes of highly radioactive waste? That seems to be a bit much overall, seeing as much of it is being used in every day devices. How much is accumulative and how much is sold to companies in need of certain byproducts? Tritium is a radioactive form of heavy water, which is a byproduct from CANDU reactors that is used in emergency exit sign and glow in the dark anything. The really highly radioactive material are the spent fuel bundles, which, if unshielded will give any living organism in a 20 ft radius a lethal dose. This isn't to say that a spent fuel bundle is waste. There is still a vast amount of energy being released in the form of radiation. If we could harness this energy, there would be no energy crisis anywhere on Earth. Experimentation is still in progress.

-"Ninety per cent of that nuclear waste is in Ontario, and the environmental groups warn people will fight any attempts to build a nuclear waste storage dump in their communities."

Points to consider: where are all the plants? Are not most, if not all nuclear power plants designed with storage capacity in mind? Money would influx anywhere nuclear is involved. A community might fight it, but look at the major plants in Ontario: Pickering, Darlington and Bruce Power. All three of them have thriving business and support communities.

-"They say much of that radioactive waste is stored at the nuclear stations in surface pools, which the environmentalists warn is a potential catastrophe."

Out of insane curiosity, who is "they"? Potential catastrophe only if you want to go skinny dipping with the cobalt and have a deathwish. Those pools are shielded for radiation and guarded by security forces that are some of the best in the world, to keep people out. Even minimally going near one of those pools you're scrutinized for anything and everything. The pools themselves have 6 foot thick walls that are lined with lead. The water in the pool is NOT radioactive. It is in fact ultra pure and purified. In fact, one could swim in the pools without receiving any dose. Just don't dive down to 10 meters.

- Finally, unrelated to this article, the Green Peace pro wind power advertisements. The ads are biased and contain no actual information on wind power. Can anyone else say smear campaign? Specifically, currently in Ontario, according to Greenpeace, there is 15 MW of wind power available. There are, in fact, approximately fifteen wind turbines installed in Ontario. To replace 9000 MW of electricity which is supplied by coal power as of this moment, we would need 9000 wind turbines. As stated above, wind turbines are only 30% efficient. To have 100% efficiency, you would need approximately three times as many turbines. Not to mention the land to put them on. Each turbine requires five acres of cleared land. Therefore, to replace coal plants with wind alone, you would need 27000 wind turbines, taking up 135,000 acres of land. Ugly numbers. Consider it.

Go to www.opg.com for more information about nuclear waste and disposal, and if you have any questions about storage.