NEI Nuclear Notes

Our friends at Ontario Power Generation have started to post their own videos, including this basic explanation on how their CANDU reactors at Pickering generate electricity.

Details from the Globe and Mail .

In response to news that Energy Alberta plans to build a twin-CANDU plant, the London Free-Press (Ontario) had this to say: As concerns about global warming rise to fever pitch, a full-flung debate on the role of nuclear energy in reducing CO2 emissions -- and fears about safety -- is essential. You'd think the green movement, which led the charge to reduce CO2 emissions, would welcome such an opportunity. Instead, they've responded to an application to build a $6.2 billion nuclear power plant in northern Alberta with the usual booga-booga rhetoric that unfortunately clings to the development of nuclear energy in Canada. The half-truths and dubious scientific claims by these groups lead one to believe they do their research by watching the Simpsons. Ouch!

From Reuters : Energy Alberta Corp. said on Monday it filed an application with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to build a nuclear power plant in Alberta that aims to be in service within 10 years. The Calgary, Alberta-based company said its application is for two twin-unit ACR-1000 advanced Candu reactors just west of Peace River in northern Alberta. "This is an historic moment for Canada, for Alberta and for the nuclear power industry," Wayne Henuset, Energy Alberta's chief executive, said. "We are proud to be pioneers in bringing the benefits of clean, safe, reliable nuclear power to Alberta." Energy Alberta, which teamed with state-owned Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd, said it would first build one twin-unit reactor that could produce 2,200 megawatts of electricity by early 2017. Congrats to the teams at Energy Alberta and AECL on taking the first step in this process.

AECL is thinking about it. Read more in the Globe and Mail .

According to reports, both GE and AREVA are interested in a stake in AECL.

Last Thursday, Eric reported on the nuclear debate in Canada , but he missed what I thought was the most interesting part of the article . The reporter said that there is a ... [N]uance creeping into the language of some environmentalists who are still far from sold on nuclear power. Even David Suzuki, the public face and living patron saint of the Canadian green movement, has raised eyebrows by declaring in at least two broadcast interviews that he doesn't take a "knee-jerk" position against nuclear energy, although he remains, for now at least, firmly opposed. In an email exchange with Maclean's , Suzuki explained his position. "I don't say unequivocally that nuclear is not an option. It may very well be sometime in the future," he wrote. "But right now, I think it's nuts to even suggest nuclear. It seems that I have heard a lot of similar talk south of the border. Antis want to appear to be open to reason. But to say that "it's nuts ...

From the Globe and Mail : The two companies that operate nuclear power plants in Ontario are seeking the green light to build up to eight new reactors, a far more ambitious plan than that touted by the McGuinty government. Energy Minister Dwight Duncan said last year that a large portion of the $40-billion it plans to spend addressing the province's looming electricity shortage would be earmarked for refurbishing existing nuclear reactors. He said only two new reactors would be built. However, Bruce Power and Ontario Power Generation have each applied to Canada's nuclear safety regulator to build four new reactors. Company officials played down their expansion plans, saying they merely give them the option of building new reactors or refurbishing existing ones. But the spectre of up to eight new reactors is fuelling concerns among nuclear-energy opponents that the province will be much more dependent on nuclear power than previously believed. Interesting. As always, this is so...