Slashdot Mirror

Ontario has brought some mothballed nuclear reactors back into service in order to shut down their existing coal-burning generating stations, with the last one due to close next year. There's a single gas-fired converted coal-plant and they're planning to develop a biomass fuel chain for one of the other plants. They do have a lot of hydro power though, typically about 6GW generating capacity at any given time. The nuclear fleet provides up to 6.6GW depending on the number of reactors running at any given time. Here's the real-time generating information for the assorted facilities Ontario Power run -- basically the nukes run flat out, the hydro generating sets throttle up and down and the thermal (mainly gas) power stations fill in the cracks.

Maybe nuclear power is just a "make work" type jobs program which actually hurts the economy overall.

Another propaganda from mdsolar? What surprise!

While I support this project and Nevada could use 100s of these (if they prove viable), your sir, are an idiot. Picking on one of the smallest, least efficient nuclear generators. How about picking on something like Darlington Power station?

http://www.opg.com/power/nuclear/darlington/

2,500 eployees. 3,500MW. 0.71 employee/MW. Looks like this project is "inefficient" even when comparing to slightly less efficient and old, CANDU reactors. But then making this comparison is retarded, isn't it? Maybe the final, producing cost per MW is what is important?

Furthermore, your understanding of load capacity is bewildering. 80% is not small. Try 17% load capacity for PV solar in Ontario with 25% daily average being theoretical max possible, anywhere. Wind gets you 30-40%. Or do you expect 100% uptime from this facility? No maintenance?? No breakdowns?? That would be something!

Anyway, Ontario, Canada will end up significantly increasing their energy costs primarily due to "clean energy initiatives".

http://www.canada.com/More+nukes+green+energy+billion+year+Ontario+electricity+plan/3871719/story.html?id=3871719

The government admitted last week that green energy programs will be responsible for more than half of the expected 46 per cent increase in electricity rates over the next five years.

The plan calls for $14 billion to be spent on wind power, $9 billion on solar projects, $4.6 billion on new hydro-electric generation, $4 billion on biomass energy, $1.8 billion on natural gas plants, $9 billion on transmission lines and $12 billion on conservation programs.

Solar in Ontario is retarded ($0.80/kWh), but that's another story. (cheaper to burn $300/bbl oil to generate electricity FFS)

Finally, all the renewable-only fanatics preach that there will be a lot less electricity consumption in the future. So, what do you think their electric cars will run on? PIxie dust? Currently, I use 20,000kWh/year for electricity (including geothermal heat) and another 25,000kWh/year from gasoline. Yes.. electricity consumption will go down once we shift gasoline => electricity...

It's a feed tunnel for the Sir Adam Beck power plant below the falls. It's the third tunnel built for that purpose, and adds 194MW of generating capacity.

There's so much plumbing in place at Niagara Falls that the falls can almost be turned off. There's a minimum water flow over the falls established by international agreement, but that's for aesthetics. At night, and during the tourist off season, more water is run through the hydroelectric plants.

Back in the 1980s, some boater was upstream of the falls, closer than he should have been, and lost power. He managed to run aground upstream of the falls. This was noticed at the Niagara Mohawk power plant control room, where an operator opened all feed and diversion tunnels and closed gates at the upstream weir, shutting off most of the falls until a rescue crew could fetch the boater.

Yes. From the same site as the first link: general map, detailed map and cross section.

Yes. From the same site as the first link: general map, detailed map and cross section.

It is rock (shale), but much softer than the limestone, sandstone, and dolomite they were expecting, and it is prone to spalling off in small bits. You can get a sense of the problems they encountered from this picture -- the top of the tunnel is supposed to be round, not pointed like the picture shows. They obviously had trouble stabilizing the roof in the shale zones. Apparently the rock was not strong enough, and whatever rock bolts they were using weren't enough, or they had to deploy a lot more of them.

Besides the tunnel stability issues, the bits of these tunnel borers are carefully optimized for a particular rock hardness and consistency, and if you deviate from that too much they won't work very well. Boring through rock the consistency of firm clay, for example, involves a completely different mechanical strategy at the bit than harder rocks. I guess the easiest analogy to think of is the different tool shapes needed for drilling or cutting into metal, concrete, and wood.

Rogers Center (AKA Toronto Skydome) is the host stadium for the Toronto Blue Jays baseball team, so it isn't any more metric than a typical US stadium. Anyway, think "typical major football/baseball stadium size" and you'll be fine.

On another page it's mentioned that the tunnel will supply 500 cubic metres of water per second, which they helpfully convert to 17660 cubic feet per second if you really want Imperial measurements. It's apparently enough to fill an Olympic-style swimming pool in seconds. Wow. Well, we are talking about a 14 metre tunnel (think ~14 yards, for the metrically-impaired) and a lot of pressure driving it.

I wasn't able to find an official "volume of the Library of Congress" for either the buildings (there are several) or for stack space, but I was able to find out that it has approximately 838 miles of bookshelves. Bookshelves aren't exactly standard sizes, but assuming it is a 12-foot stack and 1 foot deep (both of which are probably way off, but must be within an order of magnitude), that would be 838miles * 5280ft/mile * 12ft * 1ft = 53 095 680 ft^3, which sounds huge. By comparison, Royal Albert Hall in the UK is 3 to 3.5 million cubic feet or 85 000 to 99 000 cubic metres. Anyway, divide by 17660 ft^3/s, and there's your answer: roughly 3006 seconds, or, ye gods, you can fill entire the shelf space of the Library of Congress in under an hour???!!!

If anyone can find official "volume of the Library of Congress" in terms of books or buildings, it would be appreciated.

That's what the other links are for. Click on the "Big Becky" link, then the others in the "Niagara Tunnel Project". It's a big hydroelectric project using the Niagara River at Niagara Falls. The other information includes: "Why at Niagara?", which explains there is excess, unused water allocation on the Canadian side of the river due to the shutdown of several old hydro plants near the falls (the river is shared between the USA and Canada), and excess generating capacity at the already-existing Sir Adam Beck generating station further downstream, if the water could get there. Thus, the tunnel connects the input above the Niagara Falls to the generating station downstream of the falls, augmenting the other supply that already goes to the station (a canal and pre-existing tunnels). There's a nice map and cross section here.

That's what the other links are for. Click on the "Big Becky" link, then the others in the "Niagara Tunnel Project". It's a big hydroelectric project using the Niagara River at Niagara Falls. The other information includes: "Why at Niagara?", which explains there is excess, unused water allocation on the Canadian side of the river due to the shutdown of several old hydro plants near the falls (the river is shared between the USA and Canada), and excess generating capacity at the already-existing Sir Adam Beck generating station further downstream, if the water could get there. Thus, the tunnel connects the input above the Niagara Falls to the generating station downstream of the falls, augmenting the other supply that already goes to the station (a canal and pre-existing tunnels). There's a nice map and cross section here.

That's what the other links are for. Click on the "Big Becky" link, then the others in the "Niagara Tunnel Project". It's a big hydroelectric project using the Niagara River at Niagara Falls. The other information includes: "Why at Niagara?", which explains there is excess, unused water allocation on the Canadian side of the river due to the shutdown of several old hydro plants near the falls (the river is shared between the USA and Canada), and excess generating capacity at the already-existing Sir Adam Beck generating station further downstream, if the water could get there. Thus, the tunnel connects the input above the Niagara Falls to the generating station downstream of the falls, augmenting the other supply that already goes to the station (a canal and pre-existing tunnels). There's a nice map and cross section here.

That's what the other links are for. Click on the "Big Becky" link, then the others in the "Niagara Tunnel Project". It's a big hydroelectric project using the Niagara River at Niagara Falls. The other information includes: "Why at Niagara?", which explains there is excess, unused water allocation on the Canadian side of the river due to the shutdown of several old hydro plants near the falls (the river is shared between the USA and Canada), and excess generating capacity at the already-existing Sir Adam Beck generating station further downstream, if the water could get there. Thus, the tunnel connects the input above the Niagara Falls to the generating station downstream of the falls, augmenting the other supply that already goes to the station (a canal and pre-existing tunnels). There's a nice map and cross section here.

The project was to up upgrade the existing hydroelectric generating stations that currently generate a little over 1.9 Gigawatts of electricity from the waters of the Niagara River. The Niagara River (on which you will find Niagara Falls) flows between the two Great Lakes, Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. It will add around 200 MW of power generating capacity. Thiswould have been a better news release article and explains a bit of the "green" projects in Ontario.

There: all you ever wanted to know about WTF the OP's linked article should have told you. FWIW, I agree that the OP's linked article is pretty lame. But that's nothing new for mainstream journalism. But I have to admit, Canadian news media that were once pretty damned good, are now pretty damned weak (Leaving out important contextual information, inability to spell, lack of grammar skills, just not understanding what the fuck they are reporting on and too lazy to find out).

Why they can use more water without affecting the laws governing the preservation of the fall's spectacle.
http://www.opg.com/power/hydro/new_projects/ntp/why_niagara.asp

What this proyect is all about!
http://www.opg.com/power/hydro/new_projects/ntp/tunnel_route.asp

Why they can use more water without affecting the laws governing the preservation of the fall's spectacle.
http://www.opg.com/power/hydro/new_projects/ntp/why_niagara.asp

What this proyect is all about!
http://www.opg.com/power/hydro/new_projects/ntp/tunnel_route.asp

Why they can use more water without affecting the laws governing the preservation of the fall's spectacle.
http://www.opg.com/power/hydro/new_projects/ntp/why_niagara.asp

What this proyect is all about!
http://www.opg.com/power/hydro/new_projects/ntp/tunnel_route.asp

Why they can use more water without affecting the laws governing the preservation of the fall's spectacle.
http://www.opg.com/power/hydro/new_projects/ntp/why_niagara.asp

What this proyect is all about!
http://www.opg.com/power/hydro/new_projects/ntp/tunnel_route.asp

Getting 3He from heavy water is an option. The tritium is a contaminant of the heavy water, and it is regularly removed because of its radioactivity. You're right that it doesn't amount to much, but for countries that have heavy water reactors already (e.g., Canada) it becomes a side business that is worth the cost of extraction, especially since it has to be done anyway for operational reasons. There is a dedicated Tritium Removal Facility at the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station in Ontario.

OPG's Darlington nuclear site has been selected by the Government of Ontario as the location for Ontario's next nuclear generating facility. OPG is proud to have been selected as the operator of this new facility. It will be the first new nuclear station to be built in Ontario in more than 15 years.

The host community of Clarington and the Region of Durham have both expressed their strong support for this project.

This community has been home to an existing 4-unit nuclear generating station for the last 20 years and is happy to host more. Might have something to do with the good-paying jobs and economic spinoffs.

Why don't they just buy tritium from Canada, we have lots at the Tritium Removal Facility at Darlington.

Okay, your math might work in some places, but that doesn't mean CFLs have a net benefit in all circumstances.

For example, in Ontario (ref http://www.opg.com/power/), only 27% of power generated in 2007 was from fossil fuels. This brings your 7 milligrams-in-savings figure down to 3.8 milligrams, which is a narrower range. If you buy cheap bulbs which don't last as long, the benefit might be lost.

In places like Quebec, where nearly all power is from hydroelectricity, or France, where most is from nuclear and hydroelectricity, the mercury argument goes out the window (especially considering the environmental impacts of nuclear and hydro).

All this to say is that people want to focus on mercury, they should find out where their electricity is coming from, and not necessarily assume that one solution is better.

- RG>

How about a car which:

* Uses absolutely no energy when stopped in heavy traffic

I don't think this is a realistic requirement. Real drivers will have their headlights on (daytime running lights are pretty much standard everywhere now), not to mention the radio, the Air Conditioning, and GPS navigation system. The A/C is the real killer there, but all of those things combined will suck the life out of any battery faster than you can say "zero emission baby!"

Also, I just want to point out that I don't think electric cars are the silver bullet panacea that they are being marketed as. It still takes x Newtons of energy to move y kilograms of mass over a distance of z kilometers. Utilising electric energy to perform the work isn't somehow "free." That electricity still has to come from somewhere. And if that source happens to be the existing power grid (i.e., you plug you car in while you're at home, or parked somewhere), then that power is still most likely coming from fossil fuels. It doesn't buy you anything.

I'm proud to live in a jurisdiction that is actually quite forward-thinking in this respect. Ontario derives less than half (42%) of its electricity from fossil fuel sources. But more than a quarter of our power is nuclear, and the US is still pretty resistant to dipping their toes back into that pool. California, for example, only uses nuclear for about 13% of their power, relying on fossil fuels (coal and natural gas) for almost 62% of their power (source).

For laughs, I looked up some info on Texas. I found that Texas derives only 7% of its electricity from "green" sources (I'm including nuclear in that number), with the remaining coming from coal, natural gas, petroleum (61%), and "dual fired" (what's that? Is that "green?") (32%). Source.

So until we address the root problems (most energy is still derived from fossil fuels, rampant overconsumption is a way of life in North America), all we're doing is moving the pollution from the highways to the power plants. We're not saving anything, it's not helping the environment, we shouldn't be patting ourselves on the back for buying an electric car... we should pat ourselves on the back for taking the bus, carpooling, telecommuniting, or just plain driving less.

Welcome to my backyard. I haven't given this place a second thought in the entire time I've lived here.

According to opg only 40% (9000MW or so) of their production comes from Fossil Fuels.
So OPG can theoretically produce 23GW (assuming that the output listed there was theoretical and we arn't selling the surplus) and Bruce Nuclear if it ever gets up produces another 7000MW

Current consumption is roughly 20GW so Fossil Fuels can only produce half of our current demand. Peak demand is roughly 25GW. So we can produce at most 30-40% of our peak demand from fossil fuels. Looking at just hydro electric we need it to be running at roughly 30% capacity for it to be at the 15% figure and that dosn't include nuclear or alternative sources of energy.

Perhaps a better way rather than a straight renewal would be a planed upgrade path to newer technology towers that present less of a hazard to wildlife.

Cursory research:

http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20020313-9699394.ht m

http://www.boquetriver.org/adopthumanimpact.html

http://www.opg.com/envComm/SEDsup2.pdf

http://www.esa.org/carpenter.htm

I live within half a day drive of about 11 (quick count) major rivers that were devastated to that point. 6/22/02 was the 33rd anniversary of the Cuyahoga River catching on fire. The river burned like it was gasoline. I'd call that a dead river. Luckily a 33 year combination of declining industry and major watershed restoration efforts has restored it at least to a habitable shadow of its former self. Unfortunately major increases in population, energy production, and heavy commercial livestock production are gradually hammering the Cuyahoga and many other fragile watersheds back to their industrial state, albeit with a different concoction of toxins.

Food may be cheap now, but there has to be a balance in the world between farming and biodiversity. You can't turn the whole world into a farm, nor even half of it, with no fresh water for anyone but humans with filters. It's just not sustainable. (FYI 'sustainable' doesn't mean we can feed all the people, 'sustainable' means trees and bugs and beavers and bunny rabbits and little soil mites are necessary for our survival.)