Point Lepreau nuclear station
Scape @ Thu Apr 21, 2005 4:01 pm
New Brunswicks Point Lepreau is a 22-year-old nuclear power plant nearing the end of its life. It will cost at least $1.4 billion to refurbish the plant so that it can continue operating.
New Brunswick Premier Bernard Lord has said the province will not go ahead with the Point Lepreau refurbishment without Ottawas financial help.
The premier is looking for $400 million from the federal government to help cover the cost of refurbishment.
Any federal subsidies for the reconstruction of Point Lepreau would set a costly precedent. All of Canadas nuclear reactors will need to be closed or refurbished over the next 15 years.
In Ontario, nuclear refurbishments have been prohibitively expensive and have not guaranteed good performance or long-term operation. There are better options than Point Lepreau -- $1 billion could fund large conservation and energy efficiency strategies and a variety of renewable energy options, such as wind power and biomass, that could help meet New Brunswicks energy needs for the next two decades.
Right now, the federal government is seriously considering spending $200 million to help refurbish Atlantic Canadas only nuclear power plant.
This is a bad idea. Nuclear power plants are plagued with unresolved safety issues, high security risks, chronic under-performance problems, massive cost overruns and unresolved toxic waste issues.
By providing subsidies to keep the Point Lepreau nuclear station open in New Brunswick, the federal government will be propping up a sunset industry and wasting money that could be put towards cleaner, cheaper sources of energy.
Mukluk @ Thu Apr 21, 2005 4:24 pm
Say no to coal
Say no to nuclear
Say no to more dams
Say no to natural gas turbines
You clowns can all shiver in the dark and freeze to death for all I care. It is truly incomprehensible to me how everyone beats the drum on how they don't want this and that.
Do you know how big a 680MW wind farm would be?
Unbelievable.
m
Scape @ Thu Apr 21, 2005 4:31 pm
The problem is Point Lepreau. It was doomed from the start. Simply put we got a lemon, time to cull it.
Mukluk @ Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:46 pm
What got me on the original post were these quotes:
"By providing subsidies to keep the Point Lepreau nuclear station open in New Brunswick, the federal government will be propping up a sunset industry and wasting money that could be put towards cleaner, cheaper sources of energy."
Name some.
"There are better options than Point Lepreau -- $1 billion could fund large conservation and energy efficiency strategies and a variety of renewable energy options, such as wind power and biomass, that could help meet New Brunswicks energy needs for the next two decades."
This is the beauty. Put up a windmill that will feed the same 680MW into the grid, eh? I don't think so, Tim. 680MW in energy efficiency improvements?
Insanity.
Sounds like this particular plant has issues - thanks for the link. It is the retarded commentary in the article that makes me shiver. The public eats this crap up like ice cream.
m
Scape @ Thu Apr 21, 2005 6:32 pm
Mukluk Mukluk:
"By providing subsidies to keep the Point Lepreau nuclear station open in New Brunswick, the federal government will be propping up a sunset industry and wasting money that could be put towards cleaner, cheaper sources of energy."
Name some.
Name some.
Biodiesel
Power diversification and allowing private power creation to sell power back to the power grid
Geothermal
As a maritimer myself I remember hearing when Point Lepreau was 1st created that the labour that made the concrete walls drank on the job and in the process threw beer bottles in the concrete. This created holes in the concrete perimeter thus negating the effectiveness of the wall. This was created by the lowest bider winning and no one was there to make sure they were doing their job correctly. Point Lepreau is riddled with problems like that.
The argument I have is not with nuclear but that Lepreau is a badly fumbled plant that needs to be put out of it's mystery. There is problems with waste to be sure. Rates Must Go Up no matter what happens.
$1:
Nuclear waste disposal and decommissioning costs may rise further. NB Power's estimated decommissioning cost is below the most optimistic estimate used by the nuclear regulator in the United States. NB Power estimates $454 million, whereas the NRC's range is $475 million to $715 million for pressurized water reactors, which are smaller and less radioactive than CANDUs. (See www.nrc.gov/reactors/decommissioning/funding.html)
Is it responsible to keep this sacred cow afloat however?
Mukluk @ Thu Apr 21, 2005 6:55 pm
Hey scape, thanks for the links. I don't mean to come across the wrong way on this, its just that I work in this industry and know a lot about it. the information being spun to the public is so offside that it makes us chuckle at work on an almost daily basis.
None of the alternatives you mention are options. Biodiesel is for vehicles, not power generation. Geothermal plants are neat, clean, and a 680MW plant would likely cost over $2billion to build. Add onto that the fact that you would need 7 plants, as the largest ones are 100MW as far as I know.
As for living off the grid, you go right ahead if that's what you want. I did this for two years dude, it bites.
m
Scape @ Thu Apr 21, 2005 7:27 pm
No problem Mukluk, I appreciate your POV. As you said it would be 2 Billion but we are already looking at 1.4 billion to keep the plant up and it will not be for very long either. The situation is untenable and wasteful. Not none of the options are mature enough to bear the weight of the requirement that will be demanded upon them as the plant is taken off line but in concert they can have an impact.
We recycle, yet recycling is not used to make all our paper products yet we still do it. Why? It's simply more cost efficient, that is my point here. Large, centralized, state run power plants will still be needed be they gas, oil, coal (the cheapest) or nuclear but we should be looking to reduce dependency on such thinking as energy is something that can be made by the individual as well as a large plant. I am not advocating we all become Amish but rather more aware of how we use and create energy and when we have a dud like Lepreau we call a spade a spade and ditch it. If we do use Nuclear we should have efficiently run plants and not something that is a hopeless battle vs time and end up with a Chernobyl.
spikedriver @ Tue Jun 07, 2005 2:00 am
having worked as an NRFT member at the plant the condition of the main reactor is better than the PHWR CANDU-6 people expected after 22 years. the alternative:
$1:
NB Power spent more than $600 million refurbishing the Coleson Cove generating station to burn the low-cost fuel, only to be caught short when Venezuela decided to get out of the orimulsion business. Venezuela is the world's only commercial producer of the fuel, which is a combination of bitumen and water.
LOL suckers!!!!
Nuke power is still by far the cheapest alternative expecially when the world oil stocks are driven by middle east countries which have you and I by the nut sack. For the price of refit the NB government could purchase 2 Candu 7 reactors - of which I don't think one has been sold yet so therefore untested in the world market.
Bruce power owners of 7 nuke plants are in bidding for take over of refurbishment. Don't you remember what happened to ONT and the eastern seaboard through NY when the power grid when down due to overload??? Nuke power stayed up in Atlantic Canada when you didn't have lights or your fridge working - my steaks were still frozen and my beer cold.
Now what? suppose we all just burn wood in our furnaces and deplete the timber resources? Wait Irving is shipping all our wood to the USA for major profit.
DerbyX @ Tue Jun 07, 2005 6:54 am
Just out of curiosity, what is the startup cost of building a nuclear reactor from scratch? Is it better to start from scratch then do a major refit of existing plants. I for one believe in nuke energy as a main source for a good percentage with strategically placed wind farms for addition power. I know wind power is the cleanest form and we should be using it them in Canada to generate between 5-15% of our needs they are considered "visual" & "noise" pollution by many who live near them. They also take up alot of space which the martimes may not have in abundance. Its all fun & games any way until we run out of gas and the US says "Oopps, we really did have cheap, viable cold fusion & solar power after all." 
DrCaleb @ Tue Jun 07, 2005 9:33 am
DerbyX DerbyX:
Just out of curiosity, what is the startup cost of building a nuclear reactor from scratch?
Atomic Energy Canada used to list a Candu 6 700mW reactor as $750M USD, built anywhere in the world in 2 years.
AECL does list current projects on their site, most as being on schedule, and on bugdet. Some are ahead of schedule, and under budget.
http://www.aecl.ca/
Scape @ Tue Jun 07, 2005 10:47 am
DrCaleb DrCaleb:
DerbyX DerbyX:
Just out of curiosity, what is the startup cost of building a nuclear reactor from scratch?
Atomic Energy Canada used to list a Candu 6 700mW reactor as $750M USD, built anywhere in the world in 2 years.
AECL does list current projects on their site, most as being on schedule, and on bugdet. Some are ahead of schedule, and under budget.
http://www.aecl.ca/
The good doctor is in. With a price like tthat and the cost of the refit why not just make a Candu 6?
DrCaleb @ Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:12 am
Scape Scape:
The good doctor is in. With a price like tthat and the cost of the refit why not just make a Candu 6?
Hey Scape
Sometimes the cost of decomissioning the old plant makes it better financial sense to re-fit the old one, rather than decommissioning and building a new one. Pickering in Ontario is a good example. Most of their cost overruns were because of penalities in scheduling delays to re-fit that plant. It would have been cheaper in the beginning to re-fit that plant, rather than build a new one.
Personally, I'd like to see a couple nukes in Alberta to lower my electricity and natural gas prices. Most power here is natural gas or coal generated.
ROCKaMIC @ Tue Jun 07, 2005 12:21 pm
Why not go with wind power, lots of it.
Streaker @ Tue Jun 07, 2005 12:59 pm
It's hard to say what's the best option for Point Lepreau. Would refitting the existing plant be less costly than building an entirely new one?
I do think that there is a future for nuclear energy. The problems facing nuclear energy are at this point more political than scientific, technical or environmental.
AECL has some interesting plans, including a new generation of improved Candus:
$1:
As the energy marketplace evolves, the challenge for nuclear utilities and vendors is to respond competitively to new economic expectations for low-cost, high quality nuclear generation. They must also demonstrate that reactors and reactor operations fully meet safety and performance standards. The ACR (Advanced CANDU Reactor), AECL's next-generation CANDU product is designed to meet these expectations.
Advancing the CANDU technology is a continuous process that builds on AECL’s in-depth knowledge of CANDU materials, components and systems, and on feedback from the experience of 9 CANDU utilities operating 31 units.
The current size for the ACR product is approximately 700 MWe. This version is known as the ACR-700. AECL is working on a 1000 MWe version, known as the ACR-1000. While many of its systems and features, such as the steam and turbine generator systems, are similar to those in advanced pressurized water reactors (APWRs), the ACR also has the advantages of CANDU’s proven features such as on-power refuelling, simple fuel design, and flexible fuel cycle options.
It also has innovations that—along with AECL’s significant experience in delivering projects on time and on budget—will dramatically reduce the capital cost to build an ACR plant by up to 40%.
These include:
a compact reactor core design, reducing core size by half for the same power output
improved thermal efficiency through higher-pressure steam turbines
reduced heavy water use and associated cost (one quarter of the heavy water requirement of existing plants)
extended fuel life to three times that of existing natural uranium fuel through the use of slightly
enriched uranium (SEU) oxide fuel, in CANFLEX bundles, which also reduces spent fuel volume
modular, prefabricated construction and advanced techniques
full plant optimization, compact footprint
The result is a power system that is highly competitive with other types of nuclear power systems and all other electrical generation systems, including oil, coal, and natural gas.
Advancing the CANDU technology is a continuous process that builds on AECL’s in-depth knowledge of CANDU materials, components and systems, and on feedback from the experience of 9 CANDU utilities operating 31 units.
The current size for the ACR product is approximately 700 MWe. This version is known as the ACR-700. AECL is working on a 1000 MWe version, known as the ACR-1000. While many of its systems and features, such as the steam and turbine generator systems, are similar to those in advanced pressurized water reactors (APWRs), the ACR also has the advantages of CANDU’s proven features such as on-power refuelling, simple fuel design, and flexible fuel cycle options.
It also has innovations that—along with AECL’s significant experience in delivering projects on time and on budget—will dramatically reduce the capital cost to build an ACR plant by up to 40%.
These include:
a compact reactor core design, reducing core size by half for the same power output
improved thermal efficiency through higher-pressure steam turbines
reduced heavy water use and associated cost (one quarter of the heavy water requirement of existing plants)
extended fuel life to three times that of existing natural uranium fuel through the use of slightly
enriched uranium (SEU) oxide fuel, in CANFLEX bundles, which also reduces spent fuel volume
modular, prefabricated construction and advanced techniques
full plant optimization, compact footprint
The result is a power system that is highly competitive with other types of nuclear power systems and all other electrical generation systems, including oil, coal, and natural gas.
AECL's Future.