CLICK FOR NEWS UPDATES
CLICK FOR
NEWS UPDATES


Bruce Won't Go Where They're Not Wanted

CD98: Adam Liefl - November 26, 2008

http://cd989.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=14589

Representatives for Bruce Power are bringing locals up to speed on their project and environmental assessment. Dr. Duncan Moffett and Dr. Doug Boreham, an Environmental Senior Scientist for Bruce Power, gave Council a presentation on what has taken place and what is to come. They say Bruce Power will not go where they are not wanted, as the E.A. and many information sessions will help determine this. Ultimately, the decision will be made by an impartial panel, including professors, engineers and more. They say to complete a nuclear facility from the start of a regulatory process to operation is expected to take eight to ten years.

COMMENTS:

Re: Bruce Won't Go Where They're Not Wanted

If the above is true, let's demand our choice of whether-or-not we want nuclear reactors here on the next municipal ballot, not the decision of some "impartial panel"!

To make our demand real... Have your say at the address below...

http://www.energyquest4nanticoke.ca/petition.htm

You are wanted! hurry up!

Although I imagine the majority of backward thinking yokels will decry the sky is falling!

I wonder if this is something that could be solved by a referendum for the residents of Haldimand and Norfolk?

It seems people fixate on the near-sighted avenues of today's energy issues. There are 70 years of uranium left to mine at the present rate of consumption worldwide. It will take 250,000 years of managed containment to deem it's waste safe for man and beast.

So let's see, the Pyramids were built 3,000 years ago, and 98% percent of that civilization remains buried by time and most of that history is unknown.

And while trying to find some co-relation between these two historical and unrelated burying grounds, we should ask how long humans or whoever can or really will be responsible for nuclear waste on earth or at Nanticoke.

Would it be Bruce Power? What would happen if they went out of business? Would it be the municipality? There will never, ever be enough money here to generate that responsibility. Would it be the Canadian taxpayer? Ah, yes that is who can be responsible for the next 250,000 years. Okay, that sounds reasonable. Bring on the waste! What a great bunch of far-sighted thinkers and decision makers we have out there that we depend on to make our lives easy now, with no thought of the future generations to come.

GOODBYE,SO LONG,ADIOS,WE,LL CALL YOU,DON,T FORGET TO WRITE,HAVE A GOOD TRIP,DRIVE CAREFULLY.

So OPG is serving us well in all regards??

Attend the sessions, listen (you have 2 ears) more than you speak (you have 1 mouth) and perhaps you MIGHT learn something. Perhaps you are like our MPP who is against nuclar and for "clean" coal (whatever the heck that is).

It's reasonable for the impartial panel to make the decision. Power Generation is a provincial issue, not just a local one. If it is determined that NTK is the best spot for a new G.S., then one should be built there. Local councils should not have the power to overturn that decision.

Besides, it only means immense prosperity and jobs, especially needed during a recession. Think about it, it makes sense.

A valid and well spoken point, but in the next 250,000 years I am sure thext 100 generations will be able to solve this problem and if not, the Canadian Shield is a wonderful, natural place to bury all those nasty fuel rods!

Coal needs to go....clean coal is an oxymoron, put all the scrubbers on it you want, the extraction of coal is a dirty and environmentally devastating practise. Solar and wind technology is years away from generating enough energy to replace other technologies. Nuclear is the safest and most practical generating device for the foreseeable future....so long as the fault lines under Lake Erie don't shift too much, we'll be fine!

I attended the session and I listened.

The Bruce experts said that one-third of Environmental Assessments result in a denial or rejection of the proposal. That is not true. Of the last 63 EA's, only 2 have been denied. Experts? Or salesmen?

The experts also told the council that nuclear reactors are never shut down due to heat waves and a shortage of cool water. That is not true.

Google "reactor shut down heat wave." You'll find several occasions over the past few years where reactors were shut down in heat waves.

A reactor on Lake Michigan had to be stopped in 2006 when the lake temperature got too high. There have been other similar situations in Alabama, France, Spain, Tennessee and Germany.

The experts told out elected officials at a public meeting that this type of shut down never occurs. Scientists or spin doctors? Or worse?

Listening is good. Listening to false information is not so good.

What gives us the right to saddle the next 100 generations with the problem of radioactive waste? We're the ones using the energy. Not our great-great children.

back in the 40's when they built the first nuclear generators, they were confident the pesky waste problem would be solved in short order. After all, they'd just figured out how to harness the atom. Figuring out how to deal with a little waste would be simple -- especially, when the world's top scientists were on the case.

Well, it's 60 years later and they still don't know what to do with it. To foist this immense problem on to our future generations so that we can keep our air conditioners running full tilt is selfish and unnecessary.

It's hard to imagine them shutting down a unit in a heat wave in Ontario. They would likely have to shed load to meet the government temperature differential, as Nanticoke currently does, but I doubt a total shutdown would occur. Tempering water injected in the outfall tends to help decrease the outfall/forebay temp differential.

I totally agree.

If a reactor is not built on the proposed US Steel property who is to say that it will not be built somewehere else on Lake erie??

These generating units require large amounts of water so production will be on a southern great lake. From a business perspective it is most economical to build close to your customer, the large urban centers of the GTA, London, Kitchener, woodstock ect.

If this thing isn't built at the proposed sight, a neibouring county will take the financial rewards and we will still have the the enviromental issues placed on our door step.

<< Back to Previous Page