Andy,
Canadian emissions are tracked on my website at:
www.nuclearfaq.ca/nuke-gen-monthly.htm
The amount of used fuel in Canada is about 2 million bundles which, tightly stacked, would fill a soccer field roughly the height of a player.
(In terms of volume this is less than the amount of municipal waste that the City of Toronto generates on a daily basis -- for calculation see footnote #3 at
www.cns-snc.ca/media/CNS_Position_Papers/NWMO_presentation.pdf.)
Jeremy Whitlock
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA
> [mailto:cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA]On Behalf Of Andy
> English
> Sent: 2007 Feb 15 7:46 AM
> To: 'Jerry Cuttler'; 'ANS Member Exchange Listserv'; 'Canadian Nuclear
> Discussion List'; 'Rad_Sci_Health'
> Subject: RE: [cdn-nucl-l] NYT: Powerful regrets
>
>
> Good article Jerry,
>
> Are there any figures for the power reactors in Ontario,
> Quebec, NB, with
> respect to tons of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, carbon dioxide and
> particulate matter per year? I recall reading on Jeremy's
> website a few
> years ago about there being three hockey rinks worth of waste
> (sorry about
> the term, but that's what it currently is) produced in 40 or
> so years. Is
> that number now higher?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA
> [mailto:cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA] On Behalf Of Jerry
> Cuttler
> Sent: 15 February 2007 1:12 AM
> To: ANS Member Exchange Listserv; Canadian Nuclear Discussion List;
> Rad_Sci_Health
> Subject: [cdn-nucl-l] NYT: Powerful regrets
>
> Interesting article ...
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Powerful Regrets
> The New York Times
> Sun 11 Feb 2007
> Byline: Matthew C. Cordaro
>
> THE Shoreham nuclear power plant is dead and buried, but
> there is much to be
> learned from its demise. And the debate over closing the Indian Point
> nuclear station in Westchester County brings reminders about
> what was lost
> when Shoreham was abandoned.
>
> Back in 1965, the Long Island Lighting Company (where I was
> the senior vice
> president from 1985 to 1987) announced plans to build a
> nuclear power plant
> on Long Island. The plant was under construction from 1973 to
> 1984 but for
> various reasons, it never produced a single kilowatt. The
> ultimate defeat of
> Shoreham stemmed from exaggerated concerns about emergency
> planning. The
> campaign against the plant gained momentum in 1979, following
> the accident
> at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania.
> Though no member of
> the public was seriously injured there, politicians were eventually
> persuaded by opposition to the plant to strike a deal with
> the lighting
> company to abandon Shoreham.
>
> To this day, Long Islanders are still footing the bill for
> building and
> demolishing Shoreham.
>
> Yet 28 years after the Three Mile Island incident and with
> about 50 years of
> commercial use of nuclear power, there are 103 plants now
> operating in the
> United States with stellar safety records, and people in
> countries like
> France rely on nuclear power plants for almost all of their
> electricity. And
> with the price of oil continuing to rise, many utilities are
> looking to
> develop more nuclear power plants.
>
> One can't help but wonder whether the decommissioning of
> Shoreham was the
> real starting point for serious energy problems on Long
> Island. Right now
> Long Islanders, while paying for the cost of Shoreham, are
> not getting any
> of the benefits that it would have provided. Instead, because
> of excessive
> reliance on expensive foreign oil, they are burdened by
> arguably the highest
> electricity rates in the United States.
>
> One of the primary justifications for Shoreham was that it
> would reduce Long
> Island's dependence on foreign oil. If Shoreham were in
> operation today it
> would eliminate the need for more than 4 million barrels a
> year of imported
> oil. Also, because nuclear fuel costs are a small fraction of
> fossil fuel
> costs, it would substantially reduce Long Island's
> electricity rates and
> significantly lower the dreaded fuel surcharge.
>
> Moreover, Shoreham would have protected the air we breathe by
> eliminating
> the emission of about 17,000 tons of sulfur dioxide, 4,000
> tons of nitrogen
> oxide and 1,000 tons of particulate matter a year. The increased air
> pollution without Shoreham, though not responsible for instantaneous
> fatalities, does the work of terrorists by killing thousands of people
> slowly over time. The only thing lacking is the drama of an
> attack like
> Sept. 11.
>
> In addition, the operation of Shoreham would have curtailed
> the discharge of
> more than three million tons of carbon dioxide a year, a
> major cause of
> global warming. This is why Patrick Moore, a founder and
> former leader of
> Greenpeace, sees nuclear energy as the only
> non-greenhouse-gas-emitting
> power source capable of effectively replacing fossil fuels
> and satisfying
> growing demand.
>
> Besides the positive economic impact of lower rates, Shoreham
> would have
> produced substantial financial benefits in terms of jobs,
> taxes, economic
> output and higher income. Indian Point, alone, contributes
> $763.3 million a
> year to Westchester's economy.
>
> Sure, there are those who say that they sleep better at night
> because there
> is no Shoreham, but this false sense of security is derived
> from a fear of
> an extremely unlikely piece of Hollywood fiction. In the real
> world, without
> Shoreham, these same people who are sleeping better are
> waking up to higher
> utility bills, more polluted air and climate change.
>
> The unfortunate history of Shoreham shows us what to expect
> from an ill-
> advised closing of Indian Point. I hope the people of
> Westchester will avoid
> making a mistake that would compound an already serious
> energy situation for
> the region.
>
> C 2007 by the New York Times Company
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdn-nucl-l mailing list
> cdn-nucl-l@mailman.McMaster.CA
> http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/cdn-nucl-l
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.39/686 - Release
> Date: 14/02/2007
> 07:54
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdn-nucl-l mailing list
> cdn-nucl-l@mailman.McMaster.CA
> http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/cdn-nucl-l
>
CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited. AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVILÉGIÉE Le présent courriel, et toute pièce jointe, peut contenir de l'information qui est confidentielle, régie par les droits d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen, divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations non autorisées de l'information ou dépendance non autorisée envers celle-ci peut être illégale et est strictement interdite. |