Nuke Waste Dump Proposal Near Lake Huron Raises Alarm

It's low level (majority of stuff) like used underwear and some intermediate stuff. As stated, At the same time, Kraemer played down the potential risks of the Deep Geologic Repository [nuclear dump], pointing to the decision of his own residents to continue living in the town.

“These people know nuclear; they know the safety of it, and they choose to live here,” he told the paper. 

There is a belief that if one creates nuclear waste, one should be responsible for ensuring it is safely contained.

Just to be clear

Only low and intermediate level waste from the Pickering, Darlington and Bruce nuclear generating stations will be accepted for storage in the DGR. Used fuel will not be stored in the DGR.

DGR Key Features

Interesting that an international reknown environmentalist has some very interesting things to say about nuclear and climate change.

http://www.monbiot.com/category/nuclear/

I still support nuclear power. I believe that to abandon our primary source of low carbon energy during a climate change crisis would be madness. It would mean replacing atomic plants with something much worse.

We should, of course, cut our profligate demand for power as much as possible. But if transport and heating are to be powered by low-carbon electricity, total demand is likely to rise even with the most parsimonious use of energy.

And we should make as much use as we can of renewables. But the biggest onshore wind schemes could supply only a fraction of the low-carbon power a nuclear plant can produce. For example, the controversial deployment in mid-Wales would generate just one 14th of the proposed output of Hinkley C. Offshore wind has greater potential, but using it to displace most of our fossil fuel generation is a tough call, even when it's balanced with a nuclear power baseload. Without that you would explore the limits of feasibility. If every square metre of roof and suitable wall in the UK were covered with solar panels, they would produce 9% of the energy currently provided by fossil fuels.

The harsh reality is that less nuclear means more gas and coal.

snip

Perhaps one should consider "liquid fluoride thorium reactors."  While other power stations are consuming nuclear waste....

if integral fast reactors were deployed, the UK's stockpile of nuclear waste could be used to generate enough low-carbon energy to meet all UK demand for 500 years. These reactors would keep recycling the waste until hardly any remained: solving three huge problems – energy supply, nuclear waste and climate change – at once. Thorium reactors use an element that's already extracted in large quantities as an unwanted byproduct of other mining industries. They recycle their own waste, leaving almost nothing behind.

Saying that, one could consider building instead a Thorium reactor on site which turns that waste into an asset. In this article Out of Steam

The material the government wants to bury could produce – according to an estimate endorsed by the chief scientific adviser to its energy department – enough low-carbon energy to supply all the UK's electricity needs for 500 years. Integral fast reactors can, in principle, keep recycling nuclear waste until a tiny residue remains, whose components have half-lives of tens rather than millions of years. The government's failure in Cumbria could become an opportunity: to treat the waste as an asset, rather than a liability.

And talking about nuclear here's another interesting article W&J event addresses use of nuclear power, climate change

But within a few minutes, the film takes an unexpected turn as a half-dozen well-known former anti-nuclear activists and long-time environmentalists describe the philosophical sea change each underwent in recent years to support the increased use nuclear energy in the United States.

snip

While acknowledging that the environmental movement has championed renewable energy as a replacement for fossil fuels, Shellenberger said when he studied the “big gap” between renewables and fossil fuels “we decided we could take a second look at nuclear energy.”

snip

Another argument for nuclear posited by Shellenberger and others is that while environmentalists have proposed ways of using less energy as a way to fight global warming, “we can’t keep using less energy forever.”

He noted that as more energy becomes available, “we find more uses for energy.”

He said the introduction of smartphones, with their ability to deliver data “use as much energy as a refrigerator” when all of the factors, such as the energy needed to drive the servers that provide the information, are taken into account.

The subjects also note that expansion of electricity generation will only continue to grow, because as Cravens states, “electricity can improve people’s lives,” adding that “the countries with the best quality of life consume the most electricity.”

According to Shellenberger, energy use is expected to double between now and 2050 and quadruple by the end of the century.

While acknowledging the large, upfront capital costs of building nuclear plants, Shellenberger adds that the plant will last between 60 and 100 years.

snip

A portion of the film is spent dispelling some misinformation circulating about nuclear accidents.

snip

While the upfront capital costs are formidable, nuclear energy has several advantages, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute.

A single uranium fuel pellet the size of a pencil eraser contains the same amount of energy as 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, 1,780 pounds of coal or 149 gallons of oil.

There are no emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide during the production of electricity at nuclear energy plants.

But Sterzing acknowledged that with the current revolution in shale gas, “we’re headed for a challenge in this country” because of the low cost of electricity being made possible from abundant natural gas.

So as we sit here on our computers and using our smart phones we are consuming energy as we type away. Many express concerns about fracking and what that does to our environment and our water system. Nuclear and particularly thorium.

I'll leave the last word to Monbiot who puts the whole energy and carbon reduction strategy into perspective

Ten days ago, the Japanese government announced that it is abandoning its promise to cut the greenhouse gases the country produces by 25% by 2020(11). The reason it gave was the shutdown of many of its nuclear plants as a result of the Fukushima disaster. Nuclear power saved around a quarter of a billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year in Japan(12): equivalent to just under half the UK’s emissions(13). Much of it will now be replaced by coal and liquified gas(14).

Germany also decided to shut down its nuclear power plants after the Fukushima crisis, due to the imminent risk of tsunamis in Bavaria. Last year, as a result, its burning of “clean coal” – otherwise known as coal – rose by 5%(15). That was despite a massive cut in its exports of electricity to other European countries(16)*. One estimate suggests that by 2020 Germany will have produced an extra 300 million tonnes of CO2 as a result of its nuclear closure(17): equivalent to almost all the savings that will be made in the 27 member states as a result of the EU’s energy efficiency directive.

If the UK fails to replace its nuclear plants, which currently generate 22% of our electricity(18), the same thing will happen. Replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy – which is essential if we’re to have any chance of meeting our climate change targets – is hard enough. Replacing fossil fuels and nuclear power with renewables is harder still. As thermal power plants perversely attract less opposition than wind turbines, the temptation to replace nuclear power with fossil fuels will be overwhelming. Abandoning a proven and reliable low carbon technology as climate breakdown accelerates is a special form of madness.

End point:

Flawed and stalled as the nuclear clean-up plans may be, at least they exist. Neither the government nor the fossil fuel companies have any programme for cleaning up carbon dioxide. This waste is, in aggregate, orders of magnitude more dangerous than the materials produced by atomic energy plants, and even harder to make safe. It’s a choice of two evils, but one is much worse than the other.

..to continue with the growth we had 15 years ago is not sustainable let alone what we have today. using nuclear is madness as it is only going to happen so that the status quo can continue. we need de-growth and a different economy where life is celebrated over the profit of the few. most people know this for themselves just by living their life. it almost takes willful blindness to miss it.

when I click on "about us" it doesn't tell me anything about who they are or who is funding/backing them. Seriously, the lack of transparency and keeping "whoever" hidden from view concerns me.

Well, I guess I'm more with Monbiot here in that if I can't do anything until I built the perfect system or world the planet will die.

I'm sorry but the consequences of not are greater in my view.

Conservation is the best way to save energy and negate the need for new. Also the cheapest. I'm not in favour of shutting down nuclear plants unless they are too old and unsafe. Just not in favour of new ones. There is no such thing as a perfect system but the technology we have now is pretty good (talking about renewables).

Scroll up to see what happen with Fukushima. Having said that the candu reactor is a totally different system than Fukushima, and last time I checked no Ontario nuclear plant will be hit by a tsunami.

After Flint, Don't Let Them Nuke The Great Lakes Next!

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/26/after-flint-dont-let-them-nuke-th...

"Ontario Power Generation (OPG), the nuclear power utility that owns 20 atomic reactors across the province, proposes burying the resulting radioactive wastes at its Bruce Nuclear Generating Station.

Oh, by the way, Bruce is already the single largest nuclear power plant in the world, by number of reactors - eight.

The dump at Bruce in Kincardine, Ontario, would be less than a mile from the Lake Huron shore, just some tens of miles across from the tip of Michigan's Thumb and upstream of the drinking water intakes for tens of millions of Americans, Canadians, and Native American First Nations.

Ironically enough, Flints newly restored safe drinking water source.

*Stop The Great Lakes Nuclear Dump STGLND has collected 92,000 petition signatures*, and has helped gather more than 180 resolutions from Ontario and every Great Lakes state.

Children are the most vulnerable. There is no safe level of exposure to ionizing radiation, and health damage accumulates over a lifetime..."

Keep playing with nuclear fire - one day you will get burned.

*add yours if it isn't there yet.