That pretty well settles it. Ontario is going for twin AECL reactors. I don't even know why we have those other guys hanging around.
Personally, I didn't think they were happy with just a twin. I thought they were going for 4! With just a twin, Darlington probably has enough room. The article says that with an ACR twin we can get rid of loser Pickering, but I'm not so sure.
4 comments:
This document from AECL paints a particularly rosy and relatively detailed look at the "plumbers nightmare".
Coupled with the local content, pressure vessel availability issues, etc. I agree it appears Candu has the nod.
This quote from the document;
" The high neutron economy of CANDU also has implications in the area of waste disposal, in particular, in the reduction of the radiotoxicity of spent fuel. There is sufficient fissile content in the mixture of plutonium and the higher actinides (a by-product of LWR spent fuelreprocessing) to be used as fuel in CANDU; no addition of uranium is required. The absence of uranium prevents the formation of plutonium.
The fissile content of the transuranic mix depletes rapidly due to the lack of plutonium formation. As a result, the level of neutron flux increases rapidly in order to maintain reactor power at the rated level. The high level of neutron flux is instrumental in transmuting and annihilating the toxic material. The CANDU reactor can therefore produce energy through the destruction of toxic waste and without producing any such waste in the process, and falls into the category of “green” technology. "
Sound very encouraging but raises the question of the safety of transporting increased ammounts of irradiated fuel and plutonium required for the advanced fuel cycle economy to work.
And still little on long term radioactive waste disposal issue.
Do you think the .3 G acceleration tolerance is adequate for this structure?
Pretend I gave u $500K for your 'opinion'.
Yes, the 0.3 g is adequate, but you have to prove it. If someone gave me money, I would convert the standard US spectrum to PGV, and work from there. There are also the standard IAEA geology requirements, which nobody is working on. I believe that they will go with the old "It's on a nuclear site" canard.
Oops wrong document that was Candu 6.
This is the ACR1000 tech summary.
No boasting about being green and eating up radioactive waste. lol.
More details on plant siting, waste storage and decommissioning but no news on long term disposal. I suppose they call it waste 'management' not disposal now.
I've noticed lately that all the opponents to Yuk-yuk Mountain now say we don't need disposal because we'll reprocess the waste. But there is still nastier gunge that has to be put away.
Post a Comment