Canada's Oldest Nuclear Plant is Closing - Why That's a Bad Thing

[@ProfessorGoose]

UPDATE: Since uploading this video, Ontario has announced that Pickering's B units will remain in operation until September 2026 and that OPG will conduct a feasibility study on refurbishing the B units to extend their life by 30 years. SOURCE: news.ontario.ca/en/release/1002338/ontario-supports-plan-to-safely-continue-operating-the-pickering-nuclear-generating-station

[@BobViveen]

please continue from previous reply : violated 1995 dec 6 th, 911 WRPolice, occ # 123536 BROWN, who pledged a security on yet take bets on negro, on his families heads , on others, things, on OPGeny nucliar HYDRO/NEGRO, 911 WRPolice safety accountable with the LAW SUIT OATH CASE NUMBERS, are robbed and time passed, 2003/2024 compliance with the LAW,chief Brian Larken, chief John Goodman, chief of Police MARK KROWEL and 1995 911, WRPolice, occ # 123536 BROWN the LAW, sacred characters KEPT KEPT KEPT from what is owed is "COURT LAWYERS" aggravated sex assault, fraud, false oath, pecuniary, treason, with intent to kill, are still the same PERVERTS that goes to 85 Fredrick st, Criminal. Court. Slaughterhouses, to MOLEST tribunal goddes JUSTICE, and wont help man the breach in front of you, OPGeny nuclear HYDRO/NEGRO, 911 WRPoice safety and charges to them dated; blameworthy follow me in court June 10, 2024

[@MrEddieG420]

On July 7, 2023, the Ontario government announced it will work with Ontario Power Generation (OPG) to commence planning and licensing for three additional small modular reactors (SMRs), for a total of four SMRs at the Darlington new nuclear site. Only 2 of 4 reactors are operational at dralington with 2 being in refurbishment, so when all 4 reactors are online and all 4 SNR are built pickerings production will be replaced.

[@donaldcoveduck3925]

I was the prlme Inspector on the 8 Clandrias built in Monteal,Quebec 1964-1974.

[@spencerleava2502]

I may be able to add a little bit regarding the Pickering shutdown. The fact that it is an old plant is not exactly relevant: things like the containment building, offices, and cooling infrastructure tend to last for a long time, and as far as I am aware its still perfectly fine. These make up a significant portion of the cost of the plant, as does the heavy water which can also be reused. When it comes to the refurbishment, they basically strip out all of the parts and build up a whole new reactor. Refurbishments are also a chance to add improvements to the reactor. Think of it like replacing the car but keeping the garage. In the past, refurbishment has become problematic, but factors like lack of experience, legislative/regulatory problems, and supply issues played a big part. It is a case of wait and see to determine how much this round of refurbishments will cost, but last time there was a large scale refurbishment the nuclear industry was declining and experience in pulling apart and rebuilding CANDU reactors was something that was more or less being done for the first time. The idea of refurbishing Pickering is something that has been explored, and its perfectly feasible. The issue here isnt the plant, or the technology.... the issue is local politics. For years groups like the OCAA have lobbied to get the plant closed and I guess they convinced the local municipal government. The town council had unanimously voted to oppose a refurbishment, and they opposed the short terms extension as well. Its an odd choice given that something like a 5th of the towns economy relies on the power plant.

[@mikestiglic1880]

I am not sure why Pickering B wont be refurbished, but the remainder of Pickering A's units (1+4) that are operating wont be refurbished due to the thinned walls of the feeder tubes. Its the reason why units 2+3 were never refurbed. They refurbed units 1+4 in the early 2000's at great expense, but they stopped at 2+3 because they found the feeder tube walls were too thin and would need replacement regularly. Every shutdown of units 1+4 have included replacement of various sections of feeder tubes at great expense. The reason they are thinner than normal was because in the 90's during various planned shutdowns, they tried chemically scrapping the feeder tubes with a solution. Apparently the PH wasnt maintained at a correct level causing the thinning to occur. Its pretty sad, because units 2 + 3 could have been refurbed and that would have been another 1000 MW on the system for 20 + years.

[@mikestiglic1880]

As per your comment though, Pickering could be refurbed, but my understanding was the economics were such that it wasnt justifiable for the smaller 500 MW units. I am guessing the boilers would need to be replaced and probably the calandria tubes. Although they are replacing calandria tubes at Darlington right now, so the experience is available. Pickering is am older style that has the full size containment and so its much harder to remove the boilers, plus there is 12 of them vs Darlington which only has 4

[@mckessa17]

Lots of work for boilermakers

[@EDI-k6k]

You are a nuclear engineer. What's ur linked in id. I want to connect

[@zacharytaylor190]

I have this hunch that so many of these so-called "environmental activitsts" that oppose nuclear are either useful idiots for, or are actively being bought out by, fossil fuel companies. Think about it, very few renewables are capable of providing baseload power, let alone 800MWe per unit. As a result, the only other option is rankine cycle natural gas, biomass, and coal. They really ought to educate themselves on the reality of energy generation, the necessity of baseload, and the deaths per kWh of all the other options. By that metric, nuclear is safer than the leading baseload renewable, hydroelectric.

[@Chazzman72]

Many of these "environmental groups" that are vocal about wind/solar in Ontario are funded by the natural gas industry. Why? Because natural gas is used to "backup" these types of installations. SMRs are the future. They will allow for nuclear plant components to be largely manufactured in a central facility, greatly reducing construction costs. They can be assembled in remote locations reducing transmission line losses. Tech has changed a lot since Pickering was designed in the 60s and 70s.

[@gregorymalchuk272]

Yep, here in the USA the gas and oil industry funded the NoNukeBailout astroturf baloney campaign.

[@m.e.345]

Why were Units 2 & 3 of Pickering 'A' not restarted? Those units were in much better condition than Units 1 & 2.

[@stanmitchell3375]

Douglas point was the first plant

[@overkill338lm2]

A few points: Pickering B is actually newer than Bruce A. The refurbishment of Bruce A units 1 and 2 also went massively over budget, that did not deter Bruce Power from pursuing the refurbishment of the 6 remaining units at the site. Bruce Power is fully funding their own refurbishment, the Ontario government is not involved in that process. OPG already has a fully approved EA by the CNSC and refurbishment plan for Pickering B. The refurbishment wasn't pursued because they thought it would impact the viability of the construction of Darlington B, which Kathleen Wynne cancelled anyways in the end. Pickering is not past its "end of life", as all CANDU's were designed with a mid-life refurbishment as part of their operating life, which means a nominal unit life of 60 years (consistent with other nuclear plants), though, like with pressure vessels in US PWR's, we've discovered that this was extremely conservative and 80+ years (~40 years pre-refurb, post-refurb) is actually more realistic. Bruce units will be pushing 90 when they approach their post-refurb end of life and the EA for Pickering B has it running into the 2060's as well. OPG has stated that they've "moved on" from Pickering in terms of their business plan, which is why they refuse to revisit the Pickering B refurbishment. They've already bought more than 2GW of gas capacity to add to their gas fleet to ensure that they have adequate gas capacity to replace Pickering's 3.1GW, so it's somewhat understandable as to why they'd be reluctant to make those assets less useful/valuable going forward. The cost estimates originally presented were in the neighbourhood of $2 billion per unit ($8 billion total) to refurbish the 4x B units. I expect it would be closer to $9 or $10 billion. The issue is that the cost per MW is higher than at Bruce or Darlington because the Pickering B units (scaled-down C6's) are lower output than the bigger C9's and C9 prototype 480 fuel channel ones at Darlington and Bruce. While Ontario does indeed have surplus baseload, that's in the spring and fall when we have excess wind capacity so an organization pointing out Ontario has SBG without delving into that nuance is being dishonest. During the summer, which is Ontario's peak demand period, wind is typically AWOL and we lean on gas to make up the deficit between demand and the output of our nuclear and hydro units, which run at full capacity. Nuclear outages are scheduled for the low demand spring and fall periods when their capacity isn't needed, typically back for the winter when demand again rises and of course Quebec often imports from Ontario during this period as noted. As things are electrified, demand is only going to rise, so the idea that conservation will help here I think is naive. Yes, we need more flexible nuclear capacity, like the SMR's at Darlington B, but that's in addition to firm nuclear capacity we already have, which includes Pickering. The government should approach Bruce Power about taking over Pickering and refurbishing it if the optics of spending the money is the issue. A $0.09/kWh rate would fund the project (current Bruce rate is $0.082/kWh) and allow the plant to continue to provide low cost reliable power to the province.

[@raymondleury2041]

Solar is at peak production when we have the midsummer peak demand, so it would be an excellent way to meet that demand...at a much lower cost than event hte $0.082/kWh you quote for Bruce.

[@ProfessorGoose]

Thanks for your detailed comment, it was very interesting to read!

[@overkill338lm2]

@@ProfessorGoose You are quite welcome!

[@overkill338lm2]

@@raymondleury2041 Solar works to depress/displace daytime peaking (gas) capacity. Currently, the issue with that is the morning/evening ramp periods where demand is high but solar output is low to non-existent, so these ramps are covered by gas. Pumped storage could be used instead, if the price was reasonable enough. I'm not opposed to a solar + pumped storage combination as long as it can be competitively procured for the purpose as described, and capacity is limited so that it doesn't cut into ultra-low emissions baseload power like nuclear and hydro. The idea is to displace gas, not displace other low emissions sources. Ontario ratepayers are still paying the 20-year $0.60-$0.80/kWh solar FIT contracts handed out under the GEA, so there may be some reluctance to revisit, but my personal position is that if that combo can be done cheaper than gas, it's worth looking at.

[@nukiepoo]

@@raymondleury2041 during daytime only. Last time I checked, people like their air conditioning at nighttime too

[@williamvaughan1218]

We need nuclear and lots of it!

[@stickynorth]

Repower with SMR's... And add them at all old coal/NG sites in the future...

[@vstrom9586]

those solar farms are a real waste of good agricultural land

[@rexmann1984]

Solar in Canada is beyond stupid. Natural gas is clean enough. But it's time they build a new plant.

[@heinzbongwasser2715]

Just build New nuclear power plants

[@Jon-hx7pe]

nuclear can not be replaced by crappy "non-emitting" intermittent sources - aka, wind and solar. we need more nuclear power.

[@Stratomy]

Wow what an amazing video

[@stickynorth]

And yes, we need upgraded grid connections between provinces... Cascadia to Alberta, Manitoba to Saskatchewan, Quebec to Ontario and Atlantic Canada...

[@paulsehstedt6275]

Sounds of a wise decision to built SMR at Darlington.

[@euchiron]

I really hope more SMR stations take hold. It doesn't need to be perfect, just better than yesterday's solutions.

[@undertaker666dead]

Nuclear is the way of the future.

[@stanmckenzie4490]

After a quick read of comments, it probably should be noted that the increase in Nuclear as a function of time after Mike Harris was booted had nothing to do with new build, but the fact Harris went back to golfing rather than not knowing how to run a province .... #AlwaysInsultMikeHarris

[@mikestiglic1880]

Solar, wind and SMRs are the only answer. Quebec interties would be too costly. They want to maintain their isolation from the rest of the north-east power pool by way of DC ties which aren't generally built for large power flow. Natural Gas is likely the option they are choosing because of special interest groups influence on the government. Plus they are cheaper and quicker to build

[@iareid8255]

Mike, that makes sense except drop the inferior wind and solar.

[@mikestiglic1880]

@@iareid8255 they are inferior, but the cost of them is considerably cheaper than they used to be. How much is a 300MW SMR supposed to cost?

[@iareid8255]

Mike, yes they are cheaper and fuel costs are nil but the costs to incorporate them on the grid is high. However much renewable capacity you have installed also requires the same capacity of alternative generators as back up. Their lifespan is relatively short, so replacements are required more often. That's not sensible or economic. Not only that but it makes keeping the grid balanced is more difficult and they adversely affect stability. There are just too many negatives.

[@mikestiglic1880]

@@iareid8255 I think renewables are great when combined with hydroelectric, even if they are installed across balancing authorities. Example being CAISO in California has a decent amount of solar installed now. In order to allow for that to generate into the system (and not generate) they created a deal with other balancing authorities to reduce generation or increase generation when solar is producing or not producing. There was a time when CAISO had so much generation online, that BC Hydro stopped generators at all of its units on the columbia river. That is around 4500 MW not producing. They had to open the spillway gates just to keep enough water flowing down the river. But hydroelectric can do that. Nuclear, Coal and Natural Gas shouldnt be cycled like that due thermal expansion/contraction. Anyway, hopefully OPG can get approval to run Pickering A/B until the end of 2025 and who knows, maybe longer

[@iareid8255]

Mike, renewables are asynchronous generators and as such make frequency control much harder. There is a practical limit as to how much asynchronous generation a grid can absorb and remain reliable. There is the matter of a duplication of capacity as all renewables broadly need an equivelant capacity of reliable generation as back up. Renewables also have a short life compared to conventional generators.

[@DaDoubleDee]

Pickering is my home town!!!! But oh no!! The only thing that is interesting in Pickering is going away lol!!! Well at least there'll be more beach front :)

[@jamess3417]

Not for at least 50 years after it closes

[@sum_rye_hash_321]

I hope we can get more SMRs in Ontario! Cool video though, I did not know pickering nuclear was going to be shut down soon.

[@MrBcardinal35]

NIMBYs

[@stickynorth]

Also respect should be paid for Alberta for killing coal in only 4-5 years (thanks to Rachel Notley and the NDP) with the exception of one laggard project that's still being converted to natural gas... Just Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia left to re-coal...

[@stickynorth]

And yes we're looking at replacing NG with SMR reactors which to me is ideal. Alas Alberta Natural Gas interests are still deeply entrenched which makes is less likely...

[@howumighthaveanimatedthat2159]

if a vehicle battery has so many charges why would I want to use up my charges to supply back to the grid. It will reduce my overall mileage I will get from the battery.

[@specialopsdave]

Ideally, it should make you more than enough money over it's life to cover it's wear

[@lorrygoth]

Thank you Professor Goose, I was just watching Just Have A Think's video on Rolls Royce's SMRs.

[@eddydogleg]

I also just watching Just Have A Think's video on Rolls Royce's SMRs. I thought his video was disingenuous. His comparing the Fukushima Daiichi's generation II reactors to a generation IV SMR is like saying no one should drive cars because Pintos blow up.

[@lorrygoth]

@@eddydogleg Europe is in a very anti-nuclear mindset currently so I think he did a decent job of addressing the dangers but also putting into perspective how minor they are in comparison to dirtier forms of energy generation. It is wild how some people will jump on the few major meltdowns like they are common place because they have been convinced that no nuclear option is safe. But from a western perspective it doesn't make the same sence when we have a history of safe, long running nuclear generation.

[@briankvann9373]

Why not Hydrogen?

[@jesush.christ6184]

Hydrogen will never be used for power production. Creating it requires you either crack hydrocarbons from oil and gas, have the C02 emissions sequestered at cost and the exported. Or it has to be pulled from water via electrolysis, which already uses electricity. Since nothing has perfect efficiency, it would just be easier to import that electricity

[@Shankovich]

Time moves quick: it’s looking very likely that Pickering B will be refurbished.

[@dodaexploda]

Absolutely excellent video!

[@caav56]

Apparently, Pickering might not close just yet.

[@eddydogleg]

I wonder were the modules for the SMR's will be built. Nisku Alberta has got a lot of experience building and moving modules for oil refineries and upgraders but I'm not sure if that would cross over to building for the nuclear power industry.

[@ingbtc]

Too much tail chasing

[@lightdark00]

It's going to be really funny in some years time when the panic for things getting too cold begins.

[@firefox39693]

Nanticoke had a capacity of over 5 GW. That was a coal power plant. The government of Ontario and the government of Canada should invest billions into an offshore wind farm, energy storage, and a VHTG reactor using the existing grid connection leading to Nanticoke. VHTG reactors have the potential to produce intense heat needed for melting silicon for semiconductors and solar panels, making steel, aluminum, carbon fiber, concrete, and glass, and other things that require intense process heat. Moving forward, we're definitely going to need a lot more wind, solar, energy storage, and much more nuclear power. Ontario is currently on track to miss its emissions targets, thanks to our disastrous PC government. We need a 'break the glass' option to get Ontario back on track and meeting, or beating its target.

[@charlesbeaudry3263]

Ofshore wind farms are becoming more and more difficult to get consent for from then local populations having to endure the view. Moreover nobody ever talks of the real toll winfarms have on migratory birds. I'm not totally against wind farms and they can work as long as there is backup power from gas-fired plants but it always frustates me how the environmental movement, always quick to criticize whatever they don't like but always prepared to ignore whatever facts that are inconvenient. The fundamental reality is that solar and wind cannot and won't replace coal because coal is baseload whereas renewables are not. We will get there but not by ignoring reality.

[@raymondleury2041]

@@charlesbeaudry3263 The effect of wind farms on birds has been grossly overstated. Lake Erie would be an excellent location for large wind farms. Have a look at this to see what we can do (and keep in mind that we can keep existing nuclear going until they are end of life): kzbin.info/www/bejne/j3uQeZ-voLJkgrc

[@charlesbeaudry3263]

@@raymondleury2041 PS I went through the presentation and intuitively I sense there are serious issues with their analysis. However I am not able to find a proper critique of their work on the web so I will need to analyze it myself in more detail. But I can tell you they are showing some shiny objects, which I suspect are meant to mislead you in your reasoning. In any event more study is needed before I can conclude anything.

[@charlesbeaudry3263]

@@raymondleury2041 PPS check out this site en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor to convince yourself these guys a gaslighting you.

[@billyehh]

As a sailor I can tell you that the wind does not blow very much on Lake Ontario in July and August.

[@raymondleury2041]

The previous Ontario government did have a plan to replace Pickering. Problem is that DoFo cancelled all the projects needed to make up for the shortfall. The SMR at Darlington will produce electricity at 16 cents/kWh and that is at current "optimistic" costs that don't take into account possible cost overuns that are very likely given that this would be the first of it's type. Green alternatives would cost 5 cents/kWh (that is what Alberta is getting out of their new wind farms that are being installed now). We could build wind farms much faster and closer to market than we can do nuclear. There is no reason to pursue nuclear other than lobbyists who are pushing their own self interest.

[@overkill338lm2]

The plan to replace Pickering was Darlington B, which Wynne cancelled when the price went nuts for the two FOAK ACR1000's that were supposed to be built there. Wind produces grossly out of phase with demand in Ontario Raymond, in fact, had wind been paid market rate rather than on fixed rate contracts, which include compensation for curtailment, our wind fleet would be a small fraction of the 5GW it sits at currently. This is because it drives down the market value by producing when nobody needs the power, which results in us dumping its output on the US market for a small fraction of what we pay for its contracted output. Paid market rate, its capacity would have been self-limiting as installation would have stalled once it started tanking value. At 3.1GW, Pickering manages to out-produce our 5GW wind fleet by 5x during the peak demand summer months. During the two week period of June 26th through July 9th, 2019, during a heat wave, our wind fleet managed a 6.87% capacity factor, with an average output of 340MW while Pickering was at 10x that at full nameplate. I track Ontario's wind output, and have for years, feel free to follow me on twitter at @cadlam, where I post this data, and is likely a better venue to be having this conversation.

[@spencerleava2502]

Naw, the issue with wind is that it's intermittent and is costly to integrate into the grid at large scale. Yeah, the LCOE may be 5 cents a kwh, but when you factor in curtailments, negative rates, backup sources/storage, and grid alterations it becomes a lot less cheap. Yeah, Ford has his problems. I actually declined my ballot rather than vote for him, but cancelling those wind projects was the right call. Even today Ontario has to buy electricity we dont need from wind producers, and then pay other provinces/states to take it.

[@iareid8255]

Raymond, wind is never cheap when all cost are added up. Also remember you need as much alternative generation capacity as installed wind capacity. It's not a viable option.