Skyscraper Ad

Sign. Minute Muffler

Signature Ad

Signature Ad

Sky - City Fire Pre #5

Big Box - Easier Ways

News
Click here to see more
Subscribe
Community Calendar
Click here for full listings.
Poll
Polls are not available.
Polls are not available.
View Results Past Polls
User Submitted Photo Gallery
Submit Your Own Photos
2014-06-18 at 11:22

Nipigon withdraws from nuclear waste storage site selection process

By tbnewswatch.com
91.5 CKPRWin a backyard BBQ valued at over $1500 with Your At Play Station, 91.5 CKPRClick here

NIPIGON, Ont. -- This small Northern Ontario town is no longer considering storing nuclear waste.

Town council decided to step away from the process following a meeting Tuesday night. Nipigon was one of several Northwestern Ontario communities being considered by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization as potential sites for nuclear waste storage.

“We have chosen to withdraw from the site selection process,” said Nipigon Mayor Richard Harvey.  “But we’ve made it clear that we still desire and still believe it’s important to make sure that information is flowing and that the people of our community and area know what is happening with the Nuclear Waste Management Organization.”

The decision from Nipigon town  council comes on the heels of a presentation to Terrace Bay Council Monday night by a group opposed to nuclear waste storage in this region.

Of the communities in this region showing interest in potentially storing nuclear waste, Nipigon is the first to officially withdraw from the selection process.

(CKPR Radio)

Click here to submit a letter to the editor.

Click here to report a typo or error

Tbnewswatch.com(20)

iCar

Comments

We've improved our comment system.
iceman says:
Southern Ontario made the waste, they can keep it
6/18/2014 11:31:19 AM
unknowncronik says:
downtown Toronto would be the best place for all this nuclear waste...

bury some of it under one of the new concrete foundations or even under one of the many new roadways/subway lines they are building...
6/18/2014 11:37:31 AM
dockboy says:
I thank you, my daughters thank you , my grandchildren thank you ..................
6/18/2014 11:48:46 AM
j_northey says:
As communities register that the risk is far higher than the benefit it'll be interesting to see what they do with this waste. The PC's wanted to build more, the Liberals debated it (and continue to). Be sure to let Mauro & Gravelle (our MPP's) know you don't want to see any more nuclear power - cheaper and cleaner to import water power from Quebec and Manitoba.
6/18/2014 12:44:39 PM
dynamiter says:
There is very little risk - why live in Southern Ontario where the Nukes are and where they are storing this stuff on site? Even the risks of transporting this stuff is very low especially when compared to gasoline, propane, and a whole bunch of more volatile dangerous goods that goes through our communities daily on rail cars and transport trucks. It is about time that NIMBY's got real - Nuclear power is the cheapest and most environmentally friendly form of energy that we can generate and that is with a whole bunch of inefficiencies built in.
6/18/2014 2:13:52 PM
dman31029 says:
I admittedly don't know a whole lot about the subject so I don't currently have an opinion on this. However, I think many others with my level of knowledge read the word nuclear and immediately say "nope, no way, never" etc. The word is what scares many people more than anything
6/18/2014 4:02:04 PM
sg-girl says:
More environmentally friendly than wind or solar energy??? While the risk may be low, what would be the impact of a transportation or storage mishap so close to Lake Superior - the largest source of fresh water in the world? What's clean drinking water worth to you?
6/18/2014 5:19:58 PM
dynamiter says:
You must be an expert. It is vbeing proposed away from Lake Superior. Where do you think this stuff is being stored right now? How about on the shore of Lake Ontario in Pickering Ontario. We are talking about encasing this stuff deep in the ground in an old mine. There is more lethal stuff being put into transport trucks and rail cars every day. Every KWH of extremely expensive wind and solar needs to be supported by an equal amount of conventional power for when the sun doesnt shine and the wind doesnt blow, until we can find a way of mass storage of power.
6/19/2014 6:24:30 AM
electrical_tesla says:
Incredibly more environmentally friendly. Do you even know the amount of hazardous waste that is generated from making solar panels? How about the amount of oil needed to make a single windfarm? These sources do not provide enough power for sustainability. That leaves coal and natural gas plants. Comparing energy density here are your options:
Nuclear: 80,000,000 MJ/kg
Coal: 24 MJ/kg
Natural Gas: 46 MJ/kg
Which do you think is a better option?

Also this doesnt take into account power density which is typically measured in W/m^2.
Wind: 15 W/m^2 (peak performance)
Solar: 200 W/m^2 (peak)
Nuclear: 2500 W/m^2
These numbers are raw, taking into account efficiency its more like
Wind: 3 W/m^2
Solar: 30 W/m^2
Nuclear: 2000 W/m^2

Now these numbers for nuclear are for nuclear fission. If we were able to reproduce nuclear FUSION (what stars do - two helium atoms = 1 hydrogen, etc) then your looking at roughly 339,000,000 MJ/m^2 fusing helium... you know, the stuff in kids balloons.
6/21/2014 5:04:08 PM
unheard says:
I remember way back in grade school a teacher told us about this
Mr. Harris made a deal with the united states to lets southern ontario dump their regular trash in the american dumps and then they in return can store/dump their nuclear waste in the canadian shield
6/18/2014 7:33:24 PM
pc says:
I personally see no problem with nuclear power. I would prefer Niagara Falls be utilized more for power but Nuclear is quite safe. I know quite a few people who live near the plants and work in the plants.
They don't glow in the dark and can even cross the border without being stopped.
Some day the protesters will get their way and we will be back to horse and buggies and rush lights.
Oh couldn't do that cruelty to animals.
Well I guess it will be your own 2 feet.
Rush lights are made with fat from pigs or cows so that will also be out. We will all be vegetarians.
So rise with the sun and go to bed with it as well.
Won't that be fun.
6/18/2014 7:46:32 PM
Blah blah says:
Nuclear energy is by far the cleanest and safest way to produce energy. The power plants gas and coal generate more harmful emissions than nuclear ever will. A disaster may contaminate an area for a very long time but we are all feeling some effects from other forms of energy production. If an area becomes contaminated, I guess you could just move. Coal, oil, gas, waste goes in our air and we all breathe that.
6/18/2014 8:16:38 PM
Jeannied says:
Yes, you know, you have a really good point there. The word nuclear IS what freaks people out!
Not the fact that spent fuel is lethal to humans and all life forms for 250 000 years. Nope.

P.s. The plants cost billions upon billions to construct, and the cost to maintain waste for hundreds of generations is innumerable.
Not sure that exactly constitutes "cheap"
6/19/2014 12:31:54 AM
electrical_tesla says:
That same fuel can be reused in a breeder reactor. 250000 years? Where did you get that number? You must be a nuclear engineer. Billions and billions to construct? LOL how much do you think wind farms, solar farms and current power plants cost?
6/21/2014 5:13:18 PM
jimbob100 says:
Now we just need Schreiber to follow suit!!! they already took a lump sum pymt in order to be one of the newest nuclear waste sites in beautiful Northern Ontario....Someone please tell them to wake up!!
6/19/2014 7:04:18 AM
k_gilbert says:
True, the word Nuclear can be terrifying to those who do not understand it. I can admit that creating Nuclear energy is much more clean than coal, oil or gas. That doesn't mean it's safe.

Control. That's the only way Nuclear Plants can be safe. But once you lose control you cannot regain it. This is the same for the waste. Storing the waste in a repository lacks control. If (and some people say when) something goes wrong, there is little to no chance of fixing the mistake.

Something needs to be done with the waste and it needs to be decided by everyone, not just the companies who produce the waste.






6/19/2014 8:34:01 AM
thundereye says:
Mankind has not invented a storage container that lasts 250,ooo years. Why are they continually generating waste that cannot be dealt with. Seems really stupid. The pyramids are only 5k plus years.
6/19/2014 9:39:46 AM
chbaker says:
Nuclear power is the dirtiest most dangerous way of producing electricity known to man.
Any time something happens, great swaths of the Earth are toxic and no longer habitable by humans. ..Or life.


Trains derail all the time.
But when a train derails, carrying a load of nuclear waste from Pickering to Ignace, wherever that train spilled (and it WILL) there will be a dead zone in that area for tens of thousands of years.

I do NOT want Lake Superior to become a nuclear dead zone like Chernobyl, Fukishima.

NO NUCLEAR WASTE BY THE LAKES!!!!
6/19/2014 1:05:29 PM
dynamiter says:
Maybe you should go and visit Fukushima, Chornobyl, Nagaski and Hiroshima ( they were bombed). You will find trees growing and life going on. It is highly unlikely that these shipping containers would break open in the event of an accident. I wonder how many nuclear warheads have been moved across Canada and the US by highway. How do you think that these things get to their missile bases? How many cities and towns are brown desolate places because of accidents? You are really being a drama queen. This stuff is being stored on site - your lights are still going on because of nukes and you are breathing cleaner air. Deal with it.
6/19/2014 4:06:24 PM
electrical_tesla says:
The fear of nuclear power is based on technology that was invented in the 1950's... These reactors designs are quite old, inefficient (relative to new designs) and have safety issues. The main issue is its ability to meltdown.

The way nuclear power is generated is by having a closed loop boiler system. The nuclear fuel produces heat as a byproduct of nuclear decay. this heat is used to boil water to create steam. This steam is then fed into a turbine to spin a magnet around a conductor inducing a voltage thereby producing power. The rate of decay is controlled with neutron poison material that limits the number of nuclear reactions. That nuclear power in a nutshell.

New reactor designs will actually breed new fuel from spent fuel (wiki breeder reactor) and leave nuclear fuel inert. They are also unable to meltdown. ever.

We do not have the capacity to provide power to our growing population with green power alone. Nuclear is the future and it is renewable with a breeder reactor.
6/19/2014 3:33:50 PM
Comments for this story are semi-moderated. Read our comment guideline.

Add a new comment.
You must log in to add comments.
Create a new account
Forgot password?
Log In