environmental & social impacts lessons learned
Q & A references links
Power Point Presentation
|
|
|
environmental & social impacts lessons learned Q & A references links Power Point Presentation |
Results
Alternatives to the
Project
The result of the screening
process identified Nuclear Power generation as the optimal choice for the
project. It was acknowledged as being able to meet, with the potential to
exceed, the demand for energy in the province of Ontario in a manner that is
consistent with the IPSP (OntarioÕs Integrated Power System Plan).
The Refurbishment of existing
units at the Bruce B site was not viewed as a suitable alternative to the
project for the reasons below:
(1)
The
25 to 30 year life of a refurbished Bruce B station is less than half of the
60-year life of the Project. Accordingly refurbishment of Bruce B does not meet
the timeline of the Project.
(2)
Refurbishment
of Bruce B would occur over approximately six years. Beginning in 2016, the
electricity generating capacity of the Bruce Power site would be reduced by at
least 800 MW as each of the four Bruce B units are taken off-line. In contrast,
the Project could make up for this reduction in electricity generating capacity
and maintain the site output at 6,300 MW through substituting for the Bruce B
units as they come off-line starting in 2016.
(3)
Costs
of refurbishing reactors are similar to the construction cost for new reactors.
The estimated cost of refurbishing CANDU units runs from $2,100 to $2,800 per
kilowatt of installed capacity [1463, 1467, 1466]. This is similar to the
capital cost assumed for new reactors ($2,868 per kilowatt of installed
capacity), although new units would operate for at least twice the time period.
(4)
The
electricity generating capacity of the refurbished Bruce B station is
approximately 3,200 MW. This limits the total electricity generating capacity
of the Bruce Power site to 6,300 MW and removes the opportunity to increase the
output from the site in the event that additional base load electricity is
required at some time in the future.
(Bruce, 2008a)
Alternative Means of
carrying out the Project
The Alternative
project Scenarios are selected as follows:
Alternative Project Scenario 1
– Air-insulated Switchyard
Alternative Project Scenario 1
differs from the Reference Project only by including the use of air insulated
switchyard technology. Air-insulated switchyards have a relatively large
footprint since open air is providing the insulating medium. This widely used
switchyard technology is currently the standard design in Ontario and is in
operation at Bruce A and Bruce B.
Alternative Project Scenario 2
– Dry Storage Facility
Alternative
Project Scenario 2 assumes that there will be an interim period of dry storage
for used fuel prior to transferring used fuel to the national long-term
management facility operated by the NWMO. In this case, dry storage of used
fuel will be either located at the WWMF, or additional capacity will be
constructed and operated on the Bruce Power site for either CANDU fuel bundles,
or the larger light water reactor fuel assemblies.
Alternative Project Scenario 3
– Low and Intermediate-level Waste Facility
This alternative will involve
construction and operation of a dedicated waste management building for the
ProjectÕs low and intermediate-level waste. Alternative Project Scenario 3 will
be implemented if it is not possible to store low and intermediate-level waste
at the existing WWMF at the Bruce Power site.
Alternative Project Scenario 4
– Site B
Alternative Project Scenario 4
involves the siting of the Project at Site B. Site B is located adjacent to
Bruce B, on lands partially occupied by office buildings (Figure 4.8.2-1). This
Alternative Project Scenario will involve works and activities that are largely
bounded by the Reference Project. The Project will involve
the same condenser cooling system, switchyard design and radioactive waste
management
systems
that comprise the Reference Project.
Alternative Project Scenario 5
– Site C with Mechanical Draft Cooling Towers
Alternative Project Scenario 5
involves the construction and operation of mechanical draft cooling towers for
the cooling needs of the plant, as described in Section 5.4.2.5. Mechanically
driven fans that are powered by the power plant will dissipate heat to the
atmosphere in place of once-through cooling. This alternative is located at
Site C due to the additional area necessary to site the cooling towers adjacent
to
the power block (Figure 4.8.2-1).
Although cooling towers require make-up water and discharge some heat to the
lake with blowdown, this Alternative Project Scenario will greatly reduce the
heat load to Lake Huron in comparison with the use of a once-through cooling
system. Cooling tower systems will require a relatively larger land area to
provide the cooling capacity for the Project.
Alternative Project Scenario 6
– Site D with Once-through Cooling
Alternative Project Scenario 6
involves the siting of the Project at Site D (Figure 4.8.2-1). Site D is
located on the site of the former Bruce heavy water plant, which is currently
in the final stages of decommissioning activities. This Alternative Project
Scenario will involve works and activities that are largely bounded by the
Reference Project. The Project will involve the same condenser cooling system,
switchyard design, and radioactive waste management systems that comprise the
Reference Project.
(Bruce, 2008a)
The chosen alternative means for
the reference project and their characteristics are as follows:
-
Reactor
Design Bounding Plant Envelope
-
Situated
on Site A
-
Once
through cooling strategy
-
Switchyard
design – Indoor SF6, synchronizing breakers and SF6 circuit
breakers
-
On-site
storage of used fuel by extended wet storage in the reactor used fuels bays
Figure A3 portrays the characteristics of
the selected Reference Project.
Figure
A3
The results of the comparison of alternatives (see Table A4
above) revealed that alternative scenario 4 and 6 scored the
highest, with scenario 6 ranking the highest out of all scenarios.