DOCSLIB.ORG

Comparative Life Cycle Analysis of Base Load Electricity in Ontario

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Comparative Life Cycle Analysis of Base Load Electricity in Ontario [Type text] Canadian Energy Research Institute Comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Base Load Electricity Generation in Ontario Seyed Jazayeri Paul Kralovic Afshin Honarvar Abbas Naini Jon Rozhon Rami Shabaneh Thorn Walden Prepared for the Canadian Nuclear Association October 2008 Relevant • Independent • Objective COMPARATIVE LIFE CYLE ASESSMENT (LCA) OF BASE LOAD ELECTRICITY GENERATION IN ONTARIO ii Canadian Energy Research Institute v TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES..........................................................................................................IX LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................XI ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..............................................................................................XIII EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................. XV ES1.1 Background .........................................................................................................xv ES1.2 Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................xv ES1.3 Methodology........................................................................................................xv ES1.4 The Process LCA ................................................................................................. xvi ES2 Power Generation in Canada ................................................................................ xvi ES3 Nuclear industry in Canada.................................................................................. xvii ES4.1 Life Cycle Methodology and Definitions................................................................ xviii ES4.2 Electricity Generation in Ontario............................................................................ xix ES4.3 Life Cycle Inventory of Pollutants...........................................................................xx ES5 Reliability, Safety and Security............................................................................ xxiii ES6 Conclusions ...................................................................................................... xxiii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................1 1.1 Background .......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................. 1 1.3 Methodology......................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Literature Review .................................................................................................. 2 1.4.1 Background of LCA ........................................................................................... 2 1.4.2 ISO LCA Standards ........................................................................................... 3 1.4.3 Various LCA Modeling Approaches...................................................................... 3 1.4.3.1 Process Model .......................................................................................... 4 1.4.3.2 Economic Input-Output Model ................................................................... 4 1.4.3.3 Hybrid LCA............................................................................................... 4 1.4.4 Sources and Software for Conducting LCA .......................................................... 5 1.4.5 LCA Studies for Electricity.................................................................................. 6 1.5 Data Requirements................................................................................................ 8 1.6 Report Structure.................................................................................................... 8 CHAPTER 2 POWER GENERATION IN CANADA ..............................................................9 2.1 Power Generation During 1971-2005....................................................................... 9 2.1.1 Power Generation: World and Regional Share ..................................................... 9 2.1.2 Power Generation: Sources of Electricity Generation in Canada........................... 12 2.1.3 Power Generation: TEO and Population Growth................................................. 13 2.1.4 Power Generation: TEO and GDP growth.......................................................... 15 2.2 Concluding Remarks ............................................................................................ 17 CHAPTER 3 NUCLEAR POWER IN CANADA...................................................................19 3.1 World Nuclear Power and Uranium Consumption.................................................... 19 3.2 Nuclear Electricity in Canada ................................................................................ 23 3.3 “Front End” Nuclear Activities in Canada................................................................ 27 3.3.1 The Uranium Mining Industry in Canada ........................................................... 27 3.3.2 Uranium Refining, Conversion and Enrichment .................................................. 31 3.3.3 Fuel Fabrication.............................................................................................. 31 3.4 Concluding Remarks ............................................................................................ 32 CHAPTER 4 ELECTRICITY GENERATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT .............................35 4.1 Life Cycle Methodology and Definitions.................................................................. 36 4.1.1 Goal Definition and Scope ............................................................................... 37 4.1.2 Life Cycle Inventory Analysis (LCI) ................................................................... 41 4.1.3 Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) ............................................................... 41 October 2008 vi Comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Base Load Electricity Generation in Ontario 4.1.4 Life Cycle Interpretation.................................................................................. 42 4.2 Methodological Framework for Life Cycle Inventory ................................................ 42 4.3 Application of LCA to Alternate Sources of Electricity in Ontario ............................... 42 4.3.1 Generation of Nuclear Electricity in Ontario....................................................... 42 4.3.1.1 Data...................................................................................................... 44 4.3.1.2 Life Cycle Inventory (LCI)........................................................................ 47 4.3.2 Coal-Fired Electricity Generation in Ontario ....................................................... 48 4.3.2.1 Data...................................................................................................... 50 4.3.3 Natural Gas-Fired Electricity Generation in Ontario ............................................ 53 4.3.3.1 Data...................................................................................................... 56 4.3.3.2 Life Cycle Inventory (LCI)........................................................................ 59 4.4 Conclusion.......................................................................................................... 62 CHAPTER 5 RELIABILITY, SAFETY AND SECURITY ISSUES IN ELECTRICITY GENERATION................................................................................................................65 5.1 Reliability............................................................................................................ 65 5.2 Safety and Security Issues Regarding Nuclear, Natural Gas, and Coal ...................... 69 5.2.1 Nuclear.......................................................................................................... 69 5.2.1.1 Uranium Mining: Occupational Hazards and Environmental Impacts ............ 70 5.2.1.2 Comparative Safety Analysis .................................................................... 75 5.2.1.3 Canadian Regulations on Power Plants and Spent Fuel Management ........... 78 5.2.1.4 Terrorism Threats to Nuclear Power ......................................................... 80 5.2.2 Natural Gas.................................................................................................... 82 5.2.2.1 Production: Occupational Hazards and Public Safety Issues ........................ 82 5.2.2.2 Transmission Lines: Safety and Security Issues ......................................... 86 5.2.2.3 Distribution: Occupation Hazards and Public Safety Issues ......................... 86 5.2.3 Coal .............................................................................................................. 94 5.2.3.1 Coal Mining: Occupational Hazards........................................................... 94 5.2.3.2 Coal Mining: Environmental Impacts......................................................... 97 5.2.3.3 Coal Combustion: Public Safety & Environmental Impact............................ 98 5.3 Concluding Remarks ...........................................................................................100 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS.........................................................................................103
Load more

Recommended publications
  • View Annual Report
    The Future is Nuclear 2005 ANNUAL REPORT Bridging the Gene Producing affordable, clean energy while achieving a sustainable balance between increasing electricity demand and environmental stewardship – this is the promise and potential of a future powered by nuclear energy. It’s why a new generation is opting for nuclear as a reliable and secure energy choice. Cameco is poised and ready to support the new generation. We are a company with the expertise and capacity to deliver the benefits of nuclear energy – starting right now. As the world’s largest uranium producer, Cameco already provides about 20% of global uranium production from the richest mines on the planet. We are also expanding our production by developing two new mines. The company is looking ration Gap to the long-term nuclear future, seeking new reserves OUR PROFILE through a global exploration program with emphasis Cameco, with its head office in in North America and Australia. In nuclear fuel Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, is the production, Cameco has 38% of the western world’s world’s largest uranium producer UF6 conversion capacity, and provides conversion as well as a significant supplier of services and fuel fabrication for Candu reactors. conversion services. The company’s Power production rounds out Cameco’s nuclear competitive position is based on its focus, with 1,000 MW of nuclear power in Ontario. controlling ownership of the world’s largest high-grade reserves and low- A new generation, attentive to the wisdom of cost operations. Cameco’s uranium scientists, environmentalists and consumers, products are used to generate clean understands the future is nuclear.
    [Show full text]
  • + 2020 Annual Information Form
    Denison Mines Corp. 2020 Annual Information Form March 26, 2021 ABOUT THIS ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM This annual information form (“AIF”) is dated March 26, Table of Contents 2021. Unless stated otherwise, all of the information in this AIF is stated as at December 31, 2020. About this AIF .................................... 1 About Denison ................................... 6 This AIF has been prepared in accordance with Canadian Developments over the Last Three securities laws and contains information regarding Years ................................................. 8 Denison’s history, business, mineral reserves and The Uranium Industry ........................ 17 resources, the regulatory environment in which Denison Mineral Resources and Reserves 24 does business, the risks that Denison faces and other Mineral Properties ............................. 27 important information for Shareholders. Athabasca Exploration: Sampling, Analysis and Data Verification ........... 102 This AIF incorporates by reference: Denison Operations ........................... 107 Manager of UPC ................................ 111 Denison’s management discussion and analysis (“MD&A”) for the year ended December 31, 2020, Denison Closed Mines Group ........... 112 Environmental, Health, Safety and Denison’s audited consolidated financial Sustainability Matters ........................ 112 statements for the year ended December 31, 2020, Government Regulation .................... 114 Risk Factors ...................................... 120 both of which
    [Show full text]
  • 20170828-Jason-Cameron-Nuclear-Infrastructure-Council-Eng.Pdf
    THE CANADIAN NUCLEAR SAFETY COMMISSION PRESENTATION TO THE USNIC TRADE MISSION TO CANADA Jason Cameron, Vice-President Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission nuclearsafety.gc.ca August 28, 2017 – Ottawa, Ontario Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission • Regulates the use of nuclear energy and materials to protect health, safety, security and the environment • Implements Canada's international commitments on the peaceful use of nuclear energy • Disseminates objective scientific, technical and regulatory information to the public Canada’s nuclear watchdog We will never compromise safety! Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission 2 Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission • Established in May 2000, under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act • Replaced the Atomic Energy and Control Board (AECB) under the 1946 Atomic Energy Control Act More than 70 years of ensuring nuclear safety Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission 3 CNSC Regulates All Nuclear-Related Facilities and Activities • Uranium mines and mills • Uranium fuel fabrication and processing • Nuclear power plants • Nuclear substance processing • Industrial and medical applications • Nuclear research and educational activities • Transportation of nuclear substances • Nuclear security and safeguards • Export/import control • Waste management facilities …From cradle to grave Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission 4 Independent Commission • Quasi-judicial administrative tribunal • Agent of the Government of Canada (the Crown) • Reports to Parliament through Minister of Natural Resources • Commission members are independent and part-time • Commission hearings are public and Webcast • All presentations, including staff’s, are public • Decisions can only be reviewed by Federal Court Transparent, science-based decision-making Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission 5 Our Commission Members Dr. Michael Binder President and Chief Executive Officer, CNSC (Term expires May 8, 2018) Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Presentation to the Canadian Association of Nuclear Host Communities
    CANADIAN NUCLEAR SAFETY COMMISSION nuclearsafety.gc.ca Michael Binder President and Chief Executive Officer Presentation to the Canadian Association of Nuclear Host Communities February 21, 2018 – Ottawa, Ontario nuclearsafety.gc.ca eDOCS: 5437640 The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) Our Mandate Regulates the use of nuclear energy and materials to protect health, safety, and security and the environment Implements Canada's international commitments on the peaceful use of nuclear energy Disseminates objective scientific, technical and regulatory information to the public We will never compromise safety 2 nuclearsafety.gc.ca The CNSC Regulates All Nuclear Facilities And Activities In Canada Uranium mines and mills Nuclear research and educational activities Uranium fuel fabrication and processing Transportation of nuclear substances Nuclear power plants Nuclear security and safeguards Nuclear substance processing Import and export controls Industrial and medical applications Waste management facilities 3 nuclearsafety.gc.ca CNSC Staff Located Across Canada Fiscal year 2017–18 Human resources: 857 full-time equivalents Financial resources: $148 million (~70% cost recovery; ~30% appropriation) Licensees: 1,700 Licences: 2,500 Headquarters (HQ) in Ottawa 4 site offices at power plants Saskatoon Calgary 1 site office at Chalk River 4 regional offices Chalk River HQ Point Lepreau Laval Bruce Darlington Mississauga Pickering 4 nuclearsafety.gc.ca Independent Commission • Quasi-judicial administrative tribunal • Agent of the Crown (duty to consult) • Reports to Parliament through Minister of Natural Resources • Commission members are independent and part-time • Commission hearings are public and Webcast • Staff presentations in public • Decisions are reviewable by Federal Court Transparent, science-based decision making 5 nuclearsafety.gc.ca Commission Members Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Denison Mines Corp
    Denison Mines Corp. 2019 Annual Information Form March 13, 2020 ABOUT THIS ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM This annual information form (“AIF”) is dated March 13, Table of Contents 2020. Unless stated otherwise, all of the information in About this AIF .................................... 1 this AIF is stated as at December 31, 2019. About Denison ................................... 5 Developments over the Last Three This AIF has been prepared in accordance with Canadian Years ................................................. 7 The Uranium Industry ........................ 15 securities laws and contains information regarding Denison’s history, business, mineral reserves and Mineral Resources and Reserves 22 resources, the regulatory environment in which Denison Mineral Properties ............................. 26 does business, the risks that Denison faces and other Athabasca Exploration: Sampling, important information for Shareholders. Analysis and Data Verification ........... 88 Denison Operations ........................... 94 This AIF incorporates by reference: Manager of UPC ................................ 99 Denison Closed Mines Group ........... 99 Denison’s management discussion and analysis (“MD&A”) for the year ended December 31, 2019, Environmental, Health and Safety Matters .............................................. 100 which is available under the Company’s profile on Government Regulation .................... 102 SEDAR (www.sedar.com) and on EDGAR Risk Factors ...................................... 107 (www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml)
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear France Abroad History, Status and Prospects of French Nuclear Activities in Foreign Countries
    Mycle Schneider Consulting Independent Analysis on Energy and Nuclear Policy 45, allée des deux cèdres Tél: 01 69 83 23 79 91210 Draveil (Paris) Fax: 01 69 40 98 75 France e-mail: [email protected] Nuclear France Abroad History, Status and Prospects of French Nuclear Activities in Foreign Countries Mycle Schneider International Consultant on Energy and Nuclear Policy Paris, May 2009 This research was carried out with the support of The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada (www.cigionline.org) V5 About the Author Mycle Schneider works as independent international energy nuclear policy consultant. Between 1983 and April 2003 Mycle Schneider was executive director of the energy information service WISE-Paris. Since 2000 he has been an advisor to the German Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Reactor Safety. Since 2004 he has also been in charge of the Environment and Energy Strategies Lecture of the International Master of Science for Project Management for Environmental and Energy Engineering at the French Ecole des Mines in Nantes, France. In 2007 he was appointed as a member of the International Panel on Fissile Materials (IPFM), based at Princeton University, USA (www.fissilematerials.org). In 2006-2007 Mycle Schneider was part of a consultants’ consortium that assessed nuclear decommissioning and waste management funding issues on behalf of the European Commission. In 2005 he was appointed as nuclear security specialist to advise the UK Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM). Mycle Schneider has given evidence and held briefings at Parliaments in Australia, Belgium, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Switzerland, UK and at the European Parliament.
    [Show full text]
  • ACCIDENTS, LEAKS, FAILURES and OTHER INCIDENTS in the NUCLEAR INDUSTRIAL and MILITARY 1. 1947, October
    ACCIDENTS, LEAKS, FAILURES AND OTHER INCIDENTS IN THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRIAL AND MILITARY 1. 1947, October - U.S.A., ATLANTIC OCEAN A retired navy pilot Lieutenant-Commander George Earl IV has claimed that he dumped radioactive Waste off the Atlantic seaboard on three flights in 1947. Lt-Commander Earl said he disclosed the radioactive dumping because of the U.S. Government's apparent lack of concern over the possibility of the cannisters leaking. ("The West Australian" - 3rd January 1981) 2. 1950, 13th February - U.S.A., PACIFIC OCEAN A B-36 which developed serious mechanical difficulties on a simulated combat mission, dropped a nuclear weapon from 8,000 ft. over the Pacific Ocean before crashing. Luckily only the weapon's explosive material detonated. Nothing is known of attempts to recover the nuclear weapon and presumably it is still in the ocean. (The Defence Monitor Vol.X No.5 1981 Washington D.C. "The National Times" 15th March 1981) 3. 1950, 11th April - NEW MEXICO, U.S.A. A B-29 crashed into a mountain on Manzano Base approximately three minutes after take-off. The bomb case was demolished and some high explosive material burned. The nuclear components of the weapon were recovered and returned to the Atomic Energy Commission. (The Defence Monitor - Vol.X No.5 19981 Washington D.C. "The National Times" 15th March 1981) 4. 1950, 13th Jul. - OHIO, U.S.A. A B-50 on training mission crashed killing 16 crewmen. The high explosive portion of the weapon aboard detonated on impact. No nuclear capsule aboard the aircraft.
    [Show full text]
  • Ucalgary 2016 Madhavan Dayal.Pdf
    University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2016 How to Overcome the Challenges in In-situ Decommissioning of the Above Ground Tailings Management Facility? Madhavan, Dayal Madhavan, D. (2016). How to Overcome the Challenges in In-situ Decommissioning of the Above Ground Tailings Management Facility? (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/26396 http://hdl.handle.net/11023/3115 master thesis University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY How to Overcome the Challenges in In-situ Decommissioning of the Above Ground Tailings Management Facility? By Dayal Madhavan A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ENGINEERING GRADUATE PROGRAM IN CIVIL ENGINEERING CALGARY, ALBERTA July, 2016 © Dayal Madhavan 2016 Abstract This thesis focused on the challenges related to the in-situ decommissioning of the above ground tailings management facility (AGTMF) at Cameco’s Key Lake Uranium Milling and Mining Operations. The uranium tailings stored in the AGTMF from 1983 to 1998 could adversely affect the regional biota and public health as the tailings. Significant uncertainties also exist in regards to the ultimate long-term storage of uranium mine tailings as the timescales involved are relatively long (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Ontario Uranium Miners Cohort Study Report
    Ontario Uranium Miners Cohort Study Report Prepared for: The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission February 2015 Prepared by: The Occupational Cancer Research Centre, Cancer Care Ontario 1 Ontario Uranium Miners Cohort Study Feb. 2015 ACKNOWLEGEMENTS This update of the Ontario Uranium Miners Cohort was conducted by the Occupational Cancer Research Centre (OCRC) with funding from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. This report was prepared by Garthika Navaranjan, Colin Berriault, and Paul A. Demers from the OCRC and Minh Do, currently with the Public Health Agency of Canada and Paul Villeneuve from Carleton University. Loraine Marrett and John McLaughlin played key roles in the development of this cohort and the initiation of this project. Thanks are due to the staff of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for their scientific comments and suggestions on the report. Special thanks are due to Robert Semenciw of the Public Health Agency of Canada who assisted with Canadian mortality and cancer incidence rates and to Douglas Chambers for his valuable insights and suggestions. Ontario Uranium Miners Cohort Study Feb. 2015 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................... i 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Canadian Uranium Mining History ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
    CANADIAN NUCLEAR SAFETY COMMISSION Jason K. Cameron Vice-President, Regulatory Affairs, and Chief Communications Officer NARUC Summer Policy Summit – Committee on International Relations July 15, 2018 – Scottsdale, Arizona OUR MANDATE 2 Regulate the use of nuclear energy and materials to protect health, safety, and security and the environment Implement Canada's international commitments on the peaceful use of nuclear energy Disseminate objective scientific, technical and regulatory information to the public Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission – nuclearsafety.gc.ca THE CNSC REGULATES ALL NUCLEAR FACILITIES 3 AND ACTIVITIES IN CANADA Uranium mines Uranium fuel Nuclear power Nuclear substance Industrial and and mills fabrication and plants processing medical applications processing Nuclear research Transportation of Nuclear security Import and Waste management and educational nuclear substances and safeguards export controls facilities activities Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission – nuclearsafety.gc.ca CNSC STAFF LOCATED ACROSS CANADA 4 Headquarters (HQ) in Ottawa Four site offices at power plants One site office at Chalk River Four regional offices Fiscal year 2017–18 • Human resources: 857 full-time equivalents • Financial resources: $148 million Saskatoon Calgary (~70% cost recovery; ~30% appropriation) • Licensees: 1,700 Chalk River HQ • Licences: 2,500 Point Lepreau Laval Bruce Darlington Mississauga Pickering Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission – nuclearsafety.gc.ca INDEPENDENT COMMISSION 5 TRANSPARENT, SCIENCE-BASED DECISION MAKING • Quasi-judicial administrative tribunal • Agent of the Crown (duty to consult) • Reports to Parliament through Minister of Natural Resources • Commission members are independent and part time • Commission hearings are public and Webcast • Staff presentations in public • Decisions are reviewable by Federal Court Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission – nuclearsafety.gc.ca THE CNSC’S NEW PRESIDENT 6 Ms.
    [Show full text]
  • Investors' Guide to Mining in Canada
    INVESTORS’ GUIDE TO MINING IN CANADA Mining English (Dec 2012 - new address)_Layout 1 07/12/2012 1:22 PM Page i At Davies, we focus on the matters that are the most important to our clients, in Canada and around the world. The more complex the challenge, the better. Our strength is our people, who blend proven experience, deep legal expertise and business sensibility to generate the outcomes you need. We measure our achievements by one simple standard: Your success. TORONTO MONTRÉAL NEW YORK DAVIES WARD PHILLIPS & VINEBERG LLP DAVIES WARD PHILLIPS & VINEBERG LLP DAVIES WARD PHILLIPS & VINEBERG LLP 155 WELLINGTON STREET WEST 1501 MCGILL COLLEGE AVENUE, 26TH FLOOR 900 THIRD AVENUE, 24TH FLOOR TORONTO ON CANADA M5V 3J7 MONTRÉAL QC CANADA H3A 3N9 NEW YORK NY U.S.A. 10022 TELEPHONE: 416.863.0900 TELEPHONE: 514.841.6400 TELEPHONE: 212.588.5500 FAX: 416.863.0871 FAX: 514.841.6499 FAX: 212.308.0132 Mining English (Dec 2012 - new address)_Layout 1 07/12/2012 1:22 PM Page iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 Mining in Canada The Canadian Legal System This Guide ACQUIRING CANADIAN MINING INTERESTS 5 Due Diligence Types of Acquisitions Other Considerations Relating to Mining Acquisitions OPTIONS AND JOINT VENTURES 11 Options to Acquire Mining Interests Joint Venture Arrangements TABLE 1 Comparison of Different Forms of Joint Ventures CONTENTS EXPLORATION AND MINING RIGHTS 17 Protection of Mining Rights Acquiring Mining Rights in Canada Mining Leases Surface Rights Taxes and Royalties Restrictions on Foreign Ownership The Exportation of Metals
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 19 Storage and Disposal of Irradiated Fuel Prepared by Mukesh Tayal and Milan Gacesa – Independent Consultants
    1 CHAPTER 19 Storage and Disposal of Irradiated Fuel prepared by Mukesh Tayal and Milan Gacesa – Independent Consultants Summary Nuclear wastes, in particular irradiated nuclear fuel, must be handled, stored, and placed into permanent disposal facilities safely to prevent harm to people and the environment. Radioactive wastes can be grouped into four classes: (i) low-level radioactive waste, (ii) intermediate-level radioactive waste, (iii) high-level radioactive waste such as irradiated nuclear fuel, and (iv) uranium mine and mill waste. Storage and disposal of irradiated fuel in Canada follows a three-step process: storage in water-cooled pools, storage in air-cooled storage cylinders, and final disposal. The two stages of storage (the first two steps above) are fully proven and have been in practical operation for some time. The associated technical challenges that must be addressed and the engineered solutions are discussed in this chapter. Several configurations for final disposal have been shown to be technically feasible. Public acceptance and implementation remain to be achieved; ongoing work aimed at achieving these goals is discussed. Nature’s “reactors” that existed billions of years ago are examined for useful analogies that can be applied to engineered disposal facilities. ©UNENE, all rights reserved. For educational use only, no assumed liability. Storage and Disposal of Irradiated Fuel – December 2015 2 The Essential CANDU Table of Contents 1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]