Don't Nuke Green Energy: Stop Darlington

Instead of using affordable green energy to replace the Pickering reactors when they close in 2020, the McGuinty government wants to build new reactors at the Darlington site 60 km east of Toronto.

The cracks are showing in the government's nuclear plans, however. New reactors will cost $ 26 billion - $ 20 billion more than the nuclear industry promised just a few years ago.

A recent report by Renewable is Doable, which includes Greenpeace, the Pembina Institute and the Canadian Environmental Law Association, shows that it would be cheaper to expand Ontario's use of green energy than build expensive new reactors. You can read the report here: http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/recent/green-energy-plan/

Greenpeace projected cracks onto the dome of the Pickering nuclear station recently to expose the cracks in the government's nuclear plans and call for the government to replace the station with green energy.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• greenpeace
• projection
• nuclear
• renewable
• energy
• ontario
• darlington
• pickering
• candu
• Dalton
• McGuinty

[SingularMotionEV]

In addition to the photos - what exactly are they including as "Green Energy" on the graph at 1:34? Combined Heat and Power? And how can you quantify Efficiency as a source of green energy? And to "replace" nuclear, we would have to at least DOUBLE our current Hydro/Wind/Solar and Bio-burning facilities. What other negative affects is this going create? Where are we going to get another Niagara Falls from? Showing that we use some "green" energy doesn't correlate to replacing Nuclear at all.....

[CamiMj]

@baseballin4eva

elaborate.

[HelloHansSolo]

@essensiemeinehose Also in the same scene (0:50 - 0:53) you can see the inclined conveyor under the SMOKESTACK second from the left, which feeds coal from the coal field to the pulverizer, indicating it's specifically a coal plant and not a gas or oil one, and certainly not a nuclear one.

[HelloHansSolo]

@essensiemeinehose No, there are SMOKESTACKS there also, which nuclear plants don't have. Fossil plants do. That has nothing to do with the cooling towers, my original comment still stands. Why don't you learn the difference between a smokestack and cooling tower, dumbass.

[essensiemeinehose]

@HelloHansSolo So you agree that they are not smokestacks, they are cooling towers, and they are not exclusively characteristic of fossil fuel plants. You may also agree that they are probably from a nuclear plant as this video is about nuclear energy. Great, I'm glad we're on the same page.

And if nothing else comes of this, I'm happy to hear you finally took some time to find out what that "smokestack" was. Congrats.

[HelloHansSolo]

@essensiemeinehose Cooling towers can be on any thermal power plant dumbass, nuclear or fossil, they're not part of the nuclear side of the plant. They're used to cool the water coming out of the condensers, that condenses the steam after going through the turbine. When a thermal power plant isn't on a large body of water, they need cooling towers. When it is, they don't as they just use lake / ocean / large river water instead.

[essensiemeinehose]

@HelloHansSolo That most definitely is part of a nuclear plant. You would know this if you typed nuclear plant or nuclear reactor into any search engine. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they are called cooling towers.

[baseballin4eva]

Greenpeace= Stupid

[HelloHansSolo]

BTW at 0:52 , that's not even a nuclear plant. The smokestacks indicate it's a fossil plant. Idiots, do some research.

[HelloHansSolo]

Was green energy powering your projector? Didn't think so, you bunch of twits.