OVERALL CRITIQUE
Our team as decision-makers
As decision-makers, we would go forward with the project, based on our following conclusions:
-Nuclear energy is reliable -A nuclear power plant has a small carbon footprint -A nuclear power plant has a small geographical footprint -The CNSC overlooks all the processes related to nuclear ------------------energy -Nuclear energy benefits the industrial and medical fields -Low cost of electricity production For all of these reasons, we would approve the project, because we believe that the benefits do outweigh the costs in the end. However, for the project to go through, we have a number of recommendations that should be followed. |
Recommendations
- Use more adequate fish impingement prevention methods
- Make adequate cost-benefit analyses for cooling towers vs. water cooling
- Give more precise details on the management programs for traffic and nuisance impacts
- Ensure continuous public and aboriginal interactions
- Reassure the general public by being more specific on what type of reactor will be used
- Justify the use of nuclear energy to other alternate energy sources
- Better forecast energy needs :
From Analysis of New Nuclear: Darlington Environmental Impact Statement by Pembina Institute
"This EIS considers nuclear power as the only option and does not look at any alternative ways to meet the demand, an approach that stems from provincial directives issued in 2006. Since 2006, the assumptions surrounding nuclear power have changed significantly. It is increasingly clear that a portfolio of renewable energy, energy efficiency and combined heat and power (CHP) systems can provide a similar contribution to Ontario’s electricity needs, and should be considered as a functionally different way to meet the project need and achieve the intended purpose."
In this graph, the actual energy consumption is represented by the blue line. This graph also depicts two different predictions. The prediction of the future energy demand done by the Ontario Government is illustrated by the dotted red line and the prediction of the future energy demand done by an independent company is illustrated by the dotted green line. As we can see, there is a large difference between the two predictions. If OPG can prove to us that the future energy consumption will follow the red dotted line and not the green line, we will go forth with this project.
Consequently, more specifications on the necessity for the project would need to be provided and all our recommendations would need to be followed in order for us to allow the project to go forward.
To conclude our analysis, we will be critiquing the EIA of the New Darlington Project more in depth. More specifically, in the following sub-tabs, we will be focusing on what the proponent has done in regards to:
- The aquatic environment: the aquatic environment covered by the EIA and the impacts predicted
- The terrestrial environment: the terrestrial environment covered by the EIA and the impacts predicted
- The Social impacts and the effects on Aboriginal Community