Alberta Goes Nuclear!

[Flash Walken]

Wow, I just read this crazily-timed article about a reactor in Vermont.

Hmm...

A cooling tower at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power plant has collapsed.

A broken 54" pipe there has spewed 350,000 gallons per minute of contaminated, overheated water into the Earth. "The river water piping and the series of screens and supports failed," said a company spokesman. They "fell to the ground."

The public and media were barred from viewing the wreckage for three days. But when a Congressional Energy Bill conference committee takes up Senate-approved loan guarantees for building new nukes this fall, what will reactor backers say about this latest pile of radioactive rubble?

This kind of event can make even hardened nuke opponents pinch themselves and read the descriptions twice. Who could make this up?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Almost 900 megawatts more than needed to power a Flux Capacitor.

Well sure, but that's assuming that a Jigawatt is about the same size as a gigawatt.

[Flash Walken]

Jigga-who?

[mykalberta]

Thats an interesting graph. I would have thought with the variable price of coal that it would have been more than nuclear. Its no wonder Alberta has stuck with Coal for all this time.

Is that slated to be the largest MW generator in Alberta - I think Genesse is currently but I dont think it exceeds 2K MW?

MYK

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by alltherage

Ya I don't really know enough to weigh in here, but I don't think the same risks are as predominant as when the Chernoble (sp?) disaster took place.

Well, among other things, this isnt Soviet controled Ukraine. Canada's safety standards are just slightly higher than the USSR's was.

[kermitology]

I was not here

[flamingchina]

Well,
The largest Transalta plant in Alberta also generates about 2GW of power. (it's coal fired)
and peak demand last year in Alberta was around 8.2GW
So this plant would add 25% capacity to our grid. (that's quite a lot)
Of course, most of this would go to support the oil sands.
Current projections have demand in Alberta being 13-18GW by 2026.

[Flames in 07]

As seen on the next Guiness commercial

I know, let's put a nuke next door to one of the largest assets this country has (Peace River and Central AB bitumen)!!

Brilliant!!

Will be popular to the masses but it is russian roulette with the provinces economy.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Good, Nuclear is actually one of the best clean power options out there.

It is clean, as long as the waste can be stored for the next 10,000 years.

I'm just curious; who pays for those storage costs 100 years from now? 500 years? 1000 years? (I could go on but you get the idea.)

Consider this. Let's say 500 years ago our ancestors experimented with chemicals and biological components, and ended up making a nasty toxic biologically deadly soup. The stored it in barrels, and burried it 100 feet underground. How comfortable would we be today with those 500 year old barrels under our homes. Imagine the contrversy- do we dig them up? Can we dispose of them somehow?

Carbon dioxide- the Earth can rid itself of our CO2 in a hundred years on its own. The holes in the ozone layer- several hundred years.

I'm no environmentalist, but I just shudder to think of what kind of legacy we are leaving for future generations.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by ken0042

It is clean, as long as the waste can be stored for the next 10,000 years.

I'm just curious; who pays for those storage costs 100 years from now? 500 years? 1000 years? (I could go on but you get the idea.)

Consider this. Let's say 500 years ago our ancestors experimented with chemicals and biological components, and ended up making a nasty toxic biologically deadly soup. The stored it in barrels, and burried it 100 feet underground. How comfortable would we be today with those 500 year old barrels under our homes. Imagine the contrversy- do we dig them up? Can we dispose of them somehow?

Carbon dioxide- the Earth can rid itself of our CO2 in a hundred years on its own. The holes in the ozone layer- several hundred years.

I'm no environmentalist, but I just shudder to think of what kind of legacy we are leaving for future generations.

yep, a trade off for sure. Most people react to what they see on the news and will say, less emissions ... that's all I need to know, yeah Nukes.

It is clean, and efficient, but placing them in Alberta is rediculous. keep them in Ontario where there is demand, low access to hydro and not slightly upwind of the Alberta gravy trai ... I mean oilsands.

[Burninator]

Seems like a good idea. I am a fan of nuclear power. While it may not be a long term solution for our problem, it is a decent solution in the mean time.

When I was watching the news, there was one expert that was against the idea because he said Alberta doesn't need extra power. My uncle works for Sask Power and he says Alberta frequently has to buy power from them during heavy load times, and we pay through the nose for it. Anyways should be interesting watching this project and seeing if it gets off the ground.

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by blankall

snip/

But then there is always the risk of mutating some gopher into astronomical sizes and having it go on a rampage through the city.... a toss up really.

Larf ... Gopherzilla Does Edmonton.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by ken0042

It is clean, as long as the waste can be stored for the next 10,000 years.

I'm just curious; who pays for those storage costs 100 years from now? 500 years? 1000 years? (I could go on but you get the idea.)

Consider this. Let's say 500 years ago our ancestors experimented with chemicals and biological components, and ended up making a nasty toxic biologically deadly soup. The stored it in barrels, and burried it 100 feet underground. How comfortable would we be today with those 500 year old barrels under our homes. Imagine the contrversy- do we dig them up? Can we dispose of them somehow?

Carbon dioxide- the Earth can rid itself of our CO2 in a hundred years on its own. The holes in the ozone layer- several hundred years.

I'm no environmentalist, but I just shudder to think of what kind of legacy we are leaving for future generations.

By removing actinides from radioactive waste, it only takes about 300 years before its safe. 300 years is still a long time, but definitely manageble.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...pleted_uranium

This site also makes a valid point that if you add up all the deaths caused by mining, rigging, conventional power plant etc... nuclear is waaaaay safer.

[SeeGeeWhy]

That's funny... we were talking about this during a round at Bearspaw on Friday as one of the guys in our foursome was pointing out a mansion that Swartout owns out there. He was saying that Swartout owns a ROFR on construction of a nuclear reactor in Alberta, and we ended up wondering how one would obtain such a thing, where they should place it, and what implications it might have.

We certainly didn't think the Peace River area would be a candidate. The steam generated by a reactor cannot be pipelined directly to the oilsands projects over such a long distance, so there is a potential benefit to the project crossed off the list.

What impact will this sort of thing have on spot prices of coal and natural gas in Alberta? When the first reactors were built in the US, oil was still being used as an electricity source, and Nuclear power was essentially able to replace it, causing a drop in demand for oil, and was thus a factor in reducing the world oil price at the time. Can we expect the same for coal and NG?

Can the people quoting figures of expected power consumption of Alberta and/or the oilsands upgrading projects cite sources? I have heard evidence stating much lower numbers for demand.

[Flames89]

http://www.energybulletin.net/22358.html
"Production of "oil" from the tar sands is a very energy-intensive process. Production estimates for 2025 are that the energy input will require between 1.6-2.3 billion cubic feet (bcf) of natural gas per day, approximately equal to the planned maximum capacity of the proposed Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline (1.9 bcf/d) out of northern Canada, or about one-fifth of anticipated daily Canadian gas production."

[skins]

Originally Posted by blankall

By removing actinides from radioactive waste, it only takes about 300 years before its safe. 300 years is still a long time, but definitely manageble.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...pleted_uranium

This site also makes a valid point that if you add up all the deaths caused by mining, rigging, conventional power plant etc... nuclear is waaaaay safer.

That's good to know, but I think we're still just trading one unrenewable energy source for another. Last time I checked, there wasn't a whole lot of Uranium kicking around. I remember I saw a presentation on this not too long ago. The speaker thought that there was only enough to last 80-100 years based on projected consumption.

Until we master cold fussion or can find dilithium crystals to power a gravimetric field displacement manifold (but of course then you have to deal with the trilithium resin), I would prefer an increase in wind and solar power generation.

[photon]

Originally Posted by skins

Until we master cold fussion or can find dilithium crystals to power a gravimetric field displacement manifold (but of course then you have to deal with the trilithium resin), I would prefer an increase in wind and solar power generation.

It's not a one or the other choice though, and nuclear is a reasonable step IMO as things like solar and wind become more cost effective.

[Flames89]

Regarding Uranium Resources:


http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/...resources.html

"Uranium 2005: Resources, Production and Demand - also called the "Red Book" - estimates the total identified amount of conventional uranium stock, which can be mined for less than USD 130 per kg, to be about 4.7 million tonnes. Based on the 2004 nuclear electricity generation rate of demand the amount is sufficient for 85 years, the study states. Fast reactor technology would lengthen this period to over 2500 years.
However, world uranium resources in total are considered to be much higher. Based on geological evidence and knowledge of uranium in phosphates the study considers more than 35 million tonnes is available for exploitation"

[oldschoolcalgary]

probably a good idea, in spite of the chicken littles out there...France has been using nuclear energy for 3 decades - now producing 80% of their energy through nuclear energy sources ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3177360.stm )...no issue there so far...

[blankall]

Originally Posted by photon

It's not a one or the other choice though, and nuclear is a reasonable step IMO as things like solar and wind become more cost effective.

I think this is one of the most reasonable posts so far. We are just trading one non-renewable for another, but renewables are slowly becoming more cost-effective. This 100 or so years of nuclear (which btw is a substantial amount of time) will probably by us the time we need to develop these sources fully.