Alberta Goes Nuclear!

[photon]

With the advantage that nuclear's waste doesn't get dumped directly into the atmosphere.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by 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...

Did you even bother to read my post, or did you just see that I was against it and wanted to sling an insult at everybody who has a different opinion that you.

Once again, nuclear waste needs to be stored for much longer than 3 decades. If the first nuclear power plant opened in France 30 years ago, then the odds are it is still in operation. Meaning the revenue generated by that plant today pays for the containment costs from the 30 year old waste. What happens 200 years from now? Who pays for it then?

I look at what happened at Lynnview Ridge in SE Calgary. 60 or 70 years ago we assumed that we were acting safely, but as it turns out we were poisoning our environment. Fortunately the company resposible was still in business, so there was somebody to pay. But what if something like that were to happen with nuclear waste in the future; long after we are all gone.

I'm not saying that nuclear power should not exist. My issue is the legacy we leave for our kids and grandkids, etc. If the true costs of nuclear power were calculated to the end product, it would not be affordable. And by true costs, let's say the costs of storage and maintenance for the next 1000 years. Add those costs in, and then see who still wants to build one.

[Flames89]

Re: Wind.

It is a great source of cheap power, however it can only be used as a complimentary power source, due to the variable nature. Wind coupled with a baseload of Nuclear or Fossils is great.

Note: According to the GWEC - Global Wind 2006 Report, Canada has 1,459 MW of "installed" wind capacity.

[Cowboy89]

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.

I really dont' know why we can't launch this waste into outer Space. But then again I'm sure David Suzuki and Al Gore would have a fit over all this. They'd talk about what if we were ruining some alien's planet by doing this and that no matter the cost we'd have to come up with another way for clean energy regardless of the cost. I know futurama did a hilarious show on this where the garbage formed a huge asteroid and ended up threatning Earth, but in all reality I don't think that can happen.

[Cowboy89]

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.

I really dont' know why we can't launch this waste into outer Space. But then again I'm sure David Suzuki and Al Gore would have a fit over all this. They'd talk about what if we were ruining some alien's planet by doing this and that no matter the cost we'd have to come up with another way for clean energy regardless of the cost. I know futurama did a hilarious show on this where the garbage formed a huge asteroid and ended up threatning Earth, but in all reality I don't think that can happen.

[ken0042]

Funny, I was going to post something about launching it into space, then changed my mind as I already thought I was ranting enough.

The issue with launching it into space (and presumably towards the sun) is our track record with launching spacecraft. Take the Space Shuttle; 1 out of every 150 has blown up in the atmosphere on lift off. And since that accident another shuttle was destroyed by something that started with liftoff; so you could say 1 in 75 has had a fatal lift off accident.

Plus there are arguements that we don't know for sure what effect nuclear waste would have on the sun. Assuming Al Gore et al are correct about Global Warming; if we've done this much damage to the planet, can you imagine what would happen if we screwed up the sun?

[Flames89]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Did you even bother to read my post, or did you just see that I was against it and wanted to sling an insult at everybody who has a different opinion that you.

Once again, nuclear waste needs to be stored for much longer than 3 decades. If the first nuclear power plant opened in France 30 years ago, then the odds are it is still in operation. Meaning the revenue generated by that plant today pays for the containment costs from the 30 year old waste. What happens 200 years from now? Who pays for it then?

I look at what happened at Lynnview Ridge in SE Calgary. 60 or 70 years ago we assumed that we were acting safely, but as it turns out we were poisoning our environment. Fortunately the company resposible was still in business, so there was somebody to pay. But what if something like that were to happen with nuclear waste in the future; long after we are all gone.

I'm not saying that nuclear power should not exist. My issue is the legacy we leave for our kids and grandkids, etc. If the true costs of nuclear power were calculated to the end product, it would not be affordable. And by true costs, let's say the costs of storage and maintenance for the next 1000 years. Add those costs in, and then see who still wants to build one.

The only problem is, if we want to continue to live in our society, we need more power and wind/solar/biofuels will not be enough to substitute it. They WILL help greatly, but not substitute completely.

So - do you want to live with Oil and Natural Gas, which becomes more expensive every year. Or coal, which would be hazardous to the environment, even assuming Coal-to-Liquids technology is completed, the increase in CO2 would be considerable. And if Co2 sequestration technologies are put in place, the costs are very high.

Even the environmentalists who used to hate nuclear are converting.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041401209.html

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Flames89

The only problem is, if we want to continue to live in our society, we need more power and wind/solar/biofuels will not be enough to substitute it. They WILL help greatly, but not substitute completely.

Very true. With today's technology I have to agree with you 100%.

However, in Germany they recently came up with a solar panel that was 20% efficient. (The ones you can buy at Canadian Tire are less than 10%.) What if instead of spending $4 billion on a nuclear reactor, we spent it on developing solar energy. The German says with enough research he could get the panel up to 50% efficient in 20 years.

There are other sources of energy out there too. Geothermal is just getting going, and hydro electric has been successful for decades. Downside of Hydro is the fact that you have to turn a field into a lake (which may not be a bad idea in Alberta), or you have to destroy a waterfall. (Sorry kids, Elbow falls is now a hydro electric plant.)

The bottom line is all of these things have a cost. It all boils down to which one we are more comfortable with. At least with coal and other fossil fuels we see the impact right away in the form of pollution. So to use a money analogy; fossil fuels are like spending the money we have today. Nuclear is taking the envirnmental impact and putting it on credit. But eventually somebody will have to pay. Just not us, and not likely in our lifetime; nor our kids' lifetime.

[Flash Walken]

Canada is currently the only pacific rim country to not utilize geothermal energy in some capacity.

It's really insane that we don't, especially in BC.

Edit: and while each country will have to develop different avenues of producing power according to their own assets, a country like Iceland will soon be fossil fuel independent for power generation, utilizing geothermal power almost completely.

They are also the test site for hydrogen and hydrogen fueling stations.

[photon]

If a big chunk of the world's energy came from geothermal though, how would that impact the planet? The earth is pretty big so I don't know if it would, but that's something else I've never heard that's been worked out. But I agree I've always wondered why we didn't use any geothermal.

With nuclear sure you leave a legacy of waste that has to be managed, but what's better, a legacy of a small amount of waste to manage (but you know where it is), or a legacy of billions of tons of waste dumped into the atmosphere?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by photon

If a big chunk of the world's energy came from geothermal though, how would that impact the planet? The earth is pretty big so I don't know if it would, but that's something else I've never heard that's been worked out. But I agree I've always wondered why we didn't use any geothermal.

With nuclear sure you leave a legacy of waste that has to be managed, but what's better, a legacy of a small amount of waste to manage (but you know where it is), or a legacy of billions of tons of waste dumped into the atmosphere?

Agreed, which is exactly why it's going to take region-specific energy plans, rather than one monolithic saviour energy source to deal with the problem.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I really dont' know why we can't launch this waste into outer Space. But then again I'm sure David Suzuki and Al Gore would have a fit over all this. They'd talk about what if we were ruining some alien's planet by doing this and that no matter the cost we'd have to come up with another way for clean energy regardless of the cost. I know futurama did a hilarious show on this where the garbage formed a huge asteroid and ended up threatning Earth, but in all reality I don't think that can happen.

I think they would have a larger problem with it because it would put tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, which is the problem they are trying to stop.

I read something about storing waste in old abandoned mines in the book Heat. Apparently they can be stored indefinitely.

[Barnes]

I saw a cool doc on a plant in Nova Scotia that was built over an old, flooded mine. The water in the mine heats and cools and circulates through the tunnels and shafts as it changes temp. They've tapped the mine to pull hot an cold water to heat an cool the plant. It works like a giant underground radiator. This is stuff we should be looking at.

[Flames89]

Originally Posted by Barnes

I saw a cool doc on a plant in Nova Scotia that was built over an old, flooded mine. The water in the mine heats and cools and circulates through the tunnels and shafts as it changes temp. They've tapped the mine to pull hot an cold water to heat an cool the plant. It works like a giant underground radiator. This is stuff we should be looking at.

That is essentially one form of geothermal, but usually the water is in a closed circuit.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Did you even bother to read my post, or did you just see that I was against it and wanted to sling an insult at everybody who has a different opinion that you.

Once again, nuclear waste needs to be stored for much longer than 3 decades. If the first nuclear power plant opened in France 30 years ago, then the odds are it is still in operation. Meaning the revenue generated by that plant today pays for the containment costs from the 30 year old waste. What happens 200 years from now? Who pays for it then?

I look at what happened at Lynnview Ridge in SE Calgary. 60 or 70 years ago we assumed that we were acting safely, but as it turns out we were poisoning our environment. Fortunately the company resposible was still in business, so there was somebody to pay. But what if something like that were to happen with nuclear waste in the future; long after we are all gone.

I'm not saying that nuclear power should not exist. My issue is the legacy we leave for our kids and grandkids, etc. If the true costs of nuclear power were calculated to the end product, it would not be affordable. And by true costs, let's say the costs of storage and maintenance for the next 1000 years. Add those costs in, and then see who still wants to build one.

Actually, I didn't see your post, so the 'chicken little' comment wasn't directed at you per se.

I just don't think we should dismiss it outright as some have suggested - there'll be a long, long process before this thing would see the light of day...i am willing to take a wait and see approach and review that before any reaction.

The rationale for bringing France into the discussion was to hedge against those who used the 3 mile island example to dismiss nuclear energy out of turn...

[Flames89]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Very true. With today's technology I have to agree with you 100%.

However, in Germany they recently came up with a solar panel that was 20% efficient. (The ones you can buy at Canadian Tire are less than 10%.) What if instead of spending $4 billion on a nuclear reactor, we spent it on developing solar energy. The German says with enough research he could get the panel up to 50% efficient in 20 years.

There are other sources of energy out there too. Geothermal is just getting going, and hydro electric has been successful for decades. Downside of Hydro is the fact that you have to turn a field into a lake (which may not be a bad idea in Alberta), or you have to destroy a waterfall. (Sorry kids, Elbow falls is now a hydro electric plant.)

The bottom line is all of these things have a cost. It all boils down to which one we are more comfortable with. At least with coal and other fossil fuels we see the impact right away in the form of pollution. So to use a money analogy; fossil fuels are like spending the money we have today. Nuclear is taking the envirnmental impact and putting it on credit. But eventually somebody will have to pay. Just not us, and not likely in our lifetime; nor our kids' lifetime.

and ken, I agree except I am willing to accept the byproduct.

I find it hard to believe we couldn't build an acceptable storage method, if the industry spent just a fraction of what they spend on figuring out Coal-to-Liquids, or Deep drilling techiques.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by photon

With the advantage that nuclear's waste doesn't get dumped directly into the atmosphere.

Not unless terrorists have anything to say about it. I'm quite surprised in a area where energy concerns are reasonably well understood this is so popular.

A Nuke in Alberta would be one of the most strategic targets for terrorists.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

A Nuke in Alberta would be one of the most strategic targets for terrorists.

How do you figure? Terrorists typically attack areas where they will do the most damage to civilians. Peace River isn't exactly teaming with a populous. I am sure their are better targets that are closer to larger populations.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Burninator

How do you figure? Terrorists typically attack areas where they will do the most damage to civilians. Peace River isn't exactly teaming with a populous. I am sure their are better targets that are closer to larger populations.

What about the populations of Edmonton and Calgary?

I'm not saying it's tops on the list, to think it isn't plausible would be silly. There are much better targets, to be sure. But if it has anything to do with Energy, a nuclear reactor in the tar sands could be a pretty choice target.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

A Nuke in Alberta would be one of the most strategic targets for terrorists.

I don't think we should make a decision about how we provide enough power to our population based on what some terrorist somewhere might happen to think they might want to possibly do...

If that was the case we should be stopping all production of oil and gas right now.

Why would a nuclear plant in Alberta would be any more/less a target than any other nuclear plant in Canada or the US or Britain?