Texas Chilly

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

We've sold CANDU reactors to China, Pakistan, India, Argentina, Romania and South Korea. Are you in a panic about any of those?

yes, the ones in Korea are fairly bloody scary frankly, turns out they forged safety certificates to use cheaper cabling in construction, people being people

[Plett25]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I'm aware of all of this, but the guys that built those reactors thought they were perfectly safe, and it was a human error that caused them to go wrong

The Fukushima reactors were a late 50's design built in the late 60's to mid 70's.

They were hit by an earthquake and a tsunami. Even though not all recommended safety upgrades had been made to the 40 year old facility, nobody died.

That's not a catastrophic failure, that's an amazing success.

Pointing to Fukushima as a reason nuclear reactors shouldn't be built is ridiculous. It's like banning automobiles because a 1955 Corvette, built in 1970, crashed into a brick wall in 2011 and the passenger broke their arm.

Surely we can all agree that we'd rather be in an accident in a new car rather than a car designed in 1955. Nuclear plants are the same. The US, Japan, Germany and France has been safely operating reactors designed in the 50's and 60's for decades but newer designs are safer. I believe CANDU reactors are basically idiot proof and un-meltdownable.

But even if the world had only built 1955 era reactors instead of the hundreds of coal power plants, and even if 1 failed every year like Fukushima or Three Mile Island, the world would be a better place.

Millions of air pollution deaths averted, less radiation emitted into the atmosphere and climate change delayed. Those are all wins even assuming the worst case scenario.

Greenpeace (by their propaganda and unscientific opposition to nuclear power) has done as much harm to the climate as the oil industry.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Plett25

The Fukushima reactors were a late 50's design built in the late 60's to mid 70's.

They were hit by an earthquake and a tsunami. Even though not all recommended safety upgrades had been made to the 40 year old facility, nobody died.

That's not a catastrophic failure, that's an amazing success.

Pointing to Fukushima as a reason nuclear reactors shouldn't be built is ridiculous. It's like banning automobiles because a 1955 Corvette, built in 1970, crashed into a brick wall in 2011 and the passenger broke their arm.

Surely we can all agree that we'd rather be in an accident in a new car rather than a car designed in 1955. Nuclear plants are the same. The US, Japan, Germany and France has been safely operating reactors designed in the 50's and 60's for decades but newer designs are safer. I believe CANDU reactors are basically idiot proof and un-meltdownable.

But even if the world had only built 1955 era reactors instead of the hundreds of coal power plants, and even if 1 failed every year like Fukushima or Three Mile Island, the world would be a better place.

Millions of air pollution deaths averted, less radiation emitted into the atmosphere and climate change delayed. Those are all wins even assuming the worst case scenario.

Greenpeace (by their propaganda and unscientific opposition to nuclear power) has done as much harm to the climate as the oil industry.

If your argument is the occasional meltdown with a Fukushimi level outcome is worth the cost I'm open to be persuaded, but I effing hate the 'nothing will go wrong so we dont need to worry about that' argument.

Of course every reactor that has had an accident that, in hindsight could have been avoided and wasnt, was because the idiots in charge cut corners, used substandard materials or employed morons that did dumb things at 3 or 4am, my point is those same idiots will be in charge of the reactors in the future and will make the same mistakes and occasionally it will have the same consequences, if you want me and the rest of humanity to vote for nuclear you have to sell it with the occasional major accident

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

If your argument is the occasional meltdown with a Fukushimi level outcome is worth the cost I'm open to be persuaded, but I effing hate the 'nothing will go wrong so we dont need to worry about that' argument.

That's the whole argument. Even with what has gone wrong with Nuclear, it has a safer track record than coal (and basically every other form of generation).

[cam_wmh]

Ok, so where do we put em?

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

Ok, so where do we put em?

Edmonton, of course.

[Bill Bumface]

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Could use a racing stripe, and some fins to make it aerodynamic.

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Could use a racing stripe, and some fins to make it aerodynamic.

“This was a contest for children”

“Yah, and Homer beat their pants off”

[Cappy]

My hometown flirted with the idea of having a nuclear power plant over 10 years ago. There was certainly some pushback from some concerned citizens over a range of issues from enviornmentalism, NIMBYism (made worse by the fact that the energy was purposefully being used to export or for oil sands), growth of the town and introduction of "transients".

Ultimately, the proposal was approved. The company then sold their interest to Bruce Power and.... nothing.

I understand the support for Nuclear - I'm all for it. But if the economics were there, the plants would be built.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

Ok, so where do we put em?

Originally Posted by D as in David

Edmonton, of course.

Joking aside this is actually a valid question. When Alberta was largely powered by coal the majority of our generation was from Wabamun (so Edmonton essentially). Problem is half the consumption is in southern Alberta so you need to build transmission lines to get it where it’s needed. And there was a major uproar a few years ago when a new billion dollar line was proposed and people realized the consumer has to pay for it. In recent years there has been a shift (in Alberta) to smaller plants near the market they will serve because it’s cheaper. The plants at Shepherd, Balzac, Crossfield etc. All take advantage of this.

So you build nuclear in Edmonton and then pay to get that power where it’s needed.

[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Chernobyl is estimated to have caused the premature deaths of almost a million people in Europe

The Banqiao Hydroelectric dam failure directly killed over 200,000 people and millions died in the aftermath.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Wind turbines simply do not work when they are frozen, or in extreme cold. Solar can be even worse.

And yet there's a research station in Antarctica that runs on wind and solar.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by cal_guy

The Banqiao Hydroelectric dam failure directly killed over 200,000 people and millions died in the aftermath.

Just up the road from Wuhan, and within a month or two they buried the dead and rebuilt, where as if it was a nuclear plant it would still be unlivable today, that's my point, what ever method of power generation we choose there will be terrible accidents and deaths, it is terrible and tragic but only one method renders vast areas of land uninhabitable for 500 years when things go wrong.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

I want to start by saying I'm a big fan of AFC Wimbledon, I appreciate his posts and the insanity that he's done to make this world a better place and improve the lives of those less fortunate.

I agree and/or understand most of his viewpoints.

I disagree on Nuclear Power, and I do so with the utmost respect.

I am not a Nuclear Physist. Nor will I claim to be one.

From what I understand, and I'm 100% open to having my mind changed on this, nuclear power is very safe. Even with the Fukushima meltodown, I believe the community has basically returned to normal.

To me, and again I'm open to having my mind changed on this, a nuclear accident is akin to an airline crash. Yes, they happen. Yes, they're devistating. But the comparitors fail in comparison to safety.

I am also to understand that the technology is there that we can build nuclear power plans that run on nuclear waste of current nuclear power plants. Why wouldn't we build and invest in those?! We have waste, we have the tecnhology, and it would produce new clean power?

No, a nuclear plant built on 2021 technlogoy isn't going to be perfect. But I'll take that over one that's built on 1950's/60's technlogy. Even then, look at how few accidents there have been with regard to 50s/60s tech.


Now, would I want a deregulated lawless wasteland overseeing and building of nuclear plants? No.

Ergo, no new plants for you... Texas. But in a heavily regulated society, with modern 2021 technology, I'm cool with that.

For context, I live in the shadow of a coal power plant that at one point supplied the electricity for 2/3 of Nova Scotia's electricty (maybe 1/3, I feel like 2/3 but my fuzzy memory for an elementary field trip might be failing me). That coal power plant is slated to close by 2040. I see the smoke from the plant on my drive to work every morning, and I got engaged with the plant in the background.

For additional context, that was only around the corner from the former site of the heavy water plant that produced, well, heavy water for nuclear generation.

I have no recollection of the heavy water plant which would have closed before I could read or write.


I'm cool with green power, solar and wind. There are lots of wind turbines around, a huge farm at the Lingan (Coal) Power Plant mentioned above. My undergrad alma mater has a windfarm making the university the first in North America to be carbon neutral (also around the corner from the beforementioned coal and heavy water plants).

So, would I be cool with a new nuclear power plant being built in my backyard?


Yes. Keeping in mind I think it makes more sense to build nuclear plants next to where the waste currently is, thus avoiding transportation costs and risks.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by SebC

And yet there's a research station in Antarctica that runs on wind and solar.

Did you actually read the full article or are you trolling the thread?

[Plett25]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Of course every reactor that has had an accident that, in hindsight could have been avoided and wasnt, was because the idiots in charge cut corners, used substandard materials or employed morons that did dumb things at 3 or 4am, my point is those same idiots will be in charge of the reactors in the future and will make the same mistakes and occasionally it will have the same consequences, if you want me and the rest of humanity to vote for nuclear you have to sell it with the occasional major accident

To use your vote analogy, you voted against nuclear power. So did pretty much everyone else. But the alternative wasn't magical clean energy and a pristine environment. The alternative was dirty coal and climate change.

Congratulations environmentalists, you played yourselves.

No different than voters who didn't like Hillary, and voted for the other guy. Four God awful years of that human paraquat setting back America, and therefore the western world. All because Hillary wasn't perfect.

Those voters let perfection be the enemy of the good. Just like anti-nuclear activists.

Indeed, those idiots you referenced aren't cutting corners and risking nuclear meltdowns, but they didn't go away. Those same idiots are cutting corners on coal power plants, killing millions by design, accelerating climate change and acidifying the oceans.

Your side won. Fewer meltdowns, more CO2. Fewer nuclear plants, fewer coral reefs. And on and on.

There wasn't a perfect option. The non-nuclear option didn't explicitly state climate change was a consequence, but it was part of the deal. Just like a vote for Trump was also a vote for normalizing racism and exacerbating division in American society. Just part of the deal.

[BloodFetish]

Nuclear power is like air travel. When things go wrong they go very wrong and are highly reported. When things go right they do so quietly and you never hear about it.

[Lanny_McDonald]

We need more nuclear energy. We just need different reactor technology. Molten salt reactors are the answer. Small. Efficient. Safe. No bomb making material.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by BloodFetish

Nuclear power is like air travel. When things go wrong they go very wrong and are highly reported. When things go right they do so quietly and you never hear about it.

Yeah 60% of the electricity produced in Ontario is done so by Nuclear, and it feels like nobody knows that who lives here. The slang for electrical here is “Hydro”.