Wilber Posted March 18, 2011 Report Share Posted March 18, 2011 BC is part of the ring of fire. SO is the Yukon. BC and the Yukon have no reactors so there are none to shut down. Fortunately they don't need them but what if BC was in the same boat as Japan, no oil, gas or coal reserves and no large rivers to dam for hydro electric production? What then and where is the environmental trade off between nuclear plants and putting dams on salmon bearing rivers? The US put a multitude of dams on the Columbia River and there is some great sport fishing in the lakes that were formed, but not for salmon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted March 18, 2011 Report Share Posted March 18, 2011 holy alarmism of this poll, Batman! Big earthquakes, tsunamis, and hurricanes aren't coming to shake down our reactors any time soon. GO NUKES! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted March 18, 2011 Report Share Posted March 18, 2011 holy alarmism of this poll, Batman! Big earthquakes, tsunamis, and hurricanes aren't coming to shake down our reactors any time soon. GO NUKES! How do we know? What would happen is very small asteroid hit coal powered plant? Where does the nuclear waste go? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovik Posted March 18, 2011 Report Share Posted March 18, 2011 I'm of two minds in regards to nuclear reactors. I can see both sides of the story. But I do know one thing. The future of nuclear power may very well depend on what happens with the result of what happens in Japan. If they can recover with little damage then nuclear power won't be impacted much (a bit more safety conscious, and that's a good thing, but that's about it.) Now if things go badly over there, well that could be a different story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted March 18, 2011 Report Share Posted March 18, 2011 That resembles my sense of it as well. We can oppose nukes as virulently as we wish, but the fact is, it's about the only energy source we currently have that will cost-effectively meet out-of-control demands. Love it or hate it, we'll have 'em. The sole good thing about the Japan situation is that it's an object lesson. If it scares the everloving crap out of legislators and designers, administrators and energy-hungry citizens, and thus quells carelessness and overconfidence, then we will be very well served by it. If we take the opposite attitude- that everything is under control and ever-so-safe (after all, it didn't kill us all)- and breezily proceed with such things as operating Chalk River without adequate fail-safes, then we are not just robbing our grandchildren, but murdering them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted March 18, 2011 Report Share Posted March 18, 2011 (edited) Oooops, wrong button... Edited March 18, 2011 by GWiz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted March 18, 2011 Report Share Posted March 18, 2011 That resembles my sense of it as well. We can oppose nukes as virulently as we wish, but the fact is, it's about the only energy source we currently have that will cost-effectively meet out-of-control demands. Love it or hate it, we'll have 'em. The sole good thing about the Japan situation is that it's an object lesson. If it scares the everloving crap out of legislators and designers, administrators and energy-hungry citizens, and thus quells carelessness and overconfidence, then we will be very well served by it. If we take the opposite attitude- that everything is under control and ever-so-safe (after all, it didn't kill us all)- and breezily proceed with such things as operating Chalk River without adequate fail-safes, then we are not just robbing our grandchildren, but murdering them. If "economics" are the sole consideration I agree... But! It's the 21st century, with 21st century technologies and understandings... Canada is a VAST land with many, many options available to it when it comes to meeting not only Canada's energy needs but far beyond what Canada needs... Without the "need" for nuclear energy... "Where there's a will there's a way; without the will there's no way." - GWiz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted March 18, 2011 Report Share Posted March 18, 2011 I think Canadians just need to be prepared to deploy giant high tempetature suction baloons that can go overtop of reactors in case of explosion.. This is the kind of post that keeps me coming back.Thank you William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 18, 2011 Report Share Posted March 18, 2011 That resembles my sense of it as well. We can oppose nukes as virulently as we wish, but the fact is, it's about the only energy source we currently have that will cost-effectively meet out-of-control demands. Love it or hate it, we'll have 'em. The sole good thing about the Japan situation is that it's an object lesson. If it scares the everloving crap out of legislators and designers, administrators and energy-hungry citizens, and thus quells carelessness and overconfidence, then we will be very well served by it. If we take the opposite attitude- that everything is under control and ever-so-safe (after all, it didn't kill us all)- and breezily proceed with such things as operating Chalk River without adequate fail-safes, then we are not just robbing our grandchildren, but murdering them. We can thank past disasters for many of the things we take for granted today. Bridges that don't fall down, ships that don't sink, planes that don't crash. You name it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 18, 2011 Report Share Posted March 18, 2011 I acknowledge the differences in things like technology and geography when comparing the nuclear industry in Canada and Japan but the credibility gap that exists between officialdom and the public in both our countries is eerily similar. IMHO this should be the greatest lesson and cause for concern when considering any expansion of our use of nuclear power. I'll consider it when I can be convinced the nuclear industry and above all else it's regulation can be contained within a system of crystal clear transparency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted March 18, 2011 Report Share Posted March 18, 2011 Japan might think of themselves as diligent but perhaps there are not...for instance - back up generators should have been on top of the building not close to sea level - secondly - fuel to power back up pumps should have been stored and changed intermitently...and also should have been high up out of the danger of any giant wave...plus - the place should have been built like a concrete ship...where as nothing could enter or leave - evidently these major flaws in design are now a problem almost beyond human perception...any important building must be built on a huge floating reinforced concrete slap that is at least five times the size of the base of the building....BUT space is at a premium in Japan and their earth quake proof buildings are simply to close together. As for our reactors - you would need a dictatorship to maintain due diligence regarding their safe up keep and design..We don't have rules strong enough to fire a unionized worker who is munching on a sandwhich when he should be watching a gage. Nuclear power is akin in quantum mechanics to the splitting or shattering of a microcosmic solar system...what is released is still beyound the realms of human dominace...we will never dominate the atom...the atom will always dominate us...so it is an on going battle with the mega and quantum universe - kind of like stealing power from God...God always finds takes back what is stolen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted March 19, 2011 Report Share Posted March 19, 2011 - back up generators should have been on top of the building not close to sea level True. Sea water is VERY conductive, unlike rain water. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.