Jobless oilsand workers look to alternative energy

[Guest]

I agree with most of what you said ... But nuclear is NOT fine. Like oil, if you consider the environmental damage and cleanup from extraction, and accidents, it is very damaging and not cheap.

Hydro ... dams are also damaging.

We can cut down on gasoline cars by outlawing them in cities, make transit or electric mandatory. :-)

I always imagine that anyone who doesn't fully support nuclear power is a climate change denier. In that, if climate change were as bad as the experts say, nuclear power is a very viable alternative to fossil fuels, regardless of personal views. Whenever I hear environmentalists protesting nuclear power, I'm heartened, because I imagine I'm not going to die from AGW.

The outlawing cars idea is an interesting concept but how would you put that into practice? Take Vancouver for example. I used to commute from White Rock to UBC fairly regularly. I suppose you wouldn't ban cars out as far as White Rock, so where you have all the park and rides?

[msj]

Not denying climate change at all.

I am on the fence when it comes to nuclear.

I look to the history of the Roman Empire where over 1,000 years there were many periods where I would not have trusted the Empire to be able to protect this outpost or that province whether from raiders, barbarians, or its own rulers.

The same can be said for dealing with nuclear waste: sure, in modern Canada we can contain the waste. But in 300 years in a bankrupt Canada? Or a Canada laid waste from rising sea levels and who knows what other threats?

Paranoid?

I hope so.

But over long periods of time black swan events happen.

[Guest]

Not denying climate change at all.

I am on the fence when it comes to nuclear.

I look to the history of the Roman Empire where over 1,000 years there were many periods where I would not have trusted the Empire to be able to protect this outpost or that province whether from raiders, barbarians, or its own rulers.

The same can be said for dealing with nuclear waste: sure, in modern Canada we can contain the waste. But in 300 years in a bankrupt Canada? Or a Canada laid waste from rising sea levels and who knows what other threats?

Paranoid?

I hope so.

But over long periods of time black swan events happen.

Understood, but that's my point. We are either approaching a point of no return, or we have reached one, according to most proponents of AGW. Is not the nuclear risk one worth taking?

[msj]

On the fence.

My investment in URA (a uranium ETF that just keeps going down) says yes, please, for the love of gawd lets go NUCLEAR!!!! For the sake of my retirement (ok, hyperbole here, it's like a $5,000 investment so a fraction of my portfolio).

The part of me that used to care about the future says: remember history.

With shifting geo-political environments thanks to climate change and other factors we will find nuclear power plants and/or their waste in situations that will not be ideal.

Could be terrorist creeps like in Belgium who may have infiltrated a plant there.

Could be a nuclear aircraft carrier in some far off sea as it takes in too many jelly fish and becomes incapacitated.

Long periods of time mean black swans will happen.

Edited March 30, 2016 by msj

[jacee]

Understood, but that's my point. We are either approaching a point of no return, or we have reached one, according to most proponents of AGW. Is not the nuclear risk one worth taking?

No.

[Guest]

Understood, but that's my point. We are either approaching a point of no return, or we have reached one, according to most proponents of AGW. Is not the nuclear risk one worth taking?

I think increased fission use is the Prius of energy generation. A temporarily necessary stepping stone to widespread adoption of better solutions.

[Guest]

No.

You see, to me, that seems like we aren't in as big a hole as some would have us. If we can wait around to save the world until windmills work and we've banned cars, then it's really no big deal.

Personally, with my limited knowledge of the issue, I think we are worse off than that.

[eyeball]

My main problem with using nuclear power is that I just cannot trust a government to provide adequate regulatory oversight and environmental protection.

Get a much better handle on that and then come and talk to me about nuclear power. Overheating the planet is one thing irradiating it as well is quite another.

[Guest]

My main problem with using nuclear power is that I just cannot trust a government to provide adequate regulatory oversight and environmental protection.

Get a much better handle on that and then come and talk to me about nuclear power. Overheating the planet is one thing irradiating it as well is quite another.

I know very little about worldwide use of nuclear power, but don't we do okay? The odd tsunami notwithstanding?

[eyeball]

It's what we know about government duplicity that gives me cause to pause.

[jacee]

I know very little about worldwide use of nuclear power, but don't we do okay? The odd tsunami notwithstanding?

Eaten any pacific fish lately?

fukushima-radiation-tumors-fish-seafood/

.

[Guest]

Eaten any pacific fish lately?

fukushima-radiation-tumors-fish-seafood/

.

Sure, like I said, the odd Tsunami notwithstanding.

I daresay climate change is going to take a greater toll on my diet.