Canada needs more nuclear power plants

[Argus]

An interesting article in Quillette today from a person who has devoted much of their live to fighting for the environment and against climate change. All the more odd, then, to see him authoring an opinion piece on why we're damaging the environment and wasting our time trying to fight climate change with wind and solar farms. It's a long piece so I'll excerpt a few passages. But his basic premise is that there is no real way to scale up solar and wind power to serve our needs, that they have catastrophic environmental side-effects, as well as being uneconomical, and that we ought to go with nuclear power instead.

...Without large-scale ways to back-up solar energy California has had to block electricity coming from solar farms when it’s extremely sunny, or pay neighboring states to take it from us so we can avoid blowing-out our grid. Despite what you’ve heard, there is no “battery revolution” on the way, for well-understood technical and economic reasons.

... As we were learning of these impacts, it gradually dawned on me that there was no amount of technological innovation that could solve the fundamental problem with renewables.

... Consider California. Between 2011–17 the cost of solar panels declined about 75 percent, and yet our electricity prices rose five times more than they did in the rest of the U.S. It’s the same story in Germany, the world leader in solar and wind energy. Its electricity prices increased 50 percent between 2006–17, as it scaled up renewables.

... Germany’s carbon emissions have been flat since 2009, despite an investment of $580 billion by 2025 in a renewables-heavy electrical grid, a 50 percent rise in electricity cost. Meanwhile, France produces one-tenth the carbon emissions per unit of electricity as Germany and pays little more than half for its electricity. How? Through nuclear power.

 

...Thanks to its energy density, nuclear plants require far less land than renewables. Even in sunny California, a solar farm requires 450 times more land to produce the same amount of energy as a nuclear plant.

... By contrast, solar panels require 17 times more materials in the form of cement, glass, concrete, and steel than do nuclear plants, and create over 200 times more waste.

We tend to think of solar panels as clean, but the truth is that there is no plan anywhere to deal with solar panels at the end of their 20 to 25 year lifespan.

Why Renewables Can't Save The Planet

[GostHacked]

Solar panels don't produce dangerous nuclear radioactive waste.  That's a factor that seems to be ignored in terms of environmental impact.  Nuke plants can blow up,  had not heard that about solar panels. So from a safety and environmental standpoint , solar panels still win in my view.

[Argus]

25 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Solar panels don't produce dangerous nuclear radioactive waste.  That's a factor that seems to be ignored in terms of environmental impact.  Nuke plants can blow up,  had not heard that about solar panels. So from a safety and environmental standpoint , solar panels still win in my view.

And yet as the article points out, only a couple of people have EVER died from nuclear power plants. And that includes those made with 1960s technology and safety levels. Meanwhile, as the article also points out, solar farms require 450 times as much land for the same power production as nuclear plants, cost much more, and nobody even knows what we're going to do with all the massive waste generated when these solar panels have to be replaced in 20 years or so.

[-TSS-]

In Sweden they had a referendum in 1980 in which the electorate voted to give up nuclear energy. 

Sweden is yet in the process of carrying out the outcome of that referendum. 

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, -TSS- said:

In Sweden they had a referendum in 1980 in which the electorate voted to give up nuclear energy. 

Sweden is yet in the process of carrying out the outcome of that referendum. 

A perfect example why such questions should not be put to referendum. The issue is too complex for the general electorate to make an informed decision. All they can do is vote based on emotions.

 

[Queenmandy85]

More people die in motor vehicle accidents in Saskatchewan in one year than have died in the entire history of nuclear power plants.

The first nuclear accident occurred at Chalk River in the 1950's. A volunteer, a nuclear engineer from the US Navy, went in to shut it down. Nobody knew if he would survive. He is currently 94 years old, still works as a preacher, and is a former governor of Georgia..., oh and he was a President of the United States. The only person who died at Fukushima died of a heart attack. 

Children who were born in Hiroshima after the war were statistically healthier than their peers in other parts of Japan. The only plant to "blow up" was Chernobyl. It was badly built and operated by untrained staff. We won't be doing that again.

Nuclear waste takes up little room. Storing it isn't a problem. 

Edited March 4, 2019 by Queenmandy85
Punctuation

[cannuck]

Canada leads the world in using thorium fuel bundles.  They still have to be "seeded" with some uranium rods (to sustain reaction), but nuclear development is still in its infancy.  Ultimately, when someone gets it right, we can use thorium fueled, sub-critical mass ("pebble bed") gas cooled reactors and have both safety and simple waste management issues.  Of course, fusion will do that as well, but still a fair way down the road, I think.

[OftenWrong]

37 minutes ago, cannuck said:

Canada leads the world in using thorium fuel bundles.  They still have to be "seeded" with some uranium rods (to sustain reaction), but nuclear development is still in its infancy.  Ultimately, when someone gets it right, we can use thorium fueled, sub-critical mass ("pebble bed") gas cooled reactors and have both safety and simple waste management issues.  Of course, fusion will do that as well, but still a fair way down the road, I think.

Yes the liberals gave nuclear a bad name, but it was out of sheer ignorance. Nuclear is the most important modern source of electrical power.  Fortunately there are rational people who listen to scientists and engineers, and won't allow the country to be misled into a bad decision. The Trump administration is pro-nuclear and is providing new funding fr research and development of new nuclear technology. The Chinese and the Russians already know how important nuclear is in terms of security, and are building several new reactors, each year. Many are conventional PWR types, but there is very keen interest now to develop new technologies like breeder reactors, fast neutron, and molten salt. On the even more "far out" side is fusion. ITAR is the big international project that is expected to produce sustainable electrical power within the next 20 years. We shall see.

[cannuck]

Our big mistake in the nuclear side was selling out to SNC.   THAT is on Harper.

It should have gone to a company or companies interested in developing the technologies, not running it into the ground for a quick buck.

[Argus]

19 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Yes the liberals gave nuclear a bad name, but it was out of sheer ignorance. Nuclear is the most important modern source of electrical power.  Fortunately there are rational people who listen to scientists and engineers, and won't allow the country to be misled into a bad decision.

Rational people? Among politicians!? The problem is nuclear requires a big up-front cost, while the costs for the others are spaced out. To a politician only interested in the next four or five years, that's awfully attractive. No new nuclear power plant has been started in North American since the seventies.

Edited March 4, 2019 by Argus

[cannuck]

started, yes, but completed Watt's Bar 1 on line in 1996 and Watt's Bar 2 due now.  

[August1991]

Nuclear energy?  We Canadians have to find a way to transport electricity.

Manitoba and Quebec are blessed with rivers. Ontario has lakes. BC, like Norway, has gorges. Labrador, too.

By nature - recent glacial accident, we have the potential water fall, but how to bring this power to market?

=====

IMHO, this is Alberta's problem too.

It is one thing to own a gold mine on the Moon where you're a "billionaire".

It is another thing to bring the gold to Earth, where anyone wants it.

 

 

  

Edited March 4, 2019 by August1991

[GostHacked]

23 hours ago, Argus said:

And yet as the article points out, only a couple of people have EVER died from nuclear power plants. And that includes those made with 1960s technology and safety levels. Meanwhile, as the article also points out, solar farms require 450 times as much land for the same power production as nuclear plants, cost much more, and nobody even knows what we're going to do with all the massive waste generated when these solar panels have to be replaced in 20 years or so.

Still nothing about the environmental impact of nuclear waste. Which sticks around for .. what .10 yrs? 100? 10000??

What about the waste of nuclear plants that need to be replaced? Many around the world are at end of life and even extended dangerously beyond their lifespan.  And we have companies like TEPCO in Japan that has one reactor as a MOX mix which it was never designed for.  So you have operational issues with nuclear plants.  We can talk about Quebec's Gentilly-2 where problems were found in the concrete.

The cost of decommissioning is expensive.

http://www.hydroquebec.com/decommissioning-gentilly-2/

Quote

The decommissioning of the Gentilly-2 power plant is a four-step process: preparation for dormancy, which covers unloading the reactor and deactivating the systems; dormancy, in which spent (irradiated) fuel is put into dry storage for more than 40 years; dismantling the facilities; and, finally, site rehabilitation.

So what happens to all that after 40 years?

[egghead]

On 3/3/2019 at 9:22 AM, GostHacked said:

Solar panels don't produce dangerous nuclear radioactive waste.  That's a factor that seems to be ignored in terms of environmental impact.  Nuke plants can blow up,  had not heard that about solar panels. So from a safety and environmental standpoint , solar panels still win in my view.

Same as the electric vehicle's battery, no one brothers to assess the environmental impact of solar panel manufacturing 

[GostHacked]

3 minutes ago, egghead said:

Same as the electric vehicle's battery, no one brothers to assess the environmental impact of solar panel manufacturing 

That all can be recycled.

[Donnie]

On 3/3/2019 at 12:22 PM, GostHacked said:

Solar panels don't produce dangerous nuclear radioactive waste.  That's a factor that seems to be ignored in terms of environmental impact.  Nuke plants can blow up,  had not heard that about solar panels. So from a safety and environmental standpoint , solar panels still win in my view.

Where did one blow up in Canada?  I may have missed it in the news.

 

How many have blown up in the last 40 years of industrialization?

[eyeball]

On 3/3/2019 at 4:10 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

Nuclear waste takes up little room. Storing it isn't a problem. 

Leaving it to governments to regulate the storage of nuclear waste is the problem.  Government incompetence, corporate greed, political corruption and basic accountability issues like those surrounding SNC Lavalin underscore why I oppose nuclear power.  What really concerns me is how blasé so many people are towards these issues - I see little reason not to believe the same lazy disdain so many people have for reducing our reliance on fossil fuels will be maintained with regards to nuclear safety - it'll cut to deeply into profits.

Edited March 15, 2019 by eyeball

[Argus]

10 hours ago, Donnie said:

Where did one blow up in Canada?  I may have missed it in the news.

How many have blown up in the last 40 years of industrialization?

There was one in the Soviet Union - not exactly top level technology, and one in Japan because of both an earthquake and a tsunami - AND because the builders put the generator in the basement, where it got flooded by the tsunami. And even so no one died.

[Donnie]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

There was one in the Soviet Union - not exactly top level technology, and one in Japan because of both an earthquake and a tsunami - AND because the builders put the generator in the basement, where it got flooded by the tsunami. And even so no one died.

And three mile island.  That's my point.

 

Point is nuclear power is the cleanest energy source we have.  Zero emissions.  Zero pollution.  Seems to be the environmentalists should be in favour of this.

We need more nuclear power plants.  No wind farms, no solar farms.  Solar should be only used on roofs of homes and businesses.  

That is my opinion.

Edited March 15, 2019 by Donnie

[Yzermandius19]

6 hours ago, Donnie said:

And three mile island.  That's my point.

 

Point is nuclear power is the cleanest energy source we have.  Zero emissions.  Zero pollution.  Seems to be the environmentalists should be in favour of this.

We need more nuclear power plants.  No wind farms, no solar farms.  Solar should be only used on roofs of homes and businesses.  

That is my opinion.

The reason most environmentalists don't like nuclear, is that was the doomsday they feared before they moved on to climate change after the end of the Cold War. Same doomsday prophecy, they just moved the goalposts and jumped on the climate change bandwagon from the nuclear winter bandwagon.

Edited March 15, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[egghead]

On 3/4/2019 at 10:35 AM, GostHacked said:

That all can be recycled.

not eveything can be recyclable, and you cannot undo the environmental impact 

[egghead]

On 3/3/2019 at 4:10 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

........

Nuclear waste takes up little room. Storing it isn't a problem. 

Do know who tell you that; storing the waste is one of the major problems 

[Donnie]

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

The reason most environmentalists don't like nuclear, is that was the doomsday they feared before they moved on to climate change after the end of the Cold War. Same doomsday prophecy, they just moved the goalposts and jumped on the climate change bandwagon from the nuclear winter bandwagon.

Yeah global warming...blah blah blah.   Another fear mongering tactic.  Totally debunked.  Look at that jackass Al Gore.  We were supposed to be dead or ice age, which is the same thing, by 2014.  He said so in his book.  He was totally wrong and now has a net worth of over $350 million.  Literally look it up.  Hundreds of millions made selling junk science.

Nuclear power is the way to go.  3 accidents in the last 40 years of industrialization of the world.  Seems pretty safe to me.

[GostHacked]

On 3/3/2019 at 7:10 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

More people die in motor vehicle accidents in Saskatchewan in one year than have died in the entire history of nuclear power plants.

Nuclear waste takes up little room. Storing it isn't a problem. 

https://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/waste/high-level-waste/index.cfm

Can we store it in your back yard?? Why not?

[GostHacked]

23 hours ago, Donnie said:

 

 Zero emissions.  Zero pollution

 

Absolutely false on both accounts.

https://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/climate-change/nuclear-power-greenhouse-gases/