Nuclear Power

[FascistLibertarian]

Hey all

Just wondering what your thoughts are on nuclear power.

I personally can not understand how some people can be against it AND for reducing greenhouse gases.

It seems to me these people want it both ways.

If Canada wants to reduce greenhouse gases then nuclear is THE best chance we currently have.

[Argus]

Hey all

Just wondering what your thoughts are on nuclear power.

I personally can not understand how some people can be against it AND for reducing greenhouse gases.

It seems to me these people want it both ways.

If Canada wants to reduce greenhouse gases then nuclear is THE best chance we currently have.

I'm uncomfortable with nuclear power because we still have no way of disposing of the highly toxic byproducts, and because accidents can lead to catastrophic incidents. However, we really don't have much alternative. I think, therefore, that we should be building more nuclear plants.

I also think the government should be doing its best to encourage conservation, including tax grants for energy efficient vehicles and appliances.

[madmax]

Hey all

Just wondering what your thoughts are on nuclear power.

I personally can not understand how some people can be against it AND for reducing greenhouse gases.

It seems to me these people want it both ways.

If Canada wants to reduce greenhouse gases then nuclear is THE best chance we currently have.

The Environment is not a one issue endeavour. The dangers of Nuclear Power have not changed since the 50s. There have been a number of close calls, and a couple disasters. 3 Mile Island is still a contained mess.

Chernobyl exposed the dangers of careless shutdowns and windups IIRC, and the Nuclear Waste is an environmental hazard with no known solution.

Nuclear Power is expensive, and unlike the past, todays cost overruns in trying to create a nuclear power plant are astronomical, and they get higher from there.

Safer Energy is possible. While there has been an acceptance in Nuclear Power in Ontario, I don't believe it every actually became cost effective. Infact in Ontario we are still paying for it today, and get taxed on it twice.

Nuclear Power, if it were cost effective and provided an economic advantage, then it would be the power of choice for all private energy companies. The only time Energy Companies would be interested in providing Nuclear Power, would be if the Government, hence US foot the bill for them, and they get the profits.

However, I am interested in hearing more about it, and other sources of energy as I am no expert.

[Leafless]

Hey all

Just wondering what your thoughts are on nuclear power.

I personally can not understand how some people can be against it AND for reducing greenhouse gases.

It seems to me these people want it both ways.

If Canada wants to reduce greenhouse gases then nuclear is THE best chance we currently have.

Nuclear would be the best choice if there was an unlimited supply of uranium.

Canada produces 35% of the world's uranium along with the U.S., Czechoslovakia and Zaire producing the rest.

Once the uranium ore is collected it is ground through a series of chemical reactions it is converted to uranium hexafluoride.

The mixture end up being about 99.28% U-238 and 0.71% U-235. And here lies the problem, U-238 is not fissionable and is useless in a reactor.

This means out of 100% uranium converted to uranium hexachloride, only .71% known as U-235 is suitable for use in a reactor.

[Bonam]

I'm for nuclear power myself. Nuclear technology has advanced significantly since the first reactors were built, and people have learned from the mistakes and close calls. Any new technology is at first dangerous, but as it becomes better understood, safety increases. In fact, as technologies go, nuclear energy generation perhaps has one of the cleanest track records. Besides Chernobyl, which was caused by a mindboggling level of incompetence on the part of the plant operators, there have been no deaths or dangerous releases of materials from any other nuclear power plant (the three mile island incident never breached its containment).

Furthermore, like I said, technological advances promise ever safer nuclear reactors. For example, light water nuclear reactors (unlike heavy water ones) have an inherent tendency to slow down the reaction rate as temperature increases, thus greatly decreasing the chance of a meltdown. They also allow less fissile material to be in the core at any one time, in fact, generally below the amount that could cause a runaway chain reaction. In addition, more technology is currently being researched, to further improve safety and other aspects of nuclear reactors.

In terms of disposing of waste, for one, much of the waste can be put to use. For example, depleted uranium is used for its high density in certain types of munitions. Other types of reactors generate plutonium as a byproduct, which is used in space probes (and other applications) for radioisotope thermoelectric generators. And for the waste that does have to be disposed of, you just put it where no one is going to touch it for a few hundred years. Sure, it's a pain to get rid of the waste, but it's not impossible nor really dangerous.

As for the cost, it's the same as anything else, the more of them you build and streamline the process, the cheaper it will get. Currently, every single nuclear power plant is a big deal, and not only does it have to deal with the technical apsects of construction, the company also has to suffer the burden of protests and petitions by powerful anti-nuclear lobby groups. For applications where this is not the case, such as naval forces (i.e. aircraft carriers and submarines), nuclear technology has proven to be the most economical and viable way to provide power. The same could be true for civilian applications if there was a higher level of acceptance of nuclear technology.

[Bonam]

Oh, and as for the post about supply... true, if we limit ourselves to current technology and the Earth's supply of Uranium, it'd only last us like 30-50 years. But, we don't have to be limited to that. For one, the development of thorium fueled nuclear reactors is under way. That's just one option for alternate fuel for nuclear reactors, and if it becomes viable, one that will provide power for a longer period of time. Thorium is much more plentiful on Earth than uranium is. Secondly, there is plenty of uranium available elsewhere in the solar system, such as in asteroids. Within a few decades, it may become possible to extract resources there at an economically viable cost. And, of course, whatever we do for energy for now, fusion power will most likely become available around 2035-2050, with the promise of solving most of our energy problems.

[jdobbin]

If any of the provinces want to pay for a huge reactor just t provide energy and reduce emissions, they are probably wasting money.

They'd probably get more bang for their buck if they built $25 billion worth of geo-thermal plants all over the place. Moreover, they would have no waste left over.

[Who's Doing What?]

Hey all

Just wondering what your thoughts are on nuclear power.

I personally can not understand how some people can be against it AND for reducing greenhouse gases.

It seems to me these people want it both ways.

If Canada wants to reduce greenhouse gases then nuclear is THE best chance we currently have.

Sure, and when we build our next nuclear power plant, why not paint a great big bullseye right on top so the terrorists can find it easier.

Personally on top of things like Chernobyl, I am not too keen on nuclear waste.

[gc1765]

No, I don't think it's a good idea because of the waste it produces.

From wikipedia: "As of 2003, the United States had accumulated about 49,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel from nuclear reactors. Underground storage at Yucca Mountain in U.S. has been proposed as permanent storage. After 10,000 years of radioactive decay, according to United States Environmental Protection Agency standards, the spent nuclear fuel will no longer pose a threat to public health and safety." (link)

I'd rather see us use less energy all together. Solar, wind, hydro & geothermal are all options that we should be thinking about.

[August1991]

On the coast of Normandy overlooking the English Channel, sits the nuclear power plant at Flamanville. Its two reactors generate enough electricity for the entire regions of Normandy and Brittany. France has 58 nuclear plants like this which meet 80 percent of its total electricity needs -- and allow it to export power to Britain, Germany and Italy.

NPR

Nuclear power accounts for 45 percent of electricity generating capacity in Ontario, but 14 percent in Canada.

Energy Probe

I happen to think that nuclear energy is good but I'd be the first to admit that it poses very, very long term problems for our planet.

When Europeans claim to be GHG friendly, someone should remind them of the long term consequences of their nuclear choice. And it's not just France. Germany imports electricity from nuclear plants in France.

Sure, and when we build our next nuclear power plant, why not paint a great big bullseye right on top so the terrorists can find it easier.

Exactly. 19 idiots tried to fly 4 planes into big buildings in the US. 3 succeeded.

What if the target had been a nuclear station?

[Remiel]

It's a long wait for ITER, but I'm hopeful.

And Bonam, depleted uranium munitions should be illegal. They are more or less a kind of poison.

[Leafless]

Oh, and as for the post about supply... true, if we limit ourselves to current technology and the Earth's supply of Uranium, it'd only last us like 30-50 years. But, we don't have to be limited to that. For one, the development of thorium fueled nuclear reactors is under way. That's just one option for alternate fuel for nuclear reactors, and if it becomes viable, one that will provide power for a longer period of time. Thorium is much more plentiful on Earth than uranium is. Secondly, there is plenty of uranium available elsewhere in the solar system, such as in asteroids. Within a few decades, it may become possible to extract resources there at an economically viable cost. And, of course, whatever we do for energy for now, fusion power will most likely become available around 2035-2050, with the promise of solving most of our energy problems.

Your post is based on pure speculation and you did not provide proof to back your claims.

Thorium reactors are only in the experimental stage and offer no solution for current usage.

Relating to Canada's current requirement requirements think domestically available natural gas is is the fuel to use to power our hydro electric power generators and even automobiles.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/altfuel/natural_gas.html

[watching&waiting]

I really do not think Nuclear is the way to go in this, and I think we have overlooked what would be a real easy and better approach to having unlimited energy etc. in the form of geothermic power. The fact that we would need to dig deep holes directly into the earths mantle should not be a huge problem and sinc e it really is just a big deep whole, I do not think it would be all that hard to do and maintain. we already have some mines that go down to where the temperatures would be near 150 F. So it should not be all that difficult to dig say a 100ft wide hole that goes say 20,000 ft deep to where the earths own inner heat will then boil water to steam and run generators etc., with absolutely no pollution of the air or water. Since its the earth itself that has this heat, it can be had anywhere that a hole can be dug. Even our governments of today should not be able to break a hole, no matter how hard they try.

Even if we had to dig even deeper, we would still be far better to do this then to keep spending for energy such as oil and gas. The whole initial costs of digging the whole and then plunbing it with heat pipes and steam pipes to run large generators would be a one time cost, and I would like to think it would be less then the hundreds of millions that nuclear would cost and also nuclear will have disposal problems that we are not sure of its costs as of yet.

I often think about this and I do not see many things stopping this type of project from working as I think it can be done. So I throw it out to the people here on this board to discuss it and see what comes of that.

[Keepitsimple]

I've got no problem with nuclear. Three mile island happened almost 30 years ago and although it was a serious accident that caused a lot of mental anguish, no one died and to my knowledge, no one has since died due to any exposure to radiation.

[jdobbin]

I've got no problem with nuclear. Three mile island happened almost 30 years ago and although it was a serious accident that caused a lot of mental anguish, no one died and to my knowledge, no one has since died due to any exposure to radiation.

Yeah, why worry about something you can't see, hear or taste?

[FascistLibertarian]

Coal and every other energy source will never be held to the same standard as nuclear.

Its because hippie singers were against it and the vast majority of people dont car enough to look at the facts.