Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nuclear Power

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Nuclear Power

    With the phase out of coal-fired generation in Alberta and move to renewables and natural gas, there is an opportunity for a third fuel source to come into the mix to provide that base-load: nuclear.

    What are your thoughts on having a proper nuclear power plant set up in Alberta?
    4
    Yes, all for it
    75.00%
    3
    Fusion only, fission produces waste
    25.00%
    1
    No way!
    0.00%
    0

    The poll is expired.

    Last edited by IrishAtomic; 03-11-2019, 10:33 AM. Reason: poll changed the thread.

  • #2
    Show me one Candu reactor built on time and on budget.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

    Comment


    • #3
      Until we get fusion power, I'd rather drill a couple of kilometres deep, and use water heated by residual heat from planet formation and natural radioactive decay. Bonus points if you can extract lithium before feeding the cool water down a different hole several kilometres away back deep into the earth. I hope we see many more projects like Terrapin's Alberta Number 1.

      Comment


      • #4
        What does Alberta know about drilling holes? LOL
        Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

        Comment


        • #5
          BUMP

          Comment


          • #6
            We are in a “Climate crisis”, “Climate emergency” now. Waiting for new technologies to come along.

            My view us that as long as nuclear is not seen as a viable option by the climate change scientists, the crush’s isn’t really a crisis. They too are willing to wait for new practical and socially acceptable technological solutions that could be rolled out on such a scale that the medicine won’t kill the patient.


            Also, when it’s time, almost all funding to such climate research will justifiably be cancelled and the funding shifted to finding and deploying solutions, not studying a known problem that has already been studied to death.

            It will be time to retrain the scientists and researchers as solar, wind and nuclear plant construction workers. Or battery factory workers. Equipment retrofit workers. ...
            Last edited by KC; 07-11-2019, 06:46 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by KC
              My view us that as long as nuclear is not seen as a viable option by the climate change scientists, the crush’s isn’t really a crisis. They too are willing to wait for new practical and socially acceptable technological solutions that could be rolled out on such a scale that the medicine won’t kill the patient.


              Wait, what? Are you under the impression that climatologists are against nuclear power as a rule? That's totally false. Many of them are fine with nuclear power in principal precisely because it is a very low emissions power source. The problems arise when it comes time to design and build new nuclear plants, though, for a whole slew of reasons. Some of them valid, many not. Personally I think that nuclear has to be part of the solution, but it's not a magic bullet, and there are real challenges with it in terms of waste disposal/storage, massive cost overruns and so on.
              Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 07-11-2019, 08:33 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                I have no problem with the local hazards of nuclear. The problem is the cost. Nuclear plants are extremely expensive to build, maintain and decommission. And so they end up being very big to capitalize on scale. But that goes against the concept of distributed generation, which seems to be the trend.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
                  Originally posted by KC
                  My view us that as long as nuclear is not seen as a viable option by the climate change scientists, the crush’s isn’t really a crisis. They too are willing to wait for new practical and socially acceptable technological solutions that could be rolled out on such a scale that the medicine won’t kill the patient.


                  Wait, what? Are you under the impression that climatologists are against nuclear power as a rule? That's totally false. Many of them are fine with nuclear power in principal precisely because it is a very low emissions power source. The problems arise when it comes time to design and build new nuclear plants, though, for a whole slew of reasons. Some of them valid, many not. Personally I think that nuclear has to be part of the solution, but it's not a magic bullet, and there are real challenges with it in terms of waste disposal/storage, massive cost overruns and so on.
                  Thanks for the counterpoint. Yes it was wrong of me to generalize/stereotype the community of scientists.

                  A near term conversion of the world’s fossil fuel fleet and equipment will create massive added production and pollution if it is achieved through conventional power and fuel sources. Going more nuclear earlier means that the worst central plant issues could be replaced upstream of efforts to go towards distributed power.* i.e. otherwise it’s coal plants in China powering solar panel production. Massive amounts of resource mining, refining, production, transportation and installation resource use to build out vast wind farms to replace coal and natural gas power plants, etc.

                  Are giant battery plants being built using clean electric shovels, electric dozers, etc. Will the resource streams be powered by clean fuels?

                  A local example: the old arena. It will be demolished and in the process the equipment from demolishing to crushing up and burying or returning materials to a use cycle will create far more pollution than just letting the building sit and rot for decades until it could be demolished using clean power. Call it “recycling” and the mental giants think that is good for the environment. That they are somehow helping the global warming crisis when they are very likely making it worse.


                  * a multi pronged approach is needed. Clean up central plant so turnover of fossil fuel fleet can be done more cleanly. At the distributed front, simply cut consumption of near everything then look at replacing central plant energy needs with clean energy. ... then there population reduction until growth can be met sustainably.
                  Last edited by KC; 07-11-2019, 09:12 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    A post from another thread.

                    Originally posted by Stoneman View Post
                    Motor Mouth: The hypocrisy of armchair environmentalism

                    Climate change activists are always saying that we need to listen to scientists — perhaps it’s time they paid attention, too

                    https://driving.ca/features/feature-...vironmentalism
                    “ For instance, with the incredible amount of attention paid to such high-profile emitters like cars and cow farts, I was absolutely gobsmacked to discover that more effective disposal of the chemicals used in air conditioning and refrigeration — supposedly 1,000 to 9,000 more deleterious to global warming than carbon dioxide — would represent the greatest boon to greenhouse gas reduction, the reduction of 89.74 gigatons of CO2 (equivalents) projected almost nine times what the authors predict electric vehicles will save.”

                    “ Want more hard, scientific proof that we’re not barking up the right tree? Well, picture this: All of the carbon dioxide reductions that Drawdown is projecting for the entire global transportation industry — cars, trucks, mass transit, electric bicycles, and yes, Greta, the airplanes you so assiduously denigrate — is barely more than half the amount (45.68 gigatons) we’d save if we just built more windmills (84.60 gigatons). The same is true of simply reducing the amount of food we waste — ...”
                    Last edited by KC; 08-11-2019, 10:17 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      BUMP

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X