Nuclear Power in Canada - is it a good choice?

[Karlin]

http://tinyurl.com/fydvq
May 23, 2006
Confronting a False Myth of Nuclear Power:
" Nuclear Power Expansion is Not a Remedy for Climate Change"

Right, and what do we know? What have we been told? This is another clouded issue due to the corporate effort to control information. We NEED to know the details to make good choices.

Its not up to the corporations to choose Canada's power and energy sources anymore - not now that they are having a direct impact on our lives, our ecosystems, our weather, and on our future survival.

Now that Canada's largest energy producer corporations are turning to nuclear power, its time the debate got started. Trans-Canada, a pipeline company originally, has a lot of coal and natural gas power producing facilities, for electricity. It has added nuclear plants to that list now.

Formerly, it was all Canadian Government owned nuclear power. Now, we have to let the person of the corporation have rights when genertaing nuclear power, and that lets them have some leeway.

Besides ownership concerns, there is basic problems with nuclear power plants. Read the whole article at the link above.

'here are a few concerns:

#1:
Ambient Heat - ever wonder about the heat we produce in our appliances? Does your toaster heat the room a bit? Do all toasters heat the atmosphere a bit? how about all the heat coming off all the motors and toasters in the world - its a lot of ambient heat, and it is adding to the global warming.

It has been estimated that every nuclear reactor daily releases thermal energy –heat-- that is in excess of the heat released by the detonation of a 15 kiloton nuclear bomb blast. In addition to horrendous direct impact of this heat on aquatic ecosystems, nuclear power contributes significantly to the thermal energy inside Earth’s atmosphere, making it contraindicated at this time of rapid global warming.

#2:
Radiation:
Of course, this is the biggest concern - what to do with the radioactive waste and radioactive pollution?

The most concentrated waste is irradiated fuel from electric power reactors, and the residual wastes from attempts to “recycle” or reprocess the fuel. Other wastes include the entire massive reactor structure itself when the facility is shut down.

#3:
Greenhouse gasses - yes, really.
To start it up requires electricity, and then there is transmission of the electricity, etc etc.

Nuclear power is not free from carbon emissions. A number of recent studies have found that when mining, processing, and extensive transportation of uranium in order to make nuclear fuel is considered, the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) as the result of making electricity from uranium is comparable to burning natural gas to make electric power. Additional energy required for decommissioning and disposition of the wastes generated increases this CO2 output substantially.

and -

Nuclear power is not only dependent upon fossil fuels for the production of uranium fuel, decommissioning, and the disposition of wastes generated: it is also dependent upon a grid that is powered by other sources of energy, typically coal.

#4:
Not cost effective compared to wind, solar!!
[wow, even I thought this was the one advantage of nuclear power, but its only economical with the government subsidies]

Since splitting atoms is not a cost-effective source of electric power, it is even less cost-effective in preventing greenhouse gas emissions. Life cycle costs for nuclear power generation (in the USA) have been estimated at 12 cents a kilowatt hour, whereas life cycle costs for wind power in the same analysis is estimated at 4 cents a kilowatt hour. Others find that expanding nuclear generating capacity is about twice as expensive as expanding generating capacity through investment in wind power. Since the same money will buy 2 -- 3 times more electric power when used to purchase wind generated electric power, it is clear that prevention of greenhouse emissions will also be 2 – 3 times greater when buying wind generated electricity.

So, once again, I conclude that putting our money into WIND and SOLAR electrical generation would be a better use of government dollars. For the benefit of society, corporate dollars would also go into wind and solar.

Getting away from the "centrally generated" electricity and instead having a lot more "on site" production of electricity would be the greatest benefit to Canadains and the environment, as well as economically. Only the corporate side benefits from these massive generators with long transmission lines.

Solar Panels on every rooftop, Windmills at every hilltop - other than the complaints that windmills are an eyesore [I like them!], there is NO downside to this plan. Economically and environmentally, this is best.

Comparing solar and wind to nuclear's tremendously dangerous potential, it is obvious that solar and Wind must be the choice - especially where government dollars are in play, as they are to a high degree in nuclear plants.

Enough corporate welfare that creates dangers for Canadains, stop it!!

 

[Machjo]

What about requiring all new buildings to be solar efficient? For instance, if you build a new building, you must take this into consideration when planning for windows and insulation, as well as for the possibility of building solar panels on the roof or even the outer walls, perhaps?

What about requiring same of cars? Even if the car continues to rely on petrol, perhaps the solar cells could at least contribute partially. for instance, while the petrol would be responsible to propel the car forward, the solar panels would be responsible to feed electricity to the battery, thus allowing the car to become more efficient that way.

In like manner, what about building solar panels over roads? This could lead to allowing certain vehicles to tap into them likewise.

And last but not least, how about bicycles? Let's use them more often.

 

[Karlin]

All of those are good ideas.

We could be producing SO MUCH energy, mostly electrical, from these kinds of sources.

How about a little generator on every stationary exersize bike? [might as well get somewhere, lol]

I like the idea of solar rodaways - they could power cars by them selves!! - what a concept eh?

The REASON that these good ideas for ELECTRICITY production are going unused, despite having the technology, is that the big corporate guys want CENTRALISED sources of power generation that are then sent out over transmission lines.

They collect the revenues this way, but if it were on my own roof, I would be paying the solar panel maker and not the fossil fools who are in favour of having centralised sources. The solar panel makers [ and other alternatives] do not have the political clout [lobby] that the oilmen and coalburning and nuclear electricity producers do.

A big power plant spewing CO2 and mercury and other bad pollution is what we are choosing to use instead of nice clean on-site solar panels. Its not OUR choice, it is very obviously a corporate choice. Now ask why government listens to them instead of us....

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Ambient Heat - ever wonder about the heat we produce in our appliances? ...

Actually, the only real fix for that one is to stop using any energy at all. In any use of energy, in any form, it all turns into heat eventually. The issue is how much heat can the environment dissipate without raising the ambient temperature. An approximate answer seems to be, less than what we're currently generating.

I'm somewhat ambivalent about nuclear power, and I don't really know what the answer to the question in the thread title is. It's A choice, certainly, and I don't think we know enough to close the door on it or embrace it as a solution. My major concern is that it's a very unforgiving technology. Simple human errors can produce disasters like Chernobyl, and near-disasters like Three Mile Island, and safe disposal of the extremely dangerous waste products it generates remains problematical. Because of issues like those, I'm inclined to think it might best be viewed as a solution of last resort, but when I think seriously about that it occurs to me that if we get to that point, this civilization's going down anyway. If it can be made safe and reliable and the waste disposal problems can be solved--and they're just engineering problems really, albeit very difficult ones, not matters of basic science we don't understand yet--then sure, let's add nuclear to the mix as part of the solution. But not all of it, or even most of it.

Good question though, one that needs to be explored with great depth and thoroughness.

 

[nelk]

Karlin wrote

#1:
Ambient Heat - ever wonder about the heat we produce in our appliances? Does your toaster heat the room a bit? Do all toasters heat the atmosphere a bit? how about all the heat coming off all the motors and toasters in the world - its a lot of ambient heat, and it is adding to the global warming.

In accordance with thermo dynamic principles ALL energy used for whatever purpose is in the end converted into"ambient"heat.
It is the lowest level in the "heat"chain.
Our environment is the big heatsink; radiation into space is one of the ways to release and lower heatcontent.
The remainder is responsable for part of global warming, since the relevant mass and characteristics can be considered constant, any heatinput will increases surrounding temperature.
Endothermic natural processes may benefit from higher heatcontent available, but only to a degree; and only if growing areas are available.
Desertification, roads and build up spaces don't help.

Similar to the lemmings, mankind at some point will have to jump ,actual being thrown off their energy induced "power"trip into nonexistence.

You still want to buy that "Hummer"? :idea:

 

[Toro]

RE: Nuclear Power in Cana

Nuclear power is the cleanest alternative by far that can be distributed on a large scale.