babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Nuclear Energy
April 26, 2012 - 7:41pm
No one has yet mentioned Internal Fast Reactors. This nuclear power generation technology has proved to be efficient, very safe, uses spent nuclear fuel. For more information check out:
bravenewclimate.com
Chernobyl anniversary: Time to rethink nuclear power in Canada
Another problem with nuclear power came up this year, the year of "the potential apocalypse" - nuclear power plants could very well be the WORST part of a "space rock hitting earth" or some other big catastrophe.
Many of the reactors out there could end up in meltdown within days or weeks, and there might be nobody in the "asteroid affected areas" to deal with them.
"Cold shutdown" only works if there is water to keep them cool, but a damaged plant could lose water integrity, like Fukushima... [and Chernobyl?]; Or, they overheat and have hydrogen explosions.
We might think "oh well, most of us are going to die so what the heck" but there would be 100s of reactors left unattended and damaged, they would go into meltdown and sterilise the planet for 200,000 years.
Every previous major extinction saw life coming back quickly, within just years, and stronger more diverse than before.
With nuclear power plants, earth might never again have life more complex than some eyeless shrimp in Lake Vostock [under Antarctic ice].
How many reactors in the world now? About 700 power plants and 100s more research reactors? [I did a brief Google, the total didn't pop up] .
This one says 486 >http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclear-power-plant-world-wide.htm
This one shows over 700 >http://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/2011/03/16/the-nuclear-world-interactive-map/#axzz1tRIKleuT
Wiki > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors
"Its a helluva way to boil water"
okay, so lets look at "actual risk" of what is being suggested here - "Another problem with nuclear power came up this year, the year of "the potential apocalypse" - nuclear power plants could very well be the WORST part of a "space rock hitting earth" or some other big catastrophe."
I think we need to ensure that nothing combusible should be allowed in society because everything near it would "burn up".
We can learn to harness the energy of the sun in ways that are safe.
well Fidel, solar power is good but is a long way off from being able to power everything. It also is a problem with storage - when the sun doesn't shine, it can't be stored.
I think we won't be able to power the old world, energy-intensive economy by just the current solar conversion technology, no.
Nuclear power, OTOH, is a good fit for the neoliberal financial regime currently bankrupting various economies. Nuclear power is a bottomless money pit. Nobody on Wall Street or Bay Street would finance a fully privatised nuclear power project because nuclear is a proven money loser.
A nuclear power industry is necessary to build nuclear bombs.
Canadian candu reactors are not used to build bombs and don't have that capacity anyways - FYI. Fidel, I think all energy producing technologies have it's pros and cons and non are perfect.
I believe we should always have a mix and never rely on one. Living in the industrial wind turbine area of Ontario, I can say that the cost of producing a gig of wind in comparison to procuding a gig of nuclear actually completely contradicts your "belief of cost" associated with production.
It too is a money pit so to speak, so one can't assume that one energy industry is cheaper than another, or greener for that matter.
@ janfromthebruce
That wasn't what I meant. What I mean is you cannot build a bomb without nuclear reactors, and in many cases, the industry is a handy sideline for that higher-priority business.
And allthough it wasn't my intent, I had heard that part of the concern about exporting CANDUs is that they make very good breeder reactors, and can be adapted to that purpose.
okay 6079, but nuclear reactors are used for other good things as well - nuclear medicine comes to mind here and so one should consider that all things can have negative outcomes and it's all how we use certain "technology".
Whether anyone believes in the cost/benefits of nuclear or not, I think most would agree that it makes no sense whatsoever to be expanding Darlington, sitting on the edge of the most populous region in the country, on the source of drinking water for tens of millions, and on the edge of a significant geological fault line to boot.
That's fine, janfromthebruce. The atom can still be your friend (although I think isotopes can also be made from particle accelerators and synchrotrons). My point is that part of the nuclear industry is built to support the warhead industry. And the warhead industry would not exist without it.
And exporting this technology is not a benign process either.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDcjW1XSXN0&feature=related
you also need electronic technology, manufacturing, mining, and a whole host of others. Why don't we shut those industries down too.
You're right it is much better to get our baseload from coal and fracked gas.
isn't it? damage to the environment doesn't last as long nor do masses of people die if there's an accident on site. seems like there are people here boosting it who've something to lose if they shut down? if so plz say so. it is only fair for full disclosure.
eta: my grandpa was a P&PW and even he wasn't an apologist for clear cuts and unsustainable logging practises. he fought long and hard to get rid of the bleaching process and against clear cuts.
Are you joking, LTE?
I suppose one difference is that no one exempts electrical utilities, mining companies, or manufacturers, from liability to the same degree that the nuclear industry enjoys, because they're so fucking special.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Liability_Act
http://www.thestar.com/business/article/960428--nuclear-liability-act-di...
$75 million. How many houses do you think that will pay for in the event of a major accident?
Oh, and I don't think the 100 amp service on your house, or any of the other things you mention have a half-life of tens of thousands of years. And if your plumbing backs up, I don't think you'll have to leave your house for 40 or 50 years, like the people around the fukushima plant.
My point is this: Nuclear power plants are generally sold a n alternative to other sources of power, but in fact there is a completely different reason why it is heavily subsidized on our tab, and given all kinds of exemptions from responsibility. That is because it is the only way that countries in the nuclear club can make their bombs.
It is the dirtiest power there is. WHy do you think European nations are turning away from it? And what do you think our prospects are, considering we don't even know what to do with the waste we have already?
Another negative for nuclear power says Sierra Club: Radioactive Tritium
That's right fracked gas and other sources of gas are as clean as a baby's bottom. Coal is the fuel of the future and without any long term environmental problems in it procurement. Damn up rivers and destroying eco-sytems has no lasting effect of any kind. Cripes lets damn all those rivers and streams it won't matter. Having read threads on energy issues for a number of years on babble it is pretty clear to me that very few of the 'experts' here have the foggiest idea of how the grid works or on issues like baseload. And the hypocriscy to condemn nuclear because of the weaponization of it, and not lots of other parts of the military-industrial complex is telling.
To quote Bookish Agrarian from his real life, when it comes to energy production on the modern industrial and societal scale the reality is it all sucks. It really comes down to what you are willing to ignore and what you are willing to live with. I'm mostly off the grid thanks to investments in small scale renewables, but I have enough of a technical background to know what provides good stable baseload and what doesn't. Right now there are 4 options for baseload. Hydro, coal, gas and nuclear. They all suck, all contain large scale damage to the environment, and they all have horrible costs ratio. Singleling out nuclear over all others is just a pick your poison bias, it is not based on anything real.
Except for actual occurrences and the everyday potential for catastrophic failure and consequences.
You mean like acid rain, lung concerns, poisoned ground water and so on- those sorts of things?
ACtually no, LTE.
It is dirtier over the long term. We do not have a place to store our waste here in Canada, and countries with more foresight are turning away from it.
And I stand by my original point that if they didn't build bombs out of it the nuclear industry would not be what it is today.
(edit)
And what is your point at #13? If you think it is all bad then it seems to me you're the one arguing for it to all be shut down, no?
Wasn't it you who said it wasn't based on anything real? I mean they all deserve attention lets be clear. This just happens to be where people are talking about nuclear energy in particular.
Maybe they could create some sort of death ray from solar energy to get things rolling on that end of things. Or they could at least pretend to have the mother of all weapons so as to strike maximum fear in the minds of the enemy.
fukushima was wasted as an example of what not to do....gah!
It is simply not true that nuclear is dirtier than anything else over the long term. Ever heard of climate change. Nuclear has problems, some of them huge. But the thing is all energy production on the modern, industrial scale has huge problems. The obsession with nuclear as the root of all evil is highly misplaced. By the way there are all kinds of industries and technologies that have their roots in the military industrial complex. You are reading this on one of them right now. I would highly recommend you throw whatever you are reading this on away right now to keep your purity. And make sure you also ignore the massive, long term environmental damage from the mining of rare earth materials involved in the technology allowing you to read this.
In the end my point is the obsession by some progressive on nuclear power is based on a huge amount of blindness to problems in other energy sources and can be a bit embarrassing for them when they ignore the most basic of issues like baseload, which I notice you have yet to address.
LTE,
As Slumberjack said, this thread is on the subject of nuclear energy. That doesn't mean that there isn't problem with other sources, or consumption. Nor does that mean that we don't recognize those problems.
I made a pretty simple point, really - that the nuclear power industry is very closely linked with the bomb industry, and that that is a major reason why so many resources and tax dollars have been thrown into it. Because it sure isn't cheap or clean.
At least I thought is was simple, but according to you I am obsessed with it as the root of all evil, an ideological purist, blind, and ignoring other arguments which you think I should be making for you. No idea where got all that from.
Perhaps I forgot to lay the appropriate amount of blame on the industrial food system again. Maybe I should apologize in advance for that too. Anything else on your mind that I forgot to mention?
But on my point:
http://www.neis.org/literature/Brochures/weapcon.htm
A 1951 study undertaken by the AEC concluded that commercial nuclear reactors would not be economically feasible if they were used solely to produce electricity; they would be, however, if they also produced plutonium which could be sold. Utilities themselves were only mildly intrigued with the notion of being able to produce "too cheap to meter electricity," and only so long as someone else took over the responsibility for the waste products, and indemnified them against catastrophic nuclear plant accidents.
Thanks for the childish personal attack.
The point is, your point, whether simple or not, is just plain wrong. There is little connection between nuclear power and nuclear weapons in the way you posit in most countries. Some countries do use nuclear technology for war means, but those same countries use all kinds of other technologies in an abusive manner. Singling out nuclear technology in such a way as a reason to be against nuclear energy is pure logical fallicy because you are ignoring all the other technolgies that are used by those same countries in the same way. THere are many countries using nuclear technolgy for energy that have no connection to nuclear weapons. And even some of those countries you say are moving away from nuclear are really just shifting to energy produced by nuclear energy from other jurisdictions.
So again, be against nuclear, knock yourself out, but expect if you are going to post things that are simply wrong that someone might challenge you. And if you want an echo chamber have at it.
Am I completely opposed to nuclear power? No. But the industry would be nowhere near the size it is were it not for its weapons component. From that link I posted above, a 1981 document from Los Alamos Laboratory:
"There is no technical demarcation between the military and civilian reactor and there never was one. What has persisted over the decades is just the misconception that such a linkage does not exist." ("Some Political Issues Related to Future Special Nuclear Fuels Production," LA- 8969-MS, UC-16).4
Here's some background on worldwide nuclear arms proliferation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_proliferation
And of course, the arms trade involves not only warheads, but also use of depleted uranium as shell casing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium
When one looks at the waste cycle, material moves between the weapons and reactor sides of the nuclear industry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste
There was even a proposal by Jean Chretien, when he was PM, that Canada could play peacemaker by accepting warhead plutonium for use as fuel in CANDU reactors.
Of course, my greatest immediate concern is the three-fold impact the industry has on our province, as a source of uranium, as a site which has been considered for a reactor, and as a proposed waste dump.
As bad as other sources of pollution are, and I agree they are bad, they pale in comparison when one thinks of a waste problem which we have not yet begun to solve, but which will still be hot tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, and in some cases millions of years from now.
http://news.yahoo.com/sierra-club-comes-clean-26-million-donations-natural-145522430.html
Our Nuclear plant in NB is incredibly safe. It has been off-line for over two years.