babble-intro-img
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

97 replies [Last post]

Comments

janfromthebruce
Offline
Joined: Apr 24 2007

Our nuclear plant in Bruce  County is running safely - always has - and safety and security is taken very seriously because their loved ones and their friends live in the surrounding communities. It also is a great source of well paying employment opportunities, good employee relationships, unionized.


quizzical
Offline
Joined: Dec 8 2011

ok  answers my question re employment bias. we should just overlook all the serious negative consequences of nuclear plants.

how is Chernobyl doing these days?Answer from April 2012 Times on line below

Chernobyl offers many lessons about what Princeton University engineering professor Robert Socolow calls the "afterheat" of a nuclear disaster, but it's the generational lesson that's most important. Because some of the isotopes released during a nuclear accident remain radioactive for tens of thousands of years, cleanup is the work not just of first responders but also of their descendants and their descendants' descendants. Asked when the reactor site would again become inhabitable, Ihor Gramotkin, director of the Chernobyl power plant, replies, "At least 20,000 years." (See pictures of the worst nuclear disasters.)

That timescale makes things more than simply frustrating. How can safety measures be tracked over the course of millennia?



Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2067562,00.html#ixzz1tddVU1YD


Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004

janfromthebruce wrote:

Our nuclear plant in Bruce  County is running safely - always has - and safety and security is taken very seriously because their loved ones and their friends live in the surrounding communities. It also is a great source of well paying employment opportunities, good employee relationships, unionized.

Where do they store the nuclear waste?


Life, the unive...
Offline
Joined: Mar 23 2007

On site.  Where do you store your garbage?


Lard Tunderin Jeezus
Offline
Joined: Aug 27 2001

Oh yes, the Bruce plant is a dream-come-true. Guaranteed private profits, and all risks borne by the public. 

Mike Harris and little Jimmy Flaherty sold it off for pennies on the dollar so they could hide some of the deficit they created. (An unnecessary deficit they created with their generous tax-cuts for their filthy rich friends and benefactors.) In order to make the deal happen, the public had to be put on the hook for any eventuality. Hard to guarantee good corporate governance under such circumstances, IMHO.


Slumberjack
Online
Joined: Aug 8 2005

A sweet deal by any measure they're using everywhere today.


quizzical
Offline
Joined: Dec 8 2011

is there dots to be connected between negative feelings towards Mulcair extending to Nathan? 2 strong environmentalists could rock the nuclear world? how are Tom and Nathan about nuclear power and its lucrative by-products in arms manufacturing?

i saw a list somewhere here about minimum requirements of the NDP and for me this would maybe be 1 aspect i want info leading to action on.


Life, the unive...
Offline
Joined: Mar 23 2007

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

Oh yes, the Bruce plant is a dream-come-true. Guaranteed private profits, and all risks borne by the public. 

Mike Harris and little Jimmy Flaherty sold it off for pennies on the dollar so they could hide some of the deficit they created. (An unnecessary deficit they created with their generous tax-cuts for their filthy rich friends and benefactors.) In order to make the deal happen, the public had to be put on the hook for any eventuality. Hard to guarantee good corporate governance under such circumstances, IMHO.

Which is pretty much exactly what McGuinty did with renewable energy under the Green Energy Act.  The usefulness of an energy source really doesn't have much to do with the evil robot overlords who run our government and the profiteering they allow for their well heeled friends.


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005
Life, the unive...
Offline
Joined: Mar 23 2007

Sorry as a person who is mostly off the grid between solar and wind that piece is complete and utter horseshit from both a technical and real world stand point.  We are very small scale, but even we have to maintain a connection to the grid as there are times when even with battery back up, high efficency appliances and conservation we can't get enough energy to do what we need to do in a modern world.  Baseload is real and when you blow it up to a societal level it is even more important so the person who wrote that article knows almost nothing about what happens when you place a positive wire and a negative wire into an electrical source.  If that is what people are basing their beliefs on no wonder our energy system is so screwed up and becoming unaffordable. 

Why not go to someone like that, a complete amateur, the next time you need brain surgery.  I mean they posted it on the web so surely you really are supposed to use that dirty drill bit in the back of the drawer to make the first whack at the head. 


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005

There are people on all sides of the controversy who consider themselves experts in energy technology and systems.

The issues are not, as you would like us all to believe, merely technical ones that should be left to the experts to fight out, like techniques of brain surgery. There are real social elements to the whole issue of energy supply and climate change.

Some experts are unable to think outside the confines of the present economy and society, or are totally compromised by their allegiances to existing technologies and energy-related enterprises. Fortunately, there are other experts who are capable of imagining a society ordered along different principles, in which things may be possible that a profit-oriented society would consider impossible. They incorporate that perspective into their analysis and research.

If you consider such people to be "complete amateurs" then you are obviously unaware of the considerable body of research and opinion by respected and qualified experts that challenges the technocratic dogma you hold so dear. That leaves you with nothing but ad hominem snark in place of reasoned argument.


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005

Prof. Chris Williams of Pace University in the USA said it better than I:

Quote:
It may seem hard to believe, but it is fully within our means today to make the alternative energy dream a green reality. All the technologies exist. The engineering is relatively straightforward, especially when compared to the epic size of our oil-powered, automobile-based societies. The need is obvious. Unless we want to consign humanity to a broiling, toxic swamp called earth, alternative energy is an imperative.

The tricky part, however, is society and politics. How our society and economy is organized; how wealth and resources are generated and distributed; which institutions have a vested interest in the status quo; and how to create radically different forms of decision making are the major obstacles to greening the global economy.


Life, the unive...
Offline
Joined: Mar 23 2007

M. Spector wrote:

 

If you consider such people to be "complete amateurs" then you are obviously unaware of the considerable body of research and opinion by respected and qualified experts that challenges the technocratic dogma you hold so dear. That leaves you with nothing but ad hominem snark in place of reasoned argument.

I think you were looking in the mirror when you wrote that last bit.

You get, as I have pointed out a number of times, that I provide most of our own power needs through solar and wind technologies that I have built and developed myself.   I am not some anti-renewable energy technocrat.  I am however someone who speaks from considerable personal experience.  The stuff in that link you provided is complete hogwash.  It is not based on anything but a wish and a prayer.  There is nothing in it backed by a considerable body of research or knowledge.   Just because someone posts on the internet doesn't mean they know squat.  If it did we could all claim to be an experts on anything. 


Life, the unive...
Offline
Joined: Mar 23 2007

M. Spector wrote:

Prof. Chris Williams of Pace University in the USA said it better than I:

Quote:
It may seem hard to believe, but it is fully within our means today to make the alternative energy dream a green reality. All the technologies exist. The engineering is relatively straightforward, especially when compared to the epic size of our oil-powered, automobile-based societies. The need is obvious. Unless we want to consign humanity to a broiling, toxic swamp called earth, alternative energy is an imperative.

The tricky part, however, is society and politics. How our society and economy is organized; how wealth and resources are generated and distributed; which institutions have a vested interest in the status quo; and how to create radically different forms of decision making are the major obstacles to greening the global economy.

Here is where the hope meets reality.  It simply isn't true that the technology exists to replace conventional energy production, nor is it just a matter or re-organizing things, although eventually we are going to have to get there eventually.  So before I go on let me be clear I believe renewable energy is going to be a big part of our future needs.  We aren't there yet, but it will become increasingly important.  However, your contention is that baseload is a myth.  Even the good professor you are quoting isn't claiming that.  What he is saying is that baseload can come from other sources.  That just ain't true.  Not yet.   Not if you want an economy, or to provide things like consistent heat in cold climates in the middle of the night.

Let's look at photo-voltaic.  This technology has come a long, long way in the last decade.  But it is still relatively ineffcient in transposing the suns energy into usable electrical energy.  With increased research and advances it will become better, but we are still at least a couple of decades from truly revolutionary energy production from the sun.  One other problem that is going to more difficult to solve is the inversion process that needs to take place to switch from DC to AC.  Really it is going to take someone coming up with a new material in the guts of this technology to really get things going.  We are at least a couple of decades away there, although who knows maybe someone is sitting in a lab somewhere who will announce a breakthrough next year, but right now there is nothing on the horizon.

Harnessing the wind is even more problematic.  Our ancestors knew a lot about wind.  Yet they didn't use it for electricity, instead they constructed dams.  There is a reason for that.  Wind, even if you think it is windy where you live, is a very, very unreliable energy producer.  Believe me I know.  Our return on investment for our turbine is still quite some ways off, if ever.  We did it because we wanted to be as self-suficient in our energy needs.  The trouble is wind can stop very suddenly which causes no end of grief if you are trying to use the electricity produced by a wind turbine.   Another problem is a turbine for instance needs to be heated in cold weather to ensure it doesn't freeze or shed ice at 300 miles an hour.  This actually takes electricity and ironicly it needs to come from non-renewable or hydro-electric sources.  In the end current wind technology is pretty ineffcient too.  It is getting better, but again we are a long way off being able to replace anything with it.

The sad fact is that nuclear is going to be a needed technology for some time.  Even jurisdictions that are pretending they are ending nuclear energy are often just importing it from elsewhere.  Any pretence otherwise that we can just get rid of nuclear energy production without any problem is ignoring hard reality.  As I have said.  It all sucks.  All of it.   But in the end nuclear is no better or worse than anything else.   There is huge problems with everything depending at what aspect of energy you are looking at.  


6079_Smith_W
Offline
Joined: Jun 10 2010

You'll have to excuse me if I disagree with that last bit. 

And I don't think you can quite compare nuclear to natural gas or even coal when you factor in the costs of building and decomissioning a plant. And of course, there is that waste left over, which we still don't have a clue what to do with.

There is a reason why, as many in the biz out here say, coal is king.

 


Life, the unive...
Offline
Joined: Mar 23 2007

Three words- fracking, fracking, fracking  this is where we move from empirical fact into opinion.   The forever posioning of water is a big deal for me, others will focus on other things like you have.  Not recognizing that is what bothers me.


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

The stuff in that link you provided is complete hogwash.  It is not based on anything but a wish and a prayer. There is nothing in it backed by a considerable body of research or knowledge.   Just because someone posts on the internet doesn't mean they know squat.

Your last sentence took the words right out of my mouth.

If you had bothered to actually read what I linked to, you would have seen that it was almost entirely based on the widely-known work of Dr. Mark Diesendorf from Australia’s Institute of Environmental Studies and an article from the U.S. Department of Energy. I guess those sources aren't authoritative enough for you.   


Life, the unive...
Offline
Joined: Mar 23 2007

In case you haven't noticed Canada doesn't have a Nevada.  Those things matter.


6079_Smith_W
Offline
Joined: Jun 10 2010

In the first place, we aren't simply  looking at a choice between nuclear power or fracking.  

And if we want to talk about poisoning water, burying nuclear waste in shield rock formations, full of cracks, should take care of the job for a few hundred thousand years


janfromthebruce
Offline
Joined: Apr 24 2007

At least we would know where that "waste" is rather than it blowing around all over the place, or flowing everywhere into our water system, and so on. I believe we do best with a mixed system of energy production.


6079_Smith_W
Offline
Joined: Jun 10 2010

Perhaps we might know, but when you consider that most of our history only goes back about 4,000 years, it's a bit of a leap of faith to start making plans that people are going to have to deal with for 10 times that span of time, and then some. 

 


Life, the unive...
Offline
Joined: Mar 23 2007

6079_Smith_W wrote:

In the first place, we aren't simply  looking at a choice between nuclear power or fracking.  

And if we want to talk about poisoning water, burying nuclear waste in shield rock formations, full of cracks, should take care of the job for a few hundred thousand years

I see the my issue is far more important than yours arrogance continues.  You might want to read up on the impacts of fracking before you make such derisivie comments about the issues that matter to others besides yourself.  You have made claims, I refuted them, but not once did I suggest there was no concerns about nuclear, just that other things matter just as much.  


MegB
Offline
Joined: Nov 28 2001

janfromthebruce wrote:

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".

Actually, the recent discovery that particle accelerators can produce the necessary isotopes will ensure that medical facilities themselves can produce them on site and relatively inexpensively.  No need for dangerous reactors and all the environmental concerns associated with plutonium production and waste storage.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/in-a-breakthrough-canadian-researchers-develop-a-new-way-to-produce-medical-isotopes/article2343967/


6079_Smith_W
Offline
Joined: Jun 10 2010

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

In the first place, we aren't simply  looking at a choice between nuclear power or fracking.  

And if we want to talk about poisoning water, burying nuclear waste in shield rock formations, full of cracks, should take care of the job for a few hundred thousand years

I see the my issue is far more important than yours arrogance continues.  You might want to read up on the impacts of fracking before you make such derisivie comments about the issues that matter to others besides yourself.  You have made claims, I refuted them, but not once did I suggest there was no concerns about nuclear, just that other things matter just as much.  

I said no such thing, LTE. 

What I said was this: 

Making the choice to not build any more nuclear power plants does not mean that one MUST go out and use hydraulic fracturing to mine fuel. It is not a simple either/or question.

I said nothing derisive about your position on fracking (a practice which I also oppose, as I said). I did not accuse you of having no concerns about nuclear power. 

And as for the charge that I am arrogantly pushing my issue, it is not my issue. It is the subject  of this thread, and I am not pushing anything by saying that I consider it of highest priority that there be a moratorium on building those things.

 

I live in a province where they mine that shit, and there is a slowpoke reactor 5km from where I am standing right now. I lived near Pinawa when they were dismantling the reactor site at Whiteshell. It was a dogs breakfast of a process; they pretty much just made it up as they went along.

Our nuclear industry is so well-run that the federal government had to break its own rules and fire the person responsible for enforcing them. Why? Because she insisted on following the rule that a reactor needed a back-up cooling system while operating. Strangely enough, that's the same problem that turned fukushima into a giant soldering iron with no off switch, and made everything around it unusable for at least the next 40 years.

It is so well-run that it needed a secret bailout from the federal government to pay for reactor maintenance (including at Bruce) which was over a year behind schedule. So well-run that AECL was in breach of its safety agreement in 2007 because it was so late in getting safety upgrades done.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/CanadaAM/20090602/raitt_documents_090602/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_Energy_of_Canada_Limited

It is so well-run that they aren't even required to pay for a nuclear accident beyond $75 million. That might pay for a few hundred family homes in this town. The rest of it would get picked up by you and me.

It's so well run that they broke up AECL and sold our reactor design division to SNC Lavelin last summer.

Cameco, and the rest of the nuclear industry are in this province like a dirty shirt. where they are currently trying to bribe First Nations and communities into accepting a dump. 

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20110817/northern-saskatchewan-resident...

Our province is still trying to push a nuclear reactor down our throats, even though right next door Manitoba has a hydro megaproject that hasn't even been turned on yet, and they are selling power to the U.S. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/story/2011/01/20/sk-reactors-...

http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NewDemocratBlogs/constructing-nuclear-re...

They don't mention that building a reactor would provide a great source of power to expand the oil orgy happening next door in Fort MacMurray (speaking of the either/or way of looking at nuclear and oil).

And evidently we also need it because our government is embarassed to look members of the nuclear industry in the eye and tell them that we don't have a reactor here. 

So no, I don't want nuclear power, or  nuclear waste here, at all. Period. Not because I think my thing is more important than anyone else's thing, but because it is badly run, they haven't thought it through, it is being abandoned by many who take a serious look at the costs and risks, it makes no financial sense, and it is too fucking dangerous.

And yes, they only started it in the first place because it was a way to get people to shell out of pocket to pay for bombs.

 

 

 


quizzical
Offline
Joined: Dec 8 2011

janfromthebruce wrote:
At least we would know where that "waste" is rather than it blowing around all over the place, or flowing everywhere into our water system, and so on. I believe we do best with a mixed system of energy production.

can you assure me you really gave this comment a critical thought before you posted it?  'cause it doesn't seem like it to me.

too many examples of how wrong it is. Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island, the coast waters of Somalia, and Fukushima to start. won't even get into the land masses contaminated for millenia by atomic testing.

in high school in 1996 i helped stop a candu from being put here and spent months investigating it as my socials project. i guess what i am saying is i knew better when i was in grade 10. 


janfromthebruce
Offline
Joined: Apr 24 2007

yes, the Harris years were misrepresented for their cause for privitization. I'm glad to see a supposed progressive spewing Harris "common sense" propaganda.

As a rural person, I sure hope that the metro people in Toronto, request that industrial wind turbine corporations option all the land surrounding the metro - and if there is no land, please put them in Lake Ontario. You will need lots to power the city.

 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

In the first place, we aren't simply  looking at a choice between nuclear power or fracking.  

And if we want to talk about poisoning water, burying nuclear waste in shield rock formations, full of cracks, should take care of the job for a few hundred thousand years

I see the my issue is far more important than yours arrogance continues.  You might want to read up on the impacts of fracking before you make such derisivie comments about the issues that matter to others besides yourself.  You have made claims, I refuted them, but not once did I suggest there was no concerns about nuclear, just that other things matter just as much.  

I said no such thing, LTE. 

What I said was this: 

Making the choice to not build any more nuclear power plants does not mean that one MUST go out and use hydraulic fracturing to mine fuel. It is not a simple either/or question.

I said nothing derisive about your position on fracking (a practice which I also oppose, as I said). I did not accuse you of having no concerns about nuclear power. 

And as for the charge that I am arrogantly pushing my issue, it is not my issue. It is the subject  of this thread, and I am not pushing anything by saying that I consider it of highest priority that there be a moratorium on building those things.

 

I live in a province where they mine that shit, and there is a slowpoke reactor 5km from where I am standing right now. I lived near Pinawa when they were dismantling the reactor site at Whiteshell. It was a dogs breakfast of a process; they pretty much just made it up as they went along.

Our nuclear industry is so well-run that the federal government had to break its own rules and fire the person responsible for enforcing them. Why? Because she insisted on following the rule that a reactor needed a back-up cooling system while operating. Strangely enough, that's the same problem that turned fukushima into a giant soldering iron with no off switch, and made everything around it unusable for at least the next 40 years.

It is so well-run that it needed a secret bailout from the federal government to pay for reactor maintenance (including at Bruce) which was over a year behind schedule. So well-run that AECL was in breach of its safety agreement in 2007 because it was so late in getting safety upgrades done.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/CanadaAM/20090602/raitt_documents_090602/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_Energy_of_Canada_Limited

It is so well-run that they aren't even required to pay for a nuclear accident beyond $75 million. That might pay for a few hundred family homes in this town. The rest of it would get picked up by you and me.

It's so well run that they broke up AECL and sold our reactor design division to SNC Lavelin last summer.

Cameco, and the rest of the nuclear industry are in this province like a dirty shirt. where they are currently trying to bribe First Nations and communities into accepting a dump. 

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20110817/northern-saskatchewan-resident...

Our province is still trying to push a nuclear reactor down our throats, even though right next door Manitoba has a hydro megaproject that hasn't even been turned on yet, and they are selling power to the U.S. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/story/2011/01/20/sk-reactors-...

http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/NewDemocratBlogs/constructing-nuclear-re...

They don't mention that building a reactor would provide a great source of power to expand the oil orgy happening next door in Fort MacMurray (speaking of the either/or way of looking at nuclear and oil).

And evidently we also need it because our government is embarassed to look members of the nuclear industry in the eye and tell them that we don't have a reactor here. 

So no, I don't want nuclear power, or  nuclear waste here, at all. Period. Not because I think my thing is more important than anyone else's thing, but because it is badly run, they haven't thought it through, it is being abandoned by many who take a serious look at the costs and risks, it makes no financial sense, and it is too fucking dangerous.

And yes, they only started it in the first place because it was a way to get people to shell out of pocket to pay for bombs.

 

 

 

______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!


janfromthebruce
Offline
Joined: Apr 24 2007

I can't assure anything but I feel quite safe living in Bruce county and don't think that I am not safe. And Canada's candu reactors have excellent records for safety as well as their work sites.

But you seem concerned - how many industrial wind turbines would you like ringing your neighbourhood so you can feel better about your energy needs? Oh, and those turbines are a green wash for the oil industry but don't mind that, just ignore.

Personally, people here are quite happy with the nuclear power plant and it has super relations with the community so why impose your views on this community who is very accepting, along with the good paying jobs and good company relationships, and good union, and excellent health and safety for ....?

And right beside the nuclear plant is inverhuron provincial park which is always full in the summer.

 

quizzical wrote:

janfromthebruce wrote:
At least we would know where that "waste" is rather than it blowing around all over the place, or flowing everywhere into our water system, and so on. I believe we do best with a mixed system of energy production.

can you assure me you really gave this comment a critical thought before you posted it?  'cause it doesn't seem like it to me.

too many examples of how wrong it is. Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island, the coast waters of Somalia, and Fukushima to start. won't even get into the land masses contaminated for millenia by atomic testing.

in high school in 1996 i helped stop a candu from being put here and spent months investigating it as my socials project. i guess what i am saying is i knew better when i was in grade 10. 

______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!


6079_Smith_W
Offline
Joined: Jun 10 2010

@ jan

I'm not spewing anybody's common sense propaganda because I certainly don't feel any better with those companies in private hands. I mention the shutdowns, the dismantling, the privatization, the bailouts, the rule breaking and the poor safety record as an example of how that industry has been mismanaged, and now unviable it is.

You are happy living next to that plant? Fine. I know it's not going to be shut down tomorrow, just like the experimental reactor  here won't be shut down, nor will the coal plants. 

But I sure don't want to see any more built. What we have now is a mess, and we certainly do not want to dig ourselves any deeper than we have to. 

And when I hear government ministers say they want to build more reactors because they have a hard time saying no to people in the nuclear industry I have to ask who they are doing it for - us or the industry.

 

 


Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004

janfromthebruce wrote:

I can't assure anything but I feel quite safe living in Bruce county and don't think that I am not safe. And Canada's candu reactors have excellent records for safety as well as their work sites.

From 1997: CANDU Flawed


quizzical
Offline
Joined: Dec 8 2011

janfromthebruce wrote:
I can't assure anything

i can see clearly you can't by this post too.

Quote:
but I feel quite safe living in Bruce county and don't think that I am not safe. And Canada's candu reactors have excellent records for safety as well as their work sites.

there're several post in this read that give lie to the 'safety' notion you've typed. humans have penchant for believing nothing will happen harmful to our wonderful selves. Japan is the most recent example. 

Quote:
But you seem concerned -

i am and i've every right to be.

Quote:
 how many industrial wind turbines would you like ringing your neighbourhood so you can feel better about your energy needs? Oh, and those turbines are a green wash for the oil industry but don't mind that, just ignore.

i've a big mucky lake just down the road that used to be wildlife habitat. i'd rather have that habitat under water than unusable for 20 thousand years.

Quote:
Personally, people here are quite happy with the nuclear power plant and it has super relations with the community so why impose your views on this community who is very accepting, along with the good paying jobs and good company relationships, and good union, and excellent health and safety for ....?

impose my views?

big companies like to keep good community relations until the comunity is no longer of use to them. that's how they get their way.

 immediate gratification is no way to make environmental policy

Quote:
And right beside the nuclear plant is inverhuron provincial park which is always full in the summer.

what this have to do with anything?


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments