# Finally........Ontario gets serious on nuclear



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *McGuinty: Billions for nuclear energy *– if needed
> CANADIAN PRESS
> 
> NIAGARA FALLS — Billions of dollars will be spent to build new nuclear plants in Ontario if a review of the province’s tight energy supply concludes they’re necessary, Premier Dalton McGuinty said today.
> ...


:clap:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Okay MacDoc, but what's YOUR take on this? 
Do you feel nuclear is good and why?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Because there is simply no other energy source that will meet the upcoming requirements without combining unacceptable levels of pollution - 300,000 kids die in Europe alone every year from pollution - with unsustainable green house gas build up.

ALL technologies have risks - we use PVC products all the time yet dioxins are horrific with persistance for millions of years.

IF we reduced population by some 90% and applied all our clean technologies maybe there would be an alternative without significant nuclear.

France doesn't think there is. I don't either.

Maybe we get fusion 50 years or more out THEN the energy problem is solved.
We'll likely cook the planet's atmosphere before we get there if we don't cut back big time on carbon loading and nuclear is the ONLY technology capable of producing the energy required both for electricity and the switch to hydrogen transport fuels.

Nothing else will come even close to providing the energy levels required.

Just what DON"T you understand about 60% of the worlds coral reefs dying off IN ONE YEAR due to global warming.
Some of those dead reefs survived 10,000 years prior to 1997.

Population has yet to peak, more people want first world life styles which requires energy on a massive scale.

Where will it come from???

You can barely breathe in Toronto now - 

This is a very good overview for France - a model I believe should be followed by Ontario with later generation reactors.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/franenv.html

We have natural advantages over France with very stable isolated areas for storage and we have our own uranium sources.

You worry about 10,000 years!!!!???? - we're not going to get through the next 200 on the current course.

Now you tell me in real terms WHERE the CLEAN energy will come from. You've got a magic wand to solve this.......I don't think so.

McGuinty is starting to see it - you aren't.
and you have NO VIABLE ALTERNATIVE just as he has none.

I suppose you could wish for a 95% fatal influenza pandemic - THAT would solve the problem......for a while.

This has nothing to do with good or bad - its risk management based on reality - not wishful thinking- there are ALWAYS tradeoffs. TANSTAAFL


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> France doesn't think there is. I don't either.


France get a good source for it's nuclear weaponry. How long are we supposed to bury this stuff again? 




MacDoc said:


> Just what DON"T you understand about 60% of the worlds coral reefs dying off IN ONE YEAR due to global warming.
> Some of those dead reefs survived 10,000 years prior to 1997.


I DO understand. YOU JUST ASSUMED MY POSITION.






MacDoc said:


> You worry about 10,000 years!!!!???? - we're not going to get through the next 200 on the current course.
> 
> 
> MacDoc said:
> ...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Hydro power - you MUST be joking. There is not even close to enough hydro power to make the slightest dent in the demand.

It will take ALL of the renewable technologies PLUS nuclear PLUS conservation to keep the planet habitable while 9 billion people try to get to what 1 billion now have.

An energy demand growth plotted recently and if one 1000 megawatt plant was opened every day for the next 20 years it STILL would not meet demand at current growth rates.

Why do you think McGuinty is panicking?? - the numbers are starting to sink in and with natural gas prices due to skyrocket Ontario's economy is really at risk.

Yes of course we use lots of energy and will continue to do so - are you prepared to go an Ethiopian energy use level???
I'm just being realistic about what is going to be necessary.
This avoidance of the crunch that's coming is complete folly.
In a small aspect it's already here in rolling blackouts and high gasoline prices and 40 smog days out of 60 early this summer.

It will require people to change AND governments to develop non carbon energy sources AND population growth slowdowns AND all the technology we can muster to keep the planet habitable while this peak passes.

50-60 years out the population will be falling rapidly and there may be some time to do it better but between now an then.........get used to nuclear.......or learn to live like the Ethiopians.

This NOW 



> RENEWABLES in relation to BASE-LOAD ELECTRICITY DEMAND
> 
> Sun, wind, tides and waves cannot be controlled to provide directly either continuous base-load power, or peak-load power when it is needed.
> 
> ...


10-20% of the electricity grid and nothing of any consequence to solve the transport dependence on fossil fuels.
http://www.uic.com.au/nip38.htm

The problem is not the energy itself - there is lots of fossil fuel - the problem is the carbon loading of the atmosphere and only nuclear can address that and perhaps even provide the energy to sequester carbon.
It's coming down to that....very quickly.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Ontario missed the boat when Quebec built the James Bay hydro project
with lots of federal money to help out

Would not have taken much to create a "twin" project to bring massive hydro electric power to Ontario, again, when the feds were more open to financing it

Quebec now has enough power to service its own and sell off extra
AND
they are OFF the grid

"Who's your messiah now?"
(in my best Edward G. Robinson voice)


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

I guess Chernobyl and Three Mile Island (yes it was a small amount of radioactive material that was released there), don't weight into your view of things...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I hate to say it, but I think MacDoc is right on this issue.

Nuclear energy has a very small ecological footprint and the waste disposal issue is manageable.

I think the G8 should pool money together with the goal of creating a nuclear fussion reactor. There are already theoretical designs that physicists have been discussing.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Vandave said:


> I hate to say it, but I think MacDoc is right on this issue.
> 
> Nuclear energy has a very small ecological footprint and the waste disposal issue is manageable.
> 
> I think the G8 should pool money together with the goal of creating a nuclear fussion reactor. There are already theoretical designs that physicists have been discussing.


Nuclear fusion is still a long way off
It needs lots of money and cooperation from various countries.
Conditions that big oil business doesn't want to see.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

> The Reality of Nuclear Power
> Proponents claim that nuclear power is vital if the United States is to have energy independence and to combat global warming. Antinuclear activists claim that nuclear power plants are unacceptably risky and that nuclear waste is the wrong legacy for us to leave future generations.
> 
> This debate is what I call the politics of nuclear power. Three years of working inside the DC beltway have taught me one important lesson -- I don't want to work in politics, particularly the politics of nuclear power.
> ...


http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/nuclear_safety/the-reality-of-nuclear-power.html

How do you ensure the safety in Ontario?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

> Nuclear installations, whether military or civil, have a sad record of accidents and incidents, shrouded in cover-ups, lies and misinformation.
> 
> Radiation released into the environment has led to the contamination of soil, air, rivers and oceans; causing cancer and other diseases in people.
> 
> Moreover, nuclear energy has never been economic, despite the massive state subsidies it has received for decades. Even now funding still pours into the nuclear sector at the expense of renewable resources like solar or wind energy.


http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/nuclear


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

> "The British government viewpoint is that we must focus on renewables and energy efficiency, both clear winners in increasing the security of supply.


good example



> Nuclear power has been floated as a possible solution to climate change because it releases no greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. But it is expensive and the problems of nuclear waste remain.





> The UK has already decided to go into a collaborative venture with Portugal on wave and tidal power and with Spain to develop solar power.





> n the field of renewables the centre was investigating the new breed of household combined heat and power generators, and how home-produced solar and wind power could be fed back into the grid by householders.
> 
> "We have the technology for people to produce electricity in their own homes but the problem is getting the regulatory and technical issues right so that they get a fair price and the grid continues to function properly," he said.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/news/story/0,12976,1481456,00.html


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

> The nuclear moratorium, which has now expired and has not been extended by the present government, no doubt saved Hydro-Quebec from a mess similar to the one that Ontario Hydro now finds itself in, with a fleet of increasingly dangerous and expensive nuclear reactors to maintain and inadequate financial resources to do so. Ontario Hydro is planning to shut down or "mothball" the four reactors at Bruce A, even though they have only served for half of their expected lifetimes, because Hydro cannot afford to make the expensive repairs needed for these reactors to keep their operating licenses. The plants are becoming so unsafe that even the Atomic Energy Control Board -- usually lenient to its licensees -- will no longer tolerate it.


http://www.ccnr.org/Nuke_Quebec.html
It's perfect for Ontario you say?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

> Atomic power was born of self-deception as well as deliberate deception. There were messianic pronouncements of paradise on Earth that began at the end of World War II. Alvin Weinberg, a nuclear reactor designer and the first director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, said in retrospect, in 1981, that he had "a little bit of the same spirit as the Ayatollah [Khomeini] has at the moment."3
> 
> Such fervent and self-deceptive excitement seemed to slide seamlessly into deliberate propaganda that the government knew was false. For by 1954, when Lewis Strauss made his famous statement that nuclear power would be "too cheap to meter" in the foreseeable future, a number of government and corporate studies had concluded the contrary.4 None showed that it would be cheap, let alone "too cheap to meter."5 The assessment of C. G. Suits of General Electric, quoted above, was distinguished from many others only in that it was more blunt.
> 
> Nor was there any reasonable prospect based on basic engineering considerations that nuclear power could be so cheap that any task, no matter how energy intensive, would have negligible energy costs. In the most optimistic scenario for nuclear power, it might be assumed that the fuel cost would be nearly zero. But that would still leave eighty-five percent of the costs of electricity for residential and small business consumers and sixty percent for the largest industrial users intact. The reason is that the bulk of the costs of electricity are related not to the fuel and the boiler (the functions served by the nuclear fuel and nuclear reactor), but by the power generating equipment, and the transmission and distribution network. Moreover, it was clear even then that (i) nuclear reactors would cost far more than coal-fired boilers, and (ii) it would be difficult to manage and dispose of nuclear waste. And of course, nuclear fuel was not free. Uranium was thought to be a scarce resource in the 1950s and fuel costs then were expected to be an important part of the costs of generating nuclear power.


http://www.ieer.org/pubs/atomicmyths.html


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/kyotonuc.htm
"Nuclear power one of the least effective and most expensive ways in which to tackle climate change."


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Because there is simply no other energy source that will meet the upcoming requirements without combining unacceptable levels of pollution - *300,000 kids die in Europe alone every year from pollution* - with unsustainable green house gas build up.


emphasis mine


> Third of Europe's Child Deaths Environment-related. Unsafe environments cause a third of all child deaths in Europe. 100,000 young Europeans die every year from exposure to pollution or unsafe living conditions, such as a lack of clean drinking water. * Accidents were the biggest killer, accounting for three quarters of the 100,000 annual deaths.* In the poorest countries, pneumonia caused by indoor air pollution and diarrhoea from a lack of sanitation and clean water were also major causes of death. The toll from traffic rose as children got older and spent more time away from the home. Drownings and fire deaths predominated in housebound infants. Injuries accounted for a third of all deaths each year in the prosperous zone. Suicides were higher in the richer countries. Children in poorer regions pay a heavy price for breathing polluted air, drinking unclean water and absorbing lead contamination. Lack of clean water claims around 13,500 lives a year, from diarrhoea. Indoor air pollution claims 10,000 lives a year, in countries where people burn coal and wood. Most victims are infants who develop pneumonia. An estimated 9000 lives could be saved by moving to cleaner liquid or gas fuels.


June 17, 2004 New Scientist
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6030


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Nuclear installations, whether military or civil, have a sad record of accidents and incidents, shrouded in cover-ups, lies and misinformation.
> 
> Radiation released into the environment has led to the contamination of soil, air, rivers and oceans; causing cancer and other diseases in people.
> 
> Moreover, nuclear energy has never been economic, despite the massive state subsidies it has received for decades. Even now funding still pours into the nuclear sector at the expense of renewable resources like solar or wind energy.


Greenpeace is a little out there and their studies are quite biased.

I imagine you have read the recent news about Chernobyl. Here is a summary:

- The Chernobyl accident in 1986 was the result of a flawed reactor design that was operated with inadequately trained personnel and without proper regard for safety.
- The resulting steam explosion and fire released at least five percent of the radioactive reactor core into the atmosphere and downwind.
28 people died within four months from radiation or thermal burns, 19 have subsequently died, and there have been around nine deaths from thyroid cancer apparently due to the accident: total 56 fatalities as of 2004.
- An authoritative UN report in 2000 concluded that there is no scientific evidence of any significant radiation-related health effects to most people exposed. This was confirmed in a very thorough 2005 study.

A lot of this stuff gets blown way out of proportion.


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

mr series, ontario uses candu reactors which are considered to be the safest in the world. while i am not a big proponent of nuclear power, i do know that the chances of a chernobyl or three-mile-island happening in candu's are extremely slim. 

please read the following link regarding candu reactors and safety:

http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/cnf_sectionD.htm#q


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

what about McGuinty approaching Quebec, hat in hand, and buying their abundant power?
probably cheaper than building and extensive hydro electric project like those smart Quebeckers did, but it took them over a decade and lots of money

vision and leadership has now put quebec in the most enviable positiion of having clean, abundant, cheap (no fuel) power for years to come


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Mr. Sanchez, I do understand that CANDU reactors are considered safe but not perfect nevertheless.
See: Findings on CANDU Reactor Accidents - Verbatim Quotations from Official Documents

http://www.ccnr.org/CANDU_Safety.html


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

What would be an better alternative? Solar, Hydro, Wind, Coal... seems to me Solar technology isn't quite there yet, although maybe the Ontario gov't could offer some sort of a rebate program to give people incentive to install solar paneling; Hydro is a massive effort that requires ecological sacrifices; Coal... well, we know what that does; and Windmill technology requires massive structures, alters the landscape and is an intermittant source that must be built away from bird migratory paths.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

Dependence on nuclear reactors as a cheap means of producing electricity is extremely short sighted. The risks are too great.

Imagine if every roof in suburbia had solar panels. Imagine if every backyard had a small windmill in their back yard.

Not only would a greater percentage of power generation become cleaner, but "terrrorist" threats to the power grid would be greatly reduced as well as generation was more decentralized. It might even lead to more self sufficiency.

Imagine.

All it takes is a pilot project to show the benefits.

Large scale manufacturing for hundreds of thousands of homes would reduce the costs.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

The safety concerns of Nuclear based on it's previous track records, the disposal of nuclear waste, the cost of production still outweigh any benefit at the moment IMO. 

By this wholesale option of going Nuclear just seems to encourage our already wasteful energy consumption. Add the fact that some are worried about North Korean and Iran nuclear uses, are we not sending the wrong message? It's okay for us but not for you....


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

Shanghai is intsalling solar panels on their rooftops, great investment ($$$ ). I talked to a friend who had been there teaching, she said that the pollution is quite heavy. I was thinkin bout talkin to some friends over at Solar Nova Scotia about the idea of getting a few apartments interested in the Idea, they may find the savings very attractive, though I have none of the numbers I need for this. 

Wind power is good, Bob Dylan gave us the renewable energy source through song, the answer my friend is blowin in the wind! Someone may try to harness greater weather forces, could we get a lightning storm to charge a battery? What is dependant on the type of energy we use is unfortunatly the economy and market price. How much does it cost, good thing about gas prices is that now people will be driven toward alternate energy sources. they shouldda thought about that when purchasing their SUVs and trucks!


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> Imagine if every roof in suburbia had solar panels. Imagine if every backyard had a small windmill in their back yard.


I forget the details, but there was an interesting link someone posted some time ago (MacDoc perhaps?) That showed new solar technolgy integrated with roofing -- your home's entire roof was one giant solar panel. It was an interesting concept -- but imagine the cost... what are the technical problems that can arise over time (maintenance)? Is it really cost-effective average person to manage?

Why doesn't the government push for something like this?


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

« MannyP Design » said:


> What would be an better alternative? Solar, Hydro, Wind, Coal...


The answer is "all of the above", sans coal. We should be looking at a diverse range of electricity production methods. Hydro is an excelent start, and wind is just picking up steam now, with a couple of turbines having been installed along the Lake Ontario coast (Pickering and CNE grounds). A third was planned for Ahbridge's Bay, but was cancelled due to lack of funds. There's lots more in Alberta, I believe.

Solar is also a great option, but our weather in Canada sometimes doesn't co-operate. Cloudy days mean not much power is produced. There is an interesting article in wired magazine about a new solar collector that looks promising.

I believe that we will start to see more localised and personal electricity as a kilo-Watt hour gets more expensive (as early as next spring in Ontario?). I know one person who is looking to install a wind turbine on his property, at a cost of $4000 that will make him a net producer of electricity, which will in turn pay off his investment. The solar collector mentioned above is another version of personal electricity production. Tax breaks for people who take advantage of these technologies would help.

Then we can deal with the smog issue: maybe electric cars won't be too far away? Ah well, one can dream...


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> Dependence on nuclear reactors as a cheap means of producing electricity is extremely short sighted. The risks are too great.


Paul... I absolutely agree with your suggestion about solar panels and windmills for every house, however that will only go part of the way.

I think additional Nuclear facilities in the long run is a good thing so long as we follow the Canadian Model and not the US approach. Problems at Ontario Hydro started in the Harris days with deregulation and lots of over paid US consultants telling us how to run our nuclear facilities.

The Kandu reactor is NOT the type of reactor that is used in the US. The nuclear waste produced by our facilities cannot be weaponized. The basic design of our plants prevents "three mile island" and "chernobyl" type accidents.

I would not have an issue building new plants if they were required. However that being said, Canadian's have to come to grip with the fact that energy is a national resource and should first benefit Canadian's at large. It is our tax dollars that go into creating facility such as Bruce, Darlington, Niagara and even James Bay. 

I think the first thing that needs to be done is complete and total regulation under the Ministry of Energy at the Federal level in conjunction with the Provincial Ministries of Energy. No more of the deregulation and privatization of public utilities. No more selling our energy to the US at artificial market rates. 

It gals me to no end that my tax dollars go into the capital costs for James bay so that the energy created there can be sold to the US and sold back to us here in Ontario. That is unfair and unjust.

We need to fix those problems first and then decide if we need to build more plants.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

miguelsanchez said:


> I believe that we will start to see more localised and personal electricity as a kilo-Watt hour gets more expensive (as early as next spring in Ontario?). I know one person who is looking to install a wind turbine on his property, at a cost of $4000 that will make him a net producer of electricity, which will in turn pay off his investment. The solar collector mentioned above is another version of personal electricity production. Tax breaks for people who take advantage of these technologies would help.


The big issue here would be the need for financial assistance as well. A combination of financing options to purchase and install the generators with tax incentives would really make this fly. I would do it in a heart beat if I could get some attractive financing to lessen the initial cost outlay.

Also this needs to be better regulated at the provincial level so that the local utilities participate fairly and evenly across the province.


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

I forgot to mention that even small towns could take part in the "localisation" of electricity production; sort of a cottage-industry if you will. The town of Fenelon Falls (pop. 1800) built a hydro-generating station that produces 2.6 mega-Watts, enough for the town and then some.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

miguelsanchez said:


> I forgot to mention that even small towns could take part in the "localisation" of electricity production; sort of a cottage-industry if you will. The town of Fenelon Falls (pop. 1800) built a hydro-generating station that produces 2.6 mega-Watts, enough for the town and then some.


brilliant!
vision and leadership


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

miguelsanchez said:


> ...and wind is just picking up steam now... There's lots more in Alberta, I believe.


You believe correctly. Travel highway 3 west of Lethbridge towards the Crowsnest Pass and highway 5 towards Waterton Lakes national park and you'll pass by at least a couple hundred wind turbines, with more being erected all the time.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

All Ontario needs now is a Hydro corridor...
Oh...But wait...Previous government studies had said that we don't need one.

(Poof...Ontario suffers a decade of brownouts and then darkness)

Do you think they'll build the cart before the horse this time?

Frigg'n hope so.


----------



## sinjin (Jul 12, 2003)

*Conservation*

I'm glad to see these discussion cropping up more here on ehMac and elsewhere. It means that it is slowly creeping into the public consciousness that energy is the single most important issue facing humans today, despite what the media is covering. 

Indeed, a minority of us have been living unsustainably high on the hog while the increasing global population is demanding similar "quality" of life. It is not going to happen, which means hardship and struggle (war). A smart society would look to energy solutions that have legs.

Alternatives are a great idea but a sound energy policy for the future absolutely must include, if not focus on, the C-word. We have simply become too dependent on cheap, abundant and energy-dense oil. Alternatives are rarely cheap or abundant and lack the energy density of oil. Politicians don't talk about conservation much, just lip service here and there, because it isn't sexy and sounds like hardship.


Paul O'Keefe said:


> Imagine if every roof in suburbia had solar panels. Imagine if every backyard had a small windmill....


I would love to see this sort of thing as well. (Actually, I don't think I'd want to see all those windmills!) But when you balance the equation you see why conservation needs to be incorporated in such a scheme. Right off the top, unless things have changed dramatically in the last 2 yrs, solar panels require more oil energy to be manufactured then equivalent energy returned in their usable lifetimes. I know of one <a href="http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.07/solar.html">solar-collector start-up company</a> that might be able to change this deficit somewhat. No idea about wind. 

Anyhow, the amount of solar energy collected under good conditions (i.e. not here in Canada) after paneling a rooftop AND your entire lawn may be able to handle electricity requirements of an efficient home. Conversion of this energy to "clean" fuels like hydrogen would NOT be able to power the family sedan for even 1/4 the average annual driving distances of North Americans, leaving nothing left over to power your home.

Still, let's do it. Wire a proof of concept community to be efficient and utilize sustainable energy sources. Plural. We would learn a lot. <a href="http://www.carfree.com/">Here is a good starting point</a> for such a community. It eliminates the single largest source of energy waste, air pollution and greenhouse gasses from within cities.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

miguelsanchez said:


> I forgot to mention that even small towns could take part in the "localisation" of electricity production; sort of a cottage-industry if you will. The town of Fenelon Falls (pop. 1800) built a hydro-generating station that produces 2.6 mega-Watts, enough for the town and then some.


And they are not the only ones - from small towns to individuals. Not to forget those that live "off the grid"...


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

> What would be an better alternative? Solar, Hydro, Wind, Coal......


What about methane gas from the local garbage dumps, I use to work at the Keele Valley Generation station where we would take methane from the Keele Valley landfill burn it and make roughly 43,500,000 kW-hr or power for roughly 3,800 homes. The sad thing is that we would burnthe excess gas and I was told on good authority from one of the engineers that they burn off enough excess to power another 3 turbines.

<img src="http://www.ec.gc.ca/nopp/lfg/en/images/lfg-5.gif">

Laterz


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

I was reading up on modding a Prius (not that I own one yet). While reading I came across this article...

4-500mpg a reality 

This isn't about lack of natural resources any more, it is about lack of political will power to make something happen.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Tesla is what we all need...Oh...Wait!!!...He's dead.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

sinjin said:


> Alternatives are a great idea but a sound energy policy for the future absolutely must include, if not focus on, the C-word. We have simply become too dependent on cheap, abundant and energy-dense oil. Alternatives are rarely cheap or abundant and lack the energy density of oil. Politicians don't talk about conservation much, just lip service here and there, because it isn't sexy and sounds like hardship.


Great post, Sinjin!

The current nuclear push is based on the idea that people won't accept conservation. The nuclear push is an attempt to convince people that we can still have it all for nothing and continue to be as wasteful as we want. Conservation could really go a long way to reducing the need for anything like nuclear, but it won't work until energy stops being cheap. (*conservation) - That of which we shall not speak. (to understand what that last sentence means see this.

The upside to wind power is huge and can provide as much electricity sooner with far less potential danger than nuclear. The current cost per kilowatt hour is far cheaper for wind than nuclear and wind power is still in its infancy. The current issue of National Geographic (actually I'm not sure it is the current one, but it was one I was looking at the other day  ) shows how the Europeans are really taking off on the wind power front.

Vandave mention fusion reactors earlier in this thread. While it is still completely theoretical at this point and may never be able to produce economical energy, there is a multi-billion dollar test reactor that is going to be built in France. This is the result of scientists around the world working to see if they can solve the problem. This would be great if it could be made to work, but I wouldn't put much hope in it at this point, or make any plans for the future on the assumption that this will pan out, because it may never.

A really good source for daily articles on the subject of the coming energy crunch is Energy Bulletin. I highly reccommend this site to anyone who is interested in the issue, and we all should be.

Here's one that was linked to Energy Bulletin today: Toyota Says It May Put Gas-Electric Engines in All Its Vehicles.


> Toyota, the world's first and largest maker of so-called hybrid cars, said it's aiming to increase hybrid production by 60 percent in 2006 and will cut costs and prices to make them more affordable.
> 
> "In the future, the cars you see from Toyota will be 100 percent hybrid,'' Toyota Executive Vice President Kazuo Okamoto


Meanwhile the big 3 are going to be unveiling their new line for 2006, heavy on the SUVs (Simply Unsellable Vehicles) and big cars, that were planned years ago. They are going to be in huge trouble this coming year.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Nukes are NOT safe or clean or cheap.
Get over it.
http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/nukes/chernob/rep02.html


> Subject: Calendar of Nuclear Accidents and Events (Updated 21st March)
> Calendar of Nuclear Accidents
> Below is a calendar that shows the threat that humanity faces from the atom bomb and the nuclear fuel cycle. This calendar gives some examples of the everyday nuclear incidents that have occurred all over the world. It demonstrates how technological failures coupled with human error risk public health and the environment on an almost daily basis.
> 
> ...


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

cont.


> 29-
> 30-
> 31-
> June
> ...


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

cont.


> 19-1991: Offsite power failure at Smolensk nuclear power plant (Russia)
> 20-
> 21-1991: Fire on board "Sceptre" nuclear submarine in Scotland
> 22-1993: Instrumentation and Control failure at Saint Alban nuclear power plant (France)
> ...


By building more plants we are begging for more and more dangerous accidents. This plus the legay of waste we leave for our children's, children's, children's etc. leaves me to believe that this is a bad way to proceed. We need more decentralised methods of power production ie solar, wind, methane and hydrogen.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

da_jonesy said:


> I was reading up on modding a Prius (not that I own one yet). While reading I came across this article...
> 
> 4-500mpg a reality
> 
> This isn't about lack of natural resources any more, it is about lack of political will power to make something happen.


Too true. And the political will comes when a majority of citizens get vocal enough.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Where's MacDoc with his articles and pretty emocons?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

ArtistSeries said:


> Where's MacDoc with his articles and pretty emocons?


Oh, I'm pretty sure he'll back in this thread. Maybe he actually has a life.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Buried.

Nukes are coming get used to it.....or take a tour of Ethiopia sometime.
Stuff like burning methane does NOTHING but add to the carbon load.

The problem is not energy - the problem is energy that does not contribute to the atmospheric heating AND the growth in population AND the growth in demand by the existing population.

No matter how you try to conserve or use renewables the numbers are simply not there for even a modest first world lifestyle for those that want it especially when transport is factored in.

The atmosphere will not stand additional carbon loading and the only way to replace that energy use is with a hydrogen fuel system and the only way to get there is with nuclear.

All the others will be needed as well, conservation big time, renewables big time, new technologies AND nuclear BIG TIME.

Or go hippie and live in the forest......oh I forgot - there won't be one. ........for 9 billion people.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

martman said:


> cont.


Martman... those stats are less than convincing. A lot of those are unrelated accidents (ie the sub ran into something) or Nuclear tests (which are weapons to begin with).

The one item I saw related to Canada was the Deuterium Leak (which Heavy Water). Deuterium is not inherently or necessarily radioactive.

I think safety concerns around Canada's Nuclear facilities is much less than you are making it out to be.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah and you want to look at the deaths from pollution, heat, mining coal, natural gas explosions????

It's really simple.

There is lots of energy.

There is NOT enough energy that will not damage the atmosphere for the population we have and even a modest lifestyle that includes transportation.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

In BC we get a lot of our energy through hydro as well with natural gas backup plants that get used like six days a year. They do require a big footprint yes but overall you can't beat hydro electricty. Just my two cents.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Buried.


I understand that....



MacDoc said:


> Nukes are coming get used to it.....or take a tour of Ethiopia sometime.
> Stuff like burning methane does NOTHING but add to the carbon load.


What does Ethiopia have to do with this? Nothing.
So do we go against cows? They do produce a lot of methane... 

You have not made a point for Nukes apart from SCREAM Nukes are coming...
Serious concerns still exist on the safety, cost, and proliferation on Nuclear arms. 



MacDoc said:


> The problem is not energy - the problem is energy that does not contribute to the atmospheric heating AND the growth in population AND the growth in demand by the existing population.


I do have problems with hyperbole coupled with faulty numbers.
"300,000 kids die in Europe alone every year from pollution" are you sure about that number? You see, when you start off with wrong numbers (and you have not said it was erroneous yet), your doom and gloom scenarios seem more like a rant for YOUR energy so that YOU can continue your lifestyle.


MacDoc said:


> Just what DON"T you understand about 60% of the worlds coral reefs dying off IN ONE YEAR due to global warming.





> By 1998, about 11 percent of the world’s coral reefs had already been destroyed, according to the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network (GCRMN). Rising surface water temperatures, possibly due to global warming, worried scientists as well. Then the severe El Niño and La Niña hit. ..... f destructive activities affecting coral reefs continue, as much as 60 percent of the world’s reefs could be gone within the next 30 years, according to GCRMN. These alarming predictions prompted the United Nations Environmental Programme


http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Publications/ZooGoer/2001/4/coralreefs.cfm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Asia_coral_reefs
Global warming is NOT a factor in the destruction of coral reefs as much as human activity - which will be accelerated by your nuclear power -



> While currently, there is no direct scientific evidence to suggest global warming is threathening corals, the high temperatures in 1997 and 1998 were attributed to an unusually severe El Nino event


http://www.gdrc.org/oceans/oceans-day.html





MacDoc said:


> No matter how you try to conserve or use renewables the numbers are simply not there for even a modest first world lifestyle for those that want it especially when transport is factored in.


Maybe it's your dependance on your lifestyle that is the problem..



MacDoc said:


> Or go hippie and live in the forest......oh I forgot - there won't be one. ........for 9 billion people.


Well, your consumer lifestyle fuelled by cheap electricity will ensure that...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Oh yeah all the hydro resources will need to be utilized but look at the huge dislocation the 3 Gorges dam caused in China and the Aswan in Egypt - none of the big energy sources are without their problems.
Wind turbines are killing birds - they make noise.......

There are downsides to nuclear but there are downsides to them all - and quite frankly if it's a choice between breathable air and a stable climate and slightly more background radiation from nuclear plants I'll take the latter.

I KNOW coal burning releases more radiation anyway and I can SEE what it does to the air in Ontario from it's own plants and those in Ohio.
I do believe we are suing Ohio over it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

No YOU have not offered ANY realistic alternative that will meet energy needs in the next 50 years.
We could not and do not do it now without nukes.
France could not, Ontario could not and you don't even have an alternative for NOW let alone with 50% more people and higher demand from third world and second world nations.

We will need EVERY technology AND conservation and every technology includes nukes if we are not to trigger a climate catastrophe.
We cannot even continue as we are doing let alone with 50% more people and higher demands.

You dump on nukes but offer no solution that is climate neutral and nukes are already here......big time.
Don't get on my case - I'm just facing reality - you have no alternative to offer.
McGuinty is just waking up to that.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

You think nuclear power is bad...Well then there is the:
High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program

http://www.carpenoctem.tv/cons/haarp.html

http://www.spinspace.com/biophysics/haarp.htm

http://www.haarp.net/haarpoverview.htm

God only knows what that is doing to our atmosphere...
I mean...Tesla never even finished this experiment.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> You dump on nukes but offer no solution that is climate neutral and nukes are already here......big time.
> Don't get on my case - I'm just facing reality - you have no alternative to offer.
> McGuinty is just waking up to that.


No Mighty MacDoc, I got on your case for sloppy and misleading figures (coral reefs and the number of children that die from pollution) - and by inference, if I'm to base myself on that - little to no research on you part would be my conclusion. 
It's fine to propose nuclear power, but I took issue with your hyperbole and just plain wrong figures. Which again, you have ignored and tried to redirect. 

And when I do ignore your thin examples, I have asked specific questions about safety, proliferation (other countries wanting also), disposal and cost - your pie in the sky version akin to the nuclear industry lies of the 50s is all that you wrote...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> Oh yeah all the hydro resources will need to be utilized but look at the huge dislocation the 3 Gorges dam caused in China and the Aswan in Egypt - none of the big energy sources are without their problems.
> *Wind turbines are killing birds - they make noise.......*
> 
> There are downsides to nuclear but there are downsides to them all - and quite frankly if it's a choice between breathable air and a stable climate and slightly more background radiation from nuclear plants I'll take the latter.
> ...


David,
you're not seriously advocating nuclear over wind?
better tone it down on that baileys and coffee


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Where are the wrong figures AS. Show me one.

Michael we will need ALL the wind and solar and any other form of renewable PLUS nuclear to switch to a hydrogen transport economy.
I really don't think you guys get the magnitude of the difficulty of switching off fossil fuels.

I am not just talking about producing the current level of electricity - even THAT level in Ontario alone will be incredibly difficult without addressing the need for hydrogen transport fuels.

If we keep burning ANYTHING at scale we cook the atmosphere - it's not sustainable. The only heavy lift energy source that can be scaled to need is nuclear and eventually fusion should reduce or eliminate the by products. But that's 50 years out and never seems to get closer.

What happens if suddenly half of the GTA decides a plug in car is the THING.
That is still little or no shift in fossil fuel burning as we have no capacity to meet that electricity demand.

France is 70% nuclear JUST for electricity. That's still no where near the scale needed to switch the transport system away from fossil fuel.
I have yet to see anyone address the transport issue properly. Even if ALL Ontario electricity came from a combination of renewables and nuclear - so there is little or no carbon loading - 2/3s still remains that IS carbon loading.

You say hyperbole, nope, realistic IF we want to keep the atmosphere livable. Oh sure it can go on a while longer but the sheer size of the problem is staggering.
50% more people on the planet and a huge increase in energy use by those that are already here.

Those are the numbers AS - how you gonna meet their energy demand without loading up the atmosphere.
This is about the 6th time I've asked>

Once we get past the population peak THEN at least there is some reduced burden and demand. But what will be left at that point??? How hot will the planet be??
Even if we stopped cold right now the planet will continue to warm.
Show me the solution AS????

Where are the "numbers wrong"??
Population??
Demand?
Carbon impact??


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

I'll show you two where your figures are wrong.
http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=282096&postcount=16

http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=282403&postcount=49


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

how long does it take to build a nuclear power plant vs. taking advantage of hydro electric potential like Quebec did in James Bay

the James Bay project took about 10 years
i don't think you can build a nuclear reactor much faster

and lets not forget the cleanliness of hydro

Quebec is sitting pretty because they took their "hit" years ago

It's time for a long term plan and we don't need nuclear plants to do it


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

And MacDoc, the nuclear solution is one that you seems to like - how do you address the problems that are linked to it? 
We are talking about cost, safety, waste management and how to monitor other countries use....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You guys are missing it entirely - it will take ALL of the hydro AND renewables PLUS nuclear to even make a dent in fossil fuel use which is cooking the planet.
This is not getting through.

If we wish to keep a reasonable level of technical civilization and still address both the outright population growth AND the growth in demand by emerging states.
One compunds the other.

Continue as we are ona fossil fuel course and HOPE the climate can somehow absorb all we are throwing at the atmosphere without making the place uninhabitable.

or

Marshall ALL of the energy resources that do NOT put carbon into the atmosphere to reduce fossil fuel use across the board, not just for electricty production but for heating and transportation.

This is a reasonable overview of the scale of the problem.

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/3225build_6000_nukes.html

There is more good readin but this is the heart of the issue



> Calculating Energy Demand
> 
> By 2050, given current trends, world population will increase from today's 6 billion-plus people to an estimated 9 to 10 billion people, with most of the increase coming from the developing world. The current development in China, India, and elsewhere, indicates the enormous growth now in progress. Today, if anything, such development projections may be understated.
> 
> ...


Even if we get a per capita conservation figure of 30-40% better than we are now - not an unlikely figure........it won't help much over the next 50 years as both population AND demand soar.

Nuclear is coming - big time.....get used to it.
There will be problems and accidents and it's only ONE aspect of the energy/global warming conundrum......right now it's the ONLY heavy lifter to get to a hydrogen economy from a fossil fuel economy.

Please please someone do a real fusion reactor.......soon.

http://www.whensmokeranlikewater.com/publications/scientific/Hidden_Benefits2.htm


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

To the MacDoc the Malthusian,

Our tremendous wastefullness (particularly in North America) of energy actually makes me hopeful. As supplies fall, prices go up and I think we can save a lot more than that 40-50% you mention. It won't always be pleasant, as anyone who has filled up their car lately knows, but as the prices go up you can rest assured that we will see alot of energy production and conservation using methods that aren't viable today. Will anyone use incandescent lights in 20 years or will we all use LEDs? Will there be more or fewer SUVs and will then run on petrol or vegetable oil? How many windmills will there be in Canada and the world? I'm not burying my head in the sand - there will be adjustments - but the sky isn't falling. And if it did, I 'm sure we could generate some power from it...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> You guys are missing it entirely -
> 
> This is not getting through.


David I do understand what you are trying to say - but there you go again changing the subject. 
One, you have not answered :


ArtistSeries said:


> I'll show you two where your figures are wrong.
> http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=282096&postcount=16
> 
> http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=282403&postcount=49


Not sure if it's an illiteracy problem or you cannot admit that you are wrong at times...


And yes we do have an energy problem but you have not addressed any of the shortcomings/shortfalls/problems/concerns/dilemmas/ethical questions/ regarding nuclear power.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> This is a reasonable overview of the scale of the problem.
> 
> http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/3225build_6000_nukes.html


Have I entered the bloody twilight zone? You are actually getting your facts from Lyndon Larouche? Macdoc have you been drinking SSI water?
Not do mention that the article you quote is of the flimsiest value.

So now you get your "intelligence" from a fascist.... wow.... you must really be busy lately....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche
http://www.publiceye.org/larouche/
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lyndon_LaRouche
http://www.rickross.com/groups/larouche.html


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MacDoc, I have got to side with AS on this one. Lyndon Larouche and his views are a "bit out there" to be kind. I am still betting on the announcement that shall come within the next few months that Ontario Hydro, Quebec Hydro, the Government's of Ontario and Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador, shall have agreed upon a Lower Churchill Falls hydroelectric deal.

Untapped hydroelectric potential in Labrador could provide Ontario and the northeastern United States with a much needed reliable new source of energy.

We shall see.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Well said, Fink-Nottle. I don't buy this "get used to it" line at all. It's not a done deal. Regarding the swelling population prediction for 2050 which MacDoc trotted out, I think that too is bogus... after all, looks like we're due for a big pandemic. They are cyclical creatures. You don't need the dark ages to have a Black Plague-style global calamity; I believe they can happen at any time and, indeed, the seeds are waiting in the wings. I like to think of this as Mother Nature restoring equilibrium after those pesky humans get too high on themselves.

Not meaning to make this a discussion about contagion and the chances of it decimating hundreds of millions, even billions. I too think we are going to see changing energy use patterns, ones leading to far greater efficiency than is currently the norm - well before MacDoc and his adherents are massing in the streets, screaming for more nuclear stations lest the sky cave in.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

I think what MacDoc is trying to say is that Hydro is good... but not enough. He's not just talking about replacing or keeping up with our current energy demand. He's talking about that and completely replacing fossil fuels. Hydro will not be able to power all our electric cars. Nuclear is probably the only technology we could use to replace fossil fuels today if we had to. Please correct me if I am wrong MacDoc.

Although nuclear is probably not the best solution, it, along with hydro, conservation, solar and better efficiency out of anything that uses energy is the only solution. You would have a hard time coming up will all the energy we need and not have nuclear somewhere in the mix.

I was in Toronto for the past week exhibiting at a tradeshow. What a fun city! However, the smog there is unbelievable. It's was like pea soup the day I left. I am surprised to see such a backlash at the idea of nuclear when you are needing to remove as many fossil fuel burning vehicles as possible.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Mugatu, a valid point. I have not been in downtown TO in years, and never during a smog alert. However, we had warnings here in St.John's that a TO "smog bank" was possibly headed towards St.John's, and that people with asthma (such as myself) might be cautious.

My concern with nuclear is the disposal of the spent fuel rods. When you think that the "shelf life" of these rods when they are "spent", in terms of their radiation, is still lethal. If we need to place them somewhere for 10,000+ years, where shall it go, and who shall look out for these sites??? Remember, the Mayans and Aztecs are no longer watching out on the grand structures they built years ago.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

Exactly.

Oh, and in regards to smog from ontario coming to Newfoundland, a couple of summers ago I definitely saw smog clouds here on the West coast of the island coming from the West.


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

Mugatu said:


> I was in Toronto for the past week exhibiting at a tradeshow. What a fun city! However, the smog there is unbelievable. It's was like pea soup the day I left. I am surprised to see such a backlash at the idea of nuclear when you are needing to remove as many fossil fuel burning vehicles as possible.


A couple of things to point out. First, it's not always smoggy in Toronto. We haven't turned into L.A. yet. 

Second, I think a few of us are confusing two different issues. Increased electricity supply (the nuclear reactor issue) will not directly reduce smog or air pollution in a city like Toronto. The coal-fired plants are elsewhere in the province, and those areas will benefit from reduced air pollution. Smog in Toronto is caused by too many cars belching out exhaust while getting zero miles to the gallon stuck in gridlock. Getting those cars out of the city, or convinving everyone to drive an electric (not hybrid) vehicle is the way to reduce smog.

Of course electric vehicles have their own health concerns. Electric motors produce ozone (especially older ones which are not well-maintained) and that's not a good thing in the lower atmosphere where we can breath it in.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Two things:

1) I live in Toronto. Even on smog alert days I sometimes ask myself, where's the smog? I get out and cycle and have no problems. Maybe it's just people with breathing problems that are having these problems. But I'm sure we can improve the situation.

2) Solar energy and public transit. Increase the availability of both, and it will reduce the amount of problems. Solar water heaters and solar electric panels are available but not really affordable and practical for home owners. They need to be. And more $$$ needs to be invested in public transit. They can start with a subway line along Queen St. (actually, from Sherway Gardens, along the Queensway to Queen, up Kingston Road.)


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> If we need to place them somewhere for 10,000+ years, where shall it go, and who shall look out for these sites???


Launch it all of it into the sun perhaps? Probably not the most cost effective method.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

miguelsanchez said:


> A couple of things to point out. First, it's not always smoggy in Toronto. We haven't turned into L.A. yet..


Not to mention the fact that the people in Toronto are far more hospitable.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> Two things:
> 
> 1) I live in Toronto. Even on smog alert days I sometimes ask myself, where's the smog? I get out and cycle and have no problems. Maybe it's just people with breathing problems that are having these problems. But I'm sure we can improve the situation.


It was a noticable flying from Toronto where I could not see the horizon due to smog and landing in Calgary where I could see straight across the city to the Rockies. 

NOTE: I'm not trying to start a pissing match between Calgary and Toronto. Both cities have their good points and their faults.


----------



## ErnstNL (Apr 12, 2003)

Comments about smog in Toronto? Every time I drive through, it's been terrible. I grew up in Montreal and it's bad too.
If you live there you can't tell the difference, you live in a polluted area. When Torontonians think it's a smoggy day, it's REALLY smoggy;
Hamilton is just as bad.

Hydro power is clean but the impact on the environment is massive and subtle.
Flooding 71,000 square Km of forest and killing a few million trees/animals/birds is not a great idea. (Churchill Falls project in Labrador)
So to say hydro is super duper clean and "the best" is wrong. 

If you diverted Niagara Falls water completely, there could be another Ontario Hydro-electric plant but no tourist attraction. 
"OOOHHH you can't do that! (fur on backs rising)" 
Why not?
It's all relative.

Newfoundland and Labrador would have 2 more Hydro projects built already if we could sell our surplus power directly to the US or Ontario. 
Since the federal Government won't let any province have a power corridor through another province, unlike petroleum which can be transported easily by pipeline from Calgary to Montreal, we are stuck dealing/begging with Quebec. We can supply 1/8 of Ontario's needs if we can get the power to you around the Quebec border.
LOTS of power is available if restrictions on electricity transmission were less political.

I agree that nuclear power is safer than it used to be. The last reactor in the US was ordered in 1973. That was then, this is now. It's as safe as we want it to be.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

I didn't read the whole thread, but I think Canada's already proven that nuclear energy is too costly an energy source - how long has Ontario's main reactors been off the grid and under maintenance and how many billions has it costed to fix them up? I wonder if we got every major city to use this http://www.ottawasun.com/News/OttawaAndRegion/2005/09/14/1215841-sun.html if that would be the solution. From the sounds of it, it gets rid of our trash problem, solves our power problem, and is environmentally friendly. At least that's what the company that selling it says. Sounds too good to be true.


----------



## ErnstNL (Apr 12, 2003)

To assuage your guilty feelings of buying a gas guzzler, or just to make a difference: 
Terra-Pass


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

ErnstNL said:


> I agree that nuclear power is safer than it used to be. The last reactor in the US was ordered in 1973. That was then, this is now. It's as safe as we want it to be.


And that's what they said in the 70's regarding the reactors of the 50's....


----------



## ErnstNL (Apr 12, 2003)

AS, your point is?
A reactor-power project is probably as complicated as building the space shuttle. If we re-designed a space shuttle starting today... how much better would it be than the existing craft? Hmm???
_That's _ my point.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> No matter how you try to conserve or use renewables the numbers are simply not there for even a modest first world lifestyle for those that want it especially when transport is factored in.


The problem is that even a modest first world lifestyle these days consumes far, far more energy than it needs to. If we would all scale back our energy intake (which, contrary to popular belief, is more than possible) the pressure to produce more energy would be severely lessened.

There are lots of ways to generate power that never seem to be looked into in any serious manner that could be exploited in concert to generate energy, too. Hydro + wind + solar+ wave + tidal + geothermal + ocen thermal + solid biomass + liquid biomass + whatever else we can come up with. Few of these technologies would be enough to fulfil our needs on their own, but the trick is that they don't have to be use alone, either.

None of this is to say that it would be easy, but to say that it is impossible is short-sighted. But to re-iterate, the problem would not be getting these power generation ideas up and running, but rather getting us to scale back on our consumption.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Kosh said:


> I didn't read the whole thread, but I think Canada's already proven that nuclear energy is too costly an energy source - how long has Ontario's main reactors been off the grid and under maintenance and how many billions has it costed to fix them up?


Here is a better brief of why Ontario is having a problem.

http://www.energyprobe.org/energyprobe/index.cfm?DSP=content&ContentID=9061


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MacDoc is absolutely right that the scale of the problem of moving our industrial society away from fossil fuel usage is massive. Most people don't get this. When you really look at it, it's scary. Our world at present is utterly dependent on fossil fuels to keep just about every aspect of it working. Transportation, manufacturing, food, everything relies on it and it relies on it being available, as it has been for a century, at dirt cheap prices.

Contrary to what many hope is true we can't just snap our fingers and change this dependency overnight. The time it would take to lessen our dependency even partially will be measured in decades, not months or years. Infrastructure takes time to plan and build, but before that political decisions have to bubble up to the top levels and be made. Add to that, that there is no alternative available presently that is poised to replace fossil fuels to a significant degree.


MacDoc said:


> Nuclear is coming - big time.....get used to it.


I think MacDoc's prediction here is likely right also. Nuclear is coming, there are huge interests at work right now, attempting to usher in the second generation of nuke plants. They are using fears of climate change and oil shortages as their wedge and will likely succeed to a great degree. They have the ear of the powerful. Just ask Dick Cheney, who has made public statements years ago that show he is completely aware of the implications of peak oil (one of the peak oil camp's main theorists, Matt Simmons, briefed him in 2000) and who now is actively promoting nukes as the solution.

MacDoc's prediction is based on the assessment that most in the developed world will stubbornly resist altering their energy consuming lifestyle as little as possible. They will grasp at the nuclear straw when rising energy prices start to convince them that change is inevitable. This is probably true.

That nuclear can't do what it promises to, or that it is not at all carbon neutral, or that world uranium supply is getting tight, or that multi-billion dollar nuke projects can't be ramped up overnight, don't enter into the calculation. And the danger of massively increasing the amount of nuke plants in our life is just tossed aside as if it's trivial. Proponents are saying that it's worth the risks.

What the proponents of nuclear are using to get even people who call themselves environmentalist onside is the fear that to alter our current lifestyles would be an absolute disaster. We would be living like Ethiopians, or hippies in the forest, as MacDoc says. We simply cannot talk about this, it is non-negotiable. And sadly, I think that the majority of the people in the developed world will agree with this.

I don't happen to think that would be a disaster and I don't think it would require us to be living like Ethiopians or hippies (no offence intended to any hippies reading this  ). I think it is very possible to decrease our current energy usage by a huge factor, without becoming hippy Ethiopians, but it will require a whole lot of people taking a serious look at how we live our lives and I have to admit, that's not likely to happen. It would also require people to understand that up until now our cost for energy has been artificially low, by a huge factor and to accept that prices for energy, especially fossil fuels have to go up.

We will eventually get the point where finite fossil fuel resources will have to be rationed, why not start now? Take the profiteering out of it, establish utility regulations on it and add taxes on to it that allow it's climate effects to be mitigated as well as fund research and adoption of alternatives. But I can see from the current lobbying of people who are short sighted that every effort will be made to continue keeping fossil fuel prices as unrealistically low as possible.

So bring on the nukes, so that the world can continue to be stuck in suburban traffic jams in their hybrid or hydrogen cars. Please, just don't build any near me.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

GA, the dependance on fossil fuels is one that few will argue with you one, as is the need to wean ourselves off it. 

But the quick fix that nuclear is to many, is not a reasonable solution without some serious safeguards and guarantees. Sadly, in the past we have never seen that.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

ArtistSeries said:


> GA, the dependance on fossil fuels is one that few will argue with you one, as is the need to wean ourselves off it.
> 
> But the quick fix that nuclear is to many, is not a reasonable solution without some serious safeguards and guarantees. Sadly, in the past we have never seen that.


Just to re-state, I don't see it as a reasonable solution either, I'm just predicting that the majority of people will see it as the only chance they have to somehow avoid impacting their high-energy lifestyles. They will make the trade-offs whether they are reasonable or not, because the degree of change required for our society to reduce it's energy use by a large amount is not something that can be discussed or contemplated. It's what they call a political non-starter, no one wants to talk about it and no politician will dare bring it up.

The really sad thing is that nuclear can not deliver what people will hope and in the end moving to a much lower energy lifestyle will be forced on most of us. But in the meantime we will have made a big mountain of radioactive waste and likely caused several million extra cases of cancer. That is, unless some technology like nuclear fusion or very efficient photo-voltaics (solar) manages to get developed first. We can always hope.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

we need something like the pebble bed reactors the chinese developed that were featured in wired magazine a while back. stable, low maintenance, and cheap.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Wake up and smell the coffee. Demand for energy is increasing. It is unstoppable. People will pay more and more for it. Even though conservation is very cost effective, the vast majority of people unfortunately do not seem willing to make "sacrifices". Every time there is a price surge or a major blackout, people swear to cut back. But we are addicted to power. People equate power with progress. Moreover, many of the "alternatives" have hidden charges such as using rare minerals, lack scale-up feasibility or have ROI's that make their adavantages minimal.

Unfortunately, the human race is an uncouth hog. Industry has few concerns other than making a profit and pays lip service to environmental concerns. Indeed, as energy gets more expensive, environmental sensitivity may well become history. We seem not to learn from our mistakes when situations get worse. I'm in the UK right now and gas prices are 2.3X higher than in Canada. I see NO evidence of conservation (aside from no Hummers). People acclimatize to costs.

So, the answer is to plan, build capacity and pay for it (rather than artificially subsidize electricity costs). Nuclear energy is one option and is a good one for Ontario at least. The technology is very good and getting better. Nuclear fusion is probably 75-100 years off and will require immense investment. The ITER project hasn't even broken ground in France. Meanwhile, we need to switch as much energy use to direct electricity since it is simply not feasible to power ships and planes by batteries (and I don't think the risk of nuke-powered ships is worth it). Hence, petroleum products need to be focussed on these modes of use.

The bottom line is that we need a long term energy plan and investment in energy efficiency research. Conservationists will be likely trampled underfoot as costs rise - it's human nature. At least if we have a plan, decisions can be made rationally rather than emotionally.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap: a realist at last.
Nuclear is already HERE. It will be MORE here......big time.
People died in building the Niagara Falls hydro facility and the environmental impact is still ongoing.
I dare say PVCs and fossil fuel emissions will be responsible for more "cancer deaths" than radiation by magnitudes.

Many of the same contaminants like strontium are released in much larger quantities by fossil fuel burning and because the sheer amount of fuel and residue it represents a much harder aspect to control.



> There has been progress in the ability to reduce environmental pollutants - the noxious gases and toxic substances emitted particularly from coal and oil plants - through costly pollution abatement technologies such as desulphurizers, nitrous oxide reducers and precipitators. But globally there remain serious environmental and health impacts through persistent releases. In developed countries the general picture is one of decreasing noxious gas and toxic substance releases while in developing countries, as a result particularly of increasing energy use and the high up-front cost of abatement techniques, the picture is one of increasing releases.
> 
> Urban pollution in today's developing countries, with their heavy reliance on fossil fuels and rapidly increasing transport emissions, is reaching harmful levels. The World Health Organization (WHO) in its 1997 report on Health and Environment in Sustainable Development estimates that suspended particulate matter alone from energy generation and use is responsible for more than 500 000 premature deaths per year from ambient urban air pollution. The health effects of the environmental pollutants are examined further in Section 2.
> 
> Globally, the large quantities of fossil fuel waste containing toxic substances, particularly from coal combustion, pose a long term problem in relation to water quality and food chain contamination. It is becoming increasingly common to categorize this waste as hazardous. A single 1000 MW(e) coal plant produces large quantities of waste, annually around 320 000 tonnes of ash containing 400 tonnes of toxic heavy metals. Pollution abatement techniques for sulphur alone can produce an additional 500 000 tonnes of wastes containing toxic substances.


At least with nuclear plants there is an opportunity for tighter controls as the scale of the problem is magnitudes smaller than with fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels are double edged - contaminants on an enormous scale AND damage to the atmosphere through global climate altering.

Nuclear also has a contaminant issue but on a hugely smaller scale and no carbon loading in energy production tho there is in the building of the plant currently.

McGuinty is very right in my mind to dump the coal plants and get on with later gen nuclear facilities instead of trying to patch the old ones.

No matter WHAT approach 9 billion people will make a mess of the planet. Choosing a path to ameliorate that.













> Some experts predict that over the next 20 years *more cars will be made than in the entire 110-year history of the industry.*
> 
> Rhys, director of the Centre for Automotive Industry Research at Cardiff University in Britain, says this growth will create the need for 180 new factories, each producing 300,000 cars (and light trucks) a year—in effect, almost doubling the production capacity of the global industry to over 110m units annually.


So we all go out and dutifully get a fuel efficient car....the growth in carbon loading will still go on to an even greater degree because the growth of the vehicle market far exceeds the fuel savings.

Oil companies are publically stating the same amount of oil consumed in alst 100 years - about a trillion barrels will be consumed in the next 30 years.

Now we've already heated the planet to the extent it's very noticeable - and a hurricane named global warming has wiped out a section of the US the size of Great Britain......there will be lots more and lots worse to come EVEN IF WE STOPPED COLD.
And we won't.

Let's take Macspectrum a dutiful conservationist who lets say really grinds it down and heats and powers his Shangri La totally with renewables and grows his own food.
But he does like his Bmer and to allow the other conservation measures lives away from his clients.
So even if he's careful and drives in say 3 days a week - he's gonna use 5 gallons each way 3 days a week, so lets say 30 gallons of gas.

Condensed biomass energy per gallon 196,000 lbs of prehistoric plant material. So Michael is mining the past for about 3000 tons of plant material per week -quite a trailer load to fuel his Bmer.

But the worst for the climate he's also releasing about 600 lb of carbon into the atmosphere *each week* in that burning. Translate that into a year just for personal transport 15 tons of carbon and he's "the good guy" in all else.

110 million NEW vehicles per year.
How many millions currently existing?
Add the trains and planes and ships

and it's just transport........and it's all adding carbon.
THEN we could discuss heavy industry.......try to power a steel mill with windmills. 

Instead of knee jerk villifying nuclear plants make VALID comparisons on the long term impact on the planet for the actual amount of energy needed and encourage gov to get on with it.

Airplanes were dangerous contraptions and who would imagine flying at hundreds of miles per hour would be far safer than travelling slower on the ground today. Why?? Because investment in designing and building safer planes and the control technology infrastructure were made and developed over a century.

The question is HOW it's accomplished and the higher energy prices we WILL be paying this year needs be directed to get off the fossil fuel towards a hydrogen economy.
Nuclear, conservation, renewables ALL have a huge role but the 900 lb gorilla of the hydrogen economy will continue to be nuclear - fission today and perhaps the much better fusion sometime after the world has passed the population peak.

One wonders what the world would be like if the resources put to weapons were put to transitioning to non fossil fuel burning.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

All very interesting, this. Jwoodget, I am in agreement that humanity as a whole is addicted to current energy lifestyles and is, indeed, ramping up their consumption rates. I believe that we are transitioning now to a new paradigm and it's bound to be messy. Nuclear looks like the short-term winner. That said, I won't hold my breath about fusion being in here in 50-100 years. I certainly agree that we need a long-term energy plan.... federally and provincially. Is the political will there among the populace at large? Not quite yet, but we're getting there... desperation and fear will drive us to new solutions. And, I'm afraid, new problems. Some of which, by their very nature, will be a tremendous challenge to the imagination of our best and brightest leaders in the world today.

The biggest stumbling block I keep coming up against with nuclear involve a few fundamental questions. To wit, its safety and the extreme timelines involved:

Who will be in charge of transporting, storing and managing nuclear waste facilities? Will they be responsible in attempting to ensure, to the best of their abilities, the safety and security of transporting said wastes to said containment facilities? Will there be an effective watchdog unit to keep them honest? Can it last for thousands of years and stand by its initial mission?

How will all this new nuclear waste be transported? By rail, truck... sea? Through what kinds of population densities will the contaminants move, on their way to supposed safe storage facilities? What practical measures can be put in place to prevent accidents involving broken and/or breached containers? What similar measures can be enacted in anticipation of terrorist acts like bombings or sabotage of some sort? On the Trans-Canada we have had plenty of accidental spillages of all sorts of vile, carcinogenic contaminants... rail is not much better. Planes are probably too insane to contemplate, but it's expedient to examine all of the possible alternatives.

Where will spent nuclear material eventually go? How strong a role will the usual NIMBYism reaction play in the locating of said facility? How long will it take to even decide on a location and build it? What will we do with all of the material presently here in the meantime? How safely is _that_ stored, managed?

What do you to in order to ensure that said contaminant storage facilities will operate safely and securely for hundreds, then thousands of years? What method of warning can be implemented to 'stamp' such a facility as off-bounds, for the sake of the Earth's ecology as much as for that of our distant descendants, far into the future? How do you design and then construct a facility so that it can take a direct military attack and still, theoretically at least, keep its deadly cargo intact?

If, as has been often argued, we are to send the stuff into space, at what point will it be economically feasible to do so? I ask the question in light of the fact that NASA is currently going through a delicate period of its existence... the shuttle tech is old and outmoded and funding for replacement tech is being constrained by other, more pressing economic needs in America. Perhaps the much-coveted space elevator would be the ticket to at least get the stuff off-world. But that appears to be a long way off yet. And you still have to stop the nuclear garbage from orbiting the Earth, lest its orbit(s) decay and we have nuclear radiation fallout spewing across our skies.

Lastly, what political bodies do you trust to handle this situation with the gravity it deserves?

Those are a few questions I have. Which I don't expect, by the way, to have answered any time soon. I'm tossing this into the mix because I believe we should be going into this fully cognizant of the risks attendant to a nuclear strategy for energy generation.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ok then it's settled
new nuke plant being built next door to macdoc's house


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Jim, sadly, you are all too accurate in your contention that we are "addicted to power", especially electricity. I am amazed at how much waste goes on all around us each day and night. My wife can't understand why I won't leave lights turned on when I am going back into the room in an hour. I feel that it is just a waste and this waste adds up......little by little..........hour after hour........day after day. Conservation and a change in how we see energy use, AND actually utilize this energy and change our ways, may be our only hope. We shall see.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I would have no problem with that whatsoever beyond the stench of the trucks used to build it.



> Transport of Radioactive Materials
> 
> Nuclear Issues Briefing Paper # 51
> September 2005
> ...


http://www.uic.com.au/nip51.htm

Yet the worldwide contamination from fossil fuels is astronomical and the byproducts of their combustion is damaging the atmosphere and the ecosystems.

TANSAAFL

9 billion people.
Cooking atmosphere

Solution without nuclear??..........I'm listening......

This reactor has been sitting behind McMaster University for some 50 years.


----------



## Rob (Sep 14, 2002)

Just remember it only takes one small mistake.










I have zero confidence that this is a safe strategy for the long term. When money is tight both business and government look for ways to cut corners. It's as sure as death and taxes. When those inevitable corners are cut the results will be catastrophic with nuclear. It's only a matter of time and there's no second chances. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Walkerton, and the Ontario blackout are quick examples. It's gonna happen folks.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

again, taking a page from Hydro Quebec and investing in a long term mega hydro electric project seems to be the least of all evils
also, town should be looking to create their own wind farms / hydro electric

toyota recently announced they plan to convert 60% of their cars to hybrid
fuel cell technology should be gov't funded ASAP
big oil needs to be slapped in the face with price controls so they have less money to bribe big gov't

as soon as windmills get down to about $5k I plan on installing one for my home


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

> Since 1971 there have been more than 20 000 shipments of spent fuel and high-level wastes (over 50 000 tonnes) over more than 30 million kilometres.
> There has never been any accident in which a container with highly radioactive material has been breached, or has leaked.


 All well and good. Short-term only thus far, I note. Where's it all being stored, by the way? I wager it's scattered all over the place, in storage facilities ranging from short-term adequate to immediately toxic and nightmarish. North America probably has a more decent track record in this regard, but I doubt it's anything to crow about. The deadly stuff left over from the dissolution of the former Soviet Empire is probably not anywhere nearly as well accounted for. We are talking about stuff with a notoriously long half-life... on a scale humanity has a difficult time conceptualizing, it appears. It's also a global problem, as contamination of air and sea can affect many countries, including ones quite far away from the initial contamination source. This stuff does not discriminate in what it can taint or kill; it has no respect for international borders or trade agreements, or determined storage and emergency contingency plans made merely on a country-by-country basis.

I ask again: what long term plans have been bandied about? I'm with Rob on this one... after a time, when no "accidents" have happened, governments have a chronic habit of easing off controls in a bid, again short-term, to save money and allocate it elsewhere. The kinds of radioactive materials we're talking about can kill for centuries to come. Citing figures from as far back as 1971 are impressive on a human scale but it's nothing on a geological time scale... the kind of scale we have to contend with and factor in when we're talking about reasonably safe disposal of nuclear wastes.


----------



## Rob (Sep 14, 2002)

I forgot to mention New Orleans in my last post. Here's another example where government takes shortcuts to save money with catastrophic results. Max is right, we have no control over what's going on in Russia, India, Pakistan and anywhere else outside our own borders. But mistakes that are made there could impact the whole world. Nuclear waste cannot be made safe and it's doubtful it will ever become safe in the future. I'm sure there are coverups galore in the nuclear industry. With so much money at stake nobody wants the truth to get out. If we look at our own history with chemical spills, toxic waste dumps, water contamination, etc, there is absolutely no reason to be optimistic.

The only thing preventing wind power, solar power, low sulpher coal, and other cleaner technoligies is money. The huge debt incurred by Ontario Hydro was due to the big push to nuclear energy. We got fooled by the sales pitch back then and I don't see how the situation is any better now. Let's spend our money to become world leaders in alternative energy solutions.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> The only thing preventing wind power, solar power, low sulpher coal, and other cleaner technoligies is money. The huge debt incurred by Ontario Hydro was due to the big push to nuclear energy. We got fooled by the sales pitch back then and I don't see how the situation is any better now. Let's spend our money to become world leaders in alternative energy solutions.


bravo !


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

YOu miss the point entirely and you also mix technologies.
You have renewables mixed in with coal and a that's a crock.

SOME renewables ( hydro/geothermal ) and conservation can help and we'll need them all.

Cleaner coal is not carbon free coal and does nothing to get to the hydrogen as transport fuel.

Natter natter about hydro and conservation - that's great we need THEM too, big time. But they will never ever even come close to getting the combination of 9 billion people and a liveable planet through the next 50 years.

We are already living in a fossil fuel/population size catastrophe and already living with nuclear that there no non climate altering replacement for and you rattle on about 10,000 years from now when the pollution from the RIGHT NOW is killing hundreds or thousands and altering the ecosystem and atmosphere beyond description - all in 100 years - an eye blink.

In the NEXT 30-50 years the level of atmosphere altering gases are going to exceed by far the last 100 years and we can already see the damage now of that energy and population growth.

No matter if it's, vaccines, food processing, medical drugs, mining, fishing etc etc there are always risks associated with anything on a large scale and energy is THE largest scale issue we face - both non climate altering AND sustainable - two different tho related problems.

My view 
Population of 1 billion or less is sustainable long term
60% of total world energy use will be needed from nuclear to transition the next 50 years with the current population and keep a livable habitat and off that 10% or more may be needed to sequester carbon.

The big IF - is how effective large scale sequestering might be but the risks of tinkering further with the atmosphere.

Just how much more devastating does it have to get? Katrina is just a tiny wisp of the climate problems that lie ahead as the big atmospheric and ocean systems attempt to deal with heat/energy.....even if we stopped cold.

It sounds like a troop of monkeys trying to decide how to dispose of those annoying nut casings when the climatic equivalent of a geologic pyroclastic flow is heading their way.

"Course then...that's we are......silly monkeys, too many of us and fouling our ONLY nest.

For the next 50-100 years no matter which way we turn "Here be Dragons". 

•••••
As for "clean coal"..........


> ëClean Coalí a myth say Greens
> 
> Jeanette Fitzsimons MP, Green Party Co-Leader & Energy Spokesperson
> 
> ...


This is NOT about energy - there's lots - it's about getting to a wolrd energy system including transport that is atmospheric/climate neutral and managing that transition through the global population peak.

Nuclear represents 16% of the total global electricity market. My bet is it will represent 60% of the total energy market whic will be some 3 times larger than the current demands.

It's a daunting task - the figures are so enormous.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> I dare say PVCs and fossil fuel emissions will be responsible for more "cancer deaths" than radiation by magnitudes.


How do you know this? The dangers of nuclear and mass scale destruction are much higher. Think of a few well placed acts of sabotage or normal government mismanagement.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Man, what a depressing thread.

UTBJW summed it up:


> Wake up and smell the coffee. Demand for energy is increasing. It is unstoppable. People will pay more and more for it. Even though conservation is very cost effective, the vast majority of people unfortunately do not seem willing to make "sacrifices". Every time there is a price surge or a major blackout, people swear to cut back. But we are addicted to power. People equate power with progress. Moreover, many of the "alternatives" have hidden charges such as using rare minerals, lack scale-up feasibility or have ROI's that make their adavantages minimal.
> 
> *Unfortunately, the human race is an uncouth hog.* Industry has few concerns other than making a profit and pays lip service to environmental concerns. Indeed, as energy gets more expensive, environmental sensitivity may well become history. We seem not to learn from our mistakes when situations get worse.


I have admitted that I have woken up and smelled the coffee. Conservation will not be spoken of. No one will accept that. Nuke plants by the hundreds are on the way. Inevitably there will be accidents, but proponents say that the alternative is worse. We will go to war for control of the remaining oil. Wait - we've already started that. Dystopia is our future.

It saddens me that all this is unnecessary, but that the uncouth hog is far too attached to it's destructive way of life to do anything but to charge down the only path that it knows. Even though it's entirely possible that we could live a happy and healthy energy efficient life, it's entirely unrealistic of me to imagine such a thing could happen. Maybe I could do it, or a few people that I know, but to imagine that the masses could do it is a fantasy.

So let's say we slake our energy thirst, or put it off the crunch for a while by grasping at the straw of nukes. To me this is like an alchoholic who runs out of rye whiskey switching to beer. The central problem of the drunk's destructive lifestyle is not addressed. He will carry on to create misery for himself and everyone he encounters.

So we enable our industrial society to carry on for another century, polluting, paving, making war, enslaving the poor in greater numbers. Eventually the numbers clamouring for the first world lifestyle will be so great that we will have no technical fix that can help us. Maybe our children will get to see the whole of Southern Ontario or the Lower Mainland completely covered with asphalt, big box stores, 12 lane freeways that appear to be parking lots. But we will have prevented looking at ourselves and how we live, and that is of the utmost importance. Because how we live right now is so great that it must be preserved at all costs.

The coming energy crunch is a wake up call, but we aren't hearing the bell.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> My view
> Population of 1 billion or less is sustainable long term
> 60% of total world energy use will be needed from nuclear to transition the next 50 years with the current population and keep a livable habitat and of that 10% or more may be needed to sequester carbon.


From the Journal of Pulling Scientific Facts Out Of My A**.



> Katrina is just a tiny wisp of the climate problems that lie ahead as the big atmospheric and ocean systems attempt to deal with heat/energy.....even if we stopped cold.


Of course you have proof that Katrina was caused by our pollution. Lord knows, there was never any storms pre industrial age. Mother nature doesn't just occasionally lay a smack down on the planet for the fun of it. Just ask the dinosaurs, the people of Pompeii, the survivors of the black plague, and oh yes, that massive tsunami in recent history...that was definitely caused by pollution.



> It sounds like a troop of monkeys trying to decide how to dispose of those annoying nut casings when the climatic equivalent of a geologic pyroclastic flow is heading their way.


I thought it was the sound of Chicken Little screaming. You know, the little guy screaming the sky is falling. Because it is. I looked up. It's falling. Right now.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> From the Journal of Pulling Scientific Facts Out Of My A**.


Well yes, coupled with what seems like reading comprehension skills.....

http://www.ehmac.ca/showthread.php?t=31254&page=2&pp=10
http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=282403&postcount=49
http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=282467&postcount=53
http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=282500&postcount=55
http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=282503&postcount=56
http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=282576&postcount=61
http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=282581&postcount=62

Sorry MacDoc with your fancy buzz words of the day gleamed from whatever magazine you are reading at moment but your arguments are threadbare.

You advocate wholesale nuclear energy policies without addressing any of the realities.
So we get more energy - what happens next?
Destruction and pollution of the worlds resources and an increased pace?
Do we trust the management of nuclear facilities from people who have shown nothing but massive ineptitude? Tighter controls, my arse... Bigger risk of a massive meltdown more likely....

No one is saying that the problem does not exist - 
You take a swipe at Macspectrum but not yourself.
Do you really need that highly inefficient mini-van you drive - sure you deliver computers - find an alternative.
And those computers that you sell sure to waste a lot of energy. Speaking of which, how much did you waste with the climate predictor? Oh the irony. Well at least while contributing to global warming, you were nice and cool in your home/office thanks to that very expensive air conditioning unit..... Think about how much YOU are contributing to the problem first instead of trying to find ways to accelerate the destruction of the planet by trying to augment your polluting lifestyle. I can tell you that increased energy will only multiply the problem. All the money you would like poured into nuclear would be better served by multi-faceted approach.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

GT Stick your ignorant attitude where the sun don't shine.  You clearly know or choose to know nothing of what's happening to planet••••

GA you yatter on about conservation - conservation is critically important yet you provide no alternative for a planet with 9 billion people.



> The total amount of spent fuel resulting from operation of all the world's commercial nuclear power stations is about 14,000 tonnes per year. About two thirds of this is treated as waste, the rest is reprocessed to recover useful fuel material. By reprocessing the spent fuel, the amount is reduced to about 3% high-level radioactive waste, with the balance being recycled as fresh fuel.
> Handling and treatment of these radioactive wastes has been undertaken in many countries for several decades without incident. Nuclear power is the only energy-producing industry which takes full responsibility for all its wastes and costs this into the product.
> 
> The spent nuclear fuel elements or the high level wastes are stored for up to 50 years to allow for the decay of most of the radioactivity and heat (to about 0.1% of that when removed from the reactor) before final disposal. Today the waste disposal issue is not a technical problem but one of public and political acceptance.
> ...


We'll need renewables but they won't meet the demand with the current population.

We'll need incredible conservation - but it won't cope with the rising demand as more of the world's population uses more energy.

Nuclear waste has to be dealt with as the waste of all large scale enterprises but at least it's not hammering the atmosphere in creation of energy and the physical size of the waste products allows high tech solutions.









Borosilicate glass from the first waste vitrification plant in UK in the 1960s. This block contains material chemically identical to high-level waste from reprocessing. A piece this size would contain the total high-level waste arising from nuclear electricity generation for one person throughout a normal lifetime.

Can you image what the fly ash from coal would be for the same energy.

Every kilowatt produced by coal puts a kilogram of carbon into the atmosphere



> he combustion of coal may also release radioactive heavy metals (including uranium and thorium) contained in it, though these are mostly retained in the flyash. The use of natural gas releases radioactive radon. The amount of radioactivity released is negligible relative to the natural background radiation levels, but is often greater than that from nuclear power generation.
> 
> *If the electricity produced worldwide by nuclear reactors each year were generated instead by burning coal, an additional 2400 million tonnes of carbon dioxide would be released into the atmosphere.* This can be compared with the target of a 5% reduction (600 million tonnes per year) in carbon dioxide by the year 2010, as agreed in 1997 at Kyoto just for the developed countries.
> 
> ...


http://www.uic.com.au/ueg.htm

Yes it has to managed well and better than it has but continuing to burn coal and dump carbon into the atmosphere is a certain and "in progress" disaster that will continue to unfold no matter what we do. It's a question of how severe

This isn't some "worry down the road".
Anyone that was in Toronto this early summer knows its NOW.

Of course McGuinty doesn't want to bring it up - he's aware it's unpopular politically but he also is coming to realize that it HAS to be dealt with and ALL alternatives are either inadequate to meet demand even with conservation 
or devastating to the climate.

Unpleasant reality ....wishful thinking won't change it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

AS you continue to amaze me - you have your nose planted firmly right against a tree talking about individual energy use in the first world ( BTW that was not a "swipe" at Macspectrum in fact it was a complement but again that's your comprehension of the problem issue ).

,......and you can't see the forest.
You criticize my stance that nuclear is inevitable over the next 50 years given the current reality of population and energy ise yet you offer not one iota of evidence for an alternative that

a) deals with the population and energy use AS IT IS
b) does not result in increased carbon loading.

I've been asking that since the beginning - some solution that scales to real use, real population and does not increase green house gases..........and exists now.

Detail your no nuke, no green house gas, current population solution.....I don't think you can.

McGuinty could not, France cannot, the US cannot, Britain cannot - but you in your brilliance say it's there........I say bull****.

This is an excellent a detailed view of the problem 
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.02/nuclear.html

and this is an excellent summary of the very valid concerns about nuclear.
Even many greens are are seeing it as the lesser of two evils and working to deal with the very issues while retaining the benefits.
One part is to examine the real impact and cost of coal and fossil fuel burning.



> The environmental movement, once staunchly antinuclear, is facing resistance from within.
> 
> by Amanda Griscom Little
> 
> ...


I could not agree more with those four concerns but it is not a perfect world and MY choice would be to put dollars and smart people on addressing those concerns while *at the same time* bringing the potential of wind, hydro and conservation into full play.
It will require immense effort on both fronts. I very much suspect the upcoming OPA report will reflect exactly that.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

No, I criticise your amazing skills at spewing numbers that you can't back up and refuse to admit are wrong. Your arguments skills are akin to the SSI sage when it comes to this subject. 
Quoting Larouche as a source? C'mom MacDoc, you can do better than that - I have seen you... If someone seems to be grasping and tenuous arguments...

You are not asking for any solutions (many were suggested here), as much as you want to regurgitate the latest article of the day you have read. I don't even think you have weighted in all the consequences of what you are advocating.... 


You are avoiding the problem by espousing a cycle of increased consumption.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You natter and supply no solutions - useless and tiresome AS.

What significant number is wrong??

Population???
Carbon loading??
Energy growth??
Climate change???

Let's hear YOUR solution. You have not offered one.
Playing dodge ball methinks. All hat no cattle indeed.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

And what solutions have you supplied other than "feed the beast" MacDoc? Don't you think that "tame the beast" (aka, try to encourage more efficient energy use first) would be a better solution?

The problem will only get worse if people such as yourself keep saying, as you seem to be, that we should focus on making more rather than using less.

You're right to think that we will need more, but you're wrong if you think that we first world nations couldn't get by using a whole lot less.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

GA the hand wringer - let's narrow done his scope



> It saddens me that all this is unnecessary, but that the uncouth hog is far too attached to it's destructive way of life to do anything but to charge down the only path that it knows. *Even though it's entirely possible that we could live a happy and healthy energy efficient life*, it's entirely unrealistic of me to imagine such a thing could happen. Maybe I could do it, or a few people that I know, but to imagine that the masses could do it is a fantasy


_Even though it's entirely possible that we could live a happy and healthy energy efficient life_ .......let's hear your model solution for 9 billion people. ????

It's a fantasy for today and I think maybe you recognize that. 

200 years out it might not be.

Given you know it's the one or the other .....WHICH is the lesser of two inevitable evils - 

is more and better fossil fuel plants the answer
more and better nuclear plants

YOUR opinion.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Posterboy where in this have I NOT said conservation AND maximizing non carbon renewables is unnecessary???
I've said several times it's critical.

It also will not solve the existing problem. It will help and is a key piece - but it will not solve the population peak/energy demand increase from second and third world nations.

Would you deny them??

Even in the GTA if ALL the dwellings got to a 40% better energy use there will be 50% more people........so at best it might be the status quo......which is not sustainable in the long run.
Could we get 90% better........very very doubtful in the near term.

••••



> You are avoiding the problem by espousing a cycle of increased consumption.


Where I have I ONCE supported increased consumption??????? 

What I have said is there WILL be more consumption even if first world nations do an amazing job of conservation.
Both overall population is increasing and will do so before it tapers off and demand from non first worlders is increasing.

Man you really have a mental block on this.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

> It sounds like a troop of monkeys trying to decide how to dispose of those annoying nut casings when the climatic equivalent of a geologic pyroclastic flow is heading their way.


A regrettably snide attempt at evasion, MacDoc. You have yet to substantially address the issues against nuclear - all I keep hearing from you is a near-breathless insistence that nuke plants are what we need. Surely you can do better. Condescending to people who question your points is hardly going to to further your cause.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Max, where do we store all of the spent nuclear rods, which need a minimum of 10,000+ years of SAFE storage. We could store them under the Great Pyramid of Khufu in Egypt, but it has only been around since about the year 2560 BC, and we need to know if it will survive another 5000-6000 years, so that we could be sure that these rods would be stored safely for another 10,000+ years.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Max I'll try and address your good post which does lay out the issues but I think misses a couple of things OUTSIDE the nuclear industry problems. I'll see if I can shed some light.



> The biggest stumbling block I keep coming up against with nuclear involve a few fundamental questions. To wit, its safety and the extreme timelines involved:


Dioxins ALSO represent extreme timelines and fossil fuel burning releases many short and long lasting toxins as well. The issue with fossil fuels is that the mass versus energy return is so great those contaminants are not subject to the kind of controls the nuclear industry is.
So the point being that if the desired goal is reduced or eliminated long and short term contaminants - it's far easier to deal with the 14,000 tons of nuclear waste currently generated without global warming impact than the millions of tons of atmospheric contaminants and fly ash waste which produces even more radioactive contaminants than the nuclear industry but are not currently controlled the way nuclear waste is.



> Who will be in charge of transporting, storing and managing nuclear waste facilities? Will they be responsible in attempting to ensure, to the best of their abilities, the safety and security of transporting said wastes to said containment facilities? Will there be an effective watchdog unit to keep them honest? Can it last for thousands of years and stand by its initial mission? How will all this new nuclear waste be transported? By rail, truck... sea? Through what kinds of population densities will the contaminants move, on their way to supposed safe storage facilities? What practical measures can be put in place to prevent accidents involving broken and/or breached containers?


The record of the agencies *doing it now* is very good and as with all technologies could be better and IS getting better. These questions have been present for 50 years and better answers come about - the borosilicate glass notably and better recycling of nuclear fuel.



> What similar measures can be enacted in anticipation of terrorist acts like bombings or sabotage of some sort?


That is indeed a difficult question but bio agents such as anthrax and other bio-weapons also represent a threat.......but one no where near the scale of human induced climate change. It's a risk reward assessment.
City water supplies are likely more vulnerable than a nuclear plant and far less guarded.



> On the Trans-Canada we have had plenty of accidental spillages of all sorts of vile, carcinogenic contaminants... rail is not much better.


And you point out the reality that contamination is NOT restricted to nuclear.......but dealing with a relatively small amount of nuclear material is an easier task than say trying to prevent chemical and tanker spills world wide let alone air borne contaminants.
Dealing with nuclear materials is one amongst others - explosives, poisons hey electrical transformers loaded with PVCs.
It's not a unique problem and there is a strong track record for the nuclear industry and with new recycling on site techniques the magnitude reduces over time. Remember this IS reality - France supplies 70% of their electricity and they don't want GM foods.......interesting that 




> Where will spent nuclear material eventually go? How strong a role will the usual NIMBYism reaction play in the locating of said facility? How long will it take to even decide on a location and build it? What will we do with all of the material presently here in the meantime? How safely is that stored, managed?


You bet - big issue but it' a political one. Which would you choose to live next to??
Coal or nuclear??



> What do you to in order to ensure that said contaminant storage facilities will operate safely and securely for hundreds, then thousands of years? What method of warning can be implemented to 'stamp' such a facility as off-bounds, for the sake of the Earth's ecology as much as for that of our distant descendants, far into the future? How do you design and then construct a facility so that it can take a direct military attack and still, theoretically at least, keep its deadly cargo intact


I think you overstate just how much waste there is - the entire industry produces 14,000 tons currently and most is stored on site. It IS being dealt with - the arguments arise as to the BEST way of dealing with it --- recycling being high on that list.

All valid questions but once more I stress nuclear IS here - 16% of the world's current electricity. Doing it better in conjunction with conservation and maximizing renewables in my mind is the sole heavy lifting solution to replace fossil fuels especially when the transport aspect is factored in .

I believe firmly in the long run we must get across to a hydrogen transport economy.
This is a hard and dangerous task no matter which way we look. 

The Wired article on the green outlook likely poses the critical questions best.....very similar to yours in fact.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> I've said several times it's critical.


You've said a couple of times on this page that it will help, but that it won't solve the problem. But it's hard to hear anything other than all the yelling you're doing about yelling.

I think the problem that most of us have is that some people have such a hard on for nuclear power because it's easy, when there are plenty of sources of energy all around us that we don't fully exploit simply because they are more expensive or harder to implement on a wide scale or both.

In short, I think the problem is that while nuclear is probably easier to get going, easier isn't necessarily better.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Nuclear is NOT easy and you keep proclaiming all these "sources of energy around us".

What are they?? - that can scale and not impact the climate.
I've been asking - you don't answer.

Show me a choice that addresses the scale of the problem.
Do you not perhaps think France might have considered alternatives........I'm sure they'd love to be enlightened with your solution.

What I have a "hard on" for in your inimitable writing style is getting on with dealing with the energy issues in Ontario before our industrial base is damaged the way California's was by power shortages.
We're just a microcosm of what's facing first world societies and in my mind we're behind the curve in confronting it.

Ontario's energy program including nuclear has been abominably managed 
We need to pay more, conserve more, eliminate coal and develop non fossil resources including nuclear.
McGuinty has made some progress on the sustainable non biomass and is NOW addressing the nuclear aspect and it's about bloody time.
Nuclear is here now.

Are you advocating eliminating it???
If so what will replace it??.....with 50% more people coming into the GTA in the next 30 years.
Hot air?????/ T'would seem so.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

On that last sentence - bravo, PosterBoy.

MacDoc - your repeated assertion that it's a relatively small amount of material we're talking about doesn't wash with me. Astonishingly small amounts of this shyte can indiscriminately kill - that or ensure birth defects for generations on end. You have yet to put forward a position which ensures that the wisest powers of the world have nuclear power in their best interests and know how to deal with its effluent in a truly respectful - and prescient - manner.

You have also avoided discussing the pressing issues of how to deal with this stuff long-term, over several generations, several centuries. All you can do is present information from today and days past - nothing to do with how well tomorrow's stewards of nuke waste will be society's guardians against future contaminations - from small, isolated incidents to cataclysmic errors - from accidents to deliberate sabotage. In that light, I find your optimism rather thin cause for celebration that a new nuclear dawn might well be upon us.

Aside from that, and thank you for the redundant reminder, I _know_ nuclear is here. But I find I cannot cheer on that fact. We could just as easily be heading into a dark age as we could an enlightened one.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Max, where do we store all of the spent nuclear rods, which need a minimum of 10,000+ years of SAFE storage. We could store them under the Great Pyramid of Khufu in Egypt, but it has only been around since about the year 2560 BC, and we need to know if it will survive another 5000-6000 years, so that we could be sure that these rods would be stored safely for another 10,000+ years.


Dr. G there have been natural nuclear reactors and all large scale entreprises require management. 
Recycling the 95% of energy that remains in fuel rods is ideal and progressing.

This may be of interest to you.

http://www.fepc.or.jp/english/nuclear_power/cycle/recycle.html

The greater problem and one that is underlying many of the issues that confront a nuclear energy solution is the large amount of weaponized material that exists around the planet.
Were we to eliminate nuclear plants entirely the issue with the weapon material is not one we can wish away.

The planet has
a) a lot of people and more coming

b) a conservation movement in the first world that is getting more effective BUT

c) is not going to offset the energy demands of both the larger population and the rest of the planet.

d) an existing issue with nuclear waste due to weapons - no wishing it away - and an existing currently irreplaceable nuclear power generation infrastructure.

e) lots of fossil energy but no way to use it and avoid cooking the atmosphere

I'd say the fuel rod storage is a very small factor in this larger conundrum.....and one that has good potential for being solved by current and upcoming recycle techniques.

Tell me something.......oil is benefitting NL greatly.......yet it's impact on the atmosphere is an ongoing and growing catastrophe - how do those conflicting realities sit with you???


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Max astonishly small amounts of dioxins can do the same damage, and prions and you avoid the fact that coal releases MORE of this "shyte" than the nuclear industry.

Despite that you don't offer an alternative.
Yes nuclear waste can be dangerous - it is also being dealt with effectively and it's scale makes it a far more easily managed problem than the scale of waste and pollution from coal in particular.

Fossil fuel dangers are NOT being dealt with in a similar manner - no one here has an alternative.
Would you prefer Ontario continues the coal plants???

If not then what's your solution????

You pat yourselves on the back and say "oh - I'm willing to take the hard road........no nukes for me, close em all I say". 

Okay show me your "hard road". Show me YOUR solution.
Or are you denying there is a problem???


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Are the Japanese really that stupid if they had realistic alternatives.



> ent fuel has been reprocessed in the U.K. and France. However, in order to further enhance energy security, Japan has turned to recycling spent fuel itself to establish nuclear power as a domestic energy source, because Japan has few natural resources. In addition, it conserves uranium resources, and the volume of high level waste (HLW) is reduced to less than half by reprocessing spent fuel, which lightens the burden on final disposal of HLW.
> 
> Japan Nuclear Fuel Limited (JNFL), owned in large part by Japan’s electric power companies, plays an important role in completing the nuclear fuel cycle. In Rokkasho Village, Aomori Prefecture, JNFL currently operates three types of facilities: the Uranium Enrichment Plant, the Vitrified Waste Storage Center for high-level radioactive waste and the Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Center. The company is currently preparing for commencement of overall operations at its large-scale Reprocessing Plant, and it is also planning to construct a MOX Fuel Fabrication Plant.


and no one has addressed the weaponized material - IT requires a solution as well.

Synroc is now going moving toward large scale production and shows promise even for weapon grade plutonium.

Good overview here

http://www.uic.com.au/ne5.htm

and current stuff here

http://velocity.ansto.gov.au/velocity/ans0008/article_03.asp


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

I know what this thread is missing...


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

The answer to our energy crisis...


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Yet another non-nuclear solution...


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

> If not then what's your solution????


I don't have one, MacDoc. Never claimed to have one. Unlike yourself. Pardon me if I do not possess the same zeal for your solution as you do.



> You pat yourselves on the back and say "oh - I'm willing to take the hard road........no nukes for me, close em all I say".


I don't know who you're referring to in the plural. I can only guess you're taking wild roundhouse swings at ghost enemies here. Have at it.



> Okay show me your "hard road". Show me YOUR solution.
> Or are you denying there is a problem???


Ease up, if you will, on the redundant punctuation marks... they make you look panicky. Read my posts here and at Magic again, MacDoc. I don't propose a concrete solution - easy or otherwise. If you think I have been denying that there is indeed a problem, normally I would be tempted to suggest you might wish to consider taking some remedial reading courses. But since you know very well how to read, I can only surmise you are conveniently ignoring some of my sentences in favour of pouncing on others. On the other hand, you have been very busy extolling the virtues of nuclear - and the evils of "carbon loading" - without addressing very much at all the liabilities of a nuclear strategy. Apparently you think it's crucial to settle this tonight; I don't. Ciao for now. I'll be eager to revisit this thread tomorrow!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

An issue with nuclear is the hidden and not-so-hidden subsidies. Over the decades, the industry has been subsidized with billions of dollars and produced far more expensive power than common alternatives. The reason was always 'strategic'.

Side note: when goverment wonks talk about strategic investment choices, they often seem to screw it up.

Within the current framework there are still numerous subsidies, and I would be interested to see if a truly independent plant is feasible. There is a Finnish plant, but the financing appears to be hiding a handout, and a newly formed U.S. group but, last time I heard, the U.S. still has limits on damage liability for nukes as well as numerous other handouts.

So while a well implemented carbon tax, as well as SOx and NOx taxes would level the playing field with fossil fuel plants, nuclear would still be a very large recipient of 'strategic' government support. 

Note that by 'nuclear', I mean fission, which is easily mature enough to be cut loose. Fusion, still being at very early stages, could actually justifiy government backing to seed itself. However, after 100s of plants have been built over decades, many would say that it's time for fission to stand on its own.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> You natter and supply no solutions - useless and tiresome AS.
> 
> What significant number is wrong??
> 
> ...


MacDoc is anyone is playing dodge ball is would be you. 
Many have addressed valid concerns (not only me), yet you cling to an obtuse view that only you are correct in your assessment without providing any insight...
Read (if you are capable of it) 
http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=283390&postcount=99

You have blinders on my friend and are changing the questions as you go along - just to belabour points that you think we should all have. Sorry mightily MacDoc, we don't all have caption like points to make you follow as many have expressed only partial solution - unlike your god-like belief in nuclear power in the face of many years that it was a failure.

You are meandering from one subject to another and give the sense to you have no clue where you are going.
Your first post on this subject was a newspaper article with your little icons of hand clapping.
No bloody idea what you meant by it, even the subject was open to interpretation. The article addressed Ontario ONLY, not worldwide power consumption in the face of a growing population base.
http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=281978&postcount=1


> Critics say nuclear plants cost billions of dollars to construct, take 10 years or longer to build and raise environmental concerns about radioactive waste.


These are valid concerns - yet you offer no solution to them. Remember, you are espousing the nuclear solution, the onus is on you to explain why you think it's good. Not to bladder on about "give me your proposal"...


> The Toronto Environmental Alliance said it was “appalled” to hear McGuinty open the door to more nuclear plants, which it warned would leave a huge financial and environmental debt.


Again, in the history of nuclear power, this is the legacy we have. What makes you so sure we can avoid this again?


> “We’re very concerned because the (electricity) system is still very much in the hands of the people who built our last nuclear plants and got us into the mess we’re in today,” said alliance spokesman Keith Stewart.


Again, will this be a case of you and your ilk mortgaging the planet for your comfort instead of working to find real solutions?




> “The McGuinty government should not be repeating the mistakes of the previous provincial government, which put us massively in debt and left us with nuclear
> 
> Greenpeace Canada also asked why Ontario would consider building more nuclear plants after such a bad — and expensive — experience with its current nuclear generators.


I guess that MacDoc, you have a very selective memory, short-sighted view or just don't understand... 




> “Do the lessons of the past mean nothing to Premier McGuinty?” wondered Greenpeace spokesman Dave Martin.





> “We know that nuclear power is extremely unreliable, it’s dirty, it produces waste that’s toxic for millions of years, and we know it’s astoundingly expensive.”


How do you address those solutions with a proven method? 


> “They don’t seem to have a plan for replacing the generation that they’ve committed to shutting down,” Tory energy critic John Yakabuski said, referring to the premier’s promise to close coal-fired plants, which has been delayed.


They don't seem because they don't have - feels like a few people in a panic grasping at the nuclear straw....


> Yakabuski said Ontario manufacturers won’t invest more in the province until they’re sure the energy supply is reliable.


Well, it's a problem that has been know for decades and are waking up to it now? More like ignored in the hopes that it goes away - so jumping on nuclear bandwagon will really fix this? 



> NDP Leader Howard Hampton said the province should look to ways of encouraging better energy conservation.
> 
> Hampton estimated a new nuclear plant could cost as much as $10 billion to construct and noted that the Darlington nuclear plant cost nearly three times as much to build than originally anticipated.


I'm tempted to believe this scenario because it's always happened in the past.



> “We can get further with energy efficiency . . . it will be cheaper than building $10-billion nuclear plants.”



Pickering should be an indication of the cost of going Nuclear and some of the problems. You have given no indication that this will be resolved with new plants.
http://www.blackhole.on.ca/nuclear.htm


> "Every nuclear reactor is a disaster waiting to happen --
> and CANDU reactors are no exception."
> 
> Energy Probe





> This (Pickering) is the oldest commercial nuclear plant in the country: Wear and tear is still an issue even though they are putting
> $1 billion* (now $3 billion+) into this plant. It's not going to make it new..."
> 
> CBC NEWS - Power company wants to restart
> aging nuclear plant - Irene Kock - December 15, 2000





> "Some say it is the beginning of the end for nuclear power in Canada. Ontario is facing the largest nuclear reactor shutdown in the world: seven of its 19 Candus will be closed, and the rest need major upgrading. It's the result of a scathing independent report that blasts the management and performance of Ontario Hydro's nuclear reactors."
> 
> Trouble for Ontario's Candus
> Ontario is faced with the largest nuclear reactor shutdown in the world
> CBC News broadcast August 13, 1997


http://www.ccnr.org/nucaware_hydroletter.html


> The Bruce "A" reactors lasted less than half of their expected 40-year lifetime. The Pickering "A" reactors lasted only 25 years, despite having been re-tubed at cost of $1 billion (Cdn).





> In May, it was revealed that Ontario Hydro had dumped more than 1,000 tonnes of copper, zinc and other metals in Lake Ontario. The metals were being eroded from the Pickering stations' brass steam condensers over the last 20 years. Durham Nuclear Awareness has requested an investigation under Ontario's Environmental Bill of Rights, alleging that Ontario Hydro officials knowingly reported incomplete environmental data to the Province of Ontario.





> Ontario Hydro revealed that it had failed to report tritium contamination of ground water at the Pickering nuclear generating station for the last twenty years. In 1979 it found 2,150,000 becquerels per litre (Bq/L) of tritium in ground water, and in 1994 found 700,000 Bq/L.





> Pickering reactor 4 had a heavy water leak from a heat exchanger that resulted in the release of 50 trillion becquerels of tritium into Lake Ontario. The level of tritium in local drinking water peaked at about 100 times the usual level.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Pickering Nuclear Station: Shutdown or Meltdown


> Greenpeace Canada today released a report condemning safety conditions at the Pickering Nuclear Station, calling for its phaseout. The McGuinty government has approved the restart of a second reactor at the aging Pickering “A” nuclear plant which is scheduled to be commissioned before the end of June, to begin commercial operation in September. At the same time, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is about to give Ontario Power Generation an unprecedented five-year license, despite the many safety problems at the plant.
> 
> The McGuinty government is next considering the restart of two more reactors at the Pickering “A” station at a cost of about $1 billion each. Final government approval is also pending on proceeding with the restart of two reactors at the Bruce “A” nuclear station operated by Bruce Power.
> 
> ...


http://action.web.ca/home/gpc/alerts.shtml?x=78844&AA_EX_Session=1eb617af46d1d2e1e30250a347910b75

Now to get a sense of the dangers of nuclear power, you should read the 24 page report. 

In this context, what makes you think that going nuclear will be any better this time around? Technology maybe better but not the economic/political and social framework.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> you keep proclaiming all these "sources of energy around us".
> 
> What are they?? - that can scale and not impact the climate.


Apparently you missed my previous post, where I said:



me said:


> There are lots of ways to generate power that never seem to be looked into in any serious manner that could be exploited in concert to generate energy, too. Hydro + wind + solar+ wave + tidal + geothermal + ocean thermal + solid biomass + liquid biomass + whatever else we can come up with. Few of these technologies would be enough to fulfil our needs on their own, but the trick is that they don't have to be use alone, either.


Of those alternative methods that I mentioned, the only ones that pollute in any kind of significant way are solid and liquid biomass fuels. Hydro may require some significant landscape changes if done on a large scale (although it doesn't have to), but pretty much all the others don't. Some of them are harder to implement on a large scale, but why do they need to be? More small scale set ups may be a smarter, mre managable way to do things (not to mention more redundant, which would help in situations like that blackout that the east had what, was it two years ago now?).

Nuclear may be here now, but the energycrisis isn't quite upon us yet. Now is the time to explore new ways of doing things, while we still have time.




Also, as a side note, given the weaknesses in the infrastructure that the blackout demonstrated, has the Ontario gov. invested much in stregthening it (actually just curious, as I haven't heard much on the subject)?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Regarding transmission reliability in Ontario, Hydro One handles this. 

http://www.hydroonenetworks.com/en/regulatory/oeb_applications/
http://www.hydroonenetworks.com/en/community/projects/transmission/

The long and short, from what I've heard, is that they know what to do, and are doing it, but a couple projects are being held up by NIMBY-type concerns and difficulties with the new and constantly changing regulatory framework in Ontario (overlapping responsibilities, unclear policies in some aspects).


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Because there is simply no other energy source that will meet the upcoming requirements without combining unacceptable levels of pollution - 300,000 kids die in Europe alone every year from pollution - with unsustainable green house gas build up.
> 
> Just what DON"T you understand about 60% of the worlds coral reefs dying off IN ONE YEAR due to global warming.
> Some of those dead reefs survived 10,000 years prior to 1997.


Now from your second post you have two very tall tales....
"300,000 kids die in Europe alone every year from pollution
and 
60% of the worlds coral reefs dying off IN ONE YEAR due to global warming"
Either back up your claims or say that you are wrong.
Now picking and choosing diverse claims is not an argument.

Corals: 


> By 1998, about 11 percent of the world’s coral reefs had already been destroyed, according to the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network (GCRMN). Rising surface water temperatures, possibly due to global warming, worried scientists as well. Then the severe El Niño and La Niña hit. ..... f destructive activities affecting coral reefs continue, as much as 60 percent of the world’s reefs could be gone within the next 30 years, according to GCRMN. These alarming predictions prompted the United Nations Environmental Programme


http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Publications/ZooGoer/2001/4/coralreefs.cfm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Asia_coral_reefs
Global warming is NOT a factor in the destruction of coral reefs as much as human activity - which will be accelerated by your nuclear power -



> While currently, there is no direct scientific evidence to suggest global warming is threathening corals, the high temperatures in 1997 and 1998 were attributed to an unusually severe El Nino event


http://www.gdrc.org/oceans/oceans-day.html




> Third of Europe's Child Deaths Environment-related. Unsafe environments cause a third of all child deaths in Europe. 100,000 young Europeans die every year from exposure to pollution or unsafe living conditions, such as a lack of clean drinking water. * Accidents were the biggest killer, accounting for three quarters of the 100,000 annual deaths.* In the poorest countries, pneumonia caused by indoor air pollution and diarrhoea from a lack of sanitation and clean water were also major causes of death. The toll from traffic rose as children got older and spent more time away from the home. Drownings and fire deaths predominated in housebound infants. Injuries accounted for a third of all deaths each year in the prosperous zone. Suicides were higher in the richer countries. Children in poorer regions pay a heavy price for breathing polluted air, drinking unclean water and absorbing lead contamination. Lack of clean water claims around 13,500 lives a year, from diarrhoea. Indoor air pollution claims 10,000 lives a year, in countries where people burn coal and wood. Most victims are infants who develop pneumonia. An estimated 9000 lives could be saved by moving to cleaner liquid or gas fuels.


June 17, 2004 New Scientist
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6030


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I thought the following document may help the discussion a little. It's Shell's scenarios for the energy future (to 2050), and it's similar to others I've read such as the IEAs. It's not too long, and provides a good broad perspective on energy in a reasonably sized package. 

It shows an increasing but still moderate role for nuclear, suggesting that a lot of the current attention may lead to new nuclear developments, but it will remain a small player in world energy relative to the top sources.

www.s-e-i.org/reports/shell2050.pdf


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

Macdoc, and AS - Can we lessen the bickering? (Illiteracy, dodgeball, citing avoidance of an issue derogatorily) Thanks. I don't give a hoot about giving back in kind, it's another member here. There are better ways of saying you don't agree with someone's evidence.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Oh...this is TOO _COOL!_ 

Macdoc is arguing desperately for nukes to help deliver the electricity that is so desperately needed in "central Canada" these days. While knowing that Ontario is about to go into rolling brownouts for the next few years or more, if something drastic isn't done very soon!  

This is rich. Truly rich.

About three years back...when I was known as "macnutt, citizen 531" around here, and only had a hundred or two posts under my name...I stood up and loudly pointed out that Ontario was on a collision couse with disaster because of it's long-term addiction to cheap electrical power and it's inecxplicable refusal to build ANY new powerplants over the past twenty years in order to satisfy this ever growing demand.

I also pointed out that environmetal activists had spent considerable time and money to stop any new powerplants from being built over the past few decades. And that they were also demanding that some of the current ones be shut down, ASAP!

And I also noted that many leftish-thinking Ontario residents seemed to sympathise with the enviro types on this subject. Even though it might mean the death knell for their provincial manufacturing industries, and their very lifestyle...

BUT...no one seemed to care. They were all about "clean air and good water" and "high ideals", instead. 

So...I got shouted down, rather prominently, by some of the more noteable ontario-based members around here, when I suggested (not too subtly) that they were on an express elevator to hell....and that they needed to get a serious grip on reality right NOW! And build some new power plants! ASAP! And FORGET about shutting down any old coal-fired ones until the new ones were up and running!

Or, suffer the consequences.

Well, guess what?

Three years later, and the air and water in Ontario has never been in worse shape. The manufacturing sector is failing and there is the beginnings of a mass out-migration of the best and brightest from that once pivotal province. There are smog alerts that span almost fifty days per year and that stretch well into "cottage country".

The Ontario electrical power generating system is on the brink of total failure and even MacDoc is now loudly advocating nuclear energy as a quick fix!!   

Macdoc wants NUKES! Next thing we know Sweden and Germany will abandon socialism and go completely Conservative (that's coming later this week, BTW.)

My my...how times have changed. "Centering to the RIght", Indeed!


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> GA the hand wringer - let's narrow done his scope
> 
> _Even though it's entirely possible that we could live a happy and healthy energy efficient life_ .......let's hear your model solution for 9 billion people. ????
> 
> ...


Yep, I said it was a fantasy, because as you and UTBJW have pointed out the vast majority of people will not change. I've conceded that.

You want my vision, here it is FWIW, even though we both know it won’t be acted upon. 

I would hike the cost of fossil fuels, with taxes, so that their true costs, in terms of environment and health degradation and global warming would be included. I would also end any kind of subsidy that fossil fuels currently receive. Estimates say that would bring the cost of gasoline for one to between $2.50 and $5.60 per litre. Money collected would not go into general revenues, to be used to allow more tax breaks for wealthy corporate friends of the government, but would be earmarked towards transit, rail transport infrastructure, and research into and implementation of alt energy technologies.

I would also start along the path of government control and regulation of fossil fuel resources. Rationing something that will soon be in short supply, is only sensible. I believe we will eventually get to a place where fossil fuels are controlled and rationed, when it becomes abundantly clear how little is left, why not start now? We have rationed fuel and other goods during wartime, because our survival was threatened. It is now and will be in the future, if we do nothing. The problem is that most either are ignorant of the facts or selfishly do not care.

The direction that I have outlined would spur massive conservation. It would also fundamentally change how our society is organized. Car culture would diminish, suburbs would re-organize, into sensible town centres, globalized trade in goods and food would wither to a great degree, since it is entirely based on cheap fossil fuel energy to exist. Local economies and local agriculture would be the benificiary. Investment in alt energy would be massively kick-started because many of the technologies that are currently not quite competitive enough, with our subsidizing of fossil energy, would become so, geo-thermal heating, for example.

Wind power, already very competitive per kilowatt hour and much cheaper than nuclear and less environmentally damaging, should be implemented ASAP. Denmark gets 20% of it's electricity today from the wind. That could be increased massively, it is hoped that 35% of electricity there will come from the wind, soon. A study at Stanford earlier this year estimates that there is enough wind blowing around the world that could be converted, using present day tech, to 40 times the amount of electricity used worldwide in 2000. (There's probably enough wind blowing around on this thread to light up an apartment block  )

http://www.wired.com/news/planet/0,2782,67600,00.html

Of course this is a fantasy, but because of the blindness and selfishness of our society, not because it would be impossible to implement. People’s lives are very malleable and we would adapt and likely be happier and healthier for it.

But it won’t happen. Can you imagine any politician winning an election with a program like that? Ain’t gonna happen. Right wing business groups are at work today lobbying Ottawa to decrease gas taxes. Blind, short term thinking rules. 

As George Mobiot has said: “Given a choice between a new set of matching tableware and the survival of humanity, I suspect that most people would choose the tableware.” (George Monbiot, The Bottom of the Barrel)

We are addicted to dirt-cheap energy, and since we are addicted, our only consideration is where can we get our next fix. Hey we're out of heroin, maybe we can switch to methadone. Getting off the drug will not be spoken of.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Still dodgiing AS - let's take the range of 20-95% of the tropical reefs



> There was a wide spectrum of reports on bleaching ranging from:
> 
> *catastrophic bleaching with massive mortality, often near 95% of shallow (and sometimes deep-water) corals such as in Bahrain, the Maldives, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Singapore, and parts of Tanzania; through*
> severe bleaching over large areas with significant mortality (around 50% to 70%) with recovery of larger, more resistant species (Kenya, Tanzania, the Seychelles, Thailand, Vietnam, Japan and Belize); to
> severe bleaching only in some of the reefs, with a mix of recovery and mortality (around 20% to 50% in places), for example Oman, Madagascar, the Great Barrier Reef, parts of Indonesia and the Philippines, Taiwan, Palau, French Polynesia, the Galapagos, the Bahamas, Cayman Islands, Florida, Bermuda, Brazil; and


http://www.aims.gov.au/pages/research/coral-bleaching/scr1998/scr-01.html

and I suppose an "unusually severe " El Nino is unrelated to global warming.  - 

•••••

Children? - fine I'll accept the Lancet/ Who Report and 300,000 cases of bronchitis and let's just round it off at "many thousands of children die" if that makes you happy.
Let's then dump a trillion barrels worth of contaminants from oil into the same atmosphere over the next 30 years along that from several billion tons of coal.........per year..every year.

You've still got your nose firmly planted in the bark and offer not one single iota of "alternative" for energy heavy lifting that is cogent to the discussion and to avoid or at least ameliorate that level of fossil fuel use......even for Ontario.

GA at least is realistic enough to know his "ideal world" is not going to happen tho there is nothing wrong with trying. Iceland at least has an overall plan to move to hydrogen but wow that's a small scale and still difficult task compared to say Ontario.

I think this is a good assessment from a nation already deeply committed but not without problems nor long term concerns.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html

Indeed France may have spare capacity for electricity and what it awaits use for is hydrogen production and that waits on a hydrogen fuel infrastructure - 
By electrifying trains France has gone some way to reduce fossil fuel use but the world let alone Ontario is a long ways from a structure that does not continue to severely damage the atmosphere over short time frames.

Many pointing fingers, too little progress in conservation incentives, hydro maximization, wind and nuclear. In my mind nuclear on the table in Ontario is inevitable tho politically very unpopular.
The only really unquestioned fact is that the energy program for Ontario has had dismal if not criminal management both internally and by way of government direction.

The OPA report will be interesting to read.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Still dodgiing AS -


Not at all MacDoc - a few numbers that you used and I have pointed out are simply wrong - it would be nice for you to correct them.

You present the option of Ontario going back to nuclear with almost a philanthropist view and so much self-righteousness, coupled with a line of thought that you justify with arrogance instead of dialogue because some don't agree with your short-sighted vision of the world in the face of reality.

As with being unable to say that you erred on some of the numbers you posted early on, you have blinded yourself to the notion others have a different perception of the problem. Your view is so insular that the consequences/problems of going nuclear that no dialogue is possible with you.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Macdoc wants NUKES! Next thing we know Sweden and Germany will abandon socialism and go completely Conservative (that's coming later this week, BTW.)
> 
> My my...how times have changed. "Centering to the RIght", Indeed!


Just like you prediction about the Liberal government falling in the spring?

And after Katrina, lets see how that centering to the right plays out in the USA.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

[


> Many pointing fingers, too little progress in conservation incentives, hydro maximization, wind and nuclear. In my mind nuclear on the table in Ontario is inevitable tho politically very unpopular.


Man, that first sentence is a muddled one. I don't know what you're trying to say, MacDoc - perhaps you could break it down for us.



> The only really unquestioned fact is that the energy program for Ontario has had dismal if not criminal management both internally and by way of government direction.


I beg to differ. There's plenty of questionable 'facts' in this ongoing debate, many of which resemble factoids, pseudo-stats, mystery sources, evasions, half-truths and fear-mongering - hard kernels of fact are few and far between.

I don't think you've made your case for nuclear power generation at all. You appear to have settled with merely claiming that it's inevitable. You do concede that mismanagement has been a problem in the past - fine. What makes you think it won't happen again, possibly producing a far more tragic result?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Dodge dodge dodge AS - you simply refuse to answer the question posed to you about a viable alternative. Fine - your patent inability to do so is noted.

I even asked you what numbers MATERIAL to the issue were wrong, population, carbon loading etc and you avoided that as well.
You focus on magnitude alone on what are clearly climate and pollution related environmental distress - if it's 50,000 kids a year or 20,000 kids a year die that's okay then in your mind?????? You KNOW the point - you dodge the issue, you quibble if reefs MAY have died before 1997 or is that ALL reefs or tropical reefs.........obfuscation of the issues entirely.
Got anything cogent to add to the discussion????

How's the bark.......a bit rough I imagine...face planted so firmly.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Every government in the past few elections has pointed fingers at the previous governments about the Ontario power situation with little progress to show for all the shouting.
Ontario Hydro under the likes of Clitheroe was an embarrassment and the waste of money in hiring US "nuclear advisors" was atrocious.
McGuinty has made some progress in addressing it in my mind tho that progress is slow.

I'm not making a case FOR nuclear - I am convinced the fossil alternatives are worse or downright impossible. The OPA I think is about to make the case and McGuinty has said he will put it on the table.
I'm of the opinion it's inevitable and not one person here has shown a viable alernative that does not involve fossil fuels.
I see France and Japan already reached the same conclusion and are well down the road to executing the program to meet their current and future needs.
They have good reason to reach that conclusion in my view and act on it, I think the OPA will also recommend nuclear.

If they don't I'll be very interested in their proposal.

Going beyond that proposal I believe the switch to hydrogen as a fuel source on the magnitude that fossil fuel is currently used -can only be achieved with nuclear resources in place.
What dismays me is how slow the process even of switching off from the existing coal generators regarding electricity alone let alone a move to hydrogen that will require a massive change.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Wow MacDoc, love how you shift the question. Too bad the moderators have asked us to tone it down... Now, you still are all over the place with little ability to focus...

I'm glad to you called CSICOP


macdoc said:


> ...bout right.


 To be honest, I'm never sure what you are thinking with the copy/paste think. I prefer to know what you are thinking, not the article... but I digress..

I highly suggest subscribing to the Skeptical Inquirer, not the fanciest looking magazine but always well researched and written.
The January 2005 issue had this great article:
Critical Thinking About Energy
The Case for Decentralized Generation of Electricity
http://www.csicop.org/si/2005-01/energy.html
I'll only quote the synopsis


> Highly centralized generation of electrical power is a paradigm that has outlived its usefulness. Decentralized generation could save $5 trillion in capital investment, reduce power costs by 40 percent, reduce vulnerabilities, and cut greenhouse gas emissions in half.


That coupled with other conservation measures and nuclear can be shoved where it does not glow....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I've read Skeptic articles before, and they seemed to be well researched, but the one in the link provided is not. It has a number of weaknesses built on top of an interesting premise. DG does have tremendous potential but, with today's technology, not at a lower price than most conventional central options except, possibly, in cases where a community is built from the ground up around the concept. Even then, it's not as 'economic' as they infer.

This is in no way an affirmation or rejections of arguments to date. For example AS's counters on environmental and health 'truisms' were, to me, helpful. There is a difference between human influenced global warming and dumping the consequences of every weather-related catastrophe at the feet of hydrocarbons. With regards to the linked article, it appears to have been written more for advocacy purposes than factual. I would like to see a Skeptic treatment of the article...by someone less lazy than me.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Decentralized generation could save $5 trillion in capital investment, reduce power costs by 40 percent, reduce vulnerabilities, and cut greenhouse gas emissions in half.


And does not in one bit answer my question as it does not address transport and the transition to hydrogen OR the increased population OR the increased demand from upcoming economies which you've ducked and dodged all along.

A combination of dispersed generation and conservation and smart energy management could indeed reduce *first world* ELECTRICITY footprint - and I'm all for it - doesn't do a thing about fossil fuel for transport. Some of those are in place in both Japan and Europe and could always be better.

Bit of bark up the left nostril I see but at least you've backed off the tree an inch or so. Now try answering the critical scale questions instead of focusing narrowly on electricity use in the first world which is an important but still small part of the "off fossil" equation.

••••
Beej
The crack about hurricane name global warming came directly off
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/08/30/katrinas_real_name/



> ROSS GELBSPAN
> Katrina's real name
> By Ross Gelbspan | August 30, 2005
> THE HURRICANE that struck Louisiana yesterday was nicknamed Katrina by the National Weather Service. Its real name is global warming.
> ...


The increase in violent weather is what has been predicted - the energy has to go somewhere.

You are right to point out the narrow scope of the Skeptic approach.
DG I think is terrific as it takes us away from the dependency on central power and elsewhere the approachs by Siemens and others to immensely improved energy use in Toronto, the use of the lake water for cooling - all these are important and welcome steps.

But the size of the energy problem coupled with the threat represented by continued fossil burning makes the scale of challenge depressing to say the least......and we can see the consequences of the last 100 years easily and the next 30 will compress all that change into 1/3 the time scale. 

If we switched 50% of Toronto to electric vehicles.....where would the electricity come from even for current population let alone the 50% increase coming over the next 30 years.

It's the ENTIRE path to non fossil burning burning that's so hard.

Personally I think there are also low carbon/no carbon use of fossil fuels that can be employed as well but nuclear inevitably will part of the task....it already is.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> by someone less lazy than me.


Hence part of the problem - I'm lazy also, my neighbours are, my company, my parents, the government.... 
We don't want real solutions as much as quick fixes -


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

On the global warming, I don't know of credible scientists who attribute everything (extreme weather) to it, but it's difficult to calculate. And the clip quoted is not analysis. If Katrina were force 3 without global warming, is the upgrade responsible for all damage or some? It's complicated and well beyond the media's expertise to determine or mediate the debate. 

Strangely, about 12 hours on the internet with an open mind can put you ahead of most global warming commentators and novelists (yes, I meant novelists). Between the insane calamatists and the self-martyred denialists, the first 6 hours is spent finding credible sites. There is a human caused impact (not 100% certain but certain enough to do something) but it is not the only factor behind what we're observing.

On the energy future, I would recommend the Shell paper I posted the link to, it's a good read and touches on the major issues, including population growth and economic development in the second world. 6 c/kwh power is not a long-term option, but at 10 c, many options open up and at 20 c, the sky's the limit. Can we handle it? Certainly. Can developing nations handle it? Not likely or, at least, not suddenly. I do, in my analysis, see ample solutions without worldwide crisis or regression to substantially lower quality lifestyles. And nuclear, although it will be present, has very little evidence to support its dominance...expansion - yes. All enery sources and approaches will be needed because of the variety of geographies and local circumstances that make different options optimal.

On a more annoying parental note, I hope the tone of the debate here can improve. I think both AS and MD have had excellent points (along with other commentary) and, although I work in the industry and am what the media would call an 'expert' (someone with a pulse and who knows how many GJs in a barrel of oil), I have found the dialogue informative. I do, as is clear in my posts, favour market solutions, however, in the minimum, people should at least think about it instead of assuming because Canada exports it, we can ignore it. The discussion is proof that at least some people are thinking about as something other than a budgetary nuisance that needs fixin' by 'someone'.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> You focus on magnitude alone on what are clearly climate and pollution related environmental distress - if it's 50,000 kids a year or 20,000 kids a year die that's okay then in your mind??????


According to the article ArtistSeries pointed out, between 4,000 and 14,000 children die each year in Europe from atmospheric pollution (a <i>bit</i> different than the 300,000 you originally mentioned). Not all atmospheric pollution comes from power generation, either.

How many lives would be saved by switching to nuclear power? How many lives would be lost? The waste will be around for 10,000 years, potentially causing health and environmental problems the entire time. How are we going to deal with that?


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

If MacDoc doesn't respond to my points, do I take that as him not having a decent rebuttal or simply conceding them to me?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

A mixture of both, perhaps. Or he's busy setting up another tangent to go off on.

If nothing else, this thread represents another scrap of evidence that knowledge of (and concern for) our energy usage patterns and their attendant excesses and pitfalls is mounting in the public sphere of consciousness. That, in and of itself, is a good thing. We can't seem to agree on very much after that, but no matter. We'll all be forced to get onside, one way or another, when the crunch comes.

That said, I agree with GA on this score:


> Car culture would diminish, suburbs would re-organize, into sensible town centres, globalized trade in goods and food would wither to a great degree, since it is entirely based on cheap fossil fuel energy to exist. Local economies and local agriculture would be the benificiary. Investment in alt energy would be massively kick-started because many of the technologies that are currently not quite competitive enough, with our subsidizing of fossil energy, would become so, geo-thermal heating, for example.


All of that, should it come to pass, would actually contribute to a stronger local economy - less dependency on things made far away, on the other side of the world. New economic opportunities for small businesses to wean ourselves off of the tit of globalism. More jobs staying within our borders. Local energy solutions making sense _because_ they're local - micro-generation as opposed to mega-generation. The death of the suburbs and edge cities - the renewal of villages and smaller centres. More intelligent use of space on our cities' rooftops - for energy conservation and storage, for growth of food and trees to keep flushing crap out of the air.

Well, it's a nice picture.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The biggest issue of all perhaps



> Battle to keep the lights burning
> Ontario desperate for hydro plants
> *NIMBY looms large in approval process*
> PETER GORRIE
> ...


Worth reading as it lays out a number of issues....

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...54&t=TS_Home&DPL=IvsNDS/7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes

strange dichotomy



> Hence part of the problem - I'm lazy also, my neighbours are, my company, my parents, the government....
> We don't want real solutions as much as quick fixes -


as this is only too true but when faced with ANY proposed solution the knives come out......how in the hell would a major attempt survive....strange the mobiliziation is there to PREVENT but not to SOLVE.

It looks like it's going to take a massive shock to get Ontario residents behind the combination of changes needed just to play catch up.
If the industrial base loses confidence it'll take a long time to get those opportunities back...if ever 

Ah the joys of democracy.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> J.P. MOCZULSKI/CP FILE
> The Bruce Power nuclear generating station lies at a scenic spot on Lake Huron near Kincardine.
> 
> *Ontario to okay re-opening of reactors*: sources
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...54&t=TS_Home&DPL=IvsNDS/7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes

:clap:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Let it die.....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Easy words from the hydro power province dweller.

"What... me worry?"....comes to mind


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Nuclear is now officially in the Ontario plan. The deal was not as bad as previous approaches, and addressed some, but not all, of my concerns of loading taxpayers with risk to hide real costs. The price of $63 per MWh is ok, but includes risk sharing on costs and a curious price floor for generation from nuclear units that aren't part of the refurbish. They still didn't go through the established process for new generation, which means there were no direct comparisons with alternative options; this was a side deal.

I guess we'll see over the next 10 years how it works out and then there will be no one to hold accountable...oh well, it could have been a lot worse.


----------



## cavemanatlarge (Jan 30, 2004)

Nuclear is a necessary means of energy production for the near future. 

Without a high temperature (in the positive range C) superconductive transport system, current energy production will not meet our needs into the future. I am all for solar generation and the new dual, triple and quadruple layer solar panels are promising but who knows when dual layer will become economically feasible for uses other than Iridium satellites (and Hubble). Windpower is promising but one can only put up so many of the things. Most of the big hydo potential rivers have been developed and who would want the world to not have at least a few wild rivers. Besides, Large projects like james bay are partly self defeating as once the ground is converted to reservoir, the amount of rainfall decreases, reducing the long term potential of the reservoirs for power generation. A fact that rarely has been taken into account in the planning stages of these large projects.

Three mile island was a prime example of how safe western reactors are. Even though it had a complete meltdown, almost all the radiation was contained, and that which was released will kill less people (39 estimated) prematurely than radiation released by burning coal, let alone the premature deaths from other pollutants released by coal burning (smog). And if this kind of incident happened in canada, their would not have been a meltdown as the CANDU reactor requires it moderator (heavy water) to fission.

Nuclear waste is a problem but if we can keep it contained for several hundred years ie keep the terrorists from blowing up the storage places, all the plutonium will either be used in breeder reactors or even more importantly will be used in space based reactors to support mankinds expansion into the solar system (and beyond??! I hope). The lower level waste bothers me much more in the long run. 

And as to the list of spills in previous posts, without tritium inthe water supply, Hydrologists can not nearly trace as well the residence of water in underground aquifers, which has enabled them to much better understand ground water issues where the residence is less in years than since the start of the nuclear age. This knowledge saves lives. A rather unexpected side effect of the nuclear age. But only very small quantities of tritium are required so we do not want big spills.

Out of time

My two cents in to brief a form but I hate typing

Caveman at Large


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Creaking and groaning into existence......maybe.....

Why NOW..this shoud have been early in the mandate - now it'll get delayed by the elections - the political system SUCKS!!!!!!! 



> EDITORIAL
> *New energy plan for a new era*
> 
> 
> ...


TheStar.com - comment - New energy plan for a new era

It IS about time conservation is recognized as low hanging fruit and to see it incorporated as a major part of the initiative.

Less talk - more action.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> It IS about time conservation is recognized as low hanging fruit and to see it incorporated as a major part of the initiative.
> 
> Less talk - more action.


I don't have a clue what you mean by that. Ontario depends way TOO much on conservation. Not that I'm against it. But this dependency puts them at high risk as has already been evident. It also causes havoc at work, but that's another issue...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You likely don't understand the comparative costs of building new facilities versus making existing facilities serve more density.

Just take high rises alone in the GTA and retrofitting them would take far less money and take far less time than building a single nuclear plant - and the saving in energy would exceed the output of the nuclear plant.

Where is is especially important is in blunting the peak demand for AC and this is one area retrofits are terrific.

Another is extending the Cold Pipe a/c system from Lake Ontario - fast and cost effective instead of building new facilities.

NextEnergy one of our clients runs a 15,000 sq' light manufacturing operation on $500 or less a month utility bills.
They switched to MacMInis from G5s because the G5s were a major draw - there were few other savings they could get elsewhere.

Providing programs for retrofits, incentives for LEED buidling standards for new buildings and concentrating on the main chances with high density/ energy inefficient multiple dwellings is better use of funds than building more capacity.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

My brother works in the phsical plant maintenance of the whole Queen's Park block and related civic buildings in the Wellesley-Bay area. They have been busy trying to implement and successfully harness the cold pipe from Lake Ontario. His highly unofficial take on it is that it's been badly done, at least at his end, and he expects the efficiency levels of the system to be abysmal, simply owing to almost comical mismanagement on the part of the higher-ups. I'm sure it could be done better, but we're talking government here... they're rarely innovators when it comes to efficiency and reducing waste. My bro says that they have already spent obscene amounts of money on massive infrastructure in the buildings in his beat, and that they will have to spend mega money, _again,_ just to get it right... provided some bureaucratic mucky-muck up top owns up to having messed up. So, good money after bad - to correct the wrong pumps, wrong condensers, wrong specs and destructive corner cutting... my brother claims he's seen it all. I think he could write a book on how horrible this stuff gets in the public service, but that's another topic altogether.

Bottom line: the best ideas aren't worth squat if they're done poorly and it's all masked by an impressive feel-good public campaign.


----------

