Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 36

Thread: Why is nuclear power not widely used?

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    2,478

    Why is nuclear power not widely used?

    For all of the hyperbole about "climate change" and the doom saying about coal/oil/natural gas as "evil fossil fuels" that are killing the planet.Why oh why is nuclear power the go to thing.It is clean and reliable.Funny enough Canada builds and exports the CANDU nuclear reactor but it is not in widespread use in Canada.Seems really stupid to me especially since we have the uranium feedstocks to fuel the reactors mined right here in Canada which is as a country laden with uranium resources....in fact I think we have the largest deposits of uranium on the planet.

    You cant look at failures and judge something such as the Chernobyl nuclear meltdown as it was caused by human error.You have or should look at the success.The US navy has had a fleet of nuclear attack submarines for decades same goes for the fleet of BMS subarines bot to mention the 12 aircraft carriers that are nuclear powered and ALL without a single problem flawlessly.

    The widespread use of nuclear power should be embraced for the good of mankind FFS.

    Of course then you get the enviro-nuts spewing crapulence about nuclear waste.....yes there is going to be something to deal with in all forms of energy but for them it is like a bleating goat repeatedly saying "wind and solar ONLY" and with no idea of even starting a conversation of how to do it......it must just happen by 2025 or the planet and all life on it is DEAD.

    If the "planet" is going to "die" then lets fucking save it with the energy source that has been the most destructive in terms or warfare....nuclear power.

    SR

  2. #2
    Never thought I’d ever say this, but I agree with Storm Rider! Pigs must be flying out there somewhere!

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Westwood
    Posts
    6,075
    My father was one of the CANDU designers. Growing up I saw more nuclear reactors than most people ever do. The three at CRNL, Pickering, even Brookhaven. This is all political.

    Public image is a huge factor. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl pretty much killed off the chances of nuclear power generation in Canada. There were several plants in existence but no more were built.

    The US Navy (and many other navies) have a good safety record because they are military installations. Fuck up, fall asleep at the wheel, and you are in big trouble. In private industry labour costs are always being cut. In the USN you will see guys with Masters degrees on a nuclear vessel, guys with Bachelor's operating the system. At Ontario Hydro, it starts out that way. But soon they have one guy on shift with qualifications and a bunch of idiots out of high school who work for peanuts. My brother told me about seeing guys hiding and sleeping at Pickering who were supposed to be monitoring things.

    Nuclear is great as long as EVERY single component in the system is working exactly as designed. That's what happens in the navy. In private industry it all goes to hell. Every nuclear accident I have read about has been caused by someone fucking up badly, from the insane mess at Chernobyl to the negligence at Three Mile, to the careless overconfidence at Fukashima.

    Finally Harper destroyed Canada's nuclear industry because it competed with his corporate backers (General Electric, Westinghouse, Babcock and Wilcox). He ordered the restart of a reactor at Chalk River against the advice of the scientists there, and fired the nuclear regulator when she sided with them. He then muzzled the scientists who complained. My father (published scientist who did peer review) retired after being threatened with losing his pension. Harper is a fucking piece of shit for doing that and I will hate him forever personally. Harper also lied about the safety protocols and why the reactor was shut down in the first place. It's a bit too technical to explain here but there was a serious safety issue that he over ruled the operators on, just because he was playing politics and wanted to flaunt his power.. Next thing you know the whole facility, NRX, NRU, ZEEP is all shut down and privatised. Oh yeah there's that MAPLE thing but that's just a fantasy.

    As a result Canada lost hundreds of highly respected scientists and nuclear engineers, mostly to the USA. I don't think Canada could produce a nuclear generating station any more than we could whip up another Avro Arrow. None of the stuff I say corresponds to the official accounts or what you might read on Wikipedia, but I don't give a shit, it is what really happened.
    Two hands helping do more good than a thousand hands clasped in prayer

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Westwood
    Posts
    6,075
    FWIW Rolls Royce and a few other companies are designing and testing small portable nuclear power generators.
    Bill Gates is investing in them, and he is no fool.
    I have no doubt they will become a significant source of electricity in the future, maybe fifteen years.
    Two hands helping do more good than a thousand hands clasped in prayer

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Kamloops B.C.
    Posts
    3,021
    Here in BC, and perhaps in other parts of Canada, we have an abundance of flowing water.
    Harness the flow, create energy, put it back....that winter the water replenishes itself for free, by dropping itself from the sky, and it's environmental impact is incredibly low.
    The only hurdles are terrain, and distance..the technology has come so far they don't need great drops in elevation, they can harness energy from a river that drops only a few feet....they are doing it all over the place up here.
    I've even looked into a micro-hydro plant for my place...and BC Hydro was pretty receptive to the idea...which is a change of attitude compared to twenty years ago, when they would do almost anything to prevent you from producing power.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by sybian View Post
    Here in BC, and perhaps in other parts of Canada, we have an abundance of flowing water.
    Harness the flow, create energy, put it back....that winter the water replenishes itself for free, by dropping itself from the sky, and it's environmental impact is incredibly low.
    The only hurdles are terrain, and distance..the technology has come so far they don't need great drops in elevation, they can harness energy from a river that drops only a few feet....they are doing it all over the place up here.
    I've even looked into a micro-hydro plant for my place...and BC Hydro was pretty receptive to the idea...which is a change of attitude compared to twenty years ago, when they would do almost anything to prevent you from producing power.
    hydro yes
    solar yes
    tidal yes
    hydrogen yes
    wind yes
    portable nuclear outside of the free world’s Naval ships HARD NO!!!

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Victoria
    Posts
    1,051
    Nuclear is a source of energy that can be safety used.
    The Candu reactor uses Uranium, and its hard to make weapons out of the fuel and the left over from the reactor mass.
    We know alot more about nuclear reaction now than in the 60s.
    Bill Gate's Reactor was created in virtual silmulations and bugs worked out, it was due to be built in China, but the China/US trade war happened (something about technology transfers). The reactor is supposed to run off the left overs of the US reactors (which use enriched uranium), so all the radioactive waste can be used again. See Netflick story about bill gates.
    There is a Thorium reactor built in the 60s that you can't melt down, but it was scrapped due to political reasons. (the other owners of the enriched plants).
    The Fuk reactor in Japan had its emergency generators (which ran the emergency cooling pumps) low down in the facility, so when the reactor got swamped by seawater, it covered the emergency generators. And with no cooling the reactor went critical. Bad design by the designers. The emergency generators have to be placed higher, and given the ability to operate under water. Its kinda like that highrise in Halifax that has a pool ontop roof. The engineers forgot about the weight of the water in the pool, so the pool can't be used....

    The problem with renewable is where do you store the energy when you have more of it. On a island in the Atlantic they have a hydroelectric dam and solar and wind. The island uses the wind/solar to pump water back up to the reservoir (thus storing the wind made electricity in the form of potential energy in the dam).

    Bad press and a bunch of eco nuts raving about radiation etc has given nuclear a bad name (also the design of 3-mile and Chernobyl weren't the safest designs). But nuclear energy is safe, along as the proper safeguards are in place and no excuses are made to cut corners on safety.

    Ontario's problem is they have alot (tons of it available) of hydro up north; and no way to transfer it south to southern Ontario.

    And Ontario privatized the transmission lines so the people of Ontario are paying for the transmision of the energy (up to 25% of the hydro rate) and it dosen't go into the government coffers...

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by sybian View Post
    and it's environmental impact is incredibly low
    lol, sure

    how many more rivers do you think we can damn up?

    when there are none left?

    when we have 500 million people, which we would if the delusional Liberals and NDP get their way, after-all the more people the better right, more taxes, more votes

    impact is low, hardly, like every other option it has problems, environmental ones, fish for one, land use of others, farming, ect....

    never heard of Three Gorges Damn eh?

    that one didn't do anything to the environment, lol

    how about the one in Northern BC, yeah it ain't going to do anything to the surrounding area, people, animals, lol

    changing the environment's natural ways, yeah, nothing to see there

    just like solar, wind, so called environmental solutions, they all have issues

    it's only low when it doesn't affect you, make you change your ways, the Green handbook

    when it's scaled, there are plenty of issues

  9. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Kamloops B.C.
    Posts
    3,021
    Quote Originally Posted by overdone View Post
    lol, sure

    how many more rivers do you think we can damn up?

    when there are none left?

    when we have 500 million people, which we would if the delusional Liberals and NDP get their way, after-all the more people the better right, more taxes, more votes

    impact is low, hardly, like every other option it has problems, environmental ones, fish for one, land use of others, farming, ect....

    never heard of Three Gorges Damn eh?

    that one didn't do anything to the environment, lol

    how about the one in Northern BC, yeah it ain't going to do anything to the surrounding area, people, animals, lol

    changing the environment's natural ways, yeah, nothing to see there

    just like solar, wind, so called environmental solutions, they all have issues

    it's only low when it doesn't affect you, make you change your ways, the Green handbook

    when it's scaled, there are plenty of issues
    If you had paid attention to the rest of my post.....I said new technology.
    They don't dam the rivers, they divert a portion of water, and run smaller turbines, that produce less power, but borrow the smaller amount of flow, and dump it back in a few hundred feet downstream.
    No destroying fish habitat, no flooding of farmland...and they're doing it all over the Interior.
    As a matter of fact there is a corkscrew micro hydro turbine, that can take in fish up to two feet long, and deposit it out the exit point....unharmed.
    So yeah....no dams, no land or habitat loss..lower impact.

    As to your comment about " it doesn't affect you"... Do you have any idea where it is I'm located? If they dam up entire canyons and flood it, it affects the Eco-system a great deal, but that's the exact opposite of what I was talking about.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by sybian View Post
    Here in BC, and perhaps in other parts of Canada, we have an abundance of flowing water.
    Harness the flow, create energy, put it back....that winter the water replenishes itself for free, by dropping itself from the sky, and it's environmental impact is incredibly low.
    The only hurdles are terrain, and distance..the technology has come so far they don't need great drops in elevation, they can harness energy from a river that drops only a few feet....they are doing it all over the place up here.
    I've even looked into a micro-hydro plant for my place...and BC Hydro was pretty receptive to the idea...which is a change of attitude compared to twenty years ago, when they would do almost anything to prevent you from producing power.
    The Glen Canyon dam on the Colorado river has been called America’s worst ecological disaster.

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Kamloops B.C.
    Posts
    3,021
    Quote Originally Posted by masterblaster View Post
    The Glen Canyon dam on the Colorado river has been called America’s worst ecological disaster.
    Again...I don't disagree with that.

  12. #12
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Kamloops B.C.
    Posts
    3,021
    The next time anyone that's interested drives towards Kamloops on the #1 Highway, and goes through Wallachin, there's a large yellow gate that has a sign that says BC Hydro....there's a few pull outs about 4 Klm past, going east. The Thompson River hooks around there.....and your way above it and about a Kilometre away, but you can see the new road.
    And that's about all you see, is the road, you can clearly see there's no Dam, no spill gates,.... nothing.
    They basically dump a tube, within a tube into a flowing river, and the inner tube has impellers, that turns a integrated turbine within the sleeve...of course there must be some environmental impact because you need transformers, and substations...but my point is, they don't need to flood entire valleys , or destroy ecosystems anymore to produce the power.

  13. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Upstairs
    Posts
    3,992
    Quote Originally Posted by sybian View Post
    The next time anyone that's interested drives towards Kamloops on the #1 Highway, and goes through Wallachin, there's a large yellow gate that has a sign that says BC Hydro....there's a few pull outs about 4 Klm past, going east. The Thompson River hooks around there.....and your way above it and about a Kilometre away, but you can see the new road.
    And that's about all you see, is the road, you can clearly see there's no Dam, no spill gates,.... nothing.
    They basically dump a tube, within a tube into a flowing river, and the inner tube has impellers, that turns a integrated turbine within the sleeve...of course there must be some environmental impact because you need transformers, and substations...but my point is, they don't need to flood entire valleys , or destroy ecosystems anymore to produce the power.
    So, what of the disaster-in-making of Site C?

    Destroy farmland, change the ecology of the area, move millions of tons of earth, and create a massive dam on unstable gravel.
    Screaming Geriatric Dominoes Enter My Brain

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Kamloops B.C.
    Posts
    3,021
    Quote Originally Posted by Cock Throppled View Post
    So, what of the disaster-in-making of Site C?

    Destroy farmland, change the ecology of the area, move millions of tons of earth, and create a massive dam on unstable gravel.
    Exactly....that's a wrong thing to do. Site C is a shitshow.
    You don't honestly think I'm in agreement with destroying farmland?

  15. #15
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    229
    Quote Originally Posted by sybian View Post
    Exactly....that's a wrong thing to do. Site C is a shitshow.
    You don't honestly think I'm in agreement with destroying farmland?
    Give it up big guy, won't matter what you say they will twist it make a reason why not to use.

    Watched this go back and forth multiple times but on deaf ears. I guess by their thoughts solar shouldn't be used because it takes away farm land, wind mills are out because they cause avian deaths, tidal is out because... well they should be able to think of something.

    Guess stick with gas and coal, scrap all the new tech like the min impact hydro you are talking about.
    No good deed goes unpunished

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •