Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Canada's "Green Revolution"


Leaf_Fan

Recommended Posts

The thing that bugs me when I hear about people talking about the Green Revolution that is supposedly coming in Ontario and other places is that the actual methods that people expect to start making us green don't work the way people think that they do. Wind power and solar power are not ready for primetime. Whenever you hear someone extolling the virtues of wind or solar power, ask them what happens when it's cloudy out, or when the wind isn't blowing. The simple fact is that they drastically underproduce energy. They simply aren't suitable to be the backbone of a real energy plan. The power workers union are not only extremely knowledgeable about power, they're also likeminded, and have a very informative series of videos that make that point:

http://abetterenergyplan.ca/#/home/renewables-conservation/video-renewables

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People may start with small steps, like going to work in a Toyota Eco instead of their Dodge Ram truck.

I am in the central interior of BC and believe me, since last year the wind never stopped howling - 20-50km/hour plus winds.

Personally, I do not see the future in nuclear power or oil and gas.

Green house emissions are also in relation to population growth and consumption. These two the politicians do not want to reduce.

P.S. why am I unable to start a new thread?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's only one answer for increased power demands that combats green house gases, reduces fossil fuel dependency and is safe and reliable - it's nuclear. Yes, 'safe' is accurate description, any UN study comparing all the main sources of energy will tell your this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canadas greatest PM, PM Harper is going to help guarantee loans for a green power initiative in Nfld. PM Harper is on his way to becoming the greenest PM ever. PM Harper is a great man and their is no end to his greatness. He was sent to Canada by the grace of God and by Gods grace he was given a majority mandate to govern Canada with a mandate from our Lord and savior.

Harper is going to revolutionize our power industry during the next 4 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canadas greatest PM, PM Harper is going to help guarantee loans for a green power initiative in Nfld. PM Harper is on his way to becoming the greenest PM ever. PM Harper is a great man and their is no end to his greatness. He was sent to Canada by the grace of God and by Gods grace he was given a majority mandate to govern Canada with a mandate from our Lord and savior.

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's only one answer for increased power demands that combats green house gases, reduces fossil fuel dependency and is safe and reliable - it's nuclear. Yes, 'safe' is accurate description, any UN study comparing all the main sources of energy will tell your this.

Nuclear energy needs a lot of work before its much of an option. Its relatively safe but the economics are very bad when you take into account the whole life cycle. Thats why the only countries building plants are countries with no oil, gas, and coal... like Japan, and France. Theres a reason why they havent built a plant in North America in about 30 years... nobody wants to invest money in them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nuclear energy needs a lot of work before its much of an option. Its relatively safe but the economics are very bad when you take into account the whole life cycle. Thats why the only countries building plants are countries with no oil, gas, and coal... like Japan, and France. Theres a reason why they havent built a plant in North America in about 30 years... nobody wants to invest money in them.

We must stop thinking of bizzare and heavey profits. What's wrong with a manageble profit? A reasonable one? If you want sustainable profits then you must spend money to make money. Nuclear has one primary draw back - the disposal of spent material! If you have to dig a hole a mile deep...coat a chamber made of stainless steel with gold...and drop the stuff down there - THEN the stuff can sit safely for a million years till it decays. This costs big bucks and everyone want something for nothing.

As for the term "Green" - it is utterly Orwellian and smacks of high end dellusionism. The only thing that is green are plants..living things. The Greens are not about nature - they are about manipulating human emotion under the guise of protecting the "environment" - human and other wise. This consists of soviet style day care through the enslavement of children to employ loser adults. No one wants to grant woman and children and men real freedom - The Greens are socialist who believe that they know better and we should not be allowed to make our own decisions.. Liberals had a run at it and created things like the Jane and Finch experiment that ended up with young men shooting each other because the fathers were driven from the home and the state saw fit to raise the kids.

Experimentation should be confined to the use of lab rats - not human beings. The Greens are simply a slightly more stupid and idealist version of liberals..who did not liberate but oppressed.. If you think Liz May is a saint - you have it wrong..She is the type that personifies the typical social worker that will snatch "at risk children" from their parents for not having a screen over the fire place.

What was disturbing about MAY was her first interview after her election. She wore a green jacket and a royal purple top. On her chest was a Chrisitain cross...she seems to imagine herself as some sort of priestess. Nothing more dangerous than a Christian who does not fully grasp the concepts of orthodox Christianity - but have their own version that they are ready to quietly impart on the masses...plus - she's ugly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nuclear energy is the greenest energy source we have on planet Earth. The only emissions it's lets off is water in the form of steam. It's very green indeed much better then dirty coal fired plants. We need to start building new nuclear plants because very soon Darlington will close which will leave a huge hole in Ontarios power grid.

Wind energy kills more birds then the oil sands and doesn't generate enough energy. Plus wind energy is unproven. Their are wind fields close to my house in North Wellington County and they may be cancer causing. So much for green wind energy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nuclear energy is the greenest energy source we have on planet Earth. The only emissions it's lets off is water in the form of steam. It's very green indeed much better then dirty coal fired plants. We need to start building new nuclear plants because very soon Darlington will close which will leave a huge hole in Ontarios power grid.

Wind energy kills more birds then the oil sands and doesn't generate enough energy. Plus wind energy is unproven. Their are wind fields close to my house in North Wellington County and they may be cancer causing. So much for green wind energy.

The vibrations and pressure waves sent off from the wings of fluttering sparrows causes cancer......? Nuclear energy is fine if you want to build a totally safe generating plant - But that costs more than anyone is really willing to spend..You simply can not get something for nothing. Getting rid of nuclear waste is and always will be a serious problem..no one wants to spend the money to contain the stuff properly. Instead they reap the rewards of nuclear power and say to hell to future generations who will have to deal with the poison..

Frankly to be honest. I really don't like the fact that birds are killed - sparrows are my favorite creatures. I would rather freeze in the dark and have sparrows chirping on the window sill than be warm in my bed knowing that the future will be grim when all the waste starts to enter the environ...Freeze in the dark or glow in the dark - Your choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nuclear energy needs a lot of work before its much of an option. Its relatively safe but the economics are very bad when you take into account the whole life cycle.

The only reason the nuclear "life cycle costs" are as high as they are is because we've decided to manage nuclear waste in the most expensive and least efficient way possible. Instead of building expensive facilities which can store it for thousands of years where it slowly decays, we could be using it to produce more energy in breeder reactors. There are also reactor designs that are completely self-contained, where the spent fuel is held inside the reactor and then shipped back to the reactor manufacturing company which reprocesses it and ships back a freshly fueled reactor core. All the problems of nuclear energy that people talk about have easy and long since technically developed solutions. Unfortunately, regulators refuse to process approvals for new nuclear reactor designs, and so we continue to use many decades old nuclear technology that is much less safe and much less efficient than we could be using.

The only way to achieve significant cuts in greenhouse gas emissions due to power generation would be for our governments to greatly streamline and speed the nuclear regulatory and approval processes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only reason the nuclear "life cycle costs" are as high as they are is because we've decided to manage nuclear waste in the most expensive and least efficient way possible. Instead of building expensive facilities which can store it for thousands of years where it slowly decays, we could be using it to produce more energy in breeder reactors. There are also reactor designs that are completely self-contained, where the spent fuel is held inside the reactor and then shipped back to the reactor manufacturing company which reprocesses it and ships back a freshly fueled reactor core. All the problems of nuclear energy that people talk about have easy and long since technically developed solutions. Unfortunately, regulators refuse to process approvals for new nuclear reactor designs, and so we continue to use many decades old nuclear technology that is much less safe and much less efficient than we could be using.

The only way to achieve significant cuts in greenhouse gas emissions due to power generation would be for our governments to greatly streamline and speed the nuclear regulatory and approval processes.

The only reason the nuclear "life cycle costs" are as high as they are is because we've decided to manage nuclear waste in the most expensive and least efficient way possible.

No no its way more than that. The government is expected to subsidize the plants, and manage the entire fuel cycle, and its phenomenally expensive. But the really kicker is decomissioning the plants, which is also extremely expensive. Theres a whole shitload of plants here in North America that will need to be shut down or referbished over the next 15 or 20 years, and the nuclear industry is supposed to manage a fund to pay for it all... but they have nowhere near enough money to pay for it all so the tax payer will be on the hook once again.

The Nuclear industries REAL problem is any investor that has even half a brain is going to invest in a coal plant over a nuclear plant and thats why the nuclear industry hasnt sold a plant in North America while youve been alive. Generally only countries building new plants are countries with no fossil fuels.

The problem is really just economics.

But economics change... The nuclear industry is trying to fix these issues, and theres still lots of research going on. If the nuclear industry gets to a point where the private sector can internalize their costs and still compete with other energy sources youll start seeing lots of new plants get built. And with all the interest around CO2 emissions people are taking a good look at nuclear energy again because post-construction emissions are very low compared to coal and gas. And if the coal industry is taxed on its CO2 emissions that will also make nuclear energy a lot more attractive.

The only way to achieve significant cuts in greenhouse gas emissions due to power generation would be for our governments to greatly streamline and speed the nuclear regulatory and approval processes.

No sorry.

First of all nuclear energy isnt the only way to cut greenhouse gas emissions significantly. Even just replacing existing coal plants with modern plants would make a huge difference. And depending on where you live theres a whole host of other technologies that have the potential to lower emissions as well.

But even if you were right about that... The nuclear industries problems are MUCH deeper than the regulatory and approval process. Theres a whole host of reasons why nuclear energy is a REALLY tough sell for private investors, especially if youre considering building a nuclear plant near big coal deposits.

Edited by dre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is your idea of a nuclear power plant, and that of most other people, is the plants that we built in the 50s and 60s. Like I said before, the technology to not have any of the problems you mention (i.e. decommissioning costs) is already there. Companies have developed it, and tried to get approval for it. No go from the regulatory agencies which refuse to even start looking at it for years or decades. Take a look at these reactor design for example:

http://www.babcock.com/products/modular_nuclear/

http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/product.html

Oh well, with any luck some of this new stuff will get built in China and maybe the West will start waking up when we realize we're half a century behind in nuclear technology. Sad that the US government spends billions every year financing this research and then utterly stifles any possibility of its fruits being put to use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is your idea of a nuclear power plant, and that of most other people, is the plants that we built in the 50s and 60s. Like I said before, the technology to not have any of the problems you mention (i.e. decommissioning costs) is already there. Companies have developed it, and tried to get approval for it. No go from the regulatory agencies which refuse to even start looking at it for years or decades. Take a look at these reactor design for example:

http://www.babcock.com/products/modular_nuclear/

http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/product.html

Oh well, with any luck some of this new stuff will get built in China and maybe the West will start waking up when we realize we're half a century behind in nuclear technology. Sad that the US government spends billions every year financing this research and then utterly stifles any possibility of its fruits being put to use.

Like I said before, the technology to not have any of the problems you mention (i.e. decommissioning costs) is already there.

So are huge coal deposits, and modern coal plants produce pretty low emissions as well. It comes down to economics. Youre not going to build a nuclear plant on top of a huge coal deposit, and youre not going to build a solar plant in Edmonton, or a tidal generation plant in Saskatchewan LOL.

Nuclear plants make good sense for France and Japan... and thats why theyve been building them. They dont make good sense for us, and thats why we havent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nuclear energy is the greenest energy source we have on planet Earth. The only emissions it's lets off is water in the form of steam. It's very green indeed much better then dirty coal fired plants. We need to start building new nuclear plants because very soon Darlington will close which will leave a huge hole in Ontarios power grid.

Wind energy kills more birds then the oil sands and doesn't generate enough energy. Plus wind energy is unproven. Their are wind fields close to my house in North Wellington County and they may be cancer causing. So much for green wind energy.

The only emissions it's lets off is water in the form of steam.

Not really. Theres a pile of emissions during construction, and theres also lots emissions inherent in the fuel cycle.

But overall, yeah! Nuclear energy is pretty clean... and by the margins pretty safe. Its a promising technology we should keep working on, but its nowhere near the panacea you folks are claiming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know its the Cracked website, but they have awesome articles. And they back up their arguments with studies. Here is: 5 ways people are trying to save the world (that don't work) http://www.cracked.com/article_17084_5-ways-people-are-trying-to-save-world-that-dont-work.html

Warning: the language within is for adults only

Edited by pegasus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know its the Cracked website, but they have awesome articles. And they back up their arguments with studies. Here is: 5 ways people are trying to save the world (that don't work) http://www.cracked.com/article_17084_5-ways-people-are-trying-to-save-world-that-dont-work.html

Warning: the language within is for adults only

Their point about recycling is a good one and one that I've brought up here before. Quote:

As for saving resources by recycling, this is where it gets tricky. Partly this is because whether or not recycling saves resources depends on whether you consider human labor to be a resource (that is, the effort to pick up, sort and transfer the items to be recycled). Recycling requires more trucks, more crews and more people to oversee the entire process. In Los Angeles alone there are twice as many garbage trucks than there would have been without the recycling program. Just like those douchebags who drive to the gym to run on a treadmill but still hop in the car to go the one block to the corner store to pick up their pork rinds and soda, it's not clear just how much benefit there is at the end of the day.

Also, re-using something is not always better than just tossing it away. A chemist at the University of Victoria calculated that you would need to use a ceramic mug 1,000 times before you would see benefits over using disposable polystyrene cups for those 1,000 cups of coffee. This is because it takes far more energy to make that mug and takes energy and water to wash it after each use.

Edited by Bonam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canadas greatest PM, PM Harper is going to help guarantee loans for a green power initiative in Nfld. PM Harper is on his way to becoming the greenest PM ever. PM Harper is a great man and their is no end to his greatness. He was sent to Canada by the grace of God and by Gods grace he was given a majority mandate to govern Canada with a mandate from our Lord and savior.

Harper is going to revolutionize our power industry during the next 4 years.

Are you kidding, you probably have a life-form of Harper in your bedroom and after you say your prayers , you bow down to Harper and say "Your the greatest PM and I am your servant" Good luck!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...