Author Topic: Addressing climate change  (Read 7615 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline segnosaur

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1315
Re: Addressing climate change
« Reply #60 on: May 27, 2019, 12:40:15 pm »
Now you're lobbying for nuclear. Hmmm ...
First, the upstream (uranium mining) and downstream (nuclear waste) environmental costs of nuclear have yet to be figured into its real costs.
Keep in mind that nuclear waste CAN be reprocessed/resused. (In fact, the amount of nuclear waste produced to supply your needs for a lifetime would easily fit in your hand, if it were handled properly. There is far less waste produced per kilowatt hour of nuclear power than there is for wind, solar, or fossil fuels.  Granted the leftover waste is radioactive, but the small volume would make it relatively easy to manage.)

The fact that waste is not reprocessed is not a technological one but a political one.
Secondly, nuclear is largely a south-central Ontario issue: we're the ones sitting on a fault line surrounded by nuclear facilities.
Keep in mind that the 3 main nuclear power plants in Ontario (Bruce, Pickering and Darlington) are all in areas that Natural Resources Canada considers areas of low seismic activity.

BTW ... those are only the major facilities. I am aware of at least one smaller nuclear reactor not listed that serves nuclear medicine's needs.
That would likely be the chalk river nuclear facility. The university of McMaster also has a nuclear reactor (and also produces medical isotopes).

[qutoe]We don't build nuclear facilities to withstand extreme geological and weather conditions. [/quote]
Yes they do.

Did you know they actually crashed a plane into a concrete wall to see how well a nuclear reactor could stand up to an airplane strike?
Building more nuclear now is foolhardy.
Nuclear power is safe, reliable, and is proven technology, and has a low/zero carbon footprint. There is the problem with rather large up-front capital costs, but most other issues with them tend to be political rather than technical.

Even maintaining the ones we have is foolish, but winding them down has its own issues too - e.g. buried nuclear waste on the shore of a Great Lake is a huge danger in cataclysmic circumstances.
Actually they don't bury waste... its kept in holding pools on site.

Long term disposal is an issue. The proper thing to do would be to reprocess and reuse the fuel, so what you end up with is a very, very small amount of waste. But again, politics comes into play.

The U.S. had a disposal site at Yucca mountain they had created for their own disposal. But again, politics got in the way.