Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Ontario drops plans for 2 new nuclear reactors

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 02:48 AM
Original message
Ontario drops plans for 2 new nuclear reactors
Source: CBC

Citing ballooning costs and its responsibility to the taxpayers of the province, the Ontario government says it is indefinitely mothballing plans to build two new nuclear reactors at the Darlington power station.

<snip>

Smitherman said the price was too high, though he refused to say by how much.

"I will answer your question this way substantially. Certainly by a measure of many billions . We'll know the right price when we see it and we ain't seen it yet."

<snip>

The nuclear reactor decision will have no effect on Ontario's plans to get rid of coal-fired plants by 2014, nor will it change the energy mix in the province or the reliability of electricity, Smitherman said.

<snip>

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/06/29/onata...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 07:27 AM
Response to Original message
1. "the price was too high"??
who knew??

:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #1
37. Liability is too high
that is why not a penny of private money has ever built a nuclear reactor in this country

the powers that be have seen fit to pass laws lowering the liability for operators ....gee wonder what cau$ed them to think of those poor poor power companie$
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MARALE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 07:59 AM
Response to Original message
2. That is too bad
Nuclear is a very clean energy supply when done correctly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jimbo909 Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. "Clean Energy?"
Nukes are not clean energy and definitely not cheap.

All of the easy to get uranium has been mined - so to get uranium these days you have to go deeper which is more expensive & disturb more of the surrounding rock which releases more toxic contaminants into the environment.

We also still haven't figured out what to do with the spent fuel.

You didn't mention cheap which would be incorrect also - if anyone remembers the 70's - most of these boondoggles had incredible cost overruns which were passed onto the consumers.

You didn't mention safe either (if you live next to one of these - you might want to check the fine print in your home owners policy).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Auggie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. Welcome to D.U. Jimbo909
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. Those boondoggle nukes cost US ratepayers $112 billion
some folks want you to forget this....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strong Atheist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #4
30. Welcome to DU!



:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KamaAina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #4
35. Not to mention the front matter of your phone book
(if you live next to one of these - you might want to check the fine print in your home owners policy)

It used to amaze me whenever Mom and I would travel to southeastern CT, home to the Millstone nuke plants, that the front of the New London-area phone book had detailed instructions about what to do in case of a nuclear emergency. :scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enviralment Donating Member (71 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-02-09 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #4
52. Recylced Uranium
i guess you didn't hear?
You can recycle Uranium. The French, who supply 80% of their electricity with Nuclear power have been recycling uranium for decades. This greatly reduces the CO2 emissions of mining uranium and also reduces the problem of storing 'spent' nuclear waste.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-03-09 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #52
61. You might want to check it out...
The French have been UNABLE to recycle fuel on a cost effective basis...

It costs more to "reprocess" than new fuel.

And besides, it's a depleting resource.

You wanna' go from one depleting resource to another?


Power Down, Right-size the economic systems...

www.transitionus.org

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enviralment Donating Member (71 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-06-09 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #61
65. Compared to what?
Cost effective compared to what? Oil, Natural Gas, Coal?

Also recycling plastic isn't cost effective. We recycle because it lowers our overall waste, and reduces our carbon footprint.
Cost-effective no, but overall it lowers the emissions that mining uranium creates thus making nuclear a more viable option.
We need a large energy mix, renewables and community based, power down initiatives are only part of the solution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Nothing clean about nuclear power
all the way from when it comes from the ground to when the waste should be back in the ground. Very energy intensive process all the way around. If you only look at one facet of it sure it's pretty clean but so is coal when you only look at the transportation of it from the ground to the power plant. There is nothing about nuclear energy that is worth the downsides of it. It is all one big boondoggle, nothing more. IMHO
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kegler14 Donating Member (541 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. So what should we use? Wind and solar won't cut it, and even wind
has drawbacks with those ugly turbines that kill birds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 09:04 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. "Wind and solar won't cut it" - nonsense
Global wind turbine capacity is now 120,000 MW and growing by double digits each year.

Global PV (solar cell) production is now 6000 MW per year and doubling every 2 years - and solar works EVERYWHERE in the US.

PV module prices are declining rapidly - new nuclear plant costs are soaring.

US nuclear reactors currently use 62 million pounds of uranium oxide per year - US mines produce only 2 million pounds per year - the rest is imported.

The now defunct Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository would have cost taxpayers $100+ billion to build on operate.

Solar and wind can "cut it".

Nucular can't and won't...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. You ignore the differences in power usage...
Wind and solar may power light bulbs but they cannot handle factory operations such a factory full of arc welders. The peak power usage is way too high and wind and solar cannot even come close to meeting it. They are good ancillary power sources, but they will never support a manufacturing or technological base.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #11
34. As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.
There's nothing magical about megawatts and one megawatt looks just like another.

Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #34
38. Science isn't your forte is it?
Ever wonder why they don't use wind power to make wind turbines?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 05:26 AM
Response to Reply #38
39. Science isn't yours.
They do use wind power to make wind turbines.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 07:31 AM
Response to Reply #39
40. Link?
Wind power cannot power things like arc welders and metal fabricating equipment. Wind power is good for slow, steady power, but anything with a big draw needs something else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #40
41. Maybe the wind turbine at your neighbor's house can't power an arc welder.
After all, a nice big-ass arc welder usually requires 50 Amp, 240 V service
(so about 12 KW peak power):

http://content.lincolnelectric.com/pdfs/products/litera... <- Stick
http://content.lincolnelectric.com/pdfs/products/litera... <-- MIG, Note: 52 Amps

Now that's a lot for a home wind turbine. But the story is a bit different for
big commercial wind turbines. Let's use the upcoming Cape Wind project
as an example:

http://www.capewind.org/FAQ-Category4-Cape+Wind+Basics-...

As you can see from their FAQ, *EACH TURBINE* will generate up to 3.6 Megawatts.
That would power 300 of our typical arc welders *SIMULTANEOUSLY*. The entire
project is expected to deliver an *AVERAGE* of 170 Megawatts; I'll let you do the
math.

As I said, a megawatt is a megawatt.

And you don't know what you're talking about.

Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. Ugh...
Now your confusing watts with amps. The problem with wind power lies in storage and adaptability. You can't make a wind turbine spin faster at will and there are days that they will just turn slowly. Something that requires high amperage just won't be able to use a wind turbine unless its really humming at that point in time.

I would be surprised if the Cape Wind project is EVER built. Its a great idea, but too many poweful NIMBY's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. You're only making things worse for yourself.
Edited on Wed Jul-01-09 03:07 PM by Tesha
A watt is a watt is a watt and wind turbines aren't like the
generator on your '65 Volkswagen; they use electrical systems
that are a bit more sophisticated than that so that they can
produce output power over a wide RPM range.

In fact, the latest turbine installations tend to use an HVDC
(High Voltage Direct Current) bus among all the units in the
installation; each turbine forces onto the bus such power as
that turbine unit can momentarily generate. Then, a separate
inverter unit generates perfectly standardized, three-phase,
constant voltage, constant-frequency bus-synchronized,
60 Hz power from the HVDC bus. An HVDC bus is particularly
advantageous if the wind turbines are connected via buried
or submarine cables because it eliminates losses due to
capacitive reactance with the surrounding ground or water.

Honestly, it's clear you don't know what you're talking about
so you'd be better off giving up on your argument.

Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. They are truly amazing...
So they can produce power even when there is no wind is blowing?! Why not just forget the wind turbines and use perpetual motion machines on those posts. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. Placed in the right locations, the wind is pretty reliable.
And with enough wind turbines bussed together over a large enough
area, it's almost a certainty that the wind is blowing somewhere.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126990.500-from...

But that wasn't your initial claim. Your initial claim was that wind
power wasn't up to industrial-sized loads. Have you finally given
up on that claim so now you're trying ing to introduce a new
argument and hope everyone won't notice?

By the way, I've been giving you links/citations along the way
supporting what I'm telling you. Where's your "offer of proof"
to anything *YOU* are claiming?

Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. My offer of proof...
simple physics. Wattage is a unit of power, amperage is a unit of current. Anyone who pays an electric bill should recognize that wattage remains constant, but amperage varies. I am unaware of any way to get wind turbines to turn faster on demand (aside from an attached gas engine).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. In other words, what you're saying is that "(You) have no idea what you're talking about".
Thanks, I think you've pretty well proven that. Have a nice life!

Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. Look at the puppy!!
Please continue to research. Windmills are still a good idea, but are not a 100% solution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-03-09 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #49
64. You're right
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enviralment Donating Member (71 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-02-09 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #45
57. Denmark and wind
Denmark supplies up to 20% of its electricity form wind. Yet, this beacon of renewable energy hasn't shut down a fossil fuel plant, or made any reduction in Co2 emissions. The problem with renewables is what you decide to base-load them with when the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining. Because Denmark base-loads with natural gas they won't be able to reduce Co2 emissions. That is why we should be base-loading with nuclear. It's a viable, pragmatic approach.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-03-09 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #45
63. You don't know much about what's going on, do you?
Haven't you ever heard of the various storage modalities they're working on...

Compressed air/gas, heating salts, etc.

There will be lots of storage media if only we could wrest the dollars pissed away on subsidies and give-aways to the nuclear, oil and coal mafia...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-02-09 01:53 AM
Response to Reply #11
50. ahh - tell that to the FRENCH - they have been using solar for HEAVY INDUSTRIAL for DEDCADES...
as usual, you don't know WTF you're spewing...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-02-09 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #50
53. Odd...
Considering that the French have something like 90% of their power needs met by breeder reactors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enviralment Donating Member (71 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-02-09 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #50
56. the french and nuclear
Edited on Thu Jul-02-09 09:56 AM by enviralment
the french supply 80% of their electricity with nuclear, and they export nuclear power to Germany, Britain and Switzerland. So yeah they can invest in solar but they sure aren't base-loading with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-03-09 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #56
58. The French have one of the largest and most powerful solar plant that has been specifically powering
factories among other users for DECADES...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
winter999 Donating Member (530 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. My electric comes from Nuclear.
I've had no outages, brown-outs, issues. It's cheap, reliable and supports a million-plus residents. I have no problem with Nuclear power and wouldn't mind if/when they expand (2 active reactors and space for 3 more).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-02-09 01:55 AM
Response to Reply #12
51. you know what you can do with your WASTE...
just keep it out of MY backyard, HA!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #8
19. And photovoltaics are made from completely clean unicorn farts.
Still need mining, and some rather unpleasant chemicals. For wind power, again, mining, advanced materials manufacturing, then there's the 'not on my skyline' people like Ted Kennedy (my one gripe with the man), and the, I feel, demonstrated impact to bird life.

There is no completely 'clean' power source. Even the hydroelectric power that is running my computer right now, came at a cost of habitat, and is still impacting Salmon runs.

Everything's a tradeoff. Nuclear is available 24x7, where you have to build far beyond daytime capacity to store solar for the nighttime... etc.

Right now, if it's not producing tons of CO2, it's ok in my book, and that puts nuclear power on the table, at least until we don't need it anymore. I think the US is behind the curve in breeder reactors and other technologies that let us burn as fuel, the waste from the 70's. But that's another discussion I guess.

I'm upwind from my state's active reactors, but I'd be pefectly happy living downwind. Never been a major problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #19
25. Unicorn farts? Really! I never knew. Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MARALE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #19
43. Yes, there are pros and cons to all energy sources
And if we reprocess and recycle the waste, there is a lot less waste than most people realize there would be. People were afraid that the reprocessed waste could be used in nuclear weapons and would not be able to be monitored. Nuclear is a cleaner choice than coal by far if all the recycling techniques and new technologies can be used. I also like wind, but there are many efficiency issues with wind as well.

Here is a good article.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.02/nuclear.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enviralment Donating Member (71 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-02-09 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #8
55. Can't base-load with wind.
Here's the problem JPak.
The difference between output and capability. In Ontario we have wind providing, on an average day about 0.08% of our energy. That is actual output of all the wind turbines in the province. The 'capacity' of wind in the province is about 5%. Wind,being intermittent can only produce about 20% of its capacity, making it an unreliable source for base-load power. Wind and renewables are great for residential and small commercial energy needs. But it doesn't compare with the ability of nuclear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 09:04 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. Ugly is in the eye of the can't do it's
Personally I find wind turbines to be very pretty and graceful. If they would not have put all the money and time that has been spent in trying to convince us that nuclear is safe and had put it into alternate sources we would not be where we are today. We would be for the most part, energy independent.

I grew up being told I can do it, never was I told I can't do it, maybe thats the difference, I don't know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mbperrin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. Yes, the clean white lines of the turbines are much more attractive than
the 100,000 pump jacks, tank batteries, company roads, dikes, dams, spills, leaks,explosions, fires, waste pits, chromium contamination of the ground water, salt water leakage from injection into the water table that surround my home here in the Permian Basin of Texas.

Ugly fucking oilfield shit spilling, spewing, farting, and shitting on and in the landscape. Oops, forgot to mention the occasional giant sinkhole that appears around well sites, too, hundreds of yards across and hundreds of feet deep, swallowing telephone poles, state highways, and oil equipment as they go.

Birds? The tips of the turbines travel between 2 and 6 mph; must be some pretty fucking stupid birds to fly into those. Wanna see dead birds? Go to any airport. Perhaps we should shut them instead, if birds are a big worry. Never have seen a dead bird at the foot of any of the hundreds of turbines here locally, but I've seen a lot of them stuck in the crude oil of waste disposal pits used in the oil field. The crude looks like water from above. Birds hit it, get stuck, and die.

Yeah, those turbines are terrible!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #13
17. Oh yeah
I don't even want to hear anything else anyone has to say after I hear or read from them how ugly a wind turbine is or how they're nothing but a bird grinder. Ain't gonna hear any facts from this voice is all that I think from that point on. I became interested in nuclear energy when PSO wanted to build a nuclear power plant in my back yard. I protested it then and would today if need be. I still read and hear the same lies about all phases of the nuclear power industry as answers to the questions I was asking back then, early '70s. I don't buy that nuclear energy is the way to go and I doubt that I ever will.

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

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
winter999 Donating Member (530 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #13
18. Have they figured out how to
stop a crazy Spaniard on a donkey from attacking it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-03-09 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #18
59. What a Quixotic post.
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kegler14 Donating Member (541 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #13
29. I was wrong about the birds. But I sure as hell don't want them on my mountains.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kegler14 Donating Member (541 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #9
28. Yeah, right. I live in the mountains. In that setting, turbines are just as ugly
cell phone and transmitting towers. No thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terry in Austin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #6
32. What should we use to what?
The usual premise is that we'll just continue at our same level of energy per capita, preferably more. Then it's simply a technical question of what fuel/energy source to use. Funny how that turns out, though -- none of them seem to cut it.

The likelier premise is that we won't, and we'll just have to adapt to a drastic reduction in energy use.

It's been a great party, and no one wants it to be over. Can't blame them, but there it is.

:party:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-03-09 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #6
62. Power down
and those beautiful turbines do NOT kill birds...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donquijoterocket Donating Member (357 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #5
26. thanks
You make quite well the point I was going to bring up that nuke enthusiasts only wish to talk about nuke energy at the point of generation but rarely say anything about the whole cycle including the long-lasting environmental effects of uranium mining and processing( Ask the Pueblo Indian people of the four corners region about that one).I once again see the critics of wind generation acting like wind can only be utilized as a replacement for a more traditional source in a system of centralized production and distribution when the most efficient use is in an integrated small scale system applied at the point of consumption.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NinetySix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #2
24. The only "right way" to do nuclear is through the fusion process.
The by-products of fusion are energy and helium, which is not a pollutant, and which disposes of itself by rising through the atmosphere to the periphery, and then into space. Unfortunately, that process has been said to be 'about 40 years away' for the last several decades. Currently, it's wind power that is taking off in Canada as the new alternative energy source.

No, except for interplanetary probes and possible future moon bases, fission power is simply not feasible where there are human beings who can be poisoned by its waste products leaching into the groundwater. In addition, it is also not economically feasible, due to a) the necessity of heavy taxpayer subsidization, and b) the insurance industry's unwillingness to underwrite nuclear facilities for catastrophic failures and meltdowns.

But other than that, it's great.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terry in Austin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #24
31. Good luck with that
Fusion offers the prospect of virtually unlimited, cheap energy. Okay.

Aside from the fact that practical fusion seems to stay 25 years in the future, few ever question the idea that unlimited, cheap energy is A Good Thing. But we need to consider the fact that it was the abundant, cheap energy of oil that drove overpopulation, globalization, and industrial overshoot.

Fusion would mean more of the same, guaranteeing that we would slam up hard against the natural limits we're already chafing at.

Yeah, it's nice to have cars and air conditioning, but the place is a mess!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #31
36. Practical fusion is a lot closer now than it has been.
ITER -> DEMO -> Practical fusion.

http://www.iter.org/default.aspx

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

We'd be a lot farther down the road today had Reagan not
defunded the American tokomak fusion program.

Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GDAEx2 Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 08:31 AM
Response to Original message
3. I expect Ontario is looking
to the private sector to get this done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enviralment Donating Member (71 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-02-09 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #3
54. Private sector failings
Well the two other firms that were involved in the bidding process, Westinghouse and Areva both had higher bids than AECL. This is just the provincial government trying to squeeze the federal into providing more money for the projects, or guaranteeing that they don't have cost overruns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ensho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
14. good - sanity reigns in Canada

no more nuke plants and their forever toxic waste
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
winter999 Donating Member (530 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. Jini's out of the bottle. It'll never go back in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HEyHEY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
16. Pff, it was just a scam to hide the country's nuclear weapons program anyway
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ImOnlySleeping Donating Member (131 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #16
21. Now
Now to begin work on our solar panel/death ray!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HEyHEY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. Oh, they'll pay... they'll ALLLL pay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 10:09 AM
Response to Original message
20. good -- nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dave From Canada Donating Member (932 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
23. They want more federal assistance because of the way the economy is as a result of the recession. n/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 12:12 PM
Response to Original message
27. Good - let's wait for new technology
Edited on Tue Jun-30-09 12:16 PM by TrogL
(found the link)

Fusion appears to finally be on its way

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-30-09 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #27
33. Three-part post by FogerRox the other day
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-03-09 07:12 PM
Response to Original message
60. It's silly to keep relying on depleting resources... (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enviralment Donating Member (71 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-06-09 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #60
66. Everything is depleting
You don't think that renewable rely on depleting resources. Silicon which is used for PV cells is depleting.
Also renewables aren't stable enough to be considered a viable solution to coal and natural gas. Nuclear is though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Jul 13th 2014, 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC