It's pronounced "Nucular"
Well, I'm not a usual commentator about the Alberta PC party's proceedings, but I found this article talking about how they're considering looking into nuclear power to help power the oilsands, and it got me thinking a bit more about nuclear.
From what I've seen, it seems that lots of people are divided about the power of nuclear. Many see it as a nice, emissions-free power source, that seems to be a logical step to move us away from coal and gas fired plants. Others see it as a major problem source, which is unsafe and causes waste which we cannot dispose of. Now, as with any issue, the answer is in the middle, but I'm surprised in most of the talk about reaching our carbon goals, the matter hasn't been brought up further.
Personally, I think we should be investigating the issue more. I don't think I'm ready to switch over fully to nuclear, but I definitely do see that there's lots of potential there. If the global warming alarmists are right, then the excess CO2 in the air will be even more damaging than whatever waste that nuclear produces, and as we explore more about nuclear, I'm pretty sure we'll be able to find more and safer ways to store the spent fuel.
And contrary to what many people believe, it is relatively safe. I mean, apart from 3 mile island and Chernobyl, there haven't been any big problems with nuclear. As a nuclear lobbyist I heard talk this winter say, the fact that we still hear about the big problems is a good sign that it's safe. I mean, we don't really hear too much about accidents and problems in other power plants, since they happen often. Just like many people are surprised to hear that planes are the safest mode of travel even when we hear about plane accidents around the world every few weeks or months.
Now, I still know that nuclear isn't perfect, and before we were to commit a significant amount of resources in building more plants, we need to make sure that storage is improved, but it is something that I feel we shouldn't be as scared about. For once, I agree with something the PCs are proposing, and I do hope that they vote to investigate its uses even more.
2 comments:
I watched a documentary on nuclear power in France. They don't have nuclear waste - they recycle it.
"Now, as with any issue, the answer is in the middle". That's OJ's view! ;-) Sorry, couldn't resist.
Having lived in Oshawa, Ontario, located between two nuclear power plants, it was a bit disconcerting to receive instructions in case of a disaster. Especially the part warning us not to leave town before being decontaminated. Still, Oshawa and the rest of the Toronto area have enough smog (and heat) in the Summer months to make nuclear appealing.
Nuclear isn't quite carbon neutral, however. A huge amount of energy is spent building the plant. Then you got to dig up and haul the uranium to the plant. Then of course you have to build the storage facility and, if off site, haul the nuclear waste. In terms of carbon contribution, I'll take a shot in the dark and say it is like burning wood (forestry industry try to brand wood burning as carbon neutral, but you still have to cut the trees down down and haul the wood somewhere to burn it).
If I had to chose between living next to a wood burning plant (aka cogeneration) and a nuclear facility, I'd have to chose nuclear. Nuclear would also win over a coal plant or an oil refinery.
The other benefit of having the nuclear plant up in the oil sands is you put far fewer people at risk in case of a disaster. I mean, worst case scenario, you get 70,000 contaminated people in Wood Buffalo (Fort McMurray). Worst case scenario in Pickering (Toronto) is 7 million!
Nuclear is also perfect for the huge and regular demands in energy of the oil sands. Oil is much more preferable for planes and sports cars. Still, as long as we keep screwing over future generations (twice) while using up all the relatively cheap oil (and contributing to global warming), nuclear doesn't have a chance.
Post a Comment