Canada may exit Kyoto pact to save $$$$$

[D'rok]

Because, after all, they're the only two options.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise...-canada-sits-atop-massive-geothermal-resource

Interesting. I sincerely hope there will be development interest one day.

 

[bit_pattern]

Interesting. I sincerely hope there will be development interest one day.

One way of generating development interest would be to send a market signal by pricing carbon that would help make such investments more attractive, à la Kyoto.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Not reliable enough? Not dense enough? LMFAO!

As for cheap, maybe if you actually dispassionately and open-mindendly read the sources given to you, rather than dismissing them out of hand because they conflict with your agenda to ush nuclear as the ONLY option then you see things like this:

You don't know where geothermal energy comes from, do you?

 

[D'rok]

One way of generating development interest would be to send a market signal by pricing carbon that would help make such investments more attractive, à la Kyoto.

I'm not prepared to sacrifice Alberta's existing economy on that altar.

 

[bit_pattern]

I'm not prepared to sacrifice Alberta's existing economy on that altar.

Sigh... This old canard. Please provide evidence that committing to a reduction in emissions will cause Canada to 'sacrifice' Alberta's economy. his idea is an article of faith among some people on this forum but I'm yet to see any real, tangible evidence to support such alarmist hyperbole.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

If everyone isn't going it's not worth the risk. What's so hard to understand about that?

 

[bit_pattern]

You don't know where geothermal energy comes from, do you?

You don't realise that rhetorical questions are not a valid debating tool, do you?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Sigh... This old canard. Please provide evidence that committing to a reduction in emissions will cause Canada to 'sacrifice' Alberta's economy. his idea is an article of faith among some people on this forum but I'm yet to see any real, tangible evidence to support such alarmist hyperbole.

Argument from incredulity.

 

[bit_pattern]

If everyone isn't going it's not worth the risk. What's so hard to understand about that?

Compared to the risk of what will happen if everyone adopts that game-theory attitude? The risk of going above and beyond a 450 ppm threshold and blowing all hopes of containing warming to under 3 degrees? I don't think you understand the concept of risk.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

You don't realise that rhetorical questions are not a valid debating tool, do you?

You could have just said "No, Sword, I don't know where geothermal energy comes from".

Geothermal energy comes from heat generated by the decay of radioactive elements in the earths mantle.

These elements are mostly U-238 and Thorium. U-238 has a half-life of 4.4 billion years, Thorium has a half-life of 14 billion years. Fissioned in a reactor, these elements leave behind daughter products that have half lives of only 30 to 50 years.

Nuclear reactors take the same energy that drives geothermal plants and releases billions of years worth in a flash. Same fuel source, bigger bang.

Economy is about speed and volume, so yes. Nuclear is cheaper and more reliable.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Compared to the risk of what will happen if everyone adopts that game-theory attitude? The risk of going above and beyond a 450 ppm threshold and blowing all hopes of containing warming to under 3 degrees? I don't think you understand the concept of risk.

Perhaps not, but I can understand boogedy boogedy alarmism when I see it.

 

[D'rok]

Sigh... This old canard. Please provide evidence that committing to a reduction in emissions will cause Canada to 'sacrifice' Alberta's economy. his idea is an article of faith among some people on this forum but I'm yet to see any real, tangible evidence to support such alarmist hyperbole.

Funny you should ask. I happened to have read this today at work:

Over the past decade, on average, the Alberta resource sectors
have accounted for 62 percent of provincial GDP. Directly and
indirectly, these sectors drive half of all Alberta employment.

http://www.acr-alberta.com/TaskForceReports/tabid/206/Default.aspx

Details are in the report.

It is not a canard or an article of faith. There is a rational connection between oil sands development and Alberta's economy. If you are making the claim that oil sands development is compatible with Kyoto, then you are dreaming. If you are making the claim that we can seamlessly replace oil sands development with some alternative Kyoto-friendly resource development, you are dreaming. Kyoto targets would kill Alberta.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

"“We’ve decided the new nuclear option in Alberta is not something our company will be progressing further,” Duncan Hawthorne, Bruce Power’s president and CEO, said in a news release."

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Nuclear+power+plan+Alberta+withdrawn+company/5849123/story.html

Good or bad, so much for that.

I've just heard back from a couple of our people in the Canadian Nuclear Society. This decision was most likely the result of Albertas slowness to upgrade its electricity transmission infrastructure.

It appears to have little to do with anything the greens and tree-huggers can claim credit for.

 

[bit_pattern]

It appears to have little to do with anything the greens and tree-huggers can claim credit for.

Ah, so another one of your erroneous claims bites the dust. "Greens and tree huggers" are NOT the reason why Canada is not currently living in a nuclear utopia.

Why am I not surprised?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Ah, so another one of your erroneous claims bites the dust.

The single biggest obstacle to the development of nuclear power remains the lies and slander of the anti-nuclear lobby. I never said that this was the only obstacle.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

It is people like you who are going to be the demise of this species. Too selfish and stupid to cope with long term challenges.

Who are you describing?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

You have never disproven the claims made in the graphic.

 

[bit_pattern]

When was the last time this happened in Denmark?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/12/french-nuclear-plant-rocked-explosion

Explosion at French nuclear waste plant
One worker reported dead in blast at Marcoule nuclear waste processing site in southern France

Kim Willsher in Paris

guardian.co.uk, Monday 12 September 2011 17.11 BSTAn explosion at a French nuclear waste processing plant that killed one person and injured four others sparked fears of a radioactive leak on Monday.

An emergency safety cordon was thrown around the Marcoule nuclear site near Nimes in the south of France immediately after a furnace used to melt nuclear waste exploded and caused a fire. It was lifted later in the day after France's nuclear safety agency, the Autorité de Sûreté Nucléaire (ASN), said there was no danger to the public.

Reports said the body of one male worker at the plant had been "found carbonised", but there was no evidence that the explosion had caused any radioactive leak, though the ASN admitted there was the "possibility of a leak of low-level radioactivity, but no shooting of radioactivity in the air". There was no information as to the cause of the explosion.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

When was the last time this happened in Denmark?

Numerous people in Denmark have died in or due to explosions.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I understand that many, many people dies from installing rooftop solar panels. Should they be banned too?

In fact someone has done us a little favour:

Energy Source ......................... Death Rate (deaths per TWh)

Coal – world average.................... 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China............................... 278
Coal – USA................................. 15
Oil............................................ 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas................................ 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass.......................... 12
Peat.......................................... 12
Solar (rooftop)............................ 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind......................................... 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro........................................ 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao).... 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear...................................... 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

So much for the dangers of nuclear.