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

[WildCat]

We know how to do renewables, there are no technology issues blocking them

Not really.

 

[Furcifer]

government services use public funds...highways and space travel included.
no secret there.
however, in the case of the happily dead bruce power reactor in alberta, we are talking about a private, for profit company.
that is the difference.
bruce power needs to make money for its shareholders, and the taxpayer would wind up footing a portion of that profit.

Er, that's kinda backwards. With a Crown company that tanks, like oh, I don't know, Bruce Nuclear, the taxpayer foots the bill. With a private company the end user foots the bill.
It get confusing when a private company leases a Crown company, then the taxpayer and the tax paying end user foots the bill, twice

I missed much of your back and forth with SoT but if you're trying to point out the mess that is the Canadian nuclear industry I'm not sure "government subsidies" is the place to go. In Canada it's to be expected, but in the US Westinghouse and GE were making reactors without government subsidies. There are plenty of private companies making and running reactors around the World so it's not a necessity.

 

[bit_pattern]

OK, but what does that mean? Space travel has always had huge government subsidies. Highways have always had huge government subsidies. I'm sure we can name hundreds more, then we can name projects that once were entirely government funded that are now privately funded.

I'm just curious what you think it all means in the context of the discussion.

It means it's the more expensive option and that there are cheaper, quicker and more efficient ways of reducing emissions. And if we are going to subsidise industry then why aren't we subsidising the **** out of clean, green and safe renewable energy projects?

 

[bit_pattern]

Not really.

What has ethanol got to do with anything? We're talking about large scale electricity generation, not fuelling combustion engines. Ethanol is barely even "green" so to speak anyway, it's just a cover for maintaining the petroleum industry for longer under the guise of being "green".

 

[bit_pattern]

in the US Westinghouse and GE were making reactors without government subsidies. There are plenty of private companies making and running reactors around the World so it's not a necessity.

Just because they are private companies doesn't mean they aren't suckling at the teat of Big Government. Westinghouse and GE received massive government subsidies to develop their reactors.

 

[bit_pattern]

I’ve had roughly the same discussion with him re: uranium is seawater. He seems to think that because someone ones extracted a few ponds of yellowcake from seawater under laboratory conditions we now have a million year supply of Uranium.

He simply doesn’t understand the distinction between theoretically possible vs practical and/or ready for large scale production.

Yup, I realised it was futile a week ago when i was getting abused for simply pointing out that thorium simply isn't viable yet.

 

[Furcifer]

It means it's the more expensive option and that there are cheaper, quicker and more efficient ways of reducing emissions. And if we are going to subsidise industry then why aren't we subsidising the **** out of clean, green and safe renewable energy projects?

We are. In fact as far as I can tell at the moment here in Canada nuclear is the only one we aren't. At least not in terms of increasing capacity.

 

[Furcifer]

Just because they are private companies doesn't mean they aren't suckling at the teat of Big Government. Westinghouse and GE received massive government subsidies to develop their reactors.

I'm not sure about GE, but Westinghouse didn't. I think you're confusing oversight with subsidizing.

 

[bit_pattern]

I'm not sure about GE, but Westinghouse didn't. I think you're confusing oversight with subsidizing.

http://acfonline.org.au/articles/news.asp?news_id=2714

 

[Furcifer]

http://acfonline.org.au/articles/news.asp?news_id=2714

You're talking about future installations, I was referring to development. Gotcha.

That I don't have an answer for. My limited understanding is that over regulation makes it prohibitive and if government got on board and took a good look at the industry and properly assessed the risk instead of listening to the lobbyists it would be much more feasible.

 

[bit_pattern]

Development too

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/03/the-nuclear-breakthrough-that-wasnt/72816/

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Yup, I realised it was futile a week ago when i was getting abused for simply pointing out that thorium simply isn't viable yet.

You get abused only when you are abusive. Simple maths really, I don't know how you don't get it.

Any chance you will repsond on the nuclear safety issue, since you brought it up? Any chance you were a bit hasty, or have you some other data that supports your inferences?

 

[bit_pattern]

Quiet now, Alfie, the big boys are talking.

 

[lomiller]

Not really.

Link doesn't support your comment as it doesn't point to any lack of technology, rather it's simply pointing out a poor technology choice. It's about as useful as saying all nuclear power plants are identical to the one in Chernobyl.

 

[Roboramma]

Quiet now, Alfie, the big boys are talking.

Rather than post something that doesn't advance the discussion at all, why not simply say, "You're right, nuclear has a very good safety record, so I was being unreasonable to suggest that it's safety record is a reason to change to other sources of energy generation."

It is true that you brought up the issue of safety. If you don't want to discuss it, fine, but if you are interested in real discussion here, you ought to acknowledge that Alfie has a valid point.

 

[Furcifer]

Development too

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/03/the-nuclear-breakthrough-that-wasnt/72816/

That narrative takes place several years after the first reactors from both GE and Westinghouse went online.

Again I think we're heading back towards what we first discussed and what SoT gets criticized most for, and that's there's a long way to go from the drawing board or lab to commercial viability. I've said this before and I think it's worth repeating; these supersized infrastructure developments requiring massive capital investment are best left to governments. Especially when they're so heavily regulated by government. The process is mired in red tape, who better to cut through it than government?

 

[WildCat]

What has ethanol got to do with anything? We're talking about large scale electricity generation, not fuelling combustion engines.

And there go the goal posts...

 

[WildCat]

Link doesn't support your comment as it doesn't point to any lack of technology, rather it's simply pointing out a poor technology choice. It's about as useful as saying all nuclear power plants are identical to the one in Chernobyl.

It's an example of the government throwing hundreds of millions of dollars, and mandating the use of, a renewable fuel technology they thought they understood but has frustrated all efforts at implementing.

 

[applecorped]

Quiet now, Alfie, the big boys are talking.

Shhhh, I'm trying to listen to the Men and Women.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Got a real world example here; this is the proposed DEER reactor from Brookhaven Technology Group:

The one on the left runs at 50 megawatts and is a little less than the size of the cab on a semi-trailer truck.

To match that capacity with wind under optimal conditions, you would need seven Enercon E-126 Wind Turbines

the E-126 is formally available as a windturbine with maximal 7.58 MW output. The weight of the foundation of the turbine tower is about 2,500 t, the tower itself 2,800 t, the machine housing 128 t, the generator 220 t, the rotor (including the blade) 364 t. The total weight is about 6,000 t.​

That's about 42,000 tons of raw materials to build enough wind capacity to match, under optimal conditions, the output of a 40 ton nuclear reactor . To match the reactors output exactly, including non-optimal days, you would need enough steel to build an aircraft carrier and enough concrete to sink it.

I hope you haven't fled the thread because the input of someone who understands economic realities would be helpful.

but without government intervention the market would generally move towards wind and solar.

Pure head-in-the-sand denialism. There's absolutely no way a power source that requires thousands of times the cost in material resources out-competes nuclear.

This is like AGW denial. Only without the meticulous attention to detail and respect for the scientific method.