Sunday, March 13, 2011

Nuclear Power

With news breaking Saturday that nuclear reactors in Japan are at risk of a meltdown due to earthquake damage, do you think Canada needs more nuclear power plants? On one hand, a ping pong ball sized piece of uranium can produce as much energy as what, a million gallons of gasoline? But yet, the worst case scenario is significantly worse than with the fossil fuels. The guy on the news said that Japan's reactors were built to sustain likely magnitude earthquakes, but not the worst case earthquake. How ridiculous is that? If you are the #1 earthquake zone in the world and you are building a nuclear power plant, you better make sure to make it earthquake proof.
Now they are pumping sea water into the whole facility to try and keep the core from getting so hot that it melts the containment structure. Hopefully it will work out for the best, but they should modify all their nuclear power plants to handle big earthquakes. Canada is one of the world's largest exporters of uranium, so we do have an interest in the continued use of nuclear power worldwide. Should Canada expand its own nuclear power program? The last time we built new reactors they didn't work properly, heated up too fast, and were shut down.


  1. I'm not afraid of nuclear power in Canada, no scaremonger Watermelon Greenie with a world "change the behaviour of the little folks to fit their ideal" agenda is gonna change my mind.

    There are pro's and cons to every thing, risks are to be taken into account in a scientific way not shrill over the top scaremongering to keep the folks afraid and compliant, broke, in the cold and dark.

  2. Not wise to build a nuclear energy source on Vancouver Island or mainland,
    but there are hundreds of rock solid non-earthquake/natural disaster potential locations across Canada that are perfectly safe.

  3. Developing more nuclear power in order to reduce GHGs may suffer a setback because of the problems Japan is undergoing, but as has been mentioned, Canada's vast territory is not all subject to earthquakes, so nuclear power plants could reasonably be built in safe areas.
    France is one country which has used nuclear power extensively and safely so far, with its 59 power plants.

    Putting on my "conspiracy theory hat" -- I wonder if the spate of earthquakes and other "natural disasters" could be caused by underground nuclear testing by rogue nations, namely Iran and North Korea.
    -- Gabby in QC

  4. I give a qualified yes to further nuclear development in Canada. Electricity can only be generated efficiently by using some kind of fuel, hydro, coal, gas, nuclear. The pretense that sun or wind will generate large scale power is a pipe dream that only fanatics like Dalton McGuinty can believe in. Ontario has close to 50 years experience with nuclear powered electricity with no serious incidents. Since hydro sites have been largely developed, coal and gas are non-starters with the Green activists,nuclear appears the only alternative for Ont.
    I realize that this Japanese incident will alarm many people and contribute to a negative fear of nuclear power. Still properly constructed, safely monitored plants have a role in providing electricity for Ont. The rational choice is among gas, coal, or nuclear power generation. Wind and solar power are from a financial fantasy world.

  5. GHG scaremongering is pure bull, but Japan is energy poor like Iceland. You can't blame them for going nuclear. You can blame them for operating 40 year old reactors. Their power problems would not have affected a CANDU reactor.

    It also reminds us that those reactors will be dangerous for 10000 years from the minute they shutdown. Its one heck of a commitment for 40 years of power. Its funny to hear predictions of zero disasters and uninterupted maintenance over a timescale like that. -Not to mention that at 100% nuclear use the world would be out of fissile material in 40 years. We should cover the world with these things. absolutley.

  6. like it or not, nuclear and hydro are the only reliable non-fossil-fuel sources of power. The green weenies who think wind and solar are the answer need to get their feet on the ground.

  7. I take issue with the statement that "the world would be out of fissile material in 40 years." Canada has even more uranium than it does oil and natural gas, and we have vast areas of extremely high grade ore that are not even being considered for development at this time. Nuclear power has potential to provide centuries of energy reserves.

  8. I'm talking 100% use worldwide. So you know I grew up beside a nuke and have always resisted the green weenies, whether its cool or not.

    BTW we drill for uranium too. The in-situ recovery could also be called fracing... we're all in this together freinds.