...we need more sensationalist crap like this: Our reactors aren't 'safe' either
First: It's spelt "boredom" not "boredomE". It's spelt "first" not "fRist". I don't know what "peration" is, but maybe you mean "Operation". These are just a small sample of this retired journalist's "professionalism" and a reflection of this periodical's "excellence". How am I supposed to take this piece of garbage seriously if you can't even bother to use spell check?!
Second: Just because someone has "written extensively about the Canadian nuclear industry" does NOT make them an expert. It doesn't even make them an informed or knowledgeable resource. Your credibility goes down the toilet when you call it "Canadu" instead of CANDU (so minus your extra "a" and put it in all CAPS).
I've said this countless times over the last few years.
In Ontario, today...right now...unless the entire province is willing to cut their power consumption by 50%, saying no to nuclear is not an option. I'm not saying that Ontario will get 50% of its electricity from nuclear power after two new units at Darlington are built. Ontario gets 50% of its electricity from nuclear power NOW!!!
Look at everything that happened with BP in the Gulf of Mexico last year. That happens EVERY DAY in Africa but CNN doesn't talk about it so no one cares. The number of people who die in any given month in pursuit of oil FAR EXCEEDS the number of people who died IN DECADES as a result of nuclear power. And this "thing" that's going on in Japan is the results of a massive natural disaster. These oil spills...we do those ALL BY OURSELVES. Mother Nature didn't need to assist us at all in these massive failures.
This is not about being pro-nuclear or anti-oil. I enjoy the luxuries that these energy sources provide every day. But it's about being INFORMED when making a decision or expressing an opinion (yes, I know it's well within every ignoramus' right to express their uninformed, dumbass view). You don't like greenhouse gases, stop driving your car, eating gummy bears (yeah...the primary ingredient in those things is made by Suncor...same place where they make your motor oil...did I gross you out?), and having steak. You don't want to use nuclear power, then get off the damned grid and ONLY use electricity when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing. If you think hydroelectric is "safer" then maybe you should talk to all the people who's friends/family have DROWNED near hydroelectric stations. It's not as infrequent as you think.
For the record: I am neither pro- nor anti- nuclear. I am pro-USING LESS ELECTRICITY! People are so incredibly wasteful when it comes to electricity. Especially in North America.
People just like to sit in front of their computers or their plasma tvs and yak about how all these power generators are so evil and how nuclear power is so heinous. BUT these same people, if you tell them to turn their lights off when then leave the room, or turn down (in the winter) or up (in the summer) their thermostat by one degree, they act like you've asked them to cut off their arm.
Why don't you THINK for a minute or two and make a semi-informed statement? You don't want nukes, THEN GAWD DAMMIT, USE LESS ELECTRICITY!!! Solar power isn't going to enable you be a Guitar Hero at 3am UNLESS you're willing to pay $0.82 kWh AND mortgage your house for a storage battery the size of a soccer pitch. Wind is a cheaper at $0.135 kWh...and you will be able to play Guitar Hero at 3am...but you can't surf the Internet or watch tv during the day. And those overcast days in August when there's no sun and no wind...NO AIR CONDITIONING!! Yay! Right? Oh yeah...and you don't want to pay more than $0.04 kWh. Guess that means you want to go back to burning coal then right? Did I mention that nuclear is less than $0.06 kWh and that's INCLUDING setting money aside for disposing of nuclear waste?
Recap:
- Solar = $0.82 per kWh
no health effects, but unreliable supply
- Wind = $0.135 per kWh
no *proven* health effects - but lots of health complaints from residents near wind farms, and unreliable supply
- Nuclear = $0.055 per kWh
radioactive waste management & station decommissioning costs included, reliable supply
- Hydroelectric = $0.036 per kWh
mostly reliable supply, but by itself, not enough to support Ontario's current demand
- Coal = $0.02 per kWh
health costs covered by health care, not energy sector, BUT, reliable and cheap supply
Aside: If everyone used less and peak demand came down to be close to what is produced by hydroelectric alone, that would be ideal. But I have no faith in humanity whatsoever, so I know this isn't going to happen anytime soon - if at all.
Of course there's geothermal, biomass, gas, etc... Lots of other technology. But none widespread across Ontario...and most certainly none that are fast and cheap. Okay, maybe gas is fast and cheap but gas prices are subject to market volatility -- more than coal. And shale gas drilling in Quebec just got killed, so I guess the price of gas is about to go up (or at the very least, it isn't going to go down).
You know why electricity is MORE expensive during the day? Because when Ontario can't generate enough of it to meet peak demand, it is bought from Quebec, New York, or Michigan (neighbouring jurisdictions) to satisfy your insatiable, wasteful, need. And it's bought at a premium. These are not small potatoes. This is big bucks! With a smoother peak we would import less and our generating stations would have a higher average utilization each day. Instead, we're looking at building enough capacity to meet a high peak (so that we don't have to import) and then leaving it idle for the 20-hours of off-peak. All this just contributes to an overall higher price. If time-of-use pricing is applied, then only consumers during peak pay the higher price. If it's flat rate pricing, EVERYONE pays a higher price ALL THE TIME. Because plants that aren't running 24/7 still need to be well-maintained and available...maintenance costs might be a bit lower with less running time, but availability costs the same no matter what. So when it's not running and generating revenue, it costs the same as when it is. Which all gets rolled into the price.
Bottom line:
More conservation = lower prices for everyone regardless of whether or not we use smart meters.
If for one month, Ontario rationed electricity...then MAYBE people will start to understand just how ignorant they really are when it comes to energy. It's not just magic that comes out of the wall, people.
And one little comment on batteries...if you HONESTLY think energy storage technology is up to par with generation, I *strongly* encourage you to spend your money on them and hook them up to your solar panel or wind turbine. Learn the hard way. Do it. Because then I don't have to listen to your whining.
People talk about using transportation infrastructure, a more incorporated view, blah blah blah. Yes...I agree, BUT this is still in the very early stages of discussion without even any real design on the horizon. In short...It's gonna be a while. ALSO the residents have to agree and be a part of it. In case you haven't noticed, right now, people don't want to think about progressing a solution. They just sit there and bitch about how their electricity bill is going up, and that this issue in Japan shows how nuclear power is evil.
I am not down playing what's happening in Japan. What is happening there is tragic and the result of two huge natural disasters. The amount of human life claimed by the earthquake and ensuing tsunami has yet to be quantified, but it is on the order of magnitude of thousands -- potentially rising to tens of thousands. If you take away the 50 years of safe nuclear operation that Japan has already had as a result of the Fukushima reactors, there's no way for you to say that they would have been better off or that something equally horrific (or worse) would not have happened. There's just no way to know.
American fear mongering is bad enough as it is (thanks for nothing, CNN). Adding in Canadian fear mongering does not validate it. It just makes it worse.
Before you slam the energy sector for giving "biased" accounts when they try to explain the technological differences, maybe you should educate yourself. It's only after you know how the technology works that you are given a pass into the realm of logical discussion. Saying it's unsafe because you don't know how it works just makes you look dumb.
Not only are CANDUs much safer than the reactors in Japan. CANDUs (particularly in Canada) are not built in a geographical area that would subject to the same conditions. People are all panicking over the reactors we have and forgetting that it's not simply a failure of the technology that resulted in the situation in Japan. It's a combination of two natural disasters as well.
