Hush Companions
Toronto Escorts

Dan Gardner (Globe and Mail) - Nuclear power is the key to fighting climate change

Previous Thread Next Thread
M

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
170
63
I'm a firmly established skeptic when it comes to all the apocalyptic predictions about the looming demise of planet Earth.

But for those of you who insist the planet is threatened by man-made global warming/climate change/extreme weather/the climate crisis/etc., this recent column in the Globe and Mail by author Dan Gardner should be required reading.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opi...ey-to-fighting-climate-change-so-why-dont-we/

He's absolutely right about the only real option for reducing man-made greenhouse gases.

Forget about renewable energy and carbon pricing and the like. The answer is nuclear energy. Given the technology that exists today, massive investments in more nuclear power are the only way to produce meaningful reductions in man-made emissions.

The challenge, of course, is that so much of the "climate change" activism is led by environmental zealots rather than serious scientists.

Thus, none of the political leaders in Canada are talking about nuclear power in any serious way. Even worse, most of the politicians vying to be the next president of the United States haven't included nuclear power in their "climate change" plans, despite many claiming to believe in a "Green New Deal."

The reality is this: If nuclear power isn't central to their plans, then they're not serious about reducing man-made emissions.
 
WyattEarp

WyattEarp

Well-known member
May 17, 2017
5,927
1,198
113
I think the Green New Dealers fear we will all have orange hair if we go with nuclear power. I say let's do it.
 
B

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
28,835
3,482
113
Considering the future power needs this is a no brainer.
 
F

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
80,972
17,958
113
Moviefan-2 said:
I'm a firmly established skeptic when it comes to all the apocalyptic predictions about the looming demise of planet Earth.

But for those of you who insist the planet is threatened by man-made global warming/climate change/extreme weather/the climate crisis/etc., this recent column in the Globe and Mail by author Dan Gardner should be required reading.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opi...ey-to-fighting-climate-change-so-why-dont-we/

He's absolutely right about the only real option for reducing man-made greenhouse gases.

Forget about renewable energy and carbon pricing and the like. The answer is nuclear energy. Given the technology that exists today, massive investments in more nuclear power are the only way to produce meaningful reductions in man-made emissions.

The challenge, of course, is that so much of the "climate change" activism is led by environmental zealots rather than serious scientists.

Thus, none of the political leaders in Canada are talking about nuclear power in any serious way. Even worse, most of the politicians vying to be the next president of the United States haven't included nuclear power in their "climate change" plans, despite many claiming to believe in a "Green New Deal."

The reality is this: If nuclear power isn't central to their plans, then they're not serious about reducing man-made emissions.
Click to expand...
You're about as well informed about nuclear as you are about climate change.
'Course you couldn't even predict less than one year's temp, so we know you have no clue.
 
H

HungSowel

Well-known member
Mar 3, 2017
2,709
1,619
113
For Ontario, peak load is 2x what offpeak load is. At best 50% of our energy could come from nuclear, 30% is probably more practical. Nuclear units always have to run at the same pace, it can not maneuver to output more power during peak and less during off-peak. If there is more power going into the grid than there is load, the grid would blow up or you poison a nuke to get it to shut off and then spend a month to bring it back online.

What this country needs is giant batteries, china is making that right now. If we had giant batteries, we could go 100% nuclear or 100% solar and it would work out peachy keen.
 
J

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,673
6,836
113
HungSowel said:
For Ontario, peak load is 2x what offpeak load is. At best 50% of our energy could come from nuclear, 30% is probably more practical. Nuclear units always have to run at the same pace, it can not maneuver to output more power during peak and less during off-peak. If there is more power going into the grid than there is load, the grid would blow up or you poison a nuke to get it to shut off and then spend a month to bring it back online.

What this country needs is giant batteries, china is making that right now. If we had giant batteries, we could go 100% nuclear or 100% solar and it would work out peachy keen.
Click to expand...
50%-100% load can be achieved in two hours in the modern reactors. The newest designs will be capable of 25%-100% in 30min.
 
J

james t kirk

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2001
23,939
3,701
113
Nukes are bad news top to bottom and were a bad idea when they built them and an even worse idea now.

From the dangers inherent in humans playing with something potentially lethal, to the cost, to the waste. A very bad idea.
 
oldjones

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
HungSowel said:
For Ontario, peak load is 2x what offpeak load is. At best 50% of our energy could come from nuclear, 30% is probably more practical. Nuclear units always have to run at the same pace, it can not maneuver to output more power during peak and less during off-peak. If there is more power going into the grid than there is load, the grid would blow up or you poison a nuke to get it to shut off and then spend a month to bring it back online.

What this country needs is giant batteries, china is making that right now. If we had giant batteries, we could go 100% nuclear or 100% solar and it would work out peachy keen.
Click to expand...
By 2016, Ontario already generated 58.3% of its electricity from nuclear.
 
WyattEarp

WyattEarp

Well-known member
May 17, 2017
5,927
1,198
113
HungSowel said:
For Ontario, peak load is 2x what offpeak load is. At best 50% of our energy could come from nuclear, 30% is probably more practical. Nuclear units always have to run at the same pace, it can not maneuver to output more power during peak and less during off-peak.
Click to expand...
How does France get close to 75% of their electricity from nuclear power? There are ways to incentivise off-peak usage over peak periods.
 
D

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,778
113
Direct solar energy will provide all the electricity needed. Without thehuge capital cost and cleanup nightmares.
 
WyattEarp

WyattEarp

Well-known member
May 17, 2017
5,927
1,198
113
So why don't energy poor countries with technological prowess like China, Japan etc. simply do what you think is possible?

The current solar debate hinges too much on the theory that energy-rich countries like the U.S. and Canada are hindering solar's development.
 
M

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
170
63
danmand said:
Direct solar energy will provide all the electricity needed.
Click to expand...
You're dreaming.

As I said in my original post, the people who promote renewable energy aren't serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

I remember when former Ontario premier Kathleen Wynne hosted an event with Al Gore. She tried to make it sound like Ontario phased out its coal plants using renewable energy, when in fact it was natural gas and nuclear power that allowed the province to shutter its coal plants.

Even lefty columnist Denise Balkassoon at the Globe has accepted the fact that nuclear is the only option if the world wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in any substantive way.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opi...-worrying-and-love-well-accept-that-it-might/
 
F

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
80,972
17,958
113
Moviefan-2 said:
You're dreaming.

As I said in my original post, the people who promote renewable energy aren't serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

I remember when former Ontario premier Kathleen Wynne hosted an event with Al Gore. She tried to make it sound like Ontario phased out its coal plants using renewable energy, when in fact it was natural gas and nuclear power that allowed the province to shutter its coal plants.

Even lefty columnist Denise Balkassoon at the Globe has accepted the fact that nuclear is the only option if the world wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in any substantive way.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opi...-worrying-and-love-well-accept-that-it-might/
Click to expand...
Nobody is building large scale nuclear generators any more.
There is talk of small scale, but its still experimental and there is still no solution for waste.

Meanwhile solar and wind are going in all over the place.
 
H

HungSowel

Well-known member
Mar 3, 2017
2,709
1,619
113
jcpro said:
50%-100% load can be achieved in two hours in the modern reactors. The newest designs will be capable of 25%-100% in 30min.
Click to expand...
Are these new designs in use? I keep hearing about new designs but usually, these designs have never been implemented.
 
J

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,673
6,836
113
HungSowel said:
Are these new designs in use? I keep hearing about new designs but usually, these designs have never been implemented.
Click to expand...
50%-100%/2h are in common use. Nuclear power management has been around a very long time and peak spikes are nothing special.
 
M

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
170
63
danmand said:
Why would that be?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/...lar-energy-from-1-of-the-sahara/#21f2c983d440
Click to expand...
Ask Kathleen Wynne and the few remaining Liberal MPPs at Queen's Park.

Governments like the previous one in Ontario have sunk billions into renewable energy. That has driven energy costs through the roof while doing next to nothing to reduce man-made greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the world set a new record in man-made emissions in 2018.

Renewable energy is too inefficient and unreliable to replace fossil fuels.

It may be nice to fantasize about a future based on wind and solar power -- as Greenpeace Canada's executive director does in this article from the Toronto Star. But if you really believe that man-made emissions have created a "climate emergency," you have to stop listening to zealots like the people at Greenpeace and start paying attention to realists who actually understand the issue.

As mentioned, Ontario used natural gas and nuclear power to phase out its coal-fired plants. The claim that the phasing out of coal was achieved through renewable energy was verified bullshit.

Even James Hansen -- the former climate director at NASA who is the so-called godfather of the man-made global warming hypothesis -- says nuclear power must be the centrepiece of any strategy to reduce emissions.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...he-only-viable-path-forward-on-climate-change
 
J

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,673
6,836
113
You must log in or register to reply here.
Ashley Madison
Previous Thread Next Thread
Toronto Escorts
Top Bottom