Q&A: What is cons for using nuclear power as a “green” energy source for canada?

Question by stefani: What is cons for using nuclear power as a “green” energy source for canada?
burning fossil fuels, such as coal, is contributing to global climate change, including dramatic changes in Canadian arctic. Should we consider using nuclear power as a “green” energy source for canada?
plz give me reasons why we shouldn’t use nuclear power as a green energy source for canada.

Best answer:

Answer by edthespartan
I’m not anti-nuke, but (a) nuke plants are potential targets for terrorists(who will eventually discover that Canada also exists and is enough like America that they should hate it too), (b) Three Mile Island and Chernobyl happened and (c) sooner or later, you have to do something with the spent nuclear fuel, and that’s a bugger.

I think that steps 1 and 2 should be to reduce energy consumption and then to maximize the use of safer technologies like geothermal and wind power.

Add your own answer in the comments!

3 Responses to “Q&A: What is cons for using nuclear power as a “green” energy source for canada?”

  1. Nuclear power green ??? nuclear is filthy – the used nuclear waste has a half life of hundreds to thousands of years – it never goes away or becomes less dangerous to humans and other life on the planet – if the nuclear plant has an accident and melts down there goes that part of the planet, possibly for good – think Chernobyl in Russia, 3 Mile Island in the US -( that was a near miss). The site in Russia is still toxic to this day. Not to mention they are a nice target for terrorists, if you are paranoid. Solar, wind, etc. is possible in Canada, solar works anywhere the sun hits, you have wind, right ?? there are so many other ways to generate clean energy.

  2. mr_nice_guy1125 Reply May 21, 2012 at 3:15 pm

    There is no reason not to use Nuclear Power.

    It does NOT pollute.

    It takes 200 of the most powerful wind turbines to equal the least powerful reactor in service in canada (3MW wind turbines vs 600MW Reactors in Pickering).

    The waste is toxic yes. But we have the technological know-how to deal with it. We just lack political support and funding to do it because of all the ignorance and fear regarding the issue. Read about the Oklo Natural Reactors in Africa. That’s proof that you can bury spent fuel deep in the earth and it won’t harm a soul.

    Anyone who thinks we can meet the world energy demand with windmills and solar panels without destroying our economy, and our current standard of life is crazy. Nuclear is the only feasible option for meeting the demand.

    I hear an interesting speech by the energy minister of ontario a couple years ago, about how more energy efficient technologies are actually driving energy demand up! It’s because these technologies, which use less energy, then cost less to run, so it becomes affordable to run 2 or 3 of them. So now instead of using one, they’re using 3, and whatever energy they saved on 1 being made more efficient, is surpassed by running 2 more.

    You can’t change people. Nuclear is the only option.

  3. Spent nuclear fuel, while toxic, is also extremely compact. There are also many processes available to make it more compact and less toxic, although not all countries use them. (I’m thinking reprocessing, specifically; which, for example, France does but the U.S. does not.)

    I love that the “greenies” here both mentioned Three Mile Island as examples of the evils of nuclear power. There were ZERO fatalities at TMI and the other reactor at TMI that was not involved in the accident continues to produce electricity to this day.

    Even Chernobyl, the deadliest nuclear accident in history, only killed about 50 people directly. There is some debate about the numbers that died indirectly, but scientific estimates put it in the hundreds. There may be as many as 4000 early deaths in total (see linked report). Keep in mind that Chernobyl was plant built specifically for producing nuclear weapons material. At the height of the cold war the Soviet Union’s engineers DID NOT take public safety as the primary consideration, and even then it took the plant’s operators violating multiple safety procedures to get the plant to react in the way it did. (Over a dozen versions of the Chernobyl plant operated for decades without any incident.)

    The reports you see (made by greenies like our friends here) that claim 10’s or 100’s of thousands of deaths are based on the assumption that every person who died in the effected areas since the accident (over 20 years ago) were due to the accident. That is ridiculous. The deaths they are claiming as accident-related are senior citizens who have since died of normal old age. Most reports point out that the medical attention that came to the impoverished area after the attack probably resulted in many more lives being saved by the application of normal preventative health care than were lost due to residual effects of radiation exposure.

The owner of this website is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon properties including, but not limited to, amazon.com, endless.com, myhabit.com, smallparts.com, or amazonwireless.com.