Going Green

[GordonH]

Curious how much hydro electricity will it take to keep blast furnace going, I suspect a lot. Ontario will probably seriously have to build more nuclear power plants to keep up with demand. Can’t think of to many rivers that can be dam up.

https://www.castanet.net/news/Business/ ... et-to-rise

[Hurtlander]

Curious how much hydro electricity will it take to keep blast furnace going, I suspect a lot. Ontario will probably seriously have to build more nuclear power plants to keep up with demand. Can’t think of to many rivers that can be dam up.

https://www.castanet.net/news/Business/ ... et-to-rise

It’s already been determined that BC will have to double its electricity generating capacity by 2055 to meet the “green” agenda. Yet nobody wants anymore rivers damed because of the environmental impact, nobody wants a nuclear reactor in their backyard because of the environmental impact, nobody wants coal or NG fired power plants etc because of the environmental impact, yet a growing number of mental-midgets think that solar and wind is the ultimate solution to future energy needs. What about the environmental impact of strip-mining the earth of is rare earth minerals to build solar and wind arrays ? What about all the diesel powered heavy equipment used to mine the rare earth minerals ? I used to support the idea of using solar for personal use until I learned about both the harmful environment impact of digging rare earth minerals out of the ground to build solar panels, and some of the components for wind generators, and also the fact that much of these rare earth mineral deposits that are being mined are in third world and developing nations, with no regard given to the indigenous peoples in those countries..

[Jlabute]

I noticed this too. If not hydro, then nuclear. Sure the heck wont’t be done with solar and wind since a furnace requires high quality reliable power. All sorts of steel making terminology I am not too familiar with. A blast furnace is used to smelt iron from ore to make steel and has about a 400 tonne capacity? We are talking about making steel, and not making things from steel?

If a 60 tonne crucible normally needs 40MW, then lets just say 400 tonnes needs 250MW. This would be 2190GWh+ annually. It would be like using the other half of Site-C where the first Half of Site-C is theoretically spoken for by the CO2 extraction and hydrogen electrolysis plant planned for Merritt to annually make 105M liters of diesel.

I am sure this will make everything more expensive. So long as people vote liberal, green, or NDP, carbon taxes will skyrocket, inflation will skyrocket, prices and availability of goods will get far worse.

[GordonH]

I’ve flown over Ontario numerous times and see wind turbines dotted the landscape. Increased power needed in years to come... say goodbye to the forest and say hello to thousands of wind turbines.

Green on paper looks great... in reality not so good.

[hobbyguy]

I agree that bulk sources of 24/7 electricity are going to be key to the future. There is only the one proven technology for that - safe nuclear.

Unfortunately, there is a LOT of hysteria surrounding nuclear energy. However, if you look at it, two of the "greenest" countries, France and Finland, are heavily reliant on safe nuclear. 70% of France's electricity is from nuclear. In 2018 France generated 582 Terra Watt hours of electricity from nuclear. In 2013 Canada generated 613 Terra Watt hours of electricity. So almost equivalent to the total generation in Canada.

France does not "glow in the dark" as the purveyors of hysteria would like to portray. 56 nuclear power plants operating - built between 1969 and 1999. Low cost electricity compared to the rest of Europe. Only 12 nuclear plant incidents since 1969, and zero fatalities attributed. France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity.

And yes, France has been bitten by the hysteria created after Fukushima and plans to reduce its dependence on nuclear power to 50% of its generation capacity.

The other part of the equation of hysteria that gets forgotten is that most nuclear plants were built 50-60 years ago. Fukushima was built using 1960s technology and 1960s thinking - we have learned a LOT since then and technology has advanced a LOT since then. Your cellphone has more computing power than a desk sized computer from the 1960s. Etc. etc.

Every responsible plan, like the UK's, to get to net zero requires (not optional) substantial investments in new nuclear power plants.

There are few alternatives for 24/7 clean electricity. Promising but plagued with problems is Enhanced Geothermal. Not ready for prime time, and may not ever be due to induced seismic effects. Hydroelectric power is pretty much built out - and the effects on the environment are too great in almost all cases (e.g. the Moran Dam proposal in BC).

The current "game" being played by politicians unwilling (due to Fukushima hysteria) to face the reality of needing nuclear power is wind/solar/storage/pumped hydro plus natural gas. VERY expensive, large environmental footprint, and does not get to net zero.

Australia has gone the wind/solar/storage/pumped hydro plus natural gas and has electricity rates triple what we pay! Plus Australia still relies on coal for 54% of its electricity - yikes!!!

There is a huge amount of energy from fossil fuels that needs to be replaced. We can't get there with wind/solar/storage intermittent/seasonal generation.

[GordonH]

I agree that bulk sources of 24/7 electricity are going to be key to the future. There is only the one proven technology for that - safe nuclear.

Unfortunately, there is a LOT of hysteria surrounding nuclear energy. However, if you look at it, two of the "greenest" countries, France and Finland, are heavily reliant on safe nuclear. 70% of France's electricity is from nuclear. In 2018 France generated 582 Terra Watt hours of electricity from nuclear. In 2013 Canada generated 613 Terra Watt hours of electricity. So almost equivalent to the total generation in Canada.

France does not "glow in the dark" as the purveyors of hysteria would like to portray. 56 nuclear power plants operating - built between 1969 and 1999. Low cost electricity compared to the rest of Europe. Only 12 nuclear plant incidents since 1969, and zero fatalities attributed. France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity.

And yes, France has been bitten by the hysteria created after Fukushima and plans to reduce its dependence on nuclear power to 50% of its generation capacity.

The other part of the equation of hysteria that gets forgotten is that most nuclear plants were built 50-60 years ago. Fukushima was built using 1960s technology and 1960s thinking - we have learned a LOT since then and technology has advanced a LOT since then. Your cellphone has more computing power than a desk sized computer from the 1960s. Etc. etc.

Every responsible plan, like the UK's, to get to net zero requires (not optional) substantial investments in new nuclear power plants.

There are few alternatives for 24/7 clean electricity. Promising but plagued with problems is Enhanced Geothermal. Not ready for prime time, and may not ever be due to induced seismic effects. Hydroelectric power is pretty much built out - and the effects on the environment are too great in almost all cases (e.g. the Moran Dam proposal in BC).

The current "game" being played by politicians unwilling (due to Fukushima hysteria) to face the reality of needing nuclear power is wind/solar/storage/pumped hydro plus natural gas. VERY expensive, large environmental footprint, and does not get to net zero.

Australia has gone the wind/solar/storage/pumped hydro plus natural gas and has electricity rates triple what we pay! Plus Australia still relies on coal for 54% of its electricity - yikes!!!

There is a huge amount of energy from fossil fuels that needs to be replaced. We can't get there with wind/solar/storage intermittent/seasonal generation.

Nuclear power plants is in my opinion the best option.

[Jlabute]

Yup to all the above. Gordon I especially agree that wind and solar require too much cleared landscape. Not good for the environment at all. Not appropriate off-shore either emitting disturing vibrations under water. Small Modular Reactors I hope are an option. An iron ore smelting plant could fully use its own SMR with nothing left over.

[Boosted632]

I agree that bulk sources of 24/7 electricity are going to be key to the future. There is only the one proven technology for that - safe nuclear.

Unfortunately, there is a LOT of hysteria surrounding nuclear energy. However, if you look at it, two of the "greenest" countries, France and Finland, are heavily reliant on safe nuclear. 70% of France's electricity is from nuclear. In 2018 France generated 582 Terra Watt hours of electricity from nuclear. In 2013 Canada generated 613 Terra Watt hours of electricity. So almost equivalent to the total generation in Canada.

France does not "glow in the dark" as the purveyors of hysteria would like to portray. 56 nuclear power plants operating - built between 1969 and 1999. Low cost electricity compared to the rest of Europe. Only 12 nuclear plant incidents since 1969, and zero fatalities attributed. France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity.

And yes, France has been bitten by the hysteria created after Fukushima and plans to reduce its dependence on nuclear power to 50% of its generation capacity.

The other part of the equation of hysteria that gets forgotten is that most nuclear plants were built 50-60 years ago. Fukushima was built using 1960s technology and 1960s thinking - we have learned a LOT since then and technology has advanced a LOT since then. Your cellphone has more computing power than a desk sized computer from the 1960s. Etc. etc.

Every responsible plan, like the UK's, to get to net zero requires (not optional) substantial investments in new nuclear power plants.

There are few alternatives for 24/7 clean electricity. Promising but plagued with problems is Enhanced Geothermal. Not ready for prime time, and may not ever be due to induced seismic effects. Hydroelectric power is pretty much built out - and the effects on the environment are too great in almost all cases (e.g. the Moran Dam proposal in BC).

The current "game" being played by politicians unwilling (due to Fukushima hysteria) to face the reality of needing nuclear power is wind/solar/storage/pumped hydro plus natural gas. VERY expensive, large environmental footprint, and does not get to net zero.

Australia has gone the wind/solar/storage/pumped hydro plus natural gas and has electricity rates triple what we pay! Plus Australia still relies on coal for 54% of its electricity - yikes!!!

There is a huge amount of energy from fossil fuels that needs to be replaced. We can't get there with wind/solar/storage intermittent/seasonal generation.

Nuclear power plants is in my opinion the best option.

Other than that pesky nuclear waste that hangs around for thousands of years

[GordonH]

Nuclear power plants is in my opinion the best option.

Other than that pesky nuclear waste that hangs around for thousands of years

So what would be your choice to produce electricity needs.

[Jlabute]

Nuclear power plants is in my opinion the best option.

Other than that pesky nuclear waste that hangs around for thousands of years

Sure, until one day it can be recycled for other purposes, such as molten salt reactors. The total amount of nuclear waste in the USA at this time would fill a box 16m x 16m x 16m. Not as though there is alot, and so far it has been safe. The waste will be fuel in the near future.

[hobbyguy]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshe ... 5cbb5e562e

That article gives some perspective. I can NOT think of any significant problem that has occurred with the waste fuel from nuclear reactors.

And yup, the spent fuel rods from normal reactors can be recycled as fuel in some advanced reactors. To the point where 17% of Frances nuclear power comes from recycled nuclear fuel.

I get why people get freaked out by nuclear reactors.

They think about bombs - which are an entirely different technology, especially the "big boys" thermonuclear bombs that use fusion.

They think about radiation - and folks always freak out about threats they can't see. Radiation is all around us. Radon gas radiation in many homes. Background cosmic radiation hits us every day. Sunlight is a form of radiation. Go to the dentist? Yup, a dental X-ray is radiation. Cat scans in medicine. Microwaves are a form of radiation. Cancer treatments. And so on.

While those are valid concerns, bombs and nuclear power reactors do NOT go together, and the risks to the public from radiation from nuclear power plants gets exaggerated. The risk in the United States of developing Leukemia during your lifetime is about 1.5%. People exposed to radiation from Fukushima are calculated to have a 7% higher risk IF exposed as infants, making the risk grow from 1.5% to a 1.6% likelihood of developing Leukemia. That relatively small increased risk of .1% decreases the older you are when exposed.

If instead of the reporting being that people (mostly men) are 7% more likely to get Leukemia IF exposed as infants, the reporting stated that the risk of getting Leukemia increases from a 1.5% chance to a 1.6% most people would shrug that off. But the 7% freaks them and is "sensational" - so that's what gets reported. Similarly, the risk of girls with Fukushima radiation exposure getting Thyroid cancer is 70% higher - but still only a 1.25% chance. The "70%" is, of course, what will "make headlines". Yes, there is increased risk for cancer from a Fukushima type event, and cancer is always a tragic diagnosis - but the increased risk is very small - and Fukushima type events are exceedingly rare.

It is, in essence, irrational to worry about the relatively minor downsides of safe nuclear energy and the exceedingly rare events. Modern safe nuclear reactors simply can NOT "do a Chernobyl" nor even "a Three Mile Island", and nobody is going to site a new nuclear power plant as poorly as Fukushima was situated! Fukushima was not actually a "nuclear accident", but a nuclear accident that resulted from a big tsunami.

There is no "free lunch". Watch folks get all up in a tizzy if one started ringing Vancouver with ugly wind turbines and chopping down swaths of forest around Vancouver for the connecting power transmission lines! And rightly so - the amount of land required to build "wind farms" and the associated transmission infrastructure for relatively small amounts of power is ridiculous!

The typical French safe nuclear plant is 1.3 GW. Theoretically, a big wind turbine will generate 2.5 MW - but only when the wind blows - and possibly when not needed. Generously, the real usable power from a wind turbine will be about 30% of its rated capacity - or about .75 MW. That means you have to build about 1,733 wind turbines, plus all the connecting power lines, plus a transmission line instead of 1 safe nuclear plant and 1 large transmission line.

And never mind that during major power demand events, like a heat dome or a major arctic high, the wind tends to disappear once the event has settled in - leaving you with no wind power when everybody is maxing out their needs! Can you spell blackouts?

And never mind that safe nuclear power plants are lasting 60-100 years while wind turbines have a typical lifespan of 20 years.

It is a shame that the "green advocates" are clueless when it comes to safe nuclear energy. They are making it politically difficult for governments to do the right thing to solve the GHG emissions problem, and doing so from a position ignorant dogma.

[Jlabute]

The typical French safe nuclear plant is 1.3 GW. Theoretically, a big wind turbine will generate 2.5 MW - but only when the wind blows - and possibly when not needed. Generously, the real usable power from a wind turbine will be about 30% of its rated capacity - or about .75 MW. That means you have to build about 1,733 wind turbines, plus all the connecting power lines, plus a transmission line instead of 1 safe nuclear plant and 1 large transmission line.

Personally, I am more scared of wind-power. I’ll take your 1,733 LARGE turbines and multiply by 56, the number of nuclear plants in France to come up to 97,048 turbines. Might as well round up to 100,000 for good measure and they still wont perform as well. You have to rebuild all of them after 20 years (which may be a tad generous imo) not to mention many people die or are injured maintaining these dangerous things.

If one can imagaine how much forrest needs to be cleared to make room for 100,000 turbines then you can imagine how permanently ecologically devastating it is. Shellenberger is right to support nuclear.

Some say:

By 10 years of age, the report found that the contribution of an average UK windfarm towards meeting electricity demand had declined by a third.
That reduction in performance leads the study team to believe that it will be uneconomic to operate windfarms for more than 12 to 15 years – at odds with industry predictions of a 20- to 25-year lifespan

Not only is wind more ecologically damaging, more people die from wind farm maintenance and that is nowhere near 100,000 turbines. If a wind farm lasts 10 years, I bet rebuilding a wind farm of 1,733 turbines 10 times over is a lot more expensive than one nuclear plant.

[erinmore3775]

HG is absolutely correct.

"It is, in essence, irrational to worry about the relatively minor downsides of safe nuclear energy and the exceedingly rare events. Modern safe nuclear reactors simply can NOT "do a Chernobyl" nor even "a Three Mile Island", and nobody is going to site a new nuclear power plant as poorly as Fukushima was situated! Fukushima was not actually a "nuclear accident", but a nuclear accident that resulted from a big tsunami.

There is no "free lunch". Watch folks get all up in a tizzy if one started ringing Vancouver with ugly wind turbines and chopping down swaths of forest around Vancouver for the connecting power transmission lines! And rightly so - the amount of land required to build "wind farms" and the associated transmission infrastructure for relatively small amounts of power is ridiculous! "

Most forms of passive green energy have significant disadvantages. Wind and solar need large geographic expanses to produce substantial electricity, produce visual and ecological pollution, and are intermittent. They are not suitable for providing power for industrial or extraction sites like the Alberta oil sands. Salt nuclear reactor electrical production is the solution ford are ideal the oil sand. Forty present of petroleum production is used to produce medicines, fabrics, plastics, construction material, etc. These material will continue to be an important part of our lifestyle and existence for years to come.

Major oil sands companies are already investing in the development of blue ammonia and blue hydrogen production facilities. The oil sands are unique and are ideal for the production of low carbon based blue ammonia and hydrogen. Those environmentalists who want Canada's oil sands completely shut down fail to realize that petrochemical products play an important part in our lives and that Canada/Albera is in a unique position to supply low carbon pollution petroleum stock. Blue ammonia and hydrogen have significant futures in the clean industrial and fuel future. Canada also has a great future in clean safe nuclear power production through salt nuclear reactors.

https://majorprojects.alberta.ca/detail ... ility/4509. Blue ammonia/hydrogen

https://www.moltexenergy.com/our-first-reactor/ salt reactor New Brunswick

[Jlabute]

Yup. Radiophobia, coined as far back as 1903. It includes those afraid of receiving medical x-rays, standing beside loudspeakers, power-lines, radon gas, nuclear power plants, etc. Steve Jobs and Bob Marley refused radiation therapy for their cancer. Irrational it is. I wouldn’t have expected Steve Jobs to refuse radiation of surgery, instead he was full on natural therapies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiophobia

[OKkayak]

Every form of energy production has some sort of negative effect on the environment. We need to focus on reduction of energy dependency and consumption until we can find a truly sustainable energy source.