Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...
Comments
Consider the amount of heat that is pumped into the Lakes in its effort to cool reactors. And what about the heat that rises out of their enclosures and heat the atmosphere continually? Tell me, is that not part of what we call "Global warming?" Consider Europe. Some reactors had to be shut down because the water levels had dropped so low that it was no longer possible to cool the reactors. Even shipping was affected. Do the politicians think us that dumb that we can not reason out that by continually dumping in heated water from the reactors cooling processes into the waterways and Lakes, it increases the rate of evaporation?
Both the prime minister and the premier have been informed that there is an alternative way to create electrical power without causing air pollution, global warming and wasting more of our non-renewable fuel sources. And how do we do that? By using a free and endless resource available world-wide, providing a constant reliable electrical power source, not dependent on solar or wind conditions. Furthermore, have we not learned our lesson as to the debts we incurred going Nuclear?
Take a look at your monthly hydro bill. Those charges named "Debt reduction" will be forever on our bills because we have not even started paying on the costs of de-commissioning existing Nuclear Generating Stations.
The remaining debt on having gone Nuclear is stil 35 billion dollars and all our payments made, don't seem to make an iota of difference!!
Gentlemen, be careful. You are playing with the future of many generations to come!
There is a better way. And it certainly will not even come close to the staggering costs of building Nuclear facilities. We have a better answer.
If Ontario is planning to go Nuclear it has a hard time convincing a lot of people that going Nuclear is an environmental friendly idea. Nuclear is not! ... Consider the amount of heat that is pumped into the Lakes in its effort to cool reactors. And what about the heat that rises out of their enclosures and heat the atmosphere continually? Tell me, is that not part of what we call "Global warming?"
Simon,
If you're going to try to be an "environmentalist," at least be prepared to learn a few of the key points to make yourself sound credible. I can understand if you flunk the test on nuclear (many "environmentalists" do), but you should at least know the alleged causes of "global warming." Go ask a climate scientist -- you just got an "F".
And in case you have not figured out, the answer to your last question (quoted above) is NO.
This means you need more cooling water, and can indeed more evaporation from lakes. However, if this is a problem, there are cooling tower designs that use air, not water, to cool the plants; and, furthermore, the efficiency loss that will be incurred if we ever actually build "clean coal" power stations will probably result in the coal-fired power stations using the same or more water than nuclear.
In any case, however, this is not what is causing global warming, according to climate scientists. The amount of heat dumped *directly* into the atmosphere by humans is miniscule compared to the amount provided by the sun (yes, even in Canada...). The problem with global warming is all about the increased amounts of CO2 and other gases in the atmosphere not letting heat escape into space as readily as it used to.