How I learned to stop worrying and love that nuclear power helps save the planet

[anatta]

To stop the global climate crisis, we need emissions-free energy more than ever – and for all its risks, atomic power seems like a necessary evil

[img]https://www.theglobeandmail.com/resizer/Zyfule66zG-u59O5M69kDu1-X9Y=/1200x0/filters:quality(80)/arc-anglerfish-tgam-prod-tgam.s3.amazonaws.com/public/5FIXKBD2UJHVJCBZLA43WZ44PQ

l opposed renewing the license for the power plant in Point Lepreau, which today provides 30 per cent of the province’s electricity. He cited the breakdown at the Fukushima Daiichi reactor in Japan, which had happened only a few months earlier. The world had watched in horror after an earthquake and tsunami set off a chain of reactions that resulted in three nuclear meltdowns and the release of radioactive materials.

Mr. Dalzell feared a natural disaster might cause a similar disruption, and expressed dismay that money might be spent on refurbishing the nuclear plant instead of developing renewable energy. And then, in all caps, he stated that the renewal hearing should be “amended to a decommissioning hearing” – in other words, he wanted the plant shut down for good.

Like Mr. Dalzell, I’ve long thought the risk of nuclear power – communities being exposed to radiation, either from plant accidents or waste – outweighed the benefits. I was freaked out by the idea well before HBO debuted its bleak yet curiously popular miniseries, Chernobyl, a dramatization of the April, 1986, disaster in Ukraine that remains the most infamous such incident in human history. Both the accident and the government cover-up led to public terror about nuclear power that hasn’t entirely subsided. Mr. Dalzell mentioned that meltdown in his letter, too.

In the case of Fukushima, 170,000 people within a 371-kilometre radius were evacuated, and 50,000 people still can’t go home. Many of those who have been given permission to return are too frightened to do so. Continuing decontamination will take at least 30 years, probably more. It seems like a pretty good reason not to want to increase Canada’s production of nuclear energy.

And yet, we might have no better option. The effects of climate change have become a regular part of the news cycle. In past decades, this spring’s flooding in Quebec and Ontario would have been described as once in a century; now, it’s almost expected. Last summer, a heat wave killed dozens in Montreal. Out west, people are bracing for a third consecutive summer of costly wildfires.

Some people point out that the causes of these floods and fires cannot be blamed on any one thing, yet climate scientists contend that the growing frequency of such disasters is to be expected as CO2 levels rise. And so events such as these, at home and worldwide, have caused me to wonder just how the threats posed by greenhouse gases stack up against those of nuclear power. I started to reconsider my position last fall, when my climate change anxiety evolved into a constant internal screaming, with the release of a report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It was focused on humanity’s time frame for honouring the 2015 Paris Agreement, and what happens if we don’t.

A reminder: 185 parties, including Canada, agreed to cut down on pumping excess carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere before the Earth’s temperature rises to 1.5 degrees above what it was in preindustrial times. The IPCC report, which was put together by 133 authors citing 6,000 scientific references, gave us a 12 year window to cut emissions enough to remain below the 1.5 degrees threshold. Or else.

We have an opportunity to limit the effects of climate change, but that requires dramatically reducing carbon emissions, starting now. Nuclear energy doesn’t create any. And so I began to wonder if it is, in fact, a reasonable solution to slowing down a warming world.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...that-it-might/

[moon]

Are opinions ' Current Events ' ?

[Jack]

"The benefits of standardisation for nuclear projects"
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...-22091601.html

[moon]

Rutherford splits an atom !



http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/manchest...00/8282223.stm

[cancel2 2022]

Are opinions ' Current Events ' ?

Of course they are, just shut the fuck up for once in your life.

[moon]

Of course they are, just shut the fuck up for once in your life.

AH- so you're going to TROLL me are you, maggot. Haw, haw...........haw.


An opinion is an event for YOU, you derivative wee parasite.

[anonymoose]

Are opinions ' Current Events ' ?

Sports, hobbies and pictures would be more appropriate.

[moon]

Yeah. Let's have a ' maggot ejaculation ' thread to keep the quality up.

[MAGA MAN]

My son drew this when he was in the 7th grade.
Make up Your Mind.jpg

[Micawber]

I see what you did. Smacks of effort. Three thumbs down

[Jarod]

We need nuclear.... but also solar and wind and hydro. Ultimately nuclear/fossil is limited.... there are plenty that are unlimited.... and thus no money in them long term, so those looking to make money prevent the government from allowing money to go into their development.

[Jarod]

We need nuclear.... but also solar and wind and hydro. Ultimately nuclear/fossil is limited.... there are plenty that are unlimited.... and thus no money in them long term, so those looking to make money prevent the government from allowing money to go into their development.

Lots of financial interests fighting against clean and cheap power.

[moon]

Lots of financial interests fighting against clean and cheap power.

Yeah. Jail 'em. Make ecocide a criminal offense.

[Jarod]

Yeah. Jail 'em. Make ecocide a criminal offense.

Silly... don’t jail em, simply vote out their minions.