To Rafe: It all begins with awareness. Awareness leads to maturity. Maturity leads to evolution. Evolution is change. Growth. Fulfillment of true potential. To think that any one of us are not works in progress... is to not question how or why people do and say what they do and say.

Where you were in the past, Rafe, doesn't concern me half so much as where you at now, or will be in the future. Im certain that the first comment beads off you like rain on wax.

Holidays... article time restraints... its easy to see why you've just scratched the surface, here. But you have scratched it, Rafe. You have hit the jackpot. You've hit the motherload subject of them all, and I'm going to do whatever it takes to uncover the information we are all looking for, because you did some extremely impressive... something that is, well, genius. You admitted your partial weakness on the subject, gave us a localized place to start, and then you asked for a full debate!!!

You stepped aside for a moment to see what the public really knows or thinks they know and that, is nothing short of brilliant, especially when we know that things have to change, no matter what, or we'll have a green housed planet on our hands and war, on the way down. I'll help you all I can on this one, and keep you posted with hardcore facts. 2 days.

In all fairness, the issue was really brought to the surface by James Lovelock, the author of the Gaia hypothesis, in an article in the Independent way back in May of 2004. The combination of Lovelock's impeccable Green credentials and advocacy for nuclear fuel as a way out of the impending global warming catastrophe has understandably attracted a fair bit of attention, especially when Nicholas Kristof followed with an editorial in the New York Times entitled 'Nukes are Green' in April 2005.

Leaving aside the question of the safety of nuclear power (a substantial issue indeed), what is really required is to address the practicality of the situation: would nuclear power answer our energy needs? Certainly nuclear power could reduce greenhouse gases emitted by coal-fire electrical generating plants. But it would do nothing to reduce our reliance on oil for automobiles. That is, unless we were to use nuclear energy to produce hydrogen. That solution would work, but would require a wholesale change in the production and refueling of cars.

Two questions are relevant. Should we go down that road? Hard to say, but it is certainly worth gathering the best thinkers on the subject and thinking through the implications. One thing is for certain – it will not come without a price, both monetary and ecological. Will we go down that road? I fear that our current political system rewards only short-term solutions, and that the political will required to address long-term issues such as this is absent.

Before we go down the nuclear path, I think we should radically look at other 'clean' methods of power generation. Calgary's LRT is powered by electricity generated by wind power.

First we must curb our power consumption. We must rationalise how we use electricity. Timing switches in hallways, small things like this would be a good start. Everyhome should have solar panels, which would have 'solar' outlets in the house to power minor appliances. Force people with swimming pools to heat them only by solar power.

I think great savings can be made in electric consumption in North America, only if we would try.

Then let's have an honest debate on nuclear power, not the shrill anti-nuke stuff!

We don't need nuclear power stations nor the accompanying hazards they present. There are few areas where we are more victimized by deliberately withheld technology than that of electricity production.

Wave power alone has the potential to provide all of Vancouver Island's electrical power needs, plus a surplus to the grid.

Ugliness is in the eye of the beholder. Some may like barren landscapes - or seascapes. I happen to like the view of windmills and wind turbines.

From the article:

A cute comment, but one that did not take into account the delayed cancers - many, quite possibly, not even attributed to the event.

Well said, fellows, and your fears are justified. Firstly, it takes a minimum of 5 to 10 years to start building nuclear plants from scratch. There are too many variables needed to make nuke plants successful. We need firstly, friendly governments. We need safe area's to build them, area's safe from quakes and floods and acts of God. We need proven designs, and we still have to build them safely. The designs, I believe we have, but, safe governments? Safe contractors? Safe area's to build? How many nuclear power plants do we have already operating past their prime in other countries?

Until we look at the safety of governments, designs, locations, construction, decommissions, replacement and waste disposal on an international scale, humanity isn't ready for it. Imagine the opposition against nuke plants in construction if other plants around the world started turning up disasterous consequences. We minimize 3 mile, for example, but we know that radiation levels are still elevated around a 200 mile radius to this day, with all of the increased cancer levels to go with it. We have far safer alternatives of heat than nuclear and hydrocarbons.

Give me a couple of days to research Geothermal and refractive light heat sources more thoroughly, and yes, with excess power, we most definitely can go down the hydrogen highway, mainly because we no longer have a choice.

Most of us just don't realize the dangers to the long term consequencences of the atmospheric half life's of CO2 and Methane gases. If we all knew how long it would actually take to reduce current astronomical levels of both of these greenhouse gases... especially combined with where we are presently at with the Earths orbital eccentricity... we could already be at a critical threshhold or past it, without even knowing it.

We've got some real battles coming up here, and its not so much informational as it will be moral, but some things are on our side. Disasters, either pandemical, environmental, weather or otherwise, have a way of banding us all together, regardless of our differences in morals and beliefs or non beliefs. Everyone who has a brain, has one thing in common. We all want to survive. Survival is the key to leading big business to a better way. Give me 2 days.

The Brain points out that there are some other options for power production, Geothermal, Tidal, Waste enzyme consumption (which produces methane and thermal), and a number of Hydrogen possibilites.

Then the Brain also points out the problem, they are all still very experimental, only in production in a limited capacity (wind being the most developed with possibly Geothermal available as ready to go) there are no options ready 'off-the-shelf' to go directly into production. The R&D costs are too much to bear for even leaders in the Hydrogen production systems like Vancouver's own Ballard Power. Just like the time needed to create a viable Nuclear Power Plant or the Site C dam, these R&D delays in money and time are what will force our hand towards more Hydro electricity in BC, for now.

The solution for the long term is in more funding and for and greater emphasis on R&D of all sorts of power generation. The limited deregulation for power generation in BC is a start, but that will only get 'off-the-shelf' solutions going. A real kick-start would be a significant prize for Research, say $1 Billion, or perhaps a Development grant of a similar size or commitment, say $100 million per year for 10 years, to get a promising power generation technology into production.

We have many of the ideas already in existence, Tesla and others at the start of the last century were experimenting with BIG POWER. Lets learn from their experiments and put those lessons into practice.

Nuclear power is not really an option for solving the power problem as it is also a finite resource. Some sources state only a 25/50 supply of uranium is left to recover, and the waste will be around for a billion years.

Didn't RTFA, but my understanding is the cheapest, most available source of energy is.... wait for it... drumroll please, conservation.

We have to find ways to use less energy first, not ramp up a production method that has potentially disastrous ramifications.

It's akin to telling a mordibly obese person they can solve their weight and health problems by switching to Diet Coke, instead of getting to the root of the problem.

Also, if "tides are intermittent and unreliable", how come one can get tide tables for an entire year in advance?

Seems to me the tides and winds are a bit like death and taxes, they'll always be around. More than you can say for all these sources that require consuming fuel to make fuel, ie coal-fired, nuclear, etc. Factor in OPEC's hand constantly turning the tap to regulate oil flow to meet their profit needs, and the wind and water look positively Rolex-ian in their reliability.

As Burgess said, nuclear power relies on a finite resource. In assessing nuclear power, we cannot forget the environment damage and energy consumption from by mining uranium.

Omit the "by" in the post above.

Steam turbine generators, gas turbine generators, diesel engine generators, alternate energy systems (except photovoltaics), even nuclear power plants all operate on the same principle - magnets plus copper wire plus motion equals electric current. The electricity produced is the same, regardless of its source.

In a steam power plant, fuels (such as petroleum, coal, or biomass) are burned to heat water which turns into steam, which goes through a turbine, which spins...turning the copper wire (armature) inside the generator and generating an electric current.

A geothermal power plant is pretty much a steam power plant, since what comes out of the earth is steam. There are different kinds of geothermal plants out there, though, mainly decided by the terrain itself. There are Binary plants, Flash steam plants, Hybrids of Binary/Flash plants, (Hawaii generates 25% of its power from a binary/flash hybrid geothermal plant.) and Dry steam plants. Calpine Corp. in California has had a dry steam field that generates steam with the usage of 11 million gallons of Treated waste water to generate a billion watts of power, no small feat. Its the largest Geothermal in the world and has lit up San Fransico since 1960.
The problem that appears with Geothermal, is that it seems to be limited to the Pac Rim, but I wouldn't be to firm on this.

The Earths crust is 3 to 35 miles thick. Obviously, the thinner area's of the crust, or magma pools that are known to be closer to the surface throughout the world, need to be exploited with geothermal, but there is also the need for water to do this large scale. With Geothermal, location is everything. Engineers predict that the world could be powered by geothermal somewhere in the nieghborhood of 5 to 10%, but government and private initiatives can increase these levels dramatically.

In a gas turbine power plant, fuels are burned to create hot gases which go through a turbine, which spins...turning the copper armature inside the generator and generating an electric current.

In a nuclear power plant, nuclear reactions create heat to heat water, which turns into steam, which goes through a turbine, which spins...turning the copper armature inside the generator and generating an electric current.

In a wind turbine, the wind pushes against the turbine blades, causing the rotor to spin...turning the copper armature inside the generator and generating an electric current.

In a hydroelectric turbine, flowing (or falling) water pushes against the turbine blades, causing the rotor to spin...turning the copper armature inside the generator and generating an electric current. It doesn't matter, really, what it is... even tides! It's all the same kind of power generation in the back end and I don't want to bore you all with this, but... it suggests several things.

When someone asks us where our power comes from, its coming from water and air or both, creating pressure from heat or gravity, usually, but not always with steam, pushing turbines that turn the copper armature inside the generator, generating well over 99% of the worlds current energy supply. Scales are dependent on initial sources of heat and pressure. Environmental issues of safety are dependent on the safety of the same initial sources of heat and pressure to turn turbines. Sizes, scales and initiatives are dependent on? Are you lefties ready for this? CAPITAL. Money! Resources! As much as I like being an environmentalist, certain facts have to be faced.
We are going to need ferrous mines and capital, for the greater good of the planet as a whole, at the very least, if we want to plug in and I don't see any of us going back to the horse and buggy dark ages... everyone agree?

Perhaps not horse and buggy, but something between that and our current plague of SUVs is likely in the offing. The real issue, and one that everyone will have to grapple with soon, is that irrespective of any technological advances that may come down the road, as oil is depleted over the next decade or two, we will have a gap. The result might only be moderately discomfort, but it might just as well be significant pain. There is an old adage worth remembering: the unhappiness that people feel when things are taken away from them far outstrips the happiness they might have experienced when it was first given to them. Things could get a bit ugly....

We have excess capitol in this world, so I hear, (although I’m not so sure all that U.S. red ink would agree) along with all kinds of power generation already in place that can be refitted for new sources of heat and pressure to phase out CO2 emissions within 20 years, replacing them with the most viable heat sources of all… geothermal, and, quite possibly, refractive light. All we need is the initiative and this initiative will come from all sources. Sources that are economic, sources that are natural and raw, institutional sources of government and education, sources of financing, sources of manpower and labor, of design, and yes, sources of the MEDIA. We are going to need everyone’s help with this one, because it’s a global effort! Conservation, continued imaginative creative thinking, cold fusion would be nice, but.... And the greatest source we are going need of all is, are you righties ready for this? LOVE!!!

Lets take a good long look at where our energy currently comes from, besides charkas, flowers and moon beams of light.

U.S. net generated energy 2000 stats:
Coal 1968 Billion kilowatt hours
Nuclear 754 Billion kilowatts
Natural Gas 612 Billion kilowatts
Water (dams) 273 Billion kilowatts
Petroleum 109 Billion kilowatts
Other 84 Billion kilowatts
For those of us who aren’t good with ratios and proportions, Coal was the fuel used to generate the largest share 51.8% of electricity in 2000. This is over one and a half times the annual electricity consumption of all U.S. households. Nuclear generating units (nuclear fission heat to steam driven power) accounted for the second largest share (20 percent) of electricity generation in the United States in 2000, 754 billion kWh. Natural gas was used to generate 16.1%, hydro water dam projects generated 7% and petroleum accounted for 3 percent.

Non water renewable sources of electricity generation presently contribute only small amounts (about 2 percent) to total power production. These sources include geothermal, refuse, waste heat, waste steam, solar, wind, and wood. Electricity generation from these sources in 2000 totaled 84 billion kWh. Total electric power industry generation in 2000 was 3,800 billion kWh, 2.5 percent greater than the 1999 total of 3,705 billion kWh. Of this total, utilities net generation for 2000 was 3,015 billion kWh, and net generation by non-utility power producers was 785 billion kWh.

In year 2000, approximately 40 quads of energy were used to generate electricity. Roughly one-third of this was converted into the 13 quads of electricity that reached end-users (3,800 billion kilowatt hours). The other two-thirds wound up mostly as waste heat and dissipated into the environment. A further two thirds of the electricity generated was lost in transport through power lines. We are currently 10% efficient.

1999 saw 2.5 % less electricity usage than 2000. If this incremental increase is the average, and if we factor in new housing starts and GDP industrial growth, we were using 10 to 15% more electricity in 2005 than the current given numbers.

Now… I know I’ll be accused of plagiarizing, when I quote from a couple of websites, but... It saves you all the mouse clicks.

Lets recap. Over 99% of the Worlds current energy supply is from? Water and or air, combined with heat and/or pressure against turbine blades, causing the rotor to spin...turning the copper armature inside the generator and generating an electric current.

We currently use fossil fuels to create the heat and pressure necessary to generate 71% of our electricity, with another 20% being generated from heat driven steam plants from nuclear reactors. Both are considered to be highly dangerous to our present environments from either CO2 or radiation. What is the answer? I'd like to say GEOTHERMAL, but I can't yet 100% confirm this, largely because of two suspicions. The first is that we have had this tech to exploit in the private sector and haven't yet done it. Are we lazy? Complacent? Poor political leaders? Apathetic? Too distracted with easier ways to make money?
Maybe so... Maybe not... but if big brother doesn't give geo thermal a good look in Canada and the U.S., then what else is there? Hydrogen's problem would be solved with more electricity for hydrolysis. From there, we could put transportation on electricity and use bio diesel and gas for the truck payloads, but lets be reasonable about the timelines we've got. Get a political mandate to phase certain energy goals and targets to the majority of electricity and transportation as being envirionmentally clean by 2025 if not world wide, than at least right here in Canada, even provincially. Its enough time to adjust... maybe even our planet. Man, these are tough questions... I'll need more time.

I'm just hoping I don't have to rifle out facts to some wingnut who still doesn't believe in the seriousness of global warming...

I don't doubt that those wedded to fossil fuels and mega projects, such as the Site C project would become, will dump on wind and solar-produced electricity for their "unreliability", but the fact is that these alternatives, and others, if adopted, would permit even the gradual retiring of dams and fosill-fuelled plants. Then an attempt might be made to return certain rivers close to their previous natural state.

I know the potential of solar - even on overcast days - having reduced my Hydro bill by a third with a roof-mounted construction that pre-heated the cold water supply to the hot water tank. Minimal plumbing and carpentry skills plus $200 in materials were all I required.

Anybody else thinking of re-nicknaming Rafe Dr. Glow?

About two billion years ago there was a sustained nuclear reaction in Gabon, Africa over a period of several tens of thousands of years. (See Scientific American Nov. 2005) The same type of explosion occured in the Soviet Union a few years back in a waste storage site. Why would we even think of this as a solution for our power supply? Go Green with Geothermal, tidal and water power. The only folks who stand to 'win' with nuclear are the 'power parasites' who are only in the business to suck as many taxpayers dollars as they can for their own greedy purposes. Just research the record of the nuclear power industry - it is truly horrific.

Note that the "Fraser Institute" dynamic trio are not posting today? Maybe tomorrow when they are back in their cushy paid positions in the computer bank in the back room we will be 'enlightened' by their rhetoric.

Burgess, the same must be true of Ron Ermine

Recent US dollar prices per thermal megawatt-hour:
Brent Crude 35.9, natural gas 44.43
(http://money.cnn.com/data/commodities/ ),
coal 5.2 (average for first eight months of 2005
according to
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html),
uranium 0.575
(http://www.uxc.com/).

Those are the prices the *suppliers* get.
For crude oil, natural gas, and coal there are also
special taxes. Petroleum revenue is a significant
part of several western governments' incomes, cf.
http://www.opec.org/library/Special%20Publications/pdf/2004.pdf

That, and the tradition that the left opposes nuclear
energy while the right does not, makes it look to me
as if such opposition is associated with an interest in
public fossil fuel revenue. It is in this light that the above attempt to exclude voices from outside the echo chamber, based on their time of posting should be seen.

BC would do better to build nuclear power stations than more hydro. We in Ontario have sad experience with hydro -- http://www.cbc.ca/ottawa/story/barrett020624.html -- and none, of course, with nuclear.

--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
boron as energy carrier: real-car range, nuclear cachet

Balah, Blaha Blaha....no solutions, just the same old crudy rhetoric about the Best (or Cheapest) way to find a solution, what is most needed is MONEY, Donations for the research that is needed to bring all the best ideas together Geothermal obviously has limmitations, so does wind, wave, and Hydrogen....But all together they could go a long wat toward helping ease the problem.....Why is it that we have to reject one after another good idea and rush around trying to find the next golden fleese?...We are fiddling while Rome burns!....Somebody (with money) Get something started, and stop looking for ways to help without spending any money on research! Just Do it...the payoff will be in the clear air, water, and the energy we dont have to worry about killing us down the road.....even the best ideas are worthless if no one will take a chance and follow through....there are companies working on the problem NOW, but they need research funding and other input....You with your millions, who are looking for an opportunity to put it to use, Help save the planet, and stop worrying about your bank ballance, For once, do something usefull for society! Stop waiting for "the other guys" to fix it....a2652230

Yessiree Rafe, we gotta have nuclear power and I'm
sure Gordo agrees.
I would rather see some more rivers "buggered up"
than have another Ontario Hydro tragedy.
Get real Rafe and have a another scotch.....

Hey, maybe that is a good idea...I betcha the next column by Rafe will explain the advantage of a few spill's !
It would sure get rid of those Atlantic salmon...

brain:

Interesting stuff. Appreciate you doing the googling. Now imagine big-ass flywheels. Momentum is everything. Like finding a way to put some serious spin on the Moon and harnessing that. Perhaps not so grandiose, but in that vein lies ways to turn the kinetic energy of the universe into portable power. Could be another answer. That and better capacitors and batteries so we can move to DC power. Or so I've been told.

/not a rocket scientist

To Stump:
8-0... ;-D lol
Well.. You might be onto something with those big ass flywheels. Large or small, electrical generation relies on rotation. As I was saying before, our energy in terms of heat to electrical use is 10% efficient. Would it be better if we time loaded that energy loss into momentum? Of course!!! You might not be a rocket scientist, but there must be engineers out there somewhere saying to themselves... WOW! It could work! We already have the tech in place to make it happen, we just need the inititatives, again, with government.

It all comes back to the same things:
Clean energy with:
geothermal,
tides,
ocean currents,
hydro dams,
solar,
wind.

Surplus energy diverts to creating hydrogen.

Efficiency, top down.

Geothermal needs to be explored far more seriously than it has been. The entire west coast and pac rim is ripe for mega projects. Some areas in the east and midland aren't so lucky, but the coast lines always have three things going for them with geothermal. Increased effeciency with delivery of power to concentrated populations, (80% of worlds populations live on coastlines) availability of water, and easy access to heat in volcanic regions. Unfortunately, we don't have the governments to support them. Yet.

The one thing that is being overlooked in all of this, is Geothermal Heat Pumps:

Another geothermal technology that helps keep indoor temperatures comfortable by using Earth's heat is the geo-exchange system, or geothermal heat pump. Geothermal heat pumps do not use geothermal reservoirs, so they can be used almost everywhere in the world -- in areas with normal as well as high temperature gradients. By pumping fluid through loops of pipe buried underground next to a building, these systems take advantage of the relatively constant temperature 7 - 13°C (45 - 55°F) of the Earth right beneath our feet to transfer heat into buildings in winter and out of them in summer.
Geothermal heat pumps reduce electricity use 30-60% compared with traditional heating and cooling systems, because the electricity which powers them is used only to move heat, not to produce it. There are about 300,000 heat pump installations in the U.S.; Switzerland and several other countries are implementing heat pump programs. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rates geothermal heat pumps among the most efficient of heating and cooling technologies.

Everyone is looking to get from A to Z, but we don't have to. We can get there in stages. The bottom line, is that we are missing the one most reliable and effecient energy storage of them all. Water. Water holds heat easily over 48hr. periods depending on insulation and scale. And do I need to remind you all what electricity is generated from?

A combination of geothermal heat pumps, wind and solar panels, and roof top installations with old fashioned solar principles as Skepticool is doing, with H2O storage, is the way to not only take ourselves of the natural gas grid, its job creation and way to "stick it to the man".

This lively discussion has only affirmed one thing, that we are probably all screwed. Thanks for the info Brain. Seeing as coal accounts for 58% of current US generationg capacity, this means that if nuclear is to be a solution it would be many, many years before it can start to shoulder some of the burden. In the meantime, that would mean coal is to be relied upon for quite some time. Not a good sign.

A single solution is rarely the answer to any problem. Nuclear power will continue to be relied upon as well as coal, natural gas, hydro etc. We need not dismiss any ideas at this time. A few more wind turbines on the horizon and a solar panel on every roof would certainly not kill us. It is possible some new technological advances will help us along the way. An immediate reduction in consumption could reduce demand in the short term and offset new demand created by population growth. An increase in public transit infrastructure is certainly not going to hurt.

We should all be extremely worried about where things are going. Reduce, Re-use, Recycle, remember that? Walkor bike to work if you can. Take a bus if your can`t. Why are human beings so stupid. Can we not isolate and remove this "terminator" gene we all seem to posses? We are killing our planet and with that ourselves, this is obvious. This is not open to debate. Keep talking and asking questions. It is not too late.

These are serious issues, concerning natural gas. Encana, the second largest private supplier of natural gas, has an 8 year supply. The largest supplier of natural gas in North America recently superceded Encana with a merger between... who bought Burlington again from the states? Anyways, they have a predicted 11 to 12 year supply. The general public might not know it, but the banks know it, the investors know it and we're going to find out, as Clear Thinking has pointed out.

To a2652230: It's not the time for anarchy, dude. It's time for organization and education and if the message is sound and packaged appropriately and we, for whatever dumbass reason don't get ears, then... we go to the next level. Humility.

So many things have to change in B.C. as well. B.C. Hydro is being run as a monopoly corporation. We, in effect, cannot generate power for individual homes from gravitational water due to blanket legislation that prohibits towns homes in the sticks from getting cheaply and safely off the grid, with no cost to government. We are, in effect, being told by government to remain plugged in, even when infrastructure can't support it monetarily or feisably, or else get sued. What is this crap? Burn oil or get sued? Who are these clowns?

I've alwayed maintained that Crown (and it sure isn't monopolies) and private corporations both have their place. Crown corps have their place in bad economical climates. Private corporations have their place in good economical climates, but private and sometimes, to a lesser degree, crown, both get greedy and so, crowns are needed to control and stabilize pricing, but again, what monopolized B.C. Hydro is doing in these areas at present is silly. The bottom line, is that its not about left or right views, here. Its about whats best for the environments we live in and since private corps want to spend all of their energy chasing oil and gas, its up to crowns to start up clean energy initiatives on their own.
Unfortunately, this means more government control. We've got PC's who only want to tax and cut tax, with no spending intitiatives other than military. If you want to see a centralized power and united country, Harpers not the guy. We've got Libs who want to tax (well, they are cutting on low incomes, 2005 tax years will reflect this) and spend, but frugally, in some areas, and with to much government in others and far less imagination than I would like to see in clean energy areas, but I will say this... he's no Chretien; We've got the NDP who claims to be the environmental party, but hasn't got a clean energy platform and their healthcare platforms aren't realistic when we see how the money is spent publicly and what about the 30%private healthcare thats left in the cold?

Naturalpaths don't get a dime and I'm supposed to be happy with the NDP with this? We've got the Green Party who is still in early platform stages and in some areas, they already haven't thought everything through. So what do we do?
Vote for the best individual, regardless of their political stripe. Chuck Cadman taught us a needed lesson with how we are meant to vote, before he moved on. Vote for the guy/girl who's going to represent the best intersests of the most informed, moral voter and if some of you don't know what that means, then I highly suggest you change your priorities, cause scotch spills and salmon kills just don't cut it and if its all some of you are cut out for, then stick to your drinking and let the brain do the thinking.

You know, It always warmed my heart to know how much heat could be generated from solar powered lazer tech (refractive light). This could be it, but I'm going to have to crunch some numbers.

Some of the best sources of energy currently wasted on the wrong thing are military: napalm, phosphorus, DU, microwaves, thermobarics etc. You get the picture? I read somewhere that the Pentagon's fuel consumption outsucks Canada's. So yes, when thinking of a slightly brighter future, energy conservation is #1, and ending warfare as a means of inappropriate communication is #2. All the other green alternatives at #3. Now who wants to put an end to idle tourism at #4?

One awkward aspect of the inevitable "path dependence" of burning up all the fossil fuels over the next few decades is there won't be much energy left for relocating 4 billion people to higher ground as the oceans rise. Damn those delayed reactions!

Every now and then, I've got to pull the hoof out of my mouth and exhale. The environment and government is very closely tied and since its an election year... In an earlier comment, I suggested that the Green platform isn't refined enough. What I didn't know, is that they released it yesterday. Its far stronger than I thought.

Green Party Platform:

Toxicity: Check.

Forests: Banning clear cuts are an issue, specifically with fire threats of old growth. Global warming is the issue. Select logging practices are also an issue that needs to be more clearly defined.

Minerals: Banning of uranium needs to be phased out rather than ended abruptly.
Mine life cycles could go on smaller scales, but this is economically and resource sensitive. Proposed International Corporate Social Responsibility act also needs to be clearly defined.

Energy: 1.5 billion to build 10 billion watts of power over 5 years…. Could go farther.
Geothermal crowns need studies for possible startups.
Emissions: Check.

Agriculture & Fisheries: Government supported research still needed with oilseeds.
Fish farms are still needed, but need far stronger regulatory feed requirements and conditions. Otherwise, Check.

Native Affairs: Check.

Quebec: not clearly defined. Decentralization of Federal powers to provincial and municipal needs much further explanation than what is given. Overall platform is one of greater Federal involvement, not less. Sounds like contradiction.

Equality: majority of points needs addressing, but the rest of them could be too expensive to legislate effectively and should be contingent on female participation. Male/Female pendulum can always swing too far the other way. Would like to see statistical sources (of 1.5 million females stalked), named.

Immigration: Check.
Justice: Check.
Arts, Culture and communication: Check.
Health: Check.
Child and family well being: Check.
Affordable housing: Check. Could be tweaked some, but excellent starting place.
Education: Check.
Government accountability: Check.
Military: Check.
Fair Trade: Check.

Overall, the platform strikes high with me, in the mid to high 90’s in terms of percentages. When all platforms are compared, the Green Party Platform is to me, the strongest. Questions still remain.

Will they get any MP’s elected to give them further credibility? Will they be enough of a force for other parties to adopt their ideas? Will they ever succeed in becoming a true force to see these changes implemented? Time will tell, but logic suggests that this is no Rhino party. The platform at the very least, should be taken very seriously and I would encourage anyone to read it. Nevertheless, voting for the individual should take precidence over voting for a party.

Tidal Power, generated from tidal currents and NOT dams, has enormous potential on the west and east coasts, and worldwide. It is FIRM power (predictable years in advance, to the minute), renewable, non-polluting, and it is fueled by a free energy source. Because sea water is approximately 830 times as dense as air and a non-compressible fluid medium, it also packs enormous energy density.
Presently, there are at least 5 tidal (current) demonstration projects worldwide, with the UK working most assiduously and seriously to seed this technology (as the Danes did with wind power 20 years ago).
Forget the blather from BC Hydro about it being a "sustainable enegy company" - it provides no incentives for start-up renewable energy tehcnologies to gain a toehold in the energy mix here. Contrast that with the UK, and Scotland especially, which offers a robust mix of subsidies to assist start-ups gain entry into an energy field that is replete with vested interests that already reap their own subsidies and tax breaks.
In its most recent Green Energy report on tidal current energy (2002), Hydro reported (p 1) that tidal, using present technologies, could be meeting "up to 40%" of Hydro's annual generating capacity. It also reported that near-term pricing is expected to be competitive with the largest utility-scale technologies (coal, hydro-e, co-gen). And since 2002??? Hydro and the province has done squat to help advance tidal in the province. Oh, it did get a mention in Gordo's throne speech last winter and in the election platform. But it ain't happening, and an alternative energy task force report due out in a matter of days, is expected to be a glib washout.
This situation of political intransigence and monkeywrenching is no real surprise to those who understand how vested interests have controlled and manipulated the (future) energy agenda in BC in favour of Site C, offshore O & G, importing from Alberta. But it is a SCANDAL, and I expected Rafe Mair to do more than stare into a scotch glass and conjure up a nuclear nightmare. Companies, home-grown, BC-based companies are standing by with proven tidal technologies to get on with developing this industry. There's even an Ocean Renewable Energy Group (OREG) industry association formed (2004) to help advance this, but it needs help - from journalists willing to dig out this story, and a public who need to demand that their MLAs become part of BCs renewable energy solution and stop being part of the problem.

Here are websites: OREG = oreg.ca;
Blue Energy Canada = bluenergy.com;
UK news story = news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4221062.stm;
Hydro report on tidal current (down left hand column on page): bchydro.com/environment/greenpower/greenpower1652.html

a2652230,

I agree with much of your tirade 11 hours back. I feel that much research is an immensely costly boondoggle, however, producing minimum development.

As a member of an electric vehicle group, I followed with great interest local research and development of hydrogen fuel cells. They certainly have potential in production of domestic electricity - depending on how the hydrogen is derived.

In my opinion it has set back alternatives to how we power our autos, since the auto industry has pointed to the promise of these fuel cells while continuing its love affair with the internal combustion engine - and what innovation re: hybrids etc. has come from offshore.

In my opinion the driving force behind this fuel cell "research", that is regurgitating much 100-year-old technology, has been stock promotion. Many seeking "green" investment have been badly burned - in addition to taxpayers. It's so easy for researchers to fool politicians on funding "green" motherhood projects.

The project I speak of was aided by nothing but puff pieces in the media that was invariably reticent on the method of production of the hydrogen.

At some point the actual number of humans will need to be determined before the planet self regulates us into near extinction. Talk about money, research and conservation all you want, but none of it relates to solving the real problems. Most posters continue to theorize how we can continue our present way of life like all we need are clean energy alternatives. Even if we did have clean energy alternatives this planet is soon to prove that we either lower our standard of living, drastically, or the herd will be culled. It's the most obvious issue for anyone who has a vision. Remember the population expert, Paul Erlich wrote, his ideal number of humans on the planet with a reasonable chance for success, defined as sustainable....500 million. We have surpased 6 Billion. Think in terms of what a drain this is on the planets ability to regenerate itself after we assault the air, land and water with numbers like that. Last time anyone did a DNA test we were still animals, and as such we require clean air, clean food and clean water to survive. Horse and Buggy too far back eh? Well, since were not going to the stars anytime soon, (actually never...) I'd settle for horse and buggy right now over what is coming down the pipe. Just think what the margin call will be like if Ed's theory of economics is even justy half right? Bye bye life as we know it.

Stupid humans, thinking they are beyond or above nature, and they can isolate themselves as if we can just regulate the environment... absurd...

clubofrome,

Ya talkin' ta me? My house is so cold that I had to move my wine into the bedroom to get it working again. If my hydro bill is over $30 I start to wonder where I'm wasting.

Some of the drawbacks on tidal power are fish migration issues and low level sound production affecting whales.

The number of sites that lend themselves to tidal production are far fewer than you realize, the tidal flows need to be strong enough to operate the facility efficiently. Also they need to be located fairly close the existing grid. Also Submarine cables are very expensive, require that you convert from DC to AC or Vis Versa.

There is a small town in Alaska that is/was toying with the idea of a small nuclear reactor to power the town as a test case. I think if you check the Alaska State government webpage you would find a link.

Philip, right? No, just ranting on to no one in particular... again. Good move with the wine! I agree, it does work good in the bedroom...

Some unpleasantly credulous person whose net handle suggests he thinks he is a skeptic, in discussing fuel cells, very backwardly writes, "It's so easy for researchers to fool politicians on funding "green" motherhood projects".

It is the politicians, and more critically their civil-service advisors, who through taxation take most of the profits on fossil fuel. It is they who require researchers to do research that does not threaten this income.

--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html
boron as energy carrier: real-car range, nuclear cachet

While I cringe every time I hear politicians say we need another study for this or that, I do find myself liking the idea of a comprehensive strategy on energy going forward.

As far as I can see, there is not a "silver bullet" out there, but rather an opportunity to utilize various sources of energy for specific needs.

I'm out of my league on this issue, but if we devote the necessary resources to research and develop a 5, 10, 25 year plan (or what ever the time frame may be), and then ACT ON IT, then at least we start down a better path - one that would certainly be better than doing nothing at all. While it would likely change over the course of time, at least we would have both hands on the wheel and our eyes open, in order to see where we should be going.

I keep having this recurring nightmare of Gordo and his merry band of men and women in Victoria, sitting around a table drooling over off-shore oil and gas prospects with dollar signs in their eyes...

Yikes!

To BC4Me: Lets look at what the hippies in Ireland are doing lately. (God love ‘em and U2, one of the top five GDP % contributors towards poverty in the world) Tidal energy Marine current Turbines, received a 2 million pound investment, part of a 4.7 million pound grant from EDF Energy (Ireland’s department of trade and industry) on Dec. 27th, 2005, to finance the development of the installation of a 1 megawatt device in Strangford Lough, for the generation of energy from tides. People will snicker at this kind of low wattage, but what most of us don’t realize, is that island power generation is sometimes the most difficult and costly, unless you use the terrain in your back yard to its fullest advantage. In this case, its waves, wind, solar and tides, but tides are the most reliable source of power. The questions that remain to be answered are the environmental impacts of such undertakings. A look into Tidal Energy Marine might provide some answers, especially applied to larger scales. Thanks for the web links.

To Skepticool: We sure got suckered with Ballard. Boy did they teach us a lesson on share dilution. Bozo's. Anyways, the hydrogen tanks are here. The power isn't. All fingers point at government at this point, with a strong finger pointed at the markets for lack of clean power.

ClubofRome: You are bang on with population control. This too, is an environmental issue that needs to be dealt with swiftly. If not, global warming has its own way of dealing with it, long before the caps are gone. How do you spell PANDEMIC? Anyways, dung happens, were here now, its time to deal with it. Writing it all of as a frivilous excersize doesn't cut it. (Forgive me, I'm just not an Atheist. Then again, if you happen to be one yourself, how convenient it must be to have licence to do whatever the hell you want... if you are one. Geez, I wonder how we ever got into this mess.)

Colin: It would be nice to see small scale nukes, just to seen if it would work with a pilot, but small scale is untested, and why would you bother, when there is so much clean power to create the same thing at less cost and fuss? Its BIG POWER that is the green energy challenge. Thats what we should be trying to pilot.

You will pass through this world by the grace of......Mother Nature. When the support system fails we will perish. All indications lead to a huge loss of human life in the future. This will be due directly to our inability to control any of our urges including greed and procreation. It's a complex issue and one that takes a life time of study. Once you have the facts you can project the model. There are limits to growth, this is a finite store of resources. While we exploit at unprecidented rates, we don't even have the sense not to deficate in our own water supply. (pollution) That's just the day to day living stuff! How about the "evil" that goes on in the name of profit or home land security? How about all that radio active waste dumped at sea? The evidence is overwhelming when you add it up. Just as you will not break down Ed's theory of economics, you will not convince me that we are on the road to prosperity as a species. Don't even get me started on the religeous zealots...

It's funny that those who argue the most against change are probably the ones most afraid. Why else would they choose to hoard wealth to the detriment of billions of innocent people around the world? They think they can outlast the storm that's brewing. It's unfortunate that the survivors will probably be more along the lines of Dr. Strangeloves plan, to seek shelter in some of the deeper mine shafts for a few hundred years... giving the lucky young men the task of rebuilding the population, I believe the ratio was 10 women to each man.....
Dr. Strangelove, we salute you and your vision!!

The time to "deal with it" has probably come and gone, like peak oil. Disasters are putting a huge tax on overstretched resources and those were just Mother Nature shifting a few plates, brewing up a few more storms. Anybody notice the cancer rates increasing? The price of oil may go up as it runs out...it's possible!! Then what happens to your global trade? Forget banana's at the local super store...actually forget the superstore. Transportation emergencies such as severe winter storms have emptied the shelves in places like Washington DC and in Quebec with the ice storms. We rely on this complex machine holding together each and every day. All running on oil and energy. You expect to go, sorry drive, to Safeway and pick up all you need. What happens when that chain is broken. Why do you think they have reports like the hundred mile diet? Because one day we will have to be self sufficient, and right now we are at the other end of that scale, and moving further away at warp factor 2. Don't give me the FUD response either. That same tactic is used by the so called religious right.....I give you "The Homeland Security Department."
FUD: Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.

Everyone thnks big. Everyone thinks grand. What's wrong with small? Why be plugged into a grid that WILL be controlled in some form or another by someone else? What's wrong with "backyard" energy generation?
http://www.hempevolution.org/energy/energy.htm
Get rid of hydro dams, get rid of nuclear power, Never mind tidal power, or unless, unless ANY of them can be adapted to single person use. Harness the source of ALL our ppower, the sun. Why are we so afraid of the power of one.....? Are we afraid of the responsibility that entails?

Good rant clubofrome.

Isn't it odd that athiests are now being cited as the cause of all the friggin greed and pollution that is bringing us down.

The god people, still swinging away happily on their 6,000 year-old tails, are of course our heros.

When you need a slaughter who do you call on?
When you require justification for what ever inhumanity, who's name gets shouted from the tree tops?

It's as if some writers here would prefer people to accept there isn't a hope that humanity has the ability to suceed, that their god is the only reward and then only after accepting the trickle-down BS for a lifetime of misery.

The only way we will survive is if we can collectively understand there are no miracles coming our way and that only by full cooperation will humanity get through this current mess that grew out of our penchant for chasing silly theories that help only those who need it least.

Nothing changes unless people stand up and demand change without waiting for the right omen or witchdoctor to sort things out.

Why Canada will buy into the nuclear power lobby. It is where the money is. The world has used up the easiest sources of cheap energy. There will never be another consumer country like the US of A, and for that matter 'The West'. The resources just aren't there to sustain rampant consumerism in China, India, etc. Nuclear power will be tops on the business/politcal agenda because business wants the jobs and politicians will use taxpayers money to pay the bills. They always have and always will. For the good of the country. Yeah! Right.

Tidal power is reliable, but no good in Alberta. It isn't *always* sunny anywhere (except in space...). The wind doesn't always blow. Geothermal is easier to set up in some places than in other places. So what do you do? If only there was an 'internet' for moving electricity around... oh wait there already is :-)

Why in the hell would you disconnect from the grid? I could see wanting energy self sufficiency if it would cost you thousands of dollars to run a power line into your bush hut, but if you're already connected to the grid then you should enjoy it. That's not to say you should suck as much power as you can afford out of it, but that you should be thankful it's there in case you need it.

And anyone who says 'green' power is not reliable enough should remember that we have the grid for just that reason. When the wind blows in Alberta there should be plenty of extra power for the people in BC with their solar panels out in the rain.

Solar panels are actually so ugly to manufacture that you do the environment net harm no matter how much electricity you get out of them, but there are some amazing new photovoltaic materials coming down the R&D pipeline. Plastic paint that you splash onto any wall/surface and plug electrodes into. Let's look for some links, I know I've read some stuff...
http://energypriorities.com/entries/2005/04/konarka_solar.php
http://www.news.utoronto.ca/bin6/050110-832.asp

I agree that the main thing we need to do is reduce our energy use. Here in Canada facing you house south with big south facing windows with rock walls opposite for heatsinks, using some of that stable underground temperature mentioned above for heating/cooling, coiling some water pipe on your roof for summertime water heating also mentioned above, even just hanging your clothes out to dry on a nice day like your grandma did, turning out the lights when you're not in the room, all of this helps. "Green" energy couldn't possibly meet our energy demand? Eliminate all of the sickening waste and it will go a lot further.

BC Hydro is on the right track with their independant power producer plan, look at princeton energy:
http://princetonenergyinc.com/
It should be expanded into personal power producing though. The meter should run both ways:
http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/erprebate/net_metering.html
And then anyone with money to spare should be encouraged to stick a windmill on the roof of their house or out in the backyard, not discouraged by municipal bylaws etc. When every house has some sort of electrical generating capacity, be it solar or wind, or even the furnace sized residientail fuel cells I've also read about, then the grid becomes your friend. Where's a link for that... ooh Canadian even:
http://www.fct.ca/

So the technology is there to basically take care of the electricity problem, without the glow in the dark option. We just need the willpower to put it all into action. (Nuclear? Seriously? "Oh we'll be able to deal with the nuclear waste eventually" is all I ever hear. Yeah I'll just hold my breath for that solution, and anti-gravity and teleportation too, why not.)

The other part of the picture is transportation. I can't beleive we took such a great energy source like petroleum and just literally pissed it away on the century of the single occupant vehicle commute. There were so many better ways to use the internal combustion engine, but we all went googly eyed at the commercials and got right in line for our own personal muscle car. Buses and trains could have moved 10 times as many people for 10 times as many years, but no we were too good for schedules.

I hope that taking care of the electricity problem gives us more options when it comes to transportation. I'd never heard of boron combustion before, thanks for that link. Might be more efficient than hydrogen (I'm not much of a scientist), but still basically the same problem.

We have no options right now because all of the alternatives ultimately rely on electricity which right now comes mainly from the same fuel we don't want to use in our cars. If we use the fuel to make the electricity and then use the electricity for transportation we're worse off than if we just put the fuel directly into the tank.

I'd rather have no lights than no food in the grocery store, but it seems to me that without one we can't have the other. We have to get our electricity from renewable sources, and we have to get enough of it to have a surplus in order for any transportation option besides the horse and buggy to work. We've got some work to do people!!

Small adds up and creates other benefits. Atlin is presently looking at a small IPP (Independent Power Project) If it goes ahead the project will provide power to Atlin and the local area. This means that they can put their diesel generators on standby and BC Hydro does not need to run a B train of fuel every few days to the town. That fuel has to be brought into the Yukon and then down to BC, very expensive.

Actually making the power is not the real issue, getting it to market is. The Yukon has oodles of excessive hydro capcity, yet is to far from the National grid to tap in. In fact despite all this excess capcity they had for years, they only recently tied in Dawson City and took it off Diesel.

I will take wind over tidal any day. Tidal means your equipment is subject to physical impacts by water, logs, vessels etc, corrosion caused by seawater & electrical fields. Marine life impacts and fouling by marine growth.

The raise in popularity of geothermal loops, better solar cells and small windmills. Coupled with small power projects is a great thing for the rural types, especially when you look at the costs of putting a line on a pole to your house 1 km away from the road.

Remember when BC Hydro was handing out those energy efficient bulbs? That was a result of some of the environmental review that required BC Hydro to look at alternatives (reducing consumption) to building dams.

Actually I think the population crisis is nearing a peak. China apparently has 25 million surplus males who will never find a mate or a steady job. In most areas that have high birth rates, the male/ female ratio goes wonky because of the parents killing the female babies. Also a minimal increase in the standard of living in most of these villages has a sharp effect on birth rates as does basic education for women.

To ClubofRome: I was being unfair persay. Religion has had a great deal to do with the population explosions we've faced to day (And so has sexual pleasure), so it was unkind of me to throw it out there at you, in small dribbles. If we start playin' the blame game on population spikes, we'll find out that ultimately, predator and prey have always had population controls from other life forms. Is humanity at the top of the predatorial chain, to think that we're above it? Once again, its spelled PANDEMIC. Global warming, high disease and Cancer rates are all a prelude.

Will our human population face a major drop in this century? The answer is, yes. Of course!! Is global warming and eroded ozone the trigger to the gun? Absolutely. Will our planet heal? Yes. Are we past the point of no return? We still have a good deal of ice left... even with CO2 and Methane atmopheric half lifes, we can likely sustain 20 to 30 more years of this kind of stupidity, but no more.
As I've pointed out in much earlier comments, even the most corrupt of us all, want to survive. This is our saving grace, persay, except for those who don't want to survive and last I checked, it was bumbed out Atheists, greedy wastes of skin, and violent cults.

There is an element here, of humanity that is highly dangerous to this planet and it comes from what they believe in. Control. Fleeting power. Those that believe in the love for money and their destructive powers of greed, the destructive beliefs in supposed God led calls to violence or how every family must have ten children to spread their cause, even Atheist (yes, its a belief, a religion) led calls to violence or its opposite, apathy...

We talk storms about how its all a physically environmental equation, without mentioning the environments that matter most. Accurate information and knowledge, i.e, the mental environment of logic. Emotional environments. Spiritual environments. We can talk physical environments all we want, but, physical environments are along for the ride with these first three. Until these other issues are dealt with, trust me when I say it, the answers we come up with today will be ineffectual.

We need beliefs in the simplistic basics that are actually real. Real peace. Real love. Real truth. Almost every commentator here putting up posts believes in this, regardless of political or religious stripe. Sometimes so strongly, that our FUD's occur, because these problems are bigger than one person, on province, one nation, one continent, even... one world. But think... get back to the roots of the problem. They have always been solved in the past with organization and education.

Is this Earth to far gone? Not by a short shot. Maybe a long one, but not a short one. Is humanity to far gone? Thats up to us. Not me. Not you. us. All of us. And if we are all on the same page, we'll get through it. If we aren't, the collective enviroments will control our population, you know it, and you can bet on it. Does humanity have the potential to stop it? Yes. Will humanity fulfill that potential? The answer we have to acknowledge on this is... we do not yet know. But I know this. If we give up now, it won't matter. Dung happens. Lets deal with it. We no longer have the time for much of anything else now. (Like your name, by the way)

Burgess:

You are right there! But there will always be rampant consumers. In China, of a population of some 1.2 billion, the .2 part will consume rampantly, with total disdain for the billion who make it possible. This scenario is like Deja Vu all over again, and the USA 'broke the mold" for a while by making it possible for more people to consume more stuff, more often. All it has done is hurry things up. We do not live in a sustainable culture. Never have, never will from the evidence around us. We are not Vulcans.......

A major B.C. newspaper, today, editorializes against a proposed wind-farm to provide 20 per cent of Whistler's electricity needs. The argument? Visual pollution.

How shallow. How stupid. Clean air and conservation trumps viewscapes. I doubt there would ever have been, or will be, editors dumping on carving up the mountain's trees for ski runs or chair lifts, no matter the ugliness.

Oh, small is beautiful? Think about "suitcase-sized nuclear power plants" and you get the picture as to why the whole nuclear power conundrum is inextricably chained to national power, terrorism, regime change, mass murder and spiritual desolation. Mere monkeys cannot cannot cut that chain.

you mean like the one's that the USSR forgot about that powered their Met stations?

found it, a couple of sites for and against

http://www.primidi.com/2005/02/06.html

http://www.nonukesnorth.net/galena.shtml

http://hyvin.nukku.net/no/toshiba.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galena_Nuclear_Power_Plant

To Skeptikool (and everyone else):
You speak the truth. Our media coverage, and editorials in particular (largely because these fools have had more time to think about it than on the spot impov Q & A) have been very lacking in this country and beyond. I can't say its all bad. Some journalists out there know their stuff and do the research and have excellent skills in their craft knowing that the truth is what sells the most (yes, its still the strongest market), but for the most part, there is a shortage of good, cut like a knife hardcore journalists out there.

The fact that politicians are able to actually get away with what they are saying on a daily basis in this election alone without getting roasted for it, is matter of facted proof of everything you are saying. Good journalism is so lacking...

Its already been mentioned, but... If you live by the sea, think tidal. If you live by volcanous regions, think geothermal. If you live in the prairies, think wind. If you live anywhere, think solar. If you live in the mountains, think gravitational water hydro on all scales. All homeowners can do more to conserve with generating power in a combination of any one of these areas, including conservation itself. The entire electrical generation industry could be tweaked dramatically, with everything from production to delivery. It's high time that environmentalists, the hardcore ones like yourself, get into the business end of it at some point, because its wide open and extremely feisable.

Look at using heat to water to air instead of heat to air furnace exchanges, for example. You save 60% on every gas bill with conversions for the lifetime of the home, and you'll never run out of hot water. It pays for itself within 2 years. Why is no one doing it? People don't know!!! Where is government? Why does it take total humiliation to shame the individuals in power and the press and business to change over? Because education and media isn't doing its job.

At some point, hardcore environmentalists are going to have to wade into the fray of business, government and media, and tell it like it is. Banks are willing to listen! They truly are, because current methods of doing business are unsustainable, not only with our environments, but with economics itself. There is so much opportunity out there with home conservation and generation alone, the best business plans to present to banks are to combine all services for all area's to the homeowners and the private sector. From there, its public companies and you know the rest.

Its like... we are to lazy, or apathetic or stupid to make a killing and in case enough of us forgot to mention, its going money to get results here. It's going to take money... capital as a resource to help heal this planet. Its going to take good wills, good goals, and good plans to get it done with good people around us. Most of all, its going to take love, the greatest currency of all.

All that negativity... throwing in the towel... last I checked, our ancestors didn't have it any easier. It's time to quit whining and start producing. The very things in life we detest, we become, if we do nothing. Edmond Burk once quoted, "In order for evil triumph, all that is needed is for good people to do nothing." Is this is too religious for you all, then... "what is far worse than dumb actions is dumb inaction." To know even what we know now and do nothing is such a waste.

Well the Ego now paints athiests as religious people with a death wish.

Why is it that people, who are so locked into their own beliefs, have to use the same tight little boxes to house those they don't like or understand?

Reminds me of the old "Evil Empire" rants of Ronnie Raygun.

Anyway, lest people missed the point made by the Ego that Atheism is a religion, last time I checked my dictionary a religion is a belief in the supernatural while atheism is the non-belief in such fantasy.

And if we want to get specific, my reformed fundamentalist grass roots Atheism calls for humanity to cast off those tattered mystical rags that bind us to the dark ages and to step out into the clear light of human understanding.

Clubofrome, your are right. There is no need or room for fear, uncertainty nor doubt, unless you are trying to confuse an issue.

Holy Dodo, Colin: 8-(

CNA.ca is total propaganda (just saw a major ad on ROBTV) compared to the facts given from Helen Caldicott,s editorial on your Nonukesnorth website. Absolutely scary, what they are proposing up North to treat a town of 700 natives as a bunch of genea pigs. I didn't think there was a corporation that was more greedy and evil stupid than Monsanto. I guess I was wrong.

To: The Brain,
Are you flirting with me? Not so sure religion and sexual pleasure are major factors in population explosions. It really has had more to do with greed. You see China and India and Africa with explosive populations. That's almost 3 billion, half the earths people. While we won't go into all the other reasons like people living longer, we're cleaner, access to health care etc..... we'll just stop at the main reason, greed. Subsistance level living, sustainability has been going on all around us and flourished that is of course until recently. The tribal peoples lived in harmony with nature, the colonizers exploited and moved on for profit. We have taken away all the local economies, subsistance or greater, from every corner of the planet now and replaced it with what Ed calls the economy of theft and plunder. What happens when the poorest can no longer sustain themselves? They reproduce and they die in great numbers. Like I said, while there are other factors, the reason is security. Having a large family is your retirement fund. More income to care for the elderly. Remember we in the west consume 25 times (or more) what each of them do. More garbage, more energy etc. Just buying bananas at the superstore drives another nail into the coffin that soon will bear the name "Free Market." We have health care and pensions and security blankets that don't exist in the third world, the real world. We're insulated and arrogant and it shows in our attitudes of everyday living. Do the math yourselves. Offer a hungry person a meal or religion and then get back to me on which one they have chosen.

That being said, we are all wired differently, and I guess we need belief systems to cope. My spirituality exists with nature. As do indigenous peoples, they have their spirits and for the most part are tied to the natural world and it's abundance of life. That's is where respect for nature is built, and we have lost it. We have lost our way, our connection to the natural world. With that loss we've lost respect for each other. So this Peace and Love we long for is also lost. Lost in the greed, lost in the conflict of nations and neighbours... Blah, blah, blah.....and insert all the other stuff I've said before. We need this planet more than it needs us, that's as simple as it gets.
So... kind of an echo in here, preaching to the choir eh? Education, like you said all true.... We are saying many of the same things, just like they do in countries all over the world. Good people want to live in harmony and peace and love. Unfortunately few good people run governments or the military. A few bad apples can really spoil this eden like paradise. Those who use their wealth and power for evil should be publicly executed. For they have stolen the future for many generations. Other than that I'm pretty much a peacenik!

Brian
You will notice that I gave a bunch of sites both for and against, I don’t know enough to comment, so I leave it up to people to read and decide for themselves.

colin,

The base of anything planted off the seashore in the quest for electrical power, whether by wind wave or tide, can be benign toward marine life to the point, even, of encouraging it.

In other words, every structure can have the attributes of a miniature artificial reef. I'm sure that many of our little fishy friends would love us for it.

To ClubofRome:

Ditto!! In fact, you might have said it better than I could. ;-)

You won't get an arguement out of me

To Colin:

I appreciate your homework and
I'm going to provide 2 cutouts from an article from Helen Caldicott, April 13th 2005, just because:

At present there are 442 nuclear reactors in operation around the world.
If, as the nuclear industry suggests, nuclear power were to replace
fossil fuels on a large scale, it would be necessary to build 2000
large, 1000-megawatt reactors. Considering that no new nuclear plant has
been ordered in the US since 1978, this proposal is less than practical.
Furthermore, even if we decided today to replace all
fossil-fuel-generated electricity with nuclear power, there would only
be enough economically viable uranium to fuel the reactors for three to
four years.

The true economies of the nuclear industry are never fully accounted
for. The cost of uranium enrichment is subsidised by the US government.
The true cost of the industry's liability in the case of an accident in
the US is estimated to be $US560billion ($726billion), but the industry
pays only $US9.1billion - 98per cent of the insurance liability is
covered by the US federal government. The cost of decommissioning all
the existing US nuclear reactors is estimated to be $US33billion. These
costs - plus the enormous expense involved in the storage of radioactive
waste for a quarter of a million years - are not now included in the
economic assessments of nuclear electricity.

It is said that nuclear power is emission-free. The truth is very
different.

In the US, where much of the world's uranium is enriched, including
Australia's, the enrichment facility at Paducah, Kentucky, requires the
electrical output of two 1000-megawatt coal-fired plants, which emit
large quantities of carbon dioxide, the gas responsible for 50per cent
of global warming.

Also, this enrichment facility and another at Portsmouth, Ohio, release
from leaky pipes 93per cent of the chlorofluorocarbon gas emitted yearly
in the US. The production and release of CFC gas is now banned
internationally by the Montreal Protocol because it is the main culprit
responsible for stratospheric ozone depletion. But CFC is also a global
warmer, 10,000 to 20,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

In fact, the nuclear fuel cycle utilises large quantities of fossil fuel
at all of its stages - the mining and milling of uranium, the
construction of the nuclear reactor and cooling towers, robotic
decommissioning of the intensely radioactive reactor at the end of its
20 to 40-year operating lifetime, and transportation and long-term
storage of massive quantities of radioactive waste.

In summary, nuclear power produces, according to a 2004 study by Jan
Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith, only three times fewer
greenhouse gases than modern natural-gas power stations.

Contrary to the nuclear industry's propaganda, nuclear power is
therefore not green and it is certainly not clean. Nuclear reactors
consistently release millions of curies of radioactive isotopes into the
air and water each year. These releases are unregulated because the
nuclear industry considers these particular radioactive elements to be
biologically inconsequential. This is not so.

These unregulated isotopes include the noble gases krypton, xenon and
argon, which are fat-soluble and if inhaled by persons living near a
nuclear reactor, are absorbed through the lungs, migrating to the fatty
tissues of the body, including the abdominal fat pad and upper thighs,
near the reproductive organs. These radioactive elements, which emit
high-energy gamma radiation, can mutate the genes in the eggs and sperm
and cause genetic disease.

Strontium 90 lasts for 600 years. As a calcium analogue, it concentrates
in cow and goat milk. It accumulates in the human breast during
lactation, and in bone, where it can later induce breast cancer, bone
cancer and leukemia.

Cesium 137, which also lasts for 600 years, concentrates in the food
chain, particularly meat. On entering the human body, it locates in
muscle, where it can induce a malignant muscle cancer called a sarcoma.

Plutonium 239, one of the most dangerous elements known to humans, is so
toxic that one-millionth of a gram is carcinogenic. More than 200kg is
made annually in each 1000-megawatt nuclear power plant. Plutonium is
handled like iron in the body, and is therefore stored in the liver,
where it causes liver cancer, and in the bone, where it can induce bone
cancer and blood malignancies. On inhalation it causes lung cancer. It
also crosses the placenta, where, like the drug thalidomide, it can
cause severe congenital deformities. Plutonium has a predisposition for
the testicle, where it can cause testicular cancer and induce genetic
diseases in future generations. Plutonium lasts for 500,000 years,
living on to induce cancer and genetic diseases in future generations of
plants, animals and humans.

Plutonium is also the fuel for nuclear weapons -- only 5kg is necessary
to make a bomb and each reactor makes more than 200kg per year.
Therefore any country with a nuclear power plant can theoretically
manufacture 40 bombs a year.

Because nuclear power leaves a toxic legacy to all future generations,
because it produces global warming gases, because it is far more
expensive than any other form of electricity generation, and because it
can trigger proliferation of nuclear weapons, these topics need urgently
to be introduced into the tertiary educational system of Australia,
which is host to 30 per cent to 40 per cent of the world's richest
uranium.

Helen Caldicott is an anti-nuclear campaigner and founder and president
of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute, which warns of the danger of
nuclear energy.

In short, Colin, the nuke plant suggested for 700 inuits in Alaska is no small issue. If they get the paper work to do it, they'll have buyers for several large mines up North, possibly including Canada, and, well, it paves the way for tons of nuke plants in the future. This... greed is what it is. Sick.

Since the history of nuclear plants we've had over 1% leak with devastating consequences. We minimize Chernobal, three mile and others, without realizing that the push isn't to keep the 442 known plants in existence going... its to build thousands more. And the waste. Does everyone forget about the barrels of waste rusting in the ocean North of Russia?

If Toshiba wants to build nukes, then why don't they have any in their own back yard? Because in 1995, they built one in Japan, it leaked, end of story. Its the same old same O. A few cats get fat at everyone elses expense, and they don't have to be Greedy, belong to a religious cult, or believe in no God. All they have to do is not care about life, past, present or future. (recruits from pretty much the same thing) I'm with Clubofrome. Public executions for this kind of fat cat? Seems drastic, but... when in Rome.

Anyone that hasn't seen it..get The China Syndrome a fantastic movie re: An American nuclear plant's melt-down - or near-miss. Fictional, but quite prophetic. It's on tape. Don't know about disc.

A great cast with Jack Lemmon and Jane Fonda in the main roles.

Ok Rafe, build the nuke in that hollowed out mountain left by the Kemano project. It couldn't get safer. The grid is already there, the place is isolated.
And I can't believe plugging a movie from the 70s like that, how lame can you get.

Oil money wanted a movie made, and it was so. In the interim, in the teeth of legions of the best gadflies and watchdogs money could buy, nuclear energy has increased about fourfold. With every coal mine disaster and carbon monoxide poisoning its paid detractors are that little bit more unmasked.

--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html
boron as energy carrier: real-car range, nuclear cachet

Great commentary from all sources. Wow.
Too much to process all at once.

Clubofrome, i think you are way ahead of all of us.

Brain, thanks for all the research.

I have nothing serious to add, other than a silly, rhetorical question: I wonder why it is that we, as people, will do absolutely anything and everything conceivable to avoid doing any kind of arduous physical work? As far as i can see it, the most organic, sustainable, renewable, enviromentally-friendly (well, taken in context of course), source of 'energy' available to us on the planet at this particular time is......the human being.

Imagine if each and every one of us actually 'generated' the energy we needed to survive every day?

Step easy,

What to do? Since we have not the brain or ability of the bear to sleep through the Canadian winter, I suggest an extra sweater, or two, and some thermal undies would permit turning down the thermostat.

Heat only the occupied rooms. Close others and seal the door bottoms. Don't have your hot water tank near boiling.

If all adopted these simple measures there would be massive savings.

May I point out, with respect, that at no time did I in the srticle or anywhere else promote the use of nuclear power. When I said that I think copy machines will nuke me, you should see how fast I drive past nuclear plants in Britain.

My point is that all options should be examined and that we should allow our prejudices to be tested by later research and techniques.

What saddens me is that the debate above will not become a public exercise and that the government will go ahead with Site "C" without any meaniful discussion. Indeed some people tell me that the commitment has been made and that Site "C" is so far along it cannot be reversed.

Rafe

We seem to jump back and forth between issues like sustainability, as outlined in the 100 mile diet then over to energy use and other current events, our problems are as specialized as our workforce. It's daunting to look at the big picture and there is no easy way out. The way forward is in all the ideas and solutions put forward here and in the political arena. When you think of everyone pitching in to help in an emergency, that's the spirit that will take us into the future. Neighbours helping neighbours, families sticking together. To tackle what has to be done when disaster hits. That's the way I see the road to change happening. When it affects enough of the general population through loss of economic base and loss of our basic supply lines, we will turn our attention to the ruling class. Between now and then, put on those thermal undies, and turn down the heat. Most important, stop consumming like Americans... (pardon the stereotype) The American dream, wealth and fame and fortune is a false idol. Replace it with something meaningful, lets try and see if we can make a slow transition of our own choosing....before the disasters force action upon us. I guess it would be called planning ahead. Forget the 3000sq ft house, unless it already exists. (and you have 12 kids...) Progress does not equal growth. For those ultra rich ruling classes who don't get it, this means we need to maintain the infracstructure we have built and in place. New housing sales has been the answer to a municipal deficit, sell more land, build more houses, collect more taxes... we don't even know if we can maintain the existing system of roads, water works and education etc. Why would we build more when we can't even prove that what we have is more than enough? False idols and promises, personal freedom to do whatever you want and to hell with anyone else. Sounds like a recipe for extinction. Personal sacrifice, short term pain for long term gain. We're not talking about the kind of short term pain Alberta claims to have suffered through the 90's on their road to prosperity, no this will be real pain. Children living at home....maybe forever... (I hear both sides shrieking!) The family farm is the hub, we will have to slowly migrate back to the rural areas to become more self sufficient. You think Monsanto will be nice enough to lease back some of that monopoly they will have cornered in a few more years? This corporation and others like it must be tried in the public for crimes agains humanity. The executives must be identified and held responsible. Anyone who works for that organizition will be held responsible for a share of the crimes. Our re education must start soon, and attitudes must change, that is assuming we can make a dent by individual actions like turnng down the heat and ending new development. In case no one else does, I will thank you all now for your past and future contributions to solving the human condition. May the self satisfaction sustain you in these endeavours while the unaware who surround you continue to drag their garbage accross your garden....

Thanks for all the deep thinking. I've come to realize that while most people are beginning to grasp the huge problems facing us, even these more "aware" types are still looking for a green way to maintain their present lifestyle.

I hate to break it to you, but it just ain't gonna happen. Keep on believing, if it gets you through the night, that some breakthrough or other is going to keep you in your 3000 sq-ft house, big SUV in the driveway and vacations in the sun every year. Whistling while you walk by the graveyard can also make you feel safer.

There are just too many people on a little blue planet seeking too few resources in their search for the American dream, which to me is now looking more and more like a nightmare.

Five planet earths are required to maintain everyone alive today at America's standard. No amount of rejigging our present system will achieve this, no matter how many milk containers you put into your blue box.

The Big Adjustment is coming, just the timing is in question.

We have tried to address this question before. What is the trigger for humanity to grasp the coming "adjustment." What event or warning will it take to stop the bleeding. For the majority, it will be much more that tsunami, hurricane, famine and other perceived acts of nature. Of course earthquakes and tsunamis are out of our control, but we do have choice as to where we pitch our tents... The other disasters, man made or not, are contributing to tax our ability to respond and aid the victims. This year the hurricane found a crack in the Gulf of Mexico. The crack is now exposed, and like a vessel at sea, that crack will be exploited until the vessel fails. Our infrastucture is too fragile to withstand a major shock. It could happen in the transportation or the energy sectors. Nature and politicians will ensure more quakes and bombings happen, that will keep our resources over taxed and our minds over stressed. I'd put money on the power grid going down, probably a summer heat wave, one that really winds up the meters.... The whole eastern seaboard shut down and food in short supply. Chaos and disorder would soon replace civility. Those still unable to grasp the severity of the situatuion become frustrated that "things are not back to normal." They've heard reports that things will not be the same, even when the power comes back on. They don't believe it. These are the individuals who will be armed and dangerous. Because it's all they know. I feel sorry for them, as I do for the woman in the province the other day. She works in the fish farm industry ands says she'll vote for whatever party keeps her employed. The job helped put food on the table when her husband was out of work. That kind of ignorance is why peefer and I don't see a rosy and bright future for this society. People need to see how close to chaos we are... What will we do when fear strikes at us, I bet most of us would take the fish farming job.... food on the table is a big motivator. Is this the governments idea of creating competetive industry! Talk about dog eat dog mentality, it's like the government is encouraging a show down between the two industries. Good example of why we can't look to government for fresh ideas. I think that's about it for me today too....

"... at no time did I in the srticle or anywhere else promote the use of nuclear power..."

You should have. Nuclear plants are a lot safer than what they replace. They are also a lot less lucrative for the taxman.

--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html
boron as energy carrier: real-car range, nuclear cachet

To Rafe: It's no dry run.

To Clubofrome: Insightful. Thankyou.

To GLRCowan: After reading your link, the problems encountered, other than high heat risks and turbine issues for mass transit with high production costs for mass production with the required metals and designs, is that Boron isn't exactly a readily available element, with no existing Boron mines that I know of and supply entirely dependent on Boria separations from other minerals and metals that aren't exactly safe in its production.

In other words, Boria, with what limited availability of supply it does have, is the product of already dangerous processes, at least that I am assuming based on those who are working on hydrogen and have already looked at Boron. I hope I'm wrong on all of these points and I want to be, Graham. Perhaps you can tell me why, because your tech seems sound, but Boria isn't exactly common, or, in my opinion produced safely. Please, feel free to prove me wrong.
Otherwise, your talk about the safety of nuclear power and feisability has been soundly challenged by those who look at all safety issues from global to national and regional government security, design, location, construction, decommission, waste disposal of plutonium and its own security risks, environmental Uranium enrichment pollution, availability of uranium for full scale production and last, but not least, the dismal past safety record of nuclear power to begin with. I truly hope your not one of those selective readers who will only look at one side of it as the product of intellectual arrogance.

They are fond of fallacies of equivocation here. Boria is not produced safely? Compared to what?

It's true that many borax miners have died. Ronald Reagan died, and all he did was play sheriff or something on a show that advertised the "20 Mule Team" brand of the stuff -- "Death Valley Days", I think it was.

--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html
boron as energy carrier: real-car range, nuclear cachet

Skeptikool

I agree.

Long before being pragmatic with energy conservation became a current news item, i've made a practise (whenever i can) of capping off on the excess and waste. On all energy fronts.

I really think that our first priority should be a massive campaign for conservation. I'd even go so far as to advocate the introduction of restrictions on energy use. Of course, i've always been a closet commie.......

To GRL Cownan:

Safe compared to geo, wind, solar, tides, hydrogen, do you read other than what you write?
Good luck scraping together enough Boria to take us to mass production. Until then...

skeptikool:

WOW! Brought back memories of my aunt and uncle on the farm, come wintertime. I was about 10 years old, and thought it kinda weird. Too bad most of us stil think such notions are weird. Craziest thing I ever saw, moving here from the Prairies some 20 years a ago, were houses with the heat going and the windows opened! Couldn't understand it then, and still can't.

Wonder what would happen if heating energy were rationed.........?

Graham says:

I can't comment on the tax issues, but as far as common sense is concerned I think caution would be the best choice going forward. I've listened to experts say they don't know what the long term effect of nuclear waste is. What was that? They don't know. They figure that it lasts tens of thousands of years. Quite likely it will be lying around long after we are gone, making the long term storage issue moot. (Don't you just love that word...Moot! Remember Rev. Jessie Jackson on SNL and the game show skit "The Question is Moot!") What do we do in the short term, other than leave spent fuel rods in pools of water on site? I wish I could remember the nuclear plant in Ontario that was recently featured in a documentary/news show. The town fought against expansion and I believe stopped the push to expand into ...? fuel development or something, anyway it involved more handling and transportation of dangerous materials. This in a town that already has cancer rates way above the averages. I might feel a bit more sympathetic to the cause if the advocates were to perhaps take direct action, such as buying up the adjacent and unwanted homes and property and move in themselves. This would allow the people who have lived for so long next to the nukes a chance to move elsewhere. They could then take their unfounded fears and overactive imaginations elsewhere.... I'm thinking the price of those properties would be somewhat on par with those in Nova Scotia's beautiful "Tar Pond Estates....."

When talking about where to get rid of this toxic mess, people always speculate deep space. The experts agree! It's a great place to send it, except for one thing. The fact that one in every fifty launches expodes in the atmosphere. Yeah, they would have to bring that up. Just a few pounds of plutonium exploding to a fine dust into the upper atmosphere would be a very bad thing indeed. That should make us all feel much better about all the nuclear waste that has been dumped into the oceans.

The obvious answer, that rings through this thread like an echo in Horeshoe Canyon, is to conserve energy. Isn't that the cleanest alternative we have?

I lived in Port Hope from, I think, my fourth year through my 11th and still go there frequently. Cancer rates there are not out of line at all. I can't tell that by being healthy myself, nor by dropping in every two or three weeks and seeing healthy people, but epidemiologist M. A. Pietrusiak so reported about ten years ago. Anything you may have heard that in your mind blurred into "cancer rates way above the averages" was a successful attempt to deceive you.

--- Graham Cowan, former Ontario, Canada hydrogen fan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html
boron as energy carrier: real-car range, nuclear cachet

THE PESIMISM posted above is really depressing.
I don't know how some people get through the day thinking the whole world is going to come crashing down around them.
This is why the left isn't getting anywhere, anyplace, because they paint a doom and gloom picture that simply is not true.
No fresh ideas, only a dire warning that our house values are going down, our savings are in peril, and our kids are going to die from Cancer ( brand name ) especially breast cancer of course, and the earth is about to melt from our demands upon it.
This thinking i defeatist.

So is burying one's head in the sands of ignorance and refusal......All is well with YOUR world, Ron Erwin, because you do not live in the real one, where you would surely puke at the thought of what the majority of the world has to live in everyday, to support your lifestyle. Or do you think it's all propaganda...?

The parts that are ice are indeed melting. Did you catch the leap-second announcement New Year's Eve, reporting that 2005 had to be given an extra second so that the Earth's slowing spin could catch up? Although the CBC did not bill it as such, the slowed spin is a warming effect. Land-based ice near the poles becomes water in the sea, which self-levels so that overall some water ends up farther from the spin axis, and the spin must slow.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2002/2002120610970.html

--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html
boron as energy carrier: real-car range, nuclear cachet

Good thread, Graham. Your nasa post is definitely worth a good long look. I was wondering how Earthquakes could be triggered from global warming. Your post explains it, with simple common sense.

I know that you are an environmentalist at heart. We should all respect this from you as you have worked hard to try to find answers to the perils we face. It would be nice if we discovered more boria!

You could present convincing arguements to banks for funding if you could prove boria exists in the amounts needed for mass production (and safe amounts, as mineral and metal separation processes aren't cut and dried safe, just look at Uranium enrichment as, perhaps, the most dangerous example of all) even on localized, smaller production scales, but... the costs still need to be factored into your proposals to be taken seriously.

With all businesses, it begins with the plan. Design and research is at the top, but without funding or production cost estimates, well, you know how it is. I would be willing to help you in the years to come, but I have immediate engagements that supercede everything else, now, with cancer research and disease prevention in Gov & private models of care.
The corruption I've uncovered in this country alone... the manipulation of corporations on governments and all institutions is, to put it bluntly, incredulous. The detail will be provided soon enough.

To Rafe: Once again, ITS NO DRY RUN. Check out the thread on CBC's medicare story. Environmental issues will be heavily addressed in an up and coming book, as well as globalization, HMO's, corrupt university professors and politicians, government models of administration in accounting and service, the list goes on and on.

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/boron/boronmyb04.pdf

("Boron oxide is a colorless hard, brittle, solid resembling glass that is ground and marketed most often under the name anhydrous boric acid." Boria is its one-word name.)

--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html
boron as energy carrier: real-car range, nuclear cachet

Was the documentary about Port Hope? There was a definate concern about the fact the cancer rates were higher amoung the locals. Why would anyone find this hard to believe? One point I was trying to make is that past present and future nuclear power and its waste is a health threat. Continued use only increases risk, while safer/cleaner technology's suffer from beauty image.

That's the appeal of the cancer lie in a nutshell. You can live in a town for years -- as I did -- and go there often, as I do, and if the cancer rate is the same there as anywhere, but groups opposed to one of the town's industries try to deceive you on this point, try to make you think their target is causing cancer, why wouldn't you just believe them? People you see on the street don't advertise whether they are cancer-stricken or not, and if it's hitting them too hard, they might not be on the street at all. Neither seeing apparently healthy people, nor being healthy oneself, proves anything.

Do you think it can't be true because those in charge of the accused industry would just own up? Are you some kind of Daddy-Warbucks-can-do-no-wrong nut?

If you aren't, then why don't you just believe.

In the case where the accused industry is the nuclear fuel one, I'll tell you why: attacks that weaken it enough to deny it one dollar in revenue enrich government by $20 or more. I posted the per-unit-energy prices earlier.

That means antinuclear groups can always afford the best persuaders money can buy, and can count on privileged access to publically funded -- which is to say, oil-funded -- media. It means arguing for the nuke is pretty much its own reward.

It means when government functionaries like the M. A. Pietrusiak I mentioned earlier are compelled by professionalism to say things like "No, Durham Region cancer rates are not elevated", they are biting the hand that feeds. Except when it can rise above its financial interests, government is not a friend, and not a protector to the nuclear industry. Quite the opposite; it is a competitor.

It means when opponents of nuclear energy turn out to be decades into a civil service career, they have exactly the same conflict of interest as a shareholder in Exxon/Mobil would; even a somewhat greater one, most years, because oil companies have bad years but the tax man's cut always comes right off the top.

--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html
boron as energy carrier: real-car range, nuclear cachet

OK Graham, former hydrogen fan.... I'm justing trying to use common sense here. You're not even addressing the issue of waste either. You seem to have conveniently forgotten about it in any of your postings. I don't mind looking at both sides, but I'd prefer something credible to read other than just opinion. I raised the issue based on the documentary and what would seem a fair public perception. What about Brain's unregulated isotopes? Or is that just more jibberish? Just the science please and thank you.

Why don't you do an imitation of me on the subject?

Or pretend to. Produce a devastating pseudo-GRLCowan mock travesty of a sham of what I might post if I posted here on waste. It shouldn't take you very long, since my postings here have a median length of seven lines. (OK, maybe the average is a little greater than the median ...)

To do it right, you will need to include a link that a travesty of me might think relevant.

--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html
boron as energy carrier: real-car range, nuclear cachet

Something like this?

Not bad. The real me acknowledges that my individual experience is not proof of anything, but ignoring this is certainly within the bounds of sham mockery. But where's the link?

--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html
boron as energy carrier: real-car range, nuclear cachet

Thanks. Sorry, I just didn't have the time to fullfill all your requests. Perhaps you could take a turn. You appear to have a passion about the subject, so if you please.... What are we going to do about the nasty by products? We'll continue using nuclear for some time I'm sure, so risks will increase. What's the plan?
Regards...

Yes you did.

You just didn't have time to web-search for, and read, stuff that a caricature of me, or even the real me -- http://tinyurl.com/d3bwo -- might consider illuminating. That would amount to self-education, self-leading forth from ignorance, and that, evidently, is what you have no time for.

--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html
boron as energy carrier: real-car range, nuclear cachet

Dearest Pencil Neck Geek....
Is that the way you want this to end? Because I'm more than happy to slag your self righteous ass as my last contribution to this thread. I'm not going to justify my time to you and explain my passions and areas of expertise, nor would I shit all over someone who was uninformed in my area of interest. I would try and educate them. If you think anyone is impressed by your name being Goggled then you need to get outside and breath in some fresh air. I don't get your attitude, perhaps you don't agree with my vision of the future, and you're afraid. Those who cannot or refuse to change their ideas or opinions are the losers. I don't intend to be one of them, so I generally cut people a ton of slack... but only up to a point Graham. Here, have some more rope....

There is no doubt that the era of cheap oil is ending. We need to embrace all alternatives. Rising prices for fossil fuels will stimulate inventiveness far more effectively than any number of "apollo" projects.

It's not likely that we will ever again be able to tap the stored up energy of millennia as we have been doing with cheap, convenient oil. I hope that renewables will take up some of the slack, but the very trappings of "modernity" which most of us take for granted may be in jeopardy.

Energy consumption will decrease radically, whether we like it or not. There aren't enough rivers to dam, and would anyone really like to see the Fraser dammed, as it could be at several places, and was once planned. No more salmon.....

I hate to think that nuclear will be our only option for large scale electricity generation. I don't want it. It is the ultimate form of playing with fire, and fallible humans have managed it less than perfectly so far. But, I hear tell that uranium is fairly abundant in the scheme of things, and mostly located in (bless our hearts,) "stable" countries like Australia and Canada.

James Lovelock, of "Gaia" fame thinks it is our only chance of preserving our precious "modernity." Check out:

http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm

Scary stuff, but he may very well be ominously right. Can anyone tell me, definitively, whether nuclear, the way it is actually done, really produces net energy gain when you consider the costs of mining, transporting, enriching and handling the stuff? I've heard convincing arguments from both sides, and this tree hugger doesn't know who to believe.....

It seems to work in France.....but could we expect it to work in other places? We'll be hearing this question more and more......any answer out there?

France's production of nuclear electricity actually is second to the USA's. There's a diagram at the industry site http://www.uic.com.au/ ... more specifically, it's the second diagram at http://www.uic.com.au/nip07.htm .

It does; in fact its energy gain is very high (see university site http://tinyurl.com/aduug ). This makes it a minor problem for civil servants and others who live by cashing government cheques.

This is because oil is highly taxed, and its base price appears to be ~60 times more than uranium's, on an equal-energy basis. If that appearance were misleading, if uranium energy were fossil fuel energy in disguise, tax lovers would love it because they'd get, on a dollar's worth of uranium sale, a few pennies in taxation, and then, on the fossil fuel it took to get that U, they'd get, maybe, another hundred dollars.

But uranium doesn't just appear to be ultra-cheap, it actually is. So tax lovers do not love it. This, I think, is why nuclear energy is a left/right issue. This makes publically funded academics less than eager to support it, but still conscience compels some of them to, as in the energy-balance site linked above.

--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html
boron as energy carrier: real-car range, nuclear cachet

One should also be aware that enriching isn't always necessary. Existing CANDU reactors burn unenriched uranium.

One of the best resources of well-informed Canadian criticism of nuclear power is the Montreal-based Canadian Coalition for Nuclear responsibility [[url]http://www.ccnr.org/][/url].

Nuclear power is a huge topic and be very clear that CANDU is heavily shrouded in myth and misunderstanding. Subsidies to the Canadian nuclear enterprise are massive and this industry has been supported directly by governments of the day since the early 1950s with no debate in Parliament. Depending on whose figures you believe, the cost to the taxpayer since the early 1950s is $30 to $50 billion.

In the 1950s, is was said nuclear would produce electricity "too cheap to meter". Last summer, I talked to an ex-Ontario Hydro employee who said the cost figure they worked with is 12 cents a kiloWatt-hour. This is more than double the residential rate in BC (about 5.5 cents/kWh). By the time you add in other costs to deliver that 12 cent nuclear power, it would be at least 15 cents at the house.

That said, nuclear power is becoming attractive in many circles because of declining oil and natural gas reserves (especially the latter, which has become the clean fuel of choice for electricity generation) and the lack of direct greenhouse gases emissions.

For me, it's "Nuclear? No thanks!"

Nice Turtle....

In the big world out there beyond BC, nuclear power is indeed a hot topic due largely to concerns about energy security and climate change (and the nuclear lobby of course). Nuclear power provides about 17% of global electricity via about 440 nuclear power plants in 30 countries, including a big chunk of Ontario's electricity and a bit in Quebec and New Brunswick. So in Canada the debate is mostly in Ontario (though keep an eye out for proposals for nuclear powered Alberta tar sands extraction).

In early December, 2005, the Ontario Power Authority released a report warning of an energy shortage if the Ontario government makes good on its promise to phase out coal and does not refurbish its nuclear reactors. This echoes a 2004 report by John Manley and co. calling for a new round of nuclear reactors.

Arguably, all Canadians - even British Columbians - should be putting some thought into the future of nuclear power, and energy generally, in Canada.

The position of Energy Probe (who are basically an environmental group strongly opposed to nuclear power) is indicative of the challenge. To avoid the need for nuclear power, Energy Probe has come out strongly AGAINST phasing out coal in Ontario on the grounds that the Ontario coal plants are among the cleanest in North America.

Of course, two of the biggest issues with nuclear power are 1) how to "manage" nuclear waste (for thousands of years), and 2) nuclear proliferation (that is, how to avoid lowering the technological barriers to acquiring nuclear weapons).

Regarding nuclear waste, Canada's Nuclear Waste Management Organisation (NWMO) released its proposal to "deal with" Canada's nuclear waste in November. The method has a fancy name, but, basically, the proposal is to continue to store the waste on site, wait many decades (to take advantage of new research) and then probably bury it in rural First Nations-occupied lands in the Canadian Shield... with their approval and to their benefit, of course (that's the hope). For their part, the Assembly of First Nations, the Ontario Metis Aboriginal Association and other groups have been criticising the NWMO process from the beginning (several years ago), calling for a wider debate on energy policy in Canada that includes the role of renewables, conservation and other ways of avoiding nuclear power altogether. Alluding to the fact that the federal government structured the Board of the NWMO so that it consists entirely of nuclear industry representatives, the Assembly of First Nations writes, "by limiting the debate on energy policy, the NWMO is serving its own interests as owners of nuclear facilities."

No country has yet implemented a long-term nuclear waste storage system. In the coming decades we can look forward to proposals for international disposal sites (to avoid the hassle of site-selection in +30 countries), and more of the usual protests around transporting nuclear wastes, like those in Germany every year that require over 10,000 police officers to control....

...Then there's the pesky nuclear weapons issue.

Nuclear bombs require plutonium or highly enriched uranium. A few decades ago, the Nuclear Suppliers Group (countries with the capacity to make nuclear technologies) consisted merely of Canada and a few other countries. Now it includes well over 30 countries and is growing. The month-long review conference (held once every 5 years) of the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons this summer utterly failed to strengthen the regime.

One long-term problem is this: in order to be relevant to climate change, the global nuclear industry would need to be vastly expanded. Yet the system of international safeguards (for monitoring whether nuclear materials like plutonium are being diverted to weapons) is looking rather weak. It is widely accepted that the plutonium used for nuclear electricity (in countries like Japan and France) can be made into bombs by a well-organized group with the expertise (low wages and morale among nuclear experts in the former Soviet Union doesn't help things). The low enriched uranium used for most nuclear electricity in the world cannot be used for bombs unless it is further enriched. So Iran's desire to have enrichment technology seems like a big problem now. But with a vastly expanded nuclear industry, there would be incredible incentives to make uranium enrichment technology cheaper and easier to make, a favorable situation for groups or countries like Iran. One academic argues that if it is even possible to "safeguard" a vastly expanded nuclear industry, it would likely involve creating internationally controlled "nuclear parks." Kinda re-drawing the political map....

So should BC go nuclear? I vote with those Rafe calls the "hippy-dippy crowd" - let's look for an alternative way out. With a full debate on energy policy in Canada, maybe we would start to grasp the options and realize what sort of choices we are already making, without even knowing it, with regard to the future of our world.

Hippy-dippy doesn't necessarily mean easily suborned into petrodollar perjury. Indeed I would have thought it meant the opposite.

Regarding the proliferation lie see my comment elsewhere this morning.

--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fanBoron: fire without monoxide

How soon I forget to leave out the HTML.

http://tinyurl.com/7ex5d
(expands to
http://laweekly.blogs.com/judith_lewis/2006/01/state_of_the_ec.html )

--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
Boron: fire without monoxide http://tinyurl.com/4xt8g