Nukes for Alberta - Opinion survey

[msommers]

A surprisingly honest review of things from CBC:

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7089758

[Gman.45]

My only question about multiple small nuclear "battery" power plants is what does securing them look like. After 9/11 happened, the little to no security at Bruce Nuclear power plant was made evident by a former employer of mine, Alan Bell from Globe Risk Security (one of Canada's longest standing private military/security companies, Alan is former British SAS with a lot of experience). Globe Risk did a security assessment of Bruce, which was typical of most nuclear power stations, at least in Canada. Within minutes our guys had penetrated the security unbeknownst to them, and Alan himself made it into the storage facility for the spent rods or whatever, which are put on a platform in a hundreds foot deep water tank. He busted the locking mechanism on that, and was able to raise and lower said platform containing material a foot or two, material ideal for a very nasty dirty bomb, for over an hour. Nobody noticed.

Globe had the contract for spinning up what is now a first rate security team at Bruce, with its own tac response teams, counter assault teams, in addition to a very robust electronic system backed up by a lot of uniformed security. My first job in the field was training security officers from there on fighting with the Sig P226.

I haven't done enough research to know what kind of threat the material used in these small nuclear reactor/battery/whatever systems pose, in terms of them being directly attacked with explosives, or if the material is easy enough to access and steal and use in a dirty bomb. Having a large number of these small units could = having to have a LOT of security at each single unit, which would be a massive endeavor. Just to have a quick reaction team of say a dozen guys, along with say 3 regular on duty security officers 24hrs a day would mean a unit of 60+ would have be hired for each single reactor location to provide what would be pretty minimal security.

Nuclear power is still the best option regardless of security concerns, but they can't be ignored.

[suntan]

Just don't let brown people near the facilities.

[killramos]

All the more reason to build big ones with adequate diligence rather than spreading those due diligence dollars ( security, expertise, monitoring, site selection ) around the province either driving up costs or lowering standards.

[suntan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

All the more reason to build big ones with adequate diligence rather than spreading those due diligence dollars ( security, expertise, monitoring, site selection ) around the province either driving up costs or lowering standards.

I really don't see how it's any different than trying to secure current energy facilities, of which there are more than the fingers on your hands.

[birdman86]

I have basically no knowledge about nuclear power but as long as they have a solid plan for disposing of the waste and mitigating risks of meltdowns or terrorists or whatever I'm all for it.

Edit: I voted mildly positive just because I don't understand it enough to have strong feelings either way, but if its clean and safe and reliable I say give er

[Xtrema]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Edit: I voted mildly positive just because I don't understand it enough to have strong feelings either way, but if its clean and safe and reliable I say give er

Tritium discharge is the problem. CANDU is one of the worst offenders.

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

This is what NIMBY worried about when they killed this project 14 years ago.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...rmers-1.930740

Same shit Ontario is still dealing with today.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...uins-1.4584336

I feel better if it's next to ocean, having a greater body of water to dilute that shit is great. And we can also blame the Japanese as they already taken the PR blunder releasing Fukushima water.

[pheoxs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

My only question about multiple small nuclear "battery" power plants is what does securing them look like. After 9/11 happened, the little to no security at Bruce Nuclear power plant was made evident by a former employer of mine, Alan Bell from Globe Risk Security (one of Canada's longest standing private military/security companies, Alan is former British SAS with a lot of experience). Globe Risk did a security assessment of Bruce, which was typical of most nuclear power stations, at least in Canada. Within minutes our guys had penetrated the security unbeknownst to them, and Alan himself made it into the storage facility for the spent rods or whatever, which are put on a platform in a hundreds foot deep water tank. He busted the locking mechanism on that, and was able to raise and lower said platform containing material a foot or two, material ideal for a very nasty dirty bomb, for over an hour. Nobody noticed.

Globe had the contract for spinning up what is now a first rate security team at Bruce, with its own tac response teams, counter assault teams, in addition to a very robust electronic system backed up by a lot of uniformed security. My first job in the field was training security officers from there on fighting with the Sig P226.

I haven't done enough research to know what kind of threat the material used in these small nuclear reactor/battery/whatever systems pose, in terms of them being directly attacked with explosives, or if the material is easy enough to access and steal and use in a dirty bomb. Having a large number of these small units could = having to have a LOT of security at each single unit, which would be a massive endeavor. Just to have a quick reaction team of say a dozen guys, along with say 3 regular on duty security officers 24hrs a day would mean a unit of 60+ would have be hired for each single reactor location to provide what would be pretty minimal security.

Nuclear power is still the best option regardless of security concerns, but they can't be ignored.

Sounds like all the more reason for modular facilities as you can incorporate better safeguards into the design rather than relying on site implementations.

[ExtraSlow]

"modular" as a design concept is very good. Killy is probbaly right that locating 10 of these on 10 sites may not make sense, but locating 10 of these on 3 sites is pretty reasonable, IMHO

[16hypen3sp]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Does Red Deer still have the motto "A Nuclear Free Zone"?

I always used to have a laugh at that driving through.

That was to do with nuclear weapons proliferation, not actual energy. And yes, while the signs on the City entrances saying nuclear weapons free zone have been removed, there still remains a formal endorsement from the city towards a nuclear weapons free world. There is a sign in the City Hall park about it. The funniest thing about it tho was it was a local high school that designated itself as a nuclear weapons free zone first... yes... the high school itself was a NWFZ, as if to ban any students from practicing nuclear physics that would contribute to nuclear proliferation and banning nuclear weapons on campus... in Red Deer... hahaha.

Think it was a city councilor that liked the idea and it formally extended to the city boundary. But it was really just a protest movement against nuclear weapons proliferation. There were many areas/town/cities across the world that made this declaration. Where it became an actual problem was port cities that had the declaration. Allied militaries with nuclear armed ships/subs would dock there and ruffle feathers. As if the US Navy is going to give a shit about what some city thinks.

I have read on the EnergyBC website tho that nuclear ENERGY is banned as well as uranium mining. The provinces Clean Energy Regs specifically excludes nuclear power. Bunch of idiots.

Fun fact: The AB gov had an underground nuclear bunker built in Penhold in case nuclear war broke out back in 50's/60's. No longer exists.

[davidI]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That was to do with nuclear weapons proliferation, not actual energy. And yes, while the signs on the City entrances saying nuclear weapons free zone have been removed, there still remains a formal endorsement from the city towards a nuclear weapons free world. There is a sign in the City Hall park about it. The funniest thing about it tho was it was a local high school that designated itself as a nuclear weapons free zone first... yes... the high school itself was a NWFZ, as if to ban any students from practicing nuclear physics that would contribute to nuclear proliferation and banning nuclear weapons on campus... in Red Deer... hahaha.

Think it was a city councilor that liked the idea and it formally extended to the city boundary. But it was really just a protest movement against nuclear weapons proliferation. There were many areas/town/cities across the world that made this declaration. Where it became an actual problem was port cities that had the declaration. Allied militaries with nuclear armed ships/subs would dock there and ruffle feathers. As if the US Navy is going to give a shit about what some city thinks.

I have read on the EnergyBC website tho that nuclear ENERGY is banned as well as uranium mining. The provinces Clean Energy Regs specifically excludes nuclear power. Bunch of idiots.

Fun fact: The AB gov had an underground nuclear bunker built in Penhold in case nuclear war broke out back in 50's/60's. No longer exists.

Thanks for the history! I knew it was referring to nuke weapons rather than energy but didn't know the rest of it - interesting haha.

And yea, no surprise the BC Hippies love methane emitting hydro and "renewable" wood bioenergy but dislike the most dense energy technology we have because of completely unrelated geopolitical/war beliefs.

[ExtraSlow]

Greenpeace and others managed quite effectively to conflate the two things, and that is a major reason that nuclear power was so unpopular. It was a public relations win for those people. Still the same groups have been behind a lot of the public opposition to nuclear energy, even though its safety record is better than nearly anything else.

[Cagare]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Greenpeace and others managed quite effectively to conflate the two things, and that is a major reason that nuclear power was so unpopular. It was a public relations win for those people. Still the same groups have been behind a lot of the public opposition to nuclear energy, even though its safety record is better than nearly anything else.

Three Mile Island in 79 was the biggest turning point for nuclear energy in the US specifically. Many of the projects cancelled after that, and no new Nuclear Reactor approved until the early 2010's after that although some others were finished. It was Chernobyl that then did it to the rest of the world halting any expansion after that and even shutting some down.

[g-m]

Just use gas JFC. We have basically unlimited cheap gas. I have nothing against nuclear but why would we not use the extremely plentiful extremely cheap source of energy in our own fucking province. Plus gas turbines are extremely efficient

[ianmcc]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Just don't let brown people near the facilities.

So who will clean the floors and wear security uniforms?

[suntan]

Filipinos you racist.

[Gman.45]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That was to do with nuclear weapons proliferation, not actual energy. And yes, while the signs on the City entrances saying nuclear weapons free zone have been removed, there still remains a formal endorsement from the city towards a nuclear weapons free world. There is a sign in the City Hall park about it. The funniest thing about it tho was it was a local high school that designated itself as a nuclear weapons free zone first... yes... the high school itself was a NWFZ, as if to ban any students from practicing nuclear physics that would contribute to nuclear proliferation and banning nuclear weapons on campus... in Red Deer... hahaha.

Think it was a city councilor that liked the idea and it formally extended to the city boundary. But it was really just a protest movement against nuclear weapons proliferation. There were many areas/town/cities across the world that made this declaration. Where it became an actual problem was port cities that had the declaration. Allied militaries with nuclear armed ships/subs would dock there and ruffle feathers. As if the US Navy is going to give a shit about what some city thinks.

I have read on the EnergyBC website tho that nuclear ENERGY is banned as well as uranium mining. The provinces Clean Energy Regs specifically excludes nuclear power. Bunch of idiots.

Fun fact: The AB gov had an underground nuclear bunker built in Penhold in case nuclear war broke out back in 50's/60's. No longer exists.

True! Also, American nuclear weapons were stored in Canada for a couple decades beyond even the 60s. Dundurn press published a book specifically about this but I can't find it and haven't read it in ages. Canada's "Bomarc" SAM missile system was designed to use a nuclear warhead as it's payload, and it was around into the early 70s. Pew-BOOOM. Googling "US nuclear weapons stored in Canada" brings up a ton of info if anyone cares.

It won't surprise me to see those in Canada against nuclear energy linking nuclear weapons to their arguments in order to scare people. I saw a reporter in Australia last week flip his lid about Australia buying new US made Virginia class nuclear POWERED submarines, telling all his readers that having submarine launched nuclear weapons was an evil thing Australia could do without, and how China would retaliate against Australian nuclear weapons etc etc.

[arcticcat522]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Greenpeace and others managed quite effectively to conflate the two things, and that is a major reason that nuclear power was so unpopular. It was a public relations win for those people. Still the same groups have been behind a lot of the public opposition to nuclear energy, even though its safety record is better than nearly anything else.

Same people who would rather crude by rail, rather than pipeline.....

[Xtrema]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Same people who would rather crude by rail, rather than pipeline.....

They want it to stay underground. Higher transport cost is part of that strat.

They are also bitching at Feds that is spending $15B on carbon capture because it goes against of keep oil in the ground narrative.