HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #961  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2019, 9:17 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 21,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by misher View Post
BC is throwing its sustainable energy projects in the gutter and is only preparing for a 1% increase in energy needs annually despite the massive amounts electrification of natural gas and cars would require according to the Clean BC plan. Likely just like Alberta BC will have to power its fossil fuel industry with fossil fuels despite BC LNG’s offer to electrify. It’s going to be intersting when the province with a Green Party that has some power massive increases its emissions.
You're making things up again. The article you quoted doesn't say that.

Are you saying you know more than the BC Hydro forecasters and planners?

Past BC Hydro forecasts have predicted huge demand increases, in order to justify big capital expenses, but the demand has never materialized.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #962  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2019, 9:36 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 10,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by TorontoDrew View Post
That pipeline has been operating for 60 years with 29 spills. That's 1 spill every other year. My standards are much higher then that, it seems that's a perfectly fine number to you though and the execs at Enbridge. "virtually no spills" are you serious?

source: https://www.sierraclub.org
[IMG]https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www...%205%20map.png[IMG]


The largest Inland oil spill ever in North America was by Enbridges line 6. So sorry if we don't all trust these pipeline or want them.
Source: http://america.aljazeera.com
[IMG]http://america.aljazeera.com/content...1562862953.jpg[IMG]
Sorry, missed this, but yeah, the spills are such a small percentage of total volume carried that they are virtually zero. There's always room for improvement, but there are likely industries that impact the environment more in proportion to their economic value.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #963  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2019, 9:45 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 10,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by TorontoDrew View Post
That pipeline has been operating for 60 years with 29 spills. That's 1 spill every other year. My standards are much higher then that, it seems that's a perfectly fine number to you though and the execs at Enbridge. "virtually no spills" are you serious?

source: https://www.sierraclub.org
[IMG]https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www...%205%20map.png[IMG]


The largest Inland oil spill ever in North America was by Enbridges line 6. So sorry if we don't all trust these pipeline or want them.
Source: http://america.aljazeera.com
[IMG]http://america.aljazeera.com/content...1562862953.jpg[IMG]
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
Sorry, missed this, but yeah, the spills are such a small percentage of total volume carried that they are virtually zero. There's always room for improvement, but there are likely industries that impact the environment more in proportion to their economic value.
To add some numbers to this, according to the NEB, approximately 1.3B barrels of oil are transported by pipeline per year, and 1084 barrels are spilled. That means 0.0008% of oil transported by pipeline is spilled, literally less than 1 in a million.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #964  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2019, 9:46 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
Sorry, missed this, but yeah, the spills are such a small percentage of total volume carried that they are virtually zero. There's always room for improvement, but there are likely industries that impact the environment more in proportion to their economic value.
Cost in terms of lost revenue (i.e. oil lost in the spill that could have been sold had it reached its destination) are perhaps negligible.

However, cost to the environment is high, not just the palpable economic costs of soil remediation, but damage to environment, to animals and their habitat, to the water table, lakes, streams, etc., is not calculable in financial terms. However, it is extremely high in terms of overall effect on the environment and living creatures (including humans) in the vicinity of the spill. In other words, ANY spill is not acceptable.

How does that stack up against rail, in terms of quantity of oil spilled, and frequency of spillage? I don't have the data, but I'm sure it's out there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #965  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2019, 9:49 PM
TorontoDrew's Avatar
TorontoDrew TorontoDrew is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
To add some numbers to this, according to the NEB, approximately 1.3B barrels of oil are transported by pipeline per year, and 1084 barrels are spilled. That means 0.0008% of oil transported by pipeline is spilled, literally less than 1 in a million.

You have a couple 100,000 barrels of oils spill in your area and shove your ignorance about the issue up your ass. I don't care if it's only 0.00000001%.


Getting your math from the oil companies? Some of the spills they don't even have data for.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #966  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2019, 9:50 PM
TorontoDrew's Avatar
TorontoDrew TorontoDrew is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,775
Sorry this needed to be posted here. It got bumped to fast by an Enbridge supporter. The CONS and their supporters need to start dealing with facts and stop burying them under bullshit.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TorontoDrew View Post
And the CONS do it again.....

source: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...blog-1.5373963
Energy minister cites climate change denial blog in defence of scrapping green energy projects


Ontario's Minister of Energy Greg Rickford said he believes in climate change but that it is 'important that you consider all periodicals and sources of literature with differing views.' (Chris Young/Canadian Press)

Ontario Energy Minister Greg Rickford on Tuesday cited a blog that denies human-induced climate change while defending the government's decision to scrap green energy projects in the province.

During question period at Queen's Park, Rickford called Climate Change Dispatch one of his "favourite periodicals."

The website says its mission is to "deconstruct" climate change theories "propagated" by former U.S. vice president Al Gore and "the highly politicized" International Panel on Climate Change.

Rickford quoted from a post on the site, titled "Germany Pulls Plug on Wind Energy As Industry Suffers 'Severe Crisis'," in response to questioning from the Opposition about $230-million in cancelled renewable enery contracts in Ontario.

"Well, I'll be a chicken fried in goose fat, Mr. Speaker. It turns out that there's another jurisdiction that's having the same challenges we are," Rickford said.


The full article of this idiots comments here: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...blog-1.5373963
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #967  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2019, 9:52 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
Yep, just bury the nuclear waste. No problem doing that whatsoever. It came out the ground after all, and we already pump plenty toxic liquid waste underground as well - solid nuclear waste should present a lower risk.
So nuclear waste is low risk? Why not just store it in your basement then?

Seriously, it typically has a half-life in the thousands of years, yet nobody knows how long the existing storage facilities will be functional (because we've only been storing the stuff for less than a century).

IMHO, this is another case where our ability to create technology has grown more quickly than our ability to mitigate the potential damage caused by it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #968  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2019, 9:58 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 10,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
So nuclear waste is low risk? Why not just store it in your basement then?
Why use such a ridiculous argument? Should we all stop using metal because I wouldn't want tailings pond water in my basement either?

Nuclear power is safe. It's the safest form of power, in fact. So if you care about safety, and are rational, you should support nuclear.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #969  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2019, 10:02 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 10,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by TorontoDrew View Post
You have a couple 100,000 barrels of oils spill in your area and shove your ignorance about the issue up your ass. I don't care if it's only 0.00000001%.


Getting your math from the oil companies? Some of the spills they don't even have data for.
You're being irrational. You could use these hysterical arguments to shut down any industry. Should we shut down the railways because they crash? Cars? Planes?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #970  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2019, 10:10 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
Why use such a ridiculous argument? Should we all stop using metal because I wouldn't want tailings pond water in my basement either?

Nuclear power is safe. It's the safest form of power, in fact. So if you care about safety, and are rational, you should support nuclear.
Nuclear power can be safe, until something goes wrong, then it's catastrophic. This isn't the case for power generation using oil, coal, hydro, wind, solar, etc.

But I'm not even talking about meltdown... just storing the fuel after it's spent has created a problem for which there is no permanent solution.

So therefore, a rational person who cares about safety should be concerned about the probability of radiation leakage over the long term. That's all.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #971  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2019, 10:17 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 10,499
It's true that governments haven't properly decided what to do with the waste, but that isn't due to a lack of technological solution but instead procrastination of politicians and ignorance of the populace.

Regardless, even taking into account Chernobyl and Fukishima and the rest, looking gloablly including much all the history in less safe countries than Canada, nuclear is still far and away the safest form of energy we have.



I believe this holds up if you just look at Canada also.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #972  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2019, 10:26 PM
misher's Avatar
misher misher is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 4,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by TorontoDrew View Post
Sorry this needed to be posted here. It got bumped to fast by an Enbridge supporter. The CONS and their supporters need to start dealing with facts and stop burying them under bullshit.
And yet the Liberals+NDP and their supporters ignore that Ford is repeating exactly what Horgan and the BC NDP did with cancelling more expensive sustainable energy. Its ok when you do it but its awful when someone else does it? Maybe you should stop bullshitting.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #973  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2019, 10:34 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,423
That data is suspect in that it only counts the number of people who died immediately in the explosions of nuclear plants.

The true toll of known nuclear disasters are the long-term effects of exposure, which are difficult to quantify, but by some estimations are into the hundreds of thousands from Chernobyl alone.

I think it's quite a stretch to call nuclear energy the safest of them all, but of course those who have financial interests in the industry have no trouble declaring them safe. Unfortunately, it's the innocent people who are exposed to radiation after the fact, that have to pay the real price when disaster occurs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #974  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2019, 10:45 PM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 10,659
Nuclear is a safe and clean technology. We would have a lot more clean nuclear power and a lot less electrical production from oil, natural gas, and coal except for, surprisingly, the environmental lobby.

After Three Mile Island and Chernobyl the environmentalist went into a frenzy demanding the stop of nuclar development due to it's risks but neither had anything to do with the power itself but rather incredibly poor maintenance at those facilities. The environmentalists won the media war but unfortunately gave no alternatives for clean energy production so many new polluting production systems went forward, were expanded, or were rejuevnated. Now, thanks to the touchy-feely burnt-out hippies, our environment is in much worse shape.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #975  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2019, 10:45 PM
misher's Avatar
misher misher is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 4,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
That data is suspect in that it only counts the number of people who died immediately in the explosions of nuclear plants.

The true toll of known nuclear disasters are the long-term effects of exposure, which are difficult to quantify, but by some estimations are into the hundreds of thousands from Chernobyl alone.

I think it's quite a stretch to call nuclear energy the safest of them all, but of course those who have financial interests in the industry have no trouble declaring them safe. Unfortunately, it's the innocent people who are exposed to radiation after the fact, that have to pay the real price when disaster occurs.
I partially agree with this. However technology has improved so much its crazy. We can't be using incidents that happened back when magnet tapes were considered a "ground breaking" technology to justify blocking development in the present day. Technology is so much much much more advanced. We actually have sensors and automatic shutoffs. Look at the Fukushima plant at Japan that had a disaster, that was built in 1971 and honestly wasn't that bad considering they got hit by a 9.0 quake and tsunami. If we build modern plants in places that won't have earthquakes we can be quite assured that we will be safe. There are 60 plants in America that have been operating for decades.

Also we got to get with the climate change program. We need a lot more power that doesn't rely on rainfall or sunshine. We could also drastically cut Alberta's emissions by building a nuclear plant for their industries to use. Geothermal is a possible alternative that needs to be better explored.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #976  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2019, 10:52 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 10,499
I've found a good rule of thumb is that if you have to resort to conspiracy theory, the argument you have probably isn't very strong. But yeah, if every new reactor we built was like Chernobyl, then we definitely shouldn't build nuclear. But we're not building Chernobyls. Canada has a particularly gleaming record when it comes to nuclear safety, bet even if you look at the western countries that have had some newsworthy accidents like the UK and USA, their incident rates are similarly negligible.

All that said, even though nuclear is great, it's just so damn expensive now. Nuclear is one of the few pieces of technology that gets more expensive the more we build. If we can't get the costs down, then I struggle to see it being justified.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #977  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2019, 10:59 PM
misher's Avatar
misher misher is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 4,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
I've found a good rule of thumb is that if you have to resort to conspiracy theory, the argument you have probably isn't very strong. But yeah, if every new reactor we built was like Chernobyl, then we definitely shouldn't build nuclear. But we're not building Chernobyls. Canada has a particularly gleaming record when it comes to nuclear safety, bet even if you look at the western countries that have had some newsworthy accidents like the UK and USA, their incident rates are similarly negligible.

All that said, even though nuclear is great, it's just so damn expensive now. Nuclear is one of the few pieces of technology that gets more expensive the more we build. If we can't get the costs down, then I struggle to see it being justified.
If you build more in one place you get economies of scale. Many plants now have multiple reactors. Transmission losses are approximately 1% every 200 km so from Calgary to Vancouver the loss would be about 4%. I think we should have about 5 plants spread out across Canada providing all our power needs while able to ship power across the border. The US lacks power generation in the West so there is a market there. Infrastructure to transfer power would also need to be developed.

A nuclear reactor is technically slightly cheaper than BC's site C per a MW.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #978  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2019, 11:05 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 21,617
If we had Nuclear today I'd advocate keeping it (and do where it exists). But new projects in North America have been a giant circus, to wit:

https://theintercept.com/2019/02/06/...uclear-energy/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #979  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2019, 11:06 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 10,499
Hopefully it's just a particularly bad example, but Hinkley Point C is costing £20bn ($35bn CAD), for 3.2GW. So actually similar cost/GW as Site C, but then again Site C seems to be expensive.

Muskrat Falls is similarly expensive. So if that is just the going rate for new power generation, then maybe nuclear isn't so expensive afterall, to provide baseload in places without hydro.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #980  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2019, 11:23 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
I've found a good rule of thumb is that if you have to resort to conspiracy theory, the argument you have probably isn't very strong. But yeah, if every new reactor we built was like Chernobyl, then we definitely shouldn't build nuclear. But we're not building Chernobyls. Canada has a particularly gleaming record when it comes to nuclear safety, bet even if you look at the western countries that have had some newsworthy accidents like the UK and USA, their incident rates are similarly negligible.

All that said, even though nuclear is great, it's just so damn expensive now. Nuclear is one of the few pieces of technology that gets more expensive the more we build. If we can't get the costs down, then I struggle to see it being justified.
What conspiracy theory? Just genuine concern over a method that is fine if everybody does what they are supposed to do, and catastrophic if they don't. The reassurance that I hear back is just 'don't worry, it's the safest', kinda like "Nothing to see here" from the Naked Gun movies...

And every time I mention the storage of waste fuel, nothing but crickets.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:18 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.