Nuclear reactors in Alberta

[Grizzly Adams]

I thought I would post this for people who consider Alberta a nuclear free zone.
http://www.ualberta.ca/~slowpoke/
Grizz

[altaberg]

I'm not sure what your point is.

The University of ALberta has a number of facilities that produce or work with radiochemicals and radiopharmaceuticals. Besides the slow poke there is a cyclotron, operated jointly with the Alberta Cancer Board, in the Cross Cancer Institute in Edmonton that produces radiopharmaceuticals for cancer research and diagnosis. The radiopharmaceuticals are used in cancer centres throughout western Canada. These facilities produce trace amounts of radioactive materials and there isn't much of an issue with nuclear waste.

As the name implies the "slow" poke is a very different type of reactor that doesn't produce energy and isn't relevant in a discussion of nuclear power plants.

[Grizzly Adams]

My point is that nuclear reactors, as such, are nothing new to alberta. Granted that this is a very small operation, it is still a nuclear reactor, with all the features of it's big brothers. It may not provide electrical power, but the operation is the same. Obviously, this thing has been operating in downtown Edmonton since 1978, without any problems, or most of us being aware of it.
I actually decided to follow this up, after getting a bone scan on my knee, last week. The technician injected me with Americium, a man made element, with a half life of 6 hours. It dawned on me that there must be a local source, since couldn't be bringing this stuff in any great distance.
Grizz

[spurs]

These facilities produce trace amounts of radioactive materials and there isn't much of an issue with nuclear waste.

Obviously you know alot more about the production aspects of these plants but let's consider worst case scenario and Emergency planning zones. Effects to Water, Forest and everything living in them. Rural impact and communities in the area.

IMHO, Boards, Institutes, and University funded studies are no more than avenues of credential money flow.

Life is fine without nuclear energy will be just fine. It's not progress and the wheels don't have to move on this one. Natural gas is free, fuel for our vehicles is cheap because we produce it right here in Alberta.

And besides they want to put it where I hunt.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by mikehunt

Life is fine without nuclear energy will be just fine. It's not progress and the wheels don't have to move on this one. Natural gas is free, fuel for our vehicles is cheap because we produce it right here in Alberta.

And besides they want to put it where I hunt.

Two words... greenhouse gasses...

And as for putting it where you hunt, there are already plenty of rigs, wells, pipeline right of ways, compressor stations, cut lines, etc. etc. where we all want to hunt. Not like the oil and gas industry isn't having any impact on wildlife or hunting.

[spurs]

one word: sarcasim.

[russ]

NIMBY's the bain of the planet - everyone wants the product but not the problem.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by mikehunt

one word: sarcasim.

I know, you are right Mike... nuclear is awfully dangerous, and hydrocarbons and the production of same are a cheap, harmless source of energy... after all, you DID say natural gas was free. My comment was superfluous crap, yours was dead on.

[TreeGuy]

If even Greenpeace is endorsing nuclear energy, one has to stop and take notice. Next to solar and wind (impractical in terms of global marketing), hydro (clean, efficient, but I'll need Dick284's 'Can 'o Worms' to start discussing building more and bigger dams!), nuclear is the best way to create clean energy. Its byproducts are water vapor (97% of the natural atmosphere anyway), and spent uranium/plutonium. Eventually you will see a very cheap form of rocket constructed that will be able to transport these depleated rods far away from our planet into space. The amount of radioactive material required to keep a generation station is remarkably small. If I recall, the first ever nuc sub travelled almost 700, 000km on 2kilos of uranium. So we are not talking about tons and tons of deadly waste. These stations, IMHO, should have been initatied at LEAST a decade ago! Sorry for the 'loose' stats, but I'm close I think.

Tree

[Dick284]

Originally Posted by TreeGuy

If even Greenpeace is endorsing nuclear energy, one has to stop and take notice. Next to solar and wind (impractical in terms of global marketing), hydro (clean, efficient, but I'll need Dick284's 'Can 'o Worms' to start discussing building more and bigger dams!), nuclear is the best way to create clean energy. Its byproducts are water vapor (97% of the natural atmosphere anyway), and spent uranium/plutonium. Eventually you will see a very cheap form of rocket constructed that will be able to transport these depleated rods far away from our planet into space. The amount of radioactive material required to keep a generation station is remarkably small. If I recall, the first ever nuc sub travelled almost 700, 000km on 2kilos of uranium. So we are not talking about tons and tons of deadly waste. These stations, IMHO, should have been initatied at LEAST a decade ago! Sorry for the 'loose' stats, but I'm close I think.

Tree

Your right Treeguy, Hydro is'nt really called a green alternative. It is often refered to as a Kahaki alternative. Hydro does leave a ecological foot print. The last two major Hydro projects in Alberta were the Bighorn in 1973(120MW), and the Bazeau in 1964(355MW), both were a joint venture between the Province who wanted flood control on the N. Sask. River, and then Calgary Power. There were even plans back in 1962 ish to divert the Nordegg and the NSR to the Brazeau, and have upwards of 4 generators in place there, but the idea was scrapped because of the perception of a out cry from an enviromental impact stand point.
As for the Bow River system the total generating capacity down there is only 319 MW from 11 hydro plants, these plants only exist still because of their water control commitments. Some of these units are nearly 100 yrs old.
For those who dont abla, it takes about 100MW capacity to power 10,000 residental homes. and also many of the Hydro plants dont have enough water to run flat out year round. The Brazeau for example has an average annual out put of about 40MW, it's there to back up the system in the instances when units or lines fail, it also supports the system for frequnecy control, and is the key stone for Alberta's black start ability.
This whole what do we do next for power issue, is ugly at best, and all the green alternative talk will turn to anger when rotating black outs or brown outs become a regular occurance. Alberta is strapped electrically, and the costs to build and produce the electricity are sky rocketing, with demands of for a sin tax on nasty emissions, and an aging generating fleet, the end result is inevitable. I just wonder how strong every ones resolve to have no Nukes, or no nasty emissions will be when the realize that the light might not come on when you flick the switch.

[Gunner22a]

I've lived in two provinces that use them, Ontario and New Bruunswick. To be honest you don't even know they are there unless you go for a visit. Small ones exist in some unniversities as well. Not sure about Alberta but there are some in Ontario. The Canadian Nuclear industry has an excellent safety record and the CANDU Reactors are the safest in the world. I don't work for the industry if that is what you are thinking. I have lived in Europe and France is full of them. They don't come cheap but they do offer a very viable alternatiive to fossel fuels. I for one would have no problem living near a Canadian reactor.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by Gunner22a

I for one would have no problem living near a Canadian reactor.

me too... upwind anyway Just kidding

[TreeGuy]

Thanks for the info, Dick! It's stuff people need to know. Nuclear is hands down the cleanest, lowest impact, most efficient form of energy generation until cold fusion is perfected again!

Although the EXTENT of the boom in Alberta over the past decade would have been nearly impossible to predict (I have a degree in economics), the possibility of reactors in this province certainly should have been explored a long time ago, IMHO.

Tree