Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

BC Politics/Election Thread: Wilkinson Resigns as Liberal Leader


Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said:

Nuclear energy? Supposedly it is much more cleaner than traditional energy but idk the cons.

Actually, you're correct in this really. The main issue with nuclear is how the program started. uranium is what's currently being used, yet if they had used thorium, things would have been less radioactive in the long run and nuclear energy would have likely had less of a bad rep.

 

Nuclear's a lot safer than a lot of people realise still despite using uranium.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Bill Gates was interviewed by Anderson Copper recently and he has invested millions (maybe billions) in Nuclear. According to him, we now have the technology to make sure Chernobyl and Three Mile Island incidents never happen again.

 

That being said, he also spoke of Nuclear being only part of the solution, with Solar and Wind providing the bulk of the energy and Nuclear being the back up, for when nature isn't supplying enough to meet demand.

I mean I have read up that creating a nuclear plant isn’t very clean by any means(though building anything substantial isn’t). 
 

It isn’t considered a green energy compared to wind, solar and geothermal but compared to the alternatives besides that it is much more cleaner. 
 

I only worry because in the BC west coast we are in an earthquake zone. 

Edited by Junkyard Dog
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Junkyard Dog said:

I mean I have read up that creating a nuclear plant isn’t very clean by any means(though building anything substantial isn’t). 
 

It isn’t considered a green energy compared to wind, solar and geothermal but compared to the alternatives besides that it is much more cleaner. 
 

I only worry because in the BC west coast we are in an earthquake zone. 

I hate to say it, because the prairies start losing it when you do, but I believe that some type of national energy strategy will be needed before all is said and done.

 

i think Gates has the right of it though. There's no reason to throw all your eggs into one basket. The energy grid can (and should be, IMHO) made of of a variety of sources. The more diversity there is, the less reliance on on type of energy, which could fail, for any number of reasons.

 

As far as earthquake risk goes, the coast is really the only (relatively) high risk area. My suggestion would be the northeast corner of the province. (Ft St. John, Dawson Creek) This is currently oil country and we'll need to do something to help that area, as we move away from Fossil fuels....

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Bill Gates was interviewed by Anderson Copper recently and he has invested millions (maybe billions) in Nuclear. According to him, we now have the technology to make sure Chernobyl and Three Mile Island incidents never happen again.

 

That being said, he also spoke of Nuclear being only part of the solution, with Solar and Wind providing the bulk of the energy and Nuclear being the back up, for when nature isn't supplying enough to meet demand.

With the recent examples of science denial and right wing terrorism in the USA, (with America coming frighteningly close to losing it's democracy and/or beginning a new civil war), I'm not very confident that technological innovation alone would prevent a Chernobyl happening again.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Coda said:

With the recent examples of science denial and right wing terrorism in the USA, (with America coming frighteningly close to losing it's democracy and/or beginning a new civil war), I'm not very confident that technological innovation alone would prevent a Chernobyl happening again.  

The thing is though, even if we got to the point of being as ignorant and complacent as the Russians did with Chernobyl, they technological advancements we have now would have helped prevent Chernobyl from happening.

 

There were 440 nuclear plants worldwide as of last year. How many of those each year do you hear about blowing up? I can actually even answer that for you: 3: Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. That's it. This is despite uprisings happening. This is despite any sort of other complacency issues that might have happened.

 

It's just you hear about 3 disasters and think "nuclear power bad" because when a disaster happens it's obviously really bad; however, since Chernobyl, the only disaster that's happened is from Fukushima, a natural disaster. So I'd argue that your concerns, while I understand them, I also don't think they're an issue.

Edited by The Lock
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Lock said:

The thing is though, even if we got to the point of being as ignorant and complacent as the Russians did with Chernobyl, they technological advancements we have now would have helped prevent Chernobyl from happening.

 

There were 440 nuclear plants worldwide as of last year. How many of those each year do you hear about blowing up? I can actually even answer that for you: 3: Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. That's it. This is despite uprisings happening. This is despite any sort of other complacency issues that might have happened.

 

It's just you hear about 3 disasters and think "nuclear power bad" because when a disaster happens it's obviously really bad; however, since Chernobyl, the only disaster that's happened is from Fukushima, a natural disaster. So I'd argue that your concerns, while I understand them, I also don't think they're an issue.

Part of the reason there have not been more nuclear reactor incidents is because of the extreme public reaction to nuclear accidents and the high scrutiny put on nuclear energy.  The success of these measures is not a good reason to become lax about the possible dangers through human error or terrorism.  If one of the American reactors in the northeast suffered a meltdown it would be the most devastating event in American history.  

 

Someone could just as easily say "There are thousands of nuclear warheads in the world.  How many of those have you heard of being used on other humans?  I can actually even answer that for you: 2".  The reason for this is because Nuclear armed nations spent decades planning their entire national defences along the lines of nuclear deterrence and preventing other nations from developing nuclear weapons.  The fact that there have not been any nuclear wars in 75 years is not a good reason to become lax about the dangers of nuclear weapons.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Coda said:

Part of the reason there have not been more nuclear reactor incidents is because of the extreme public reaction to nuclear accidents and the high scrutiny put on nuclear energy.  The success of these measures is not a good reason to become lax about the possible dangers through human error or terrorism.  If one of the American reactors in the northeast suffered a meltdown it would be the most devastating event in American history.  

 

Someone could just as easily say "There are thousands of nuclear warheads in the world.  How many of those have you heard of being used on other humans?  I can actually even answer that for you: 2".  The reason for this is because Nuclear armed nations spent decades planning their entire national defences along the lines of nuclear deterrence and preventing other nations from developing nuclear weapons.  The fact that there have not been any nuclear wars in 75 years is not a good reason to become lax about the dangers of nuclear weapons.  

Warheads are different though. Actually, 100's of warheads have been purposely detonated throughout the world mostly for testing purposes, while they're not the 2 warheads used on actual people, people have still been killed by all that testing. They're meant literally for war; thus the name "war"head. I am not for warheads. I don't agree with them. If it were my decision, I'd try and get rid of them all somehow.

 

Nuclear power is different in that it's used to provide citizens something rather than take away life. As much as I'm sure some would hate to admit, nuclear's still way better than coal or gas plants and it doesn't create lakes and destroy ecosystems like Hydro does.

 

As far as public perception being a part of why nuclear plants aren't detonated: sure. But even the fact that a single detonation could happen never really stopped precautions from happening before there was public reaction, and I'd argue that those precautions wouldn't exactly go away if the pressure started becoming a non-factor. In fact, You can provide as many ifs as you want at the end of the day. The only meltdown in the states has been Three Mile Island which at least was reasonably contained and it was in the late 70's when all this stuff was still pretty early.

 

Perhaps I should ask you this: if not nuclear, what power do you want to see the world run on and do you think that could sustain the evident population growth that will happen?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, The Lock said:

Warheads are different though. Actually, 100's of warheads have been purposely detonated throughout the world mostly for testing purposes, while they're not the 2 warheads used on actual people, people have still been killed by all that testing. They're meant literally for war; thus the name "war"head. I am not for warheads. I don't agree with them. If it were my decision, I'd try and get rid of them all somehow.

 

Nuclear power is different in that it's used to provide citizens something rather than take away life. As much as I'm sure some would hate to admit, nuclear's still way better than coal or gas plants and it doesn't create lakes and destroy ecosystems like Hydro does.

 

As far as public perception being a part of why nuclear plants aren't detonated: sure. But even the fact that a single detonation could happen never really stopped precautions from happening before there was public reaction, and I'd argue that those precautions wouldn't exactly go away if the pressure started becoming a non-factor. In fact, You can provide as many ifs as you want at the end of the day. The only meltdown in the states has been Three Mile Island which at least was reasonably contained and it was in the late 70's when all this stuff was still pretty early.

 

Perhaps I should ask you this: if not nuclear, what power do you want to see the world run on and do you think that could sustain the evident population growth that will happen?

 

 

I'm not completely against Nuclear Energy, but it is not completely safe and has the inherent possibility of catastrophe.  

 

Some people estimate the Fukushima cleanup is going to cost close to a trillion dollars in the coming decades.  

 

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/16/fukushimas-final-costs-will-approach-one-trillion-dollars-just-for-nuclear-disaster/#:~:text=In 2016 the government increased,billion to %24660 billion%2C however.

 

You can build a whole lot of Site-C boondoggles at $16 billion a pop, wind farms, solar roofs, and anything else you can think of for that amount.  

Edited by Coda
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Coda said:

I'm not completely against Nuclear Energy, but it is not completely safe and has the inherent possibility of catastrophe.  

 

Some people estimate the Fukushima cleanup is going to cost close to a trillion dollars in the coming decades.  

 

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/16/fukushimas-final-costs-will-approach-one-trillion-dollars-just-for-nuclear-disaster/#:~:text=In 2016 the government increased,billion to %24660 billion%2C however.

 

You can build a whole lot of Site-C boondoggles at $16 billion a pop, wind farms, solar roofs, and anything else you can think of for that amount.  

I never said it was completely safe. That's why they have precautions. I'm not saying the outcomes of nuclear explosions are not bad. They obviously are. They're just extremely (and I mean EXTREMELY) rare. They might not even happen from now on other than due to natural disasters. It's that rare. Also, one could argue that natural gas isn't safe either. Them rotten egg smells are in the gas for a reason afterall.

 

Even Site C, there's an eco system we'll never get back. That's also an issue that a lot of people never talk about. Don't get me wrong, nuclear has it's own waste (which I recommend should have been your main argument in the first place), but this mean both have their issues that forever change the landscape for the worse.

 

I tend to believe not every solution is going to be perfect. We can hopefully get closer over time, but perfect's a tough challenge in itself that may never happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mackcanuck said:

Site C dam is going thru at $16B more than double projections

Cancelling would cost over $10B

 

 

This was literally what people warned was going to happen under the BC Liberals.

 

That the cancellation would cost as much or more than the finished damn was budgeted for...

 

Who pays for this?

 

My fortis bill...

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Lock said:

I never said it was completely safe. That's why they have precautions. I'm not saying the outcomes of nuclear explosions are not bad. They obviously are. They're just extremely (and I mean EXTREMELY) rare. They might not even happen from now on other than due to natural disasters. It's that rare. Also, one could argue that natural gas isn't safe either. Them rotten egg smells are in the gas for a reason afterall.

 

Even Site C, there's an eco system we'll never get back. That's also an issue that a lot of people never talk about. Don't get me wrong, nuclear has it's own waste (which I recommend should have been your main argument in the first place), but this mean both have their issues that forever change the landscape for the worse.

 

I tend to believe not every solution is going to be perfect. We can hopefully get closer over time, but perfect's a tough challenge in itself that may never happen.

Even if you think technology and safety measures have been developed to a point where accidents are virtually impossible during normal operations, you are not taking into account the possibility of terrorism, government collapse or freak natural disasters.  

 

The relative stability of the world order that has existed since the end of WW2 is not guaranteed to continue in the decades or centuries ahead.  I'm just not convinced that declaring Nuclear Energy "safe" and building hundreds or thousands more reactors around the world is a good idea.  

Edited by Coda
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Coda said:

Even if you think technology and safety measures have been developed to a point where accidents are virtually impossible during normal operations, you are not taking into account the possibility of terrorism, government collapse or freak natural disasters.  

 

The stability of the world order that has existed since the end of WW2 is not guaranteed to continue in the decades or centuries ahead.  I'm just not convinced that declaring Nuclear Energy "safe" and building hundreds or thousands more reactors around the world is a good idea.  

Terrorism can happen with anything though. I mean, just look at 911 and the effects of that. They didn't need a nuclear power plant to change the world. If the main argument is terrorism then I'd argue we're giving the terrorists what they want: fear. ;)

 

Anyway, you don't have to be convinced on it being completely "safe", but there are already 100's of plants out there and it'll just continue to rise. We only have so many rivers so eventually something has to give.

 

At the end of the day, I'm just trying to prove to you that it's not as likely for this "bad stuff" to happen as it may seem.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The Lock said:

Terrorism can happen with anything though. I mean, just look at 911 and the effects of that. They didn't need a nuclear power plant to change the world. If the main argument is terrorism then I'd argue we're giving the terrorists what they want: fear. ;)

 

Anyway, you don't have to be convinced on it being completely "safe", but there are already 100's of plants out there and it'll just continue to rise. We only have so many rivers so eventually something has to give.

 

At the end of the day, I'm just trying to prove to you that it's not as likely for this "bad stuff" to happen as it may seem.

Err, evacuating New York City and environs for an unknown number of months or years would be a little more significant in practical terms I think.  

 

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/does-us-nuclear-emergeny-planning-need-overhaul/

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Coda said:

Err, evacuating New York City and environs for an unknown number of months or years would be a little more significant in practical terms I think.  

 

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/does-us-nuclear-emergeny-planning-need-overhaul/

But prevention would be even more practical. ;)

 

If anything, this is a plant that already exists, so I don't really know what you're trying to prove exactly if I'm being honest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Lock said:

But prevention would be even more practical. ;)

 

If anything, this is a plant that already exists, so I don't really know what you're trying to prove exactly if I'm being honest.

Read our conversation again and maybe you'll be able to figure it out.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said:

I also have to wonder what's going on with Tidal.

 

I think we can count on the moon for a while yet....:unsure:

To many environmental concerns with tidal.

 

As well as offshore wind power.

 

Mabye I can go work at site c and get my money back

Edited by Violator
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Warhippy said:

This was literally what people warned was going to happen under the BC Liberals.

 

That the cancellation would cost as much or more than the finished damn was budgeted for...

 

Who pays for this?

 

My fortis bill...

Fast ferries all over again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...