[Newsbot]

<strong>Title: </strong> <a href="/link.php?id=27301" target="_blank">Nuclear protest convoy dumps on Alberta reactor</a> (click to view)

<strong>Category:</strong> <a href="/news/topic/20-environmental" target="_blank">Environmental</a>
<strong>Posted By: </strong> <a href="/modules.php?name=Your_Account&op=userinfo&username=hurley_108" target="_blank">hurley_108</a>
<strong>Date: </strong> 2007-11-20 07:30:20
<strong>Canadian</strong>

[Heavy_Metal]

....they pooed on the reactor....isn't that dangerous to expose your bum to radiation?

[camerontech]

Nuclear NO/Biofuel Yes.


lol, what an r-tard, how can biofuel replace teh power a nuclear reactor can generate?

[sasquatch2]

From time to time i have encountered folks with these values/notions and have found their understanding of anything belongs in the 7th century.

[RUEZ]

camerontech camerontech:

Nuclear NO/Biofuel Yes.


lol, what an r-tard, how can biofuel replace teh power a nuclear reactor can generate?

Not only that but biofuels such as biodiesel and ethanol are made from corn and other food sources which takes away from what we consume. I'd hate to see how much we need to replace nuclear.

[sandorski]

A Nuclear Reactor is exactly what's needed for the Oil Sands. These people need to STFU and see the big picture.

[romanP]

I'm not a huge fan of nuclear power, and even I think these people have it all wrong.

Biofuels? Those are raising the price of food, and burning them apparently produces nitrous oxide which, if the emissions aren't contained, causes just as much environmental damage as fossil fuels.

They also said something about the fact that the reactor would use reprocessed fuel somehow makes their community a nuclear dumping ground, which is totally false, since they'd be using the fuel, not burying it.

The only point I can side wiith them on is the fact that the reactor is going to be built on a river that's close to civilian population, which is never a good idea.

[bootlegga]

I'm not a fan of nuclear power either, but CANDU reactors are very good, so I'm not all that worried about them melting down, and while disposing of the waste is an issue, the oil sands needs the power. That would allow them to stop using so much natural gas and prevent an awful lot of CO2 emissions.

[romanP]

How does one prevent emission of carbon dioxide by using another source of energy to dig up the very thing that is the source of the carbon dioxide?

[Winnipegger]

I've heard it said that every 2 gallons of fuel from the tar sands requires 1 gallon of fuel. That's a simple ratio, but they don't use synthetic crude directly, they use natural gas to boil water to extract oil from tar sands. And their trucks use diesel fuel. But using nuclear power to boil water into steam to extract oil from tar sands would eliminate the need to burn natural gas. It doesn't eliminate the diesel fuel, or the gasoline for cars that the oil will eventually become, but at least it eliminates use of natural gas. That's a reduction, not elimination. At least it's something.

More importantly, we need natural gas to heat our homes. I read that we only have 25 years of natural gas deposits left in this country, and that was a couple years ago. Using natural gas to either generate electricity or extract tar sands is irresponsible use of a non-renewable resource.

[Ripcat]

camerontech camerontech:

Nuclear NO/Biofuel Yes.


lol, what an r-tard, how can biofuel replace teh power a nuclear reactor can generate?

Well, 90% of us stop eating because we can no longer afford food so we starve to death so we won't need any energy....

Farmers feed cities!!! Errr, ...I mean biofuel processing plants.....

I'm going to turn 95% of my yard into a vegetable garden. The other 5% is for the goat to graze on.....

[Ripcat]

And I'm going to make bricks of manure with the goat shit to burn in the wood stove in the winter....

[Numure]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

I've heard it said that every 2 gallons of fuel from the tar sands requires 1 gallon of fuel. That's a simple ratio, but they don't use synthetic crude directly, they use natural gas to boil water to extract oil from tar sands. And their trucks use diesel fuel. But using nuclear power to boil water into steam to extract oil from tar sands would eliminate the need to burn natural gas. It doesn't eliminate the diesel fuel, or the gasoline for cars that the oil will eventually become, but at least it eliminates use of natural gas. That's a reduction, not elimination. At least it's something.

More importantly, we need natural gas to heat our homes. I read that we only have 25 years of natural gas deposits left in this country, and that was a couple years ago. Using natural gas to either generate electricity or extract tar sands is irresponsible use of a non-renewable resource.

Well, not all of Canada uses Natural Gas to heat their homes. Most homes in Québec are heated using electricity. Electricity that is produced from Hydro-Power plants (95% of it).

As for the topic in itself, Nuclear Power is a great solution to burning fossil fuel to produce electricity. Nuclear waste, when well disposed of, isnt as much of a nussance as all the pollution produced by fossil fuel plants.

[sasquatch2]

Numure

$1:

Well, not all of Canada uses Natural Gas to heat their homes. Most homes in Québec are heated using electricity. Electricity that is produced from Hydro-Power plants (95% of it).

Some nuclear but the majority comes from Labrador's Churchill Falls @ pre-inflation prices and a lot of James Bay power that they then sell to New York.

[tritium]

Nuclear Power is far less damaging than coal and oil. It's the safest, cleanest, and most economical form of large scale energy production available today.

It will also help sustain Alberta's growing energy needs for the future.

Build it.