I’m not sure if we’re allowed to ask questions on this sub. It seems mostly news articles but I figured I’d give it a go.

So Bruce Power in Ontario is planning to build the world’s biggest nuclear plant in the world (by expanding on an existing plant).

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/ontario-new-nuclear-build-1.6897701

BC is more well known for hydroelectric, but that particular source hasn’t really been greatly expanded on in decades and site-C is pretty controversial.

This got be thinking:

How do we in BC feel about nuclear power? Would you support one near where you live? Why or why not, and what other power options would you prefer?

  • narrowide96lochkreis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s not a choice between nuclear and coal. Both suck. Nuclear “green” power besides the risk also leaves behind radio active waste for centuries that nobody wants to deal with. Go look.

    • Pietson@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      saying nuclear and coal both suck is kind of like saying both a plate of shit and a plate of overcooked brussels spouts would suck to eat for dinner. In theory I don’t like either but one is significantly worse.

      At least with nuclear waste it’s not loosely scattered in the atmosphere, doesn’t have a harmful effect as long as it’s properly stored, and in the future we will likely have better ways to deal with it.

      • narrowide96lochkreis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s never properly stored, never. Nobody wants that stuff stored nearby them. There is not even any good experienced knowledge how to store that stuff stable long term. So far it’s all been temporary storages and quite a few of them have gone real bad. And we are doing nuclear for how many years now? This problem won’t go away. In fact it will multiply and become much bigger if we were to increase the number of nuclear plants.

        • transigence@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is complete bullshit. The storage is fine, to the point that there isn’t a problem. Even as temporary as it is, there is so little of the high-level nuclear waste that we can use our “temporary” storage for thousands of years before it gets to the point where we have to mark off, say, a football stadium to keep it.
          You’re fear-mongering out of your own ignorance.

    • rekabis
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      also leaves behind radio active waste for centuries

      97% of the waste produced from non-breeder reactors is what’s classified as low-level or intermediate-level waste. The low-level waste in particular is only dangerous for a few decades to a century on the outside. The containers for anything more hazardous (the ‘Type B’ casks) have never seen an accident which have breached it, and are designed to exist in pristine condition for over a thousand years without maintenance.

      Modern disposal techniques of the Intermediate-level and high-level waste also includes vitrification. This involves embedding the waste within molten glass, which is incredibly resilient to environmental conditions over several millennia.

    • corsicanguppy
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      They’re working on new reactors that eat that waste. You missed that?

      • narrowide96lochkreis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s future talk. None of it is available for the energy problems we’re facing now. And we still need to deal with all the waste from the currently running plants, that will continue to run a long time.