this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023
69 points (98.6% liked)

British Columbia

1400 readers
402 users here now

News, highlights and more relating to this great province!

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Lauchs -1 points 1 year ago (11 children)

To each their own! My takeaways from that were that serious accidents generally introduce unexpected complications, we got really lucky with Fukushima and taking chances with one of the most devastating natural phenomena might not be the most best gameplan.

[–] narrowide96lochkreis 4 points 1 year ago (10 children)

We got lucky? Dude... Sure it can always be worse. Chernobyl could have been worse too.

But actually both of them are really bad in any case. Nothing you want to see repeated, ever.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (9 children)

Fukishima and Chernobyl are nothing alike. Drawing a likeness between them is is incredibly dishonest (or abysmally-informed). There really isn't much in the way of how Chernobyl could have been worse, and a meltdown like Chernoby isn't even possible anymore.

[–] narrowide96lochkreis -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nothing alike? You can look up the differences in relocated population etc yourself here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_Chernobyl_and_Fukushima_nuclear_accidents

Look, they are not the same. But the world would be better off if none of the two had happened and we ought to be very fucking sure it never happens again. And I got just the idea how to make sure of that. No, the answer is not coal plants, neither "new and safe" nuclear.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

The history of nuclear power could have had 10 Chernobyls and no improvements in reactor design, and it would still be a better, safer source of power than the mix we're using now. The amount of death from nuclear power is unbelievably low. It's infinitessimal compared to other sources, on a per-joule basis. It's even lower than solar power, somehow.

And why in the world would NPPs becoming safer (which, relative to Chernobyl, they already are) not make it an obvious solution? And what solution do you have that's better than NPPs, coal, and gas that would be suitable for base load power? And don't you dare say "wind" or "solar," because those are not dispatchable sources of power.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)