MissingMiddle
Active Member
1). It's not admitted often, but the primary reason is because people who don't know anything about nuclear are scared of nuclear. Specifically, people recall events like Chernobyl and Fukushima that are largely irrelevant with modern fission technology. High Capital Cost is the accidental red herring.Can anyone that knows something about power generation weigh in on something for me?
1) Is nuclear just too costly to build? It seems like a major investment in nuclear power generation could probably phase out coal in the short to medium term, but i don't know why it isn't a focus.
2) I keep hearing from more Conservative folks that our electrical grid would need major upgrades to support EV charging in a larger amount of households. Does anyone know if this is true and what the issue is?
Compact Fusion Reactors are by far the most promising, but technology is more than decade away with current levels of investment. If you're curious, it involves heating a few atoms of a hydrogen isotope to ~100 million degrees while suspended in a magnetic chamber. At about the size of delivery truck, it'd mean a functionally limitless energy source with zero emissions. Chances of a meltdown would be the metaphorical equivalent of tossing a box of Lego down some stairs and finding the set assembled at the bottom. It's the most complex feat of research that's ever been undertaken, and this happened earlier this year: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00408-1
2). Idk
Not directing this at you Surreal, but anyone weighing in on this debate needs to understand the full implications of these two things together:As far as the statement from Blanchet goes, it's funny, but also not very realistic, and just more of the same divisive politics we need to get away from. His province has been an indirect beneficiary of Alberta's oils sands for decades. A large portion of the carbon emissions from Alberta goes toward the Oil Sands extraction, which isn't just for Alberta.
Last edited: