[occurrini]

I've always wondered about methane. Why isn't it used more? In the US a lot of dairies are energy neutral or even produce more energy than they use (across their entire operation) by digesting the animal waste. By that point about 90% of the methane has escaped already, so digesting plant matter would seem like it would be even more productive. Now in some climates there just isn't enough vegetation to go about harvesting enough to really make a difference, but in places like here... in a relatively small area like the yard at the house (which is perhaps 1/4 acre) there's literally tons of vegetative matter just piled up to decay or be burned for cooking or just to keep it from piling up. Then natural gas prices are outrageous, about 2x what it costs in Manila where it's still more expensive than in most industrial nations.

Not only would digesting all this plant matter yield a lot of methane, it would decrease a lot of burning. Of course you end up burning the methane, but by that point a lot of the pollutants have been removed from the equation and you are offsetting the burning of fossile fuels which would instead be releasing CO2 which would have been sequestered otherwise. The main drawback is you would be taking nutrients from the soil, but since these debris are generally being burned, that isn't actually happening anyways (and the burning leads to lower soil pH which is generally already low enough in rainy climates)

It seems a nearly limitless energy source that's doubly green and has already proven itself economically viable in less favorable conditions. Plus it's a good way of creating high quality soil additives (less disease concerns than with composted manure) that can somewhat help offset fertilizers from petroleum products. So it's triply green.

[tretcheenia]

Yeah, what Oerdin said. Windmills and solar are impractical and infeasible.

Solar technology is moving on fast.

[Biradallo]

This province went full ahead with "green" techs the last few years (solar, wind) and has now accepted they just can't run an industrial economy on windmills.

We're building more nukes.

[XVzrlWIv]

No sh!t.

A cost always overlooked by supporters.

[skiboyx]

You and I have different definitions of "pretty".

An isolated plant may be a local eyesore but windmill farms stretch for miles and are horrendous.

[Ngdyoysv]

My point is, it's not an issue overlooked by supporters, but a combination of either a different aesthetic preference or a decision that the cost in terms of eyesores is worth it for the benefits of clean power.

Plus they can be offshore.

[SkatrySkith]

There'd be literally thousands of wind power plants to each coal plant! Like weeds sprung from a compost they'll be everywhere.

At least with coal you can imagine they're like big cloud-making machines. Perfectly natural. And nukes seriously? They're just big harmless boxes.

Problems with nuclear :

1. Waste
2. Sourcing fuel

[juspimoubbodo]

My point is, it's not an issue overlooked by supporters, but a combination of either a different aesthetic preference...

I can't argue with that. Modern art tells us there is no accounting for taste.

... or a decision that the cost in terms of eyesores is worth it for the benefits of clean power. That's a different argument isn't it? "They're ugly but worth it"


Plus they can be offshore. We just canceled a large off-shore project (in Lake Ontario south of Picton).

[DraidodaRip]

If only they looked like that.

[Siuchingach]

If they were like a power plant I would have little disagreement with the "look" of them. Tightly packed into a small area is a whole lot better than scattered for miles. They remind me of the old power poles for lines that we have been trying to bury for the last 30 years. A huge step backward.

[Tuqofiw]

If they were like a power plant I would have little disagreement with the "look" of them. Tightly packed into a small area is a whole lot better than scattered for miles. They remind me of the old power poles for lines that we have been trying to bury for the last 30 years. A huge step backward.

It was kind of a shock for me how many power lines were above ground in Ontario. Don't see that much out here in the modern west.

[pIp83Uns]

Nuclear isn't long-term anyway. As people have already said, 80-100 years more of fuel.

And while it's statistically "very safe", they're not completely safe. When a nuclear plant has a problem (and they do have problems, make no mistake), the ramifications can be massive. When a natural gas plant, coal plant, hydro plant, solar farm, wind farm, etc have problems, the ramifications are pretty confined.

So cheering how statistically safe Nuclear Power Plants are, they're still a tremendous risk compared to the others.

[NanoKakadze]

Nuclear isn't long-term anyway. As people have already said, 80-100 years more of fuel.

Good enough for me.

And while it's statistically "very safe", they're not completely safe. When a nuclear plant has a problem (and they do have problems, make no mistake), the ramifications can be massive. When a natural gas plant, coal plant, hydro plant, solar farm, wind farm, etc have problems, the ramifications are pretty confined.

You omit the ongoing enviro/health costs of "dirty" fuels.

So cheering how statistically safe Nuclear Power Plants are, they're still a tremendous risk compared to the others. More risky if there is a failure but much better over their lifespans. How many early deaths does the typical coal plant cause?

[Dayreive]

I don't know -- how many?

Hint: Far more every year than total deaths from nuclear plant accidents.

I don't like coal much, but I've no problem with natural gas. How many deaths do natural gas plants cause? Also emits air pollution (but better than coal).

[oneliRafmeene]

TransAlta installed CCS at one of their coal plants with much success, IIRC.

[10traistintarry]

I thought so.

Give me air pollution over radiation any day.

If you were really concerned about air pollution, why do you live in the parts of Canada with the dirtiest air?

[doogiehoussi]

I was approaching the math from the other way round. How many people have died from nuke plant radiation? It would be an easier number to come up with (disputes over Chernobyl perhaps) and would certainly be lower than the dirty fuels contribution to bad air.

Dirty fuels from power plants?

Highly doubtful...

It's not fair to attribute all air pollution to electricity generation.