NUCLEAR POWER COMMENTS - Page 3

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
COMMENT JULY 2009
What an Issue!!! Ok my name : Byron J Kessler, born and raised in Peace River currently residing in Grande Prairie. Education: Diploma NAIT Forestry & Degree U of A Forestry Why are we looking at creating more power? We need more power in the future, we are a growing, developing province. Restrictions to power development are Green house gas production is the big world taboo right now. Is this location the best for the company? probably, for the community financially? probably, is this location the best for a few vocal individuals? no. Ok now Nuclear v.s. Others.......

Reliable
Nuclear yes (produces energy 24/7/365)
Wind or solar no (produces energy only when the wind is blowing or sun is shining)
Coal yes (produces energy (24/7/365)
Hydro yes produces energy (24/7/365)

Area foot print to produce equal power
Nuclear Industrial plant site size / plus mine site
Wind or solar miles of network grids, access roads to panels or towers
Coal industrial plant site size / plus mine site
Hydro industrial plant site size / plus flood water area

Pollution
Nuclear produces nuclear waste (long term storage a problem) zero green house gasses
Wind or solar directly produces no waste. To make these systems produce equivalent and reliable power there is a need for storage for when they are not producing.(batteries) The physical mass of material required for the larger infrastructure produces more green house gas than the units can return. When the production, maintenance, and repair of the panels, turbines, and batteries is counted these systems emit very large amounts of greenhouse gasses.
Coal produces large amounts of greenhouse gasses.
Hydro produces no waste, but does change the ecological life of the water body.

Results
Coal reliable, comparatively small size for large power generation, very dirty polluter, large volume of waste for power produced.
Nuclear reliable, comparatively small size for power generation, produces nuclear waste, small volume of waste for power produced.
Hydro reliable, comparatively small to medium size for power generation, produces no waste, changes the ecology of the water body.
Wind or solar unreliable, comparatively large size for power generation, produces no direct waste, production of facilities produces more greenhouse gas then can be saved from the use. Solar and wind are generally only practical for off the grid small users, until such time the technology is developed to produce the parts without the current greenhouse gases.

From the results the best power source to use is hydro, the Peace River already has a dam on it a second that I know is planed near dunvegan, heck run dams down the whole river. The worst is Solar or Wind due to unreliability and greenhouse gasses. In the middle is coal and nuclear internationally we are supposed to be reducing greenhouse gasses which drops coal from the picture. So what’s left Hydro dam the whole length of the rivers that already have a dam, and nuclear power after that. From My knowledge and opinions .-Byron J Kessler

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
COMMENT JUNE 2009

I for one would like to see Alberta Nuclear free. I do not believe a word Bruce Power tells us as to how save and cheaper and how clean it is. Why should Alberta let them put a never before built Nuclear Plant here? Albetans are not stupid. Lets keep Alberta Nuclear Free!!!! -Linda Sidor, Grimshaw.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
COMMENT APRIL 2009

Continued: More comments Page 4

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Comments: Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4

Advertise on DiscoverThePeaceCountry.com - RATECARD

COMMENT AUGUST 2009 My name is Kevin Gardner and I was born and raised in Peace River. My parents and siblings and many members of their families, still live in and around the area and will probably continue to do so. It may become difficult to sell properties if people no longer wish to reside there once a nuclear power plant deal is finalized. This is something that must not be allowed. There are alternatives. Petitions, well intentioned though they may be, will stop nothing. Anyone with the vaguest recollection of the history of nuclear energy has heard of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, not to mention the purposeful and unnecessary destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki near the end of WWII. Japan was ready to surrender but the U.S. wouldn't accept. It was their wish to test the effects of radiation, not only on survivors, but on the rescue crews that entered the devastated cities afterward. This is not a mindset that lends credence to such a means of producing electricity. Chalk River has become a nuclear sieve if you didn't already know. If anyone wants to contact me and collaborate on stopping this project from going through email final.messenger@yahoo.ca.

PAGE 3
Comments
Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4

POST
YOUR OPINION
on Nuclear Power.

e-mail this website: kenconnors@excite.com.