I would have been happy about this, since I generally support nuclear over the fossil fuel alternative, but I fear they're only doing this to satisfy the AI data centre craze. Though I suppose when the bubble pops, we'll be left with cheap abundant energy. The question then becomes; how much damage will data centres do before the pop.
A solid logical line, these are the sort is questions I wish the media asked because it's important to get first hand sources and not fall to conjecture, however likely it seems.
There doesn't really seem to be much in concrete steps here? (Although the article is really barebones)
It sounds like they are basically offering cheaper debt to nuclear power, which is fine, but I can't see how they can say that translates to a concrete number like 10 plants being built.
Small Modular Nuclear Reactors are EXPERIMENTAL. That means for one there is no typical design, let alone good ones. And beyond the BS that Nuclear is clean, it isn't, they could make regular reactors that take nuclear fuel that is spent and process it back up, the ones that the Canadian Governments have been talking about would be "Oh this module fails, so pull it out and put a brand new one in, which is made like current reactors and generate waste.
This means that every SMR that goes up is a TEST reactor and they have to figure out new best practices, not to mention the human factor of running the plants. There are reasons why Nuclear Scientists have been "No nuclear facilities in residential areas" and for "Best Practices in Plant Construction and Design" which they never are.
And as it is standard plants always have huge cost overruns and mid build redesigns.
Meanwhile although the cost of Solar and Wind is at a all time low, and the down sides of wind are a fraction of what we thought they were, we are still going to need Nuclear to bridge the gap to decarbonizing the economy and that means the best designs, whether they are SMR, Standard, or Thorium Based, and an affordable maintenance system with VASTLY better maintenance, and then deploy that, and not this "Oh we will throw the Uranium at the wall and see what sticks and that we can use to get soft power in other countries. That will come if you do your job right.
Traditionally, reactors were built as big as possible to generate as much power as possible. That's the only way they ever made (some) economic sense. Now we're getting smaller reactors pushed as a solution that will generate less power, and that power will be even more expensive than from a bigger nuclear plant.
Even with storage, renewables are cheaper than new nuclear. The economics haven't made any sense for years now yet these clowns persist with their proposals to make everyone pay more.
""If our goal is to double our grid and build a low-carbon economy in less than 25 years, there is no credible plan to do that without nuclear energy and the clean, reliable baseload power it provides," Hodgson told a news conference in Newmarket, Ont."
This clown is either completely misinformed or on the take.
Of course renewable CAN provide baseload, I live in BC, which is >95% renewable, but where we don't have the low hanging fruit, we would need to over build them.
I'm the end, I'm worried about what it takes for us to make a renewable transition as quickly as possible, and the best way for that is a mix of renewables and nuclear.
Because transitioning to fully renewables takes a LOT of overbuilding, and by that point we will have taken all the lowlying fruit.
As an example, in BC, we recently completed the Site C dam, which was considered an ok, if not ideal, location for a dam. Now to meet BC's growing energy demands, they are investigating the Site E location .
When the utility applied to the B.C. Utilities Commissions to build Site C in 1980, it said Site E "would have required major relocations, flooded considerably more farmland, resulted in extensive instability of the reservoir banks … and had a considerable effect on development in the Taylor area."
The fact that we are digging up a highly problematic, previously rejected project shows we are running out of viable locations for clean hydro in BC. Because of this, people are already pushing for Natural Gas generation to back things up, which defeats the purpose of a clean transition.
Furthermore, switching completely to renewables and utility-scale batteries shifts the bottleneck from building reactors to digging mines & building factories. To overbuild that much infrastructure requires an astronomical amount of copper, lithium, and rare earth metals. Spinning up a single new large-scale mine from exploration to production takes 10 to 15 years due to regulatory and engineering hurdles.
Neither option is a quick fix. But if both paths require a multi-decade timeline, why not diversify into something Canada has a lot of, and is carbon neutral: nuclear.
I'm not sure why you're bringing up hydro so much. Yes, it's a component in storage but so are batteries and many other forms of storage.
Furthermore, switching completely to renewables and utility-scale batteries shifts the bottleneck from building reactors to digging mines & building factories.
They already exist. A new nuclear plant, by definition, does not.
To overbuild that much infrastructure requires an astronomical amount of copper, lithium, and rare earth metals. Spinning up a single new large-scale mine from exploration to production takes 10 to 15 years due to regulatory and engineering hurdles.
Sodium ion batteries are perfect for grid storage applications with no rare earth components. Panels and wind turbines are being recycled.
It's obvious you've made an emotional decision that nuclear = fucking awesome, and now you're trying and failing to justify your stance.
Im bringing up hydro so much, since that the local renewable that drives BC, where i live.
I'm confused how you say that the facilities we would have to build to support the transition already exist, when by definition they dont, anymore than the nuclear doesn't exist. We don't have the resource extraction or manufacturing capacity for a full renewable transition yet, we are still building it. We can, and should, continue to use our current factories, but they are incapable of meeting the scope we will need as we transition.
Sodium ion batteries are perfect for grid storage applications with no rare earth components. Panels and wind turbines are being recycled.
Strongly agree, doesn't change the facts.
Since you have decided to debate in bad faith, It’s obvious you’ve made an emotional decision that renewables = fucking awesome, and now you’re trying and failing to justify your stance.
Renewables are amazing, but we can't risk slowing our transition by ignoring nuclear. Getting a grid to 70% or 80% renewable is relatively straightforward. Getting it to 100% is where the difficulty spikes exponentially.
2
Canadian energy minister plans 'nuclear renaissance' with up to 10 reactors built by 2040 | Spyke
I love nuclear. I also love solar and wind. Let's keep building more of everything.
Wow the government has a plan and pierre poilievre (trump's man in Canada) is against it. PP's only plan is to be against anything useful.
I would have been happy about this, since I generally support nuclear over the fossil fuel alternative, but I fear they're only doing this to satisfy the AI data centre craze. Though I suppose when the bubble pops, we'll be left with cheap abundant energy. The question then becomes; how much damage will data centres do before the pop.
A solid logical line, these are the sort is questions I wish the media asked because it's important to get first hand sources and not fall to conjecture, however likely it seems.
There doesn't really seem to be much in concrete steps here? (Although the article is really barebones)
It sounds like they are basically offering cheaper debt to nuclear power, which is fine, but I can't see how they can say that translates to a concrete number like 10 plants being built.
Small Modular Nuclear Reactors are EXPERIMENTAL. That means for one there is no typical design, let alone good ones. And beyond the BS that Nuclear is clean, it isn't, they could make regular reactors that take nuclear fuel that is spent and process it back up, the ones that the Canadian Governments have been talking about would be "Oh this module fails, so pull it out and put a brand new one in, which is made like current reactors and generate waste.
This means that every SMR that goes up is a TEST reactor and they have to figure out new best practices, not to mention the human factor of running the plants. There are reasons why Nuclear Scientists have been "No nuclear facilities in residential areas" and for "Best Practices in Plant Construction and Design" which they never are.
And as it is standard plants always have huge cost overruns and mid build redesigns.
Meanwhile although the cost of Solar and Wind is at a all time low, and the down sides of wind are a fraction of what we thought they were, we are still going to need Nuclear to bridge the gap to decarbonizing the economy and that means the best designs, whether they are SMR, Standard, or Thorium Based, and an affordable maintenance system with VASTLY better maintenance, and then deploy that, and not this "Oh we will throw the Uranium at the wall and see what sticks and that we can use to get soft power in other countries. That will come if you do your job right.
This government... I tell you...
Traditionally, reactors were built as big as possible to generate as much power as possible. That's the only way they ever made (some) economic sense. Now we're getting smaller reactors pushed as a solution that will generate less power, and that power will be even more expensive than from a bigger nuclear plant.
This just reeks of grift.
It's because of AI.
Partially, for sure, but continued decarbonization (heat pumps, electric cars, steel and concrete production) will also increase the need for power.
Electric cars were a nice intermediary but hopefully they'll be phased out by 2040.
The prairies will likely continue to rely on wind though, as Quebec will rely on hydro.
Phased out in favor of....
Public transit.
Oh, I can agree with that
Was worried you were gonna say hydrogen!
How about increase the wind farms a do solar right?
And forget the methods that are toxic for thousands of years.
I love renewables, but a nuclear backbone with renewables on top will allow us to secure being carbon neutral a lot more easily
The aversion to nuclear is a problem. I don't think people know 60% of Ontario's power is nuclear.
Even with storage, renewables are cheaper than new nuclear. The economics haven't made any sense for years now yet these clowns persist with their proposals to make everyone pay more.
Plus, we can put up solar panels faster; we have the land. We don't (just) need more clean power in 2040, we need clean power now.
""If our goal is to double our grid and build a low-carbon economy in less than 25 years, there is no credible plan to do that without nuclear energy and the clean, reliable baseload power it provides," Hodgson told a news conference in Newmarket, Ont."
This clown is either completely misinformed or on the take.
Or both.
Both is good!
Strongly agree with him, renewables are amazing, but a nuclear baseload is needed to ensure we can always meet demand.
That’s not how it works. Read up on storage vs base load, I just found this article but there are plenty more.
https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=374
Of course renewable CAN provide baseload, I live in BC, which is >95% renewable, but where we don't have the low hanging fruit, we would need to over build them.
I'm the end, I'm worried about what it takes for us to make a renewable transition as quickly as possible, and the best way for that is a mix of renewables and nuclear.
How is it quicker when your solution involves a power source that takes 10-15 years to build and will likely go over budget and schedule?
Because transitioning to fully renewables takes a LOT of overbuilding, and by that point we will have taken all the lowlying fruit.
As an example, in BC, we recently completed the Site C dam, which was considered an ok, if not ideal, location for a dam. Now to meet BC's growing energy demands, they are investigating the Site E location .
The fact that we are digging up a highly problematic, previously rejected project shows we are running out of viable locations for clean hydro in BC. Because of this, people are already pushing for Natural Gas generation to back things up, which defeats the purpose of a clean transition.
Furthermore, switching completely to renewables and utility-scale batteries shifts the bottleneck from building reactors to digging mines & building factories. To overbuild that much infrastructure requires an astronomical amount of copper, lithium, and rare earth metals. Spinning up a single new large-scale mine from exploration to production takes 10 to 15 years due to regulatory and engineering hurdles.
Neither option is a quick fix. But if both paths require a multi-decade timeline, why not diversify into something Canada has a lot of, and is carbon neutral: nuclear.
I'm not sure why you're bringing up hydro so much. Yes, it's a component in storage but so are batteries and many other forms of storage.
They already exist. A new nuclear plant, by definition, does not.
Sodium ion batteries are perfect for grid storage applications with no rare earth components. Panels and wind turbines are being recycled.
It's obvious you've made an emotional decision that nuclear = fucking awesome, and now you're trying and failing to justify your stance.
Im bringing up hydro so much, since that the local renewable that drives BC, where i live.
I'm confused how you say that the facilities we would have to build to support the transition already exist, when by definition they dont, anymore than the nuclear doesn't exist. We don't have the resource extraction or manufacturing capacity for a full renewable transition yet, we are still building it. We can, and should, continue to use our current factories, but they are incapable of meeting the scope we will need as we transition.
Strongly agree, doesn't change the facts.
Since you have decided to debate in bad faith, It’s obvious you’ve made an emotional decision that renewables = fucking awesome, and now you’re trying and failing to justify your stance.
Renewables are amazing, but we can't risk slowing our transition by ignoring nuclear. Getting a grid to 70% or 80% renewable is relatively straightforward. Getting it to 100% is where the difficulty spikes exponentially.