• Kowowow@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      only thing I really worry about with nuclear is the need for water, if we can handle that part with waste or salt water then I’m all for trying it

    • Indie@lemmy.fmhy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      No, no ,no!!! Nuclear is bad mmmmkay? I would like to present you with a link to a video where we use carbon tax to. And then support greener energies and green tech to make the earth a cleaner. We need to accept that we damged the earth and the more we put towards carbon tax will. The video will consist of apologies, thoughts and prayers, including reconciliation, and the pathway to the future. Please find the link here:

  • tunetardis@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    Sounds about right. But I worry about the nimby backlash to all this. Where I am in eastern Ontario, there is already blowback (if you’ll pardon the expression) to wind power, let alone more traditionally contentious options like nuclear and hydro dams.

    • Sir_Osis_of_Liver@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The whole Ontario electrical sector has been hugely mis-managed by NDP, PC and Liberal governments. Even at current power rates, maintenance and upgrade budgets aren’t adequate, let alone expansion, and certainly not new nuclear. The moratorium on offshore wind was exceptionally bad policy as was the half-assed privatization attempt.

      The last greenfield nuke plant built in Canada was Darlington and it ended up way over budget (equivalent of $23B in today’s money) and 5 years behind schedule. The Bruce refurbishments have been pretty successful, the Point Lepreau refurbishment, much less so. But new nuclear is a completely different ball of wax. With AECL being sold off to SNC by Harper, we don’t have the domestic talent for new CANDUs anymore. The experience with AP1000s (V.C.Summer, Vogtle) and EPRs (Hinkley Point C, Flamanville, Olkiluoto, Taishan) has been really dismal.

      • Jason2357@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not just the Bruce refurbishments but the ongoing Darlington one. I would definitely not call the grid upgrades mismanagement either. The new corridor from Bruce to the GTA makes expanding Bruce nuclear and escarpment wind possible, and ice storms aren’t going to be taking down hundreds of 50 year old hydro pylons anymore. We under-invested for 2 decades, and then had to play catch up, which, yes is an example of poor management, but lets give credit where it’s due. There’s plenty of success to point to.

      • tunetardis@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’ve heard there is talk of adding new reactors at the Bruce site, though it’s basically only that at this point. Talk. Do you think they would not be of the CANDU/heavy water design? That would be unfortunate. I’ve always felt we had good tech but abysmal management in the nuclear sector.

    • idunnololz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      A while back someone was going door to door delivering pamphlets warning people about the nuclear plant and I was like wtf, but this is good news lmao.

      • tunetardis@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Reminds me of the lady who was taping up signs on lamp posts trying to get 5G banned in the neighbourhood.

          • tunetardis@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Omg I can’t believe that is an actual product. Though tbh I know some people who would buy it.

            Once upon a time, I drove to the Green Bank Observatory in West Virginia. It’s a radio telescope observatory in the middle of nowhere. Around the facility is a no radio/wifi/cellular zone to help reduce noise the telescopes would pick up. But when I got there, I noticed there was a village nearby full of literal tin-hat-wearing conspiracy types who make pilgrimages there to be in emf-free paradise. It was such a strange juxtaposition. You have some of the brightest minds in science coming to the observatory, and right next door, the bat shit crazy…

  • Troy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    There’s a world where the green party and environmentalists are pro-nuclear instead of conspiracy nuts

    • tleb@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Canada is in a uniquely good position for nuclear, we have a massive domestic supply of uranium and a lot of geographically safe areas to build power plants, plus good access to water for cooling.

  • ℬ𝒶𝓃𝒶𝓃𝒶@communick.news
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    I am hopeful for small modular reactors (SMR’s). They have the potential for significant construction cost savings, are less of a risk from terrorism/disaster, and can often be located closer to the load (long power lines lose power).

    • Sir_Osis_of_Liver@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      There have been a number of studies that have SMRs are being as expensive or higher than conventional nuclear, with the added downside of higher levels of waste, anywhere from 2 to 30 times as much as conventional nuclear depending on the tech used.

      https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2111833119

      Part of the reason for scaling up reactors in the first place was the expectation that output would scale faster than costs. That hasn’t really panned out to the extent expected.

      • tunetardis@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I guess from a physics standpoint, one would expect an SMR to be somewhat less fuel efficient in that a nuclear reactor is essentially a furnace and the surface area to volume ratio favours a larger design to retain the heat. SMR proponents like to spin this as a “feature”, however, in that they would be less likely to meltdown and that safety trumps efficiency in reactor design. Another point they claim from the safety standpoint is that if you had say a dozen SMRs replacing a single traditional reactor, you could routinely take one off-line for inspection/maintenance without a huge hit on power generation.

        I don’t know enough about this and most of what I read is anecdotal though, so take it with a grain of salt. There may still be a case for them in northern communities, many of which are off the grid and use large diesel/gas generators? I guess it would depend on how well SMRs can follow load, which has tended to be a problem with nuclear power.

  • MisterD@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Make it a code requirement to have a way to generate SOME power for all commercial buildings. A flat top warehouse is prime location for solar panels. Anything higher than 5-6 storeys is prime location for wind power generation.

  • Jason2357@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Fyi, these estimates almost always wildly over-estimate the amount of power needed to electrify everything. When carefully calculated, it’s much less because fossil fuel infrastructure is just so damned inefficient. You burn most of it up just getting it from the ground to the engine or furnace, which themselves are wildly inefficient compared to electric versions. The book Electrify! has a detailed breakdown. It’s America-centric, but applies to Canada well enough.

    • masterspace@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      With better transmission lines there’s also huge rooms for load sharing efficiency improvements, but I would still argue that we should be vastly overbuilding electricity production. Everything in society is cheaper and easier when energy prices are lower, and if we don’t have the same carbon cost to that production there’s no reason not to spend money there as a giant subsidy to everyone.

      • zephyreks@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        In general, we should be overbuilding because we are parked right North of the second largest consumer of electricity in the world and electricity prices in a lot of US states is crazy expensive.

      • Jason2357@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, and especially with solar and wind, it’s so cheap, you overbuild so it covers more baseload, and when you have excess, you can create whole new industries like Hydrogen production that can ramp up quickly and make good use of it.

        • Rob Bos@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Predictable, reliable excess energy on the grid, even if it’s transient, oughta be useful for something. Water hydrolysis is as good a use as any. Manufacturing methane from captured CO2. Water purification from ocean water. something.

          • Jason2357@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            For sure. There are countless new industries that could pop up if there was transient super-cheap energy. Basically, anything that could be totally automated and is energy limited. Some things require more predictability than others, but there are lots of opportunities. And in the end, you get a more stable grid with less need for storage or “peaking” plants. “Make hay while the sun shines.”