311–320 of 500 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah yes, the ridiculous strawman engineering of saying batteries would be used for seasonal storage.
Then what would you use for seasonal storage?
Like Germany: coal and the energy provided by the rest of the EU. So Nordic countries hydro and nuclear, and some French nuclear.
While lobbying to make all those interconnections increase domestic prices for the providers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do please explain how it's fallacious? I've made the claims that one, there is a sufficiently low volume of waste produced per unit of generation that geologic disposal is affordable and scalable and that two, said geological disposal is in fact safe. Where's the fallacy? It appears to me that you are attached to a position that you aren't capable of defending.
Also worth seeing that less has to be fundamentally safe at some point, otherwise background radiation would be a threat. If examined on its own without considering the surrounding inert volume, one decaying particle is presumably quite radioactive. So since less->magically safer is true some point, the argument can't be made fallacious by asserting it is true. The worst the argument can be is unpersuasive (although…
But don't let that get in the way of a good pile on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Ontario itself A need for more baseload to work with the large amount of solar and wind that Ontario has added in the last 10 years. Chasing baseload is a fool's game. You will always have a mismatch between power needed and power produced. Power storage is necessary to move excess power produced to times of excess power need. e.g., shave the peaks to fill the valleys. Any storage reduces the need for baseload and…
The massive solar overcapacity that is required to deal with seasonal variation and the massive energy storage make this endeavor much more costly than nuclear. For example, in Denmark[1] a solar-dominated grid would cost around 565 EUR/MWh. A nuclear-dominated grid would cost around 141 EUR/MWh. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036054422... Fig. 3
...
> At the case level, we find that in countries such as Denmark with available wind and solar energy resources, nuclear power does not seem to be part of the least-cost solution, neither in today's energy systems nor in future systems of climate neutral societies. This conclusion is valid for the present cost of nuclear power in Europe as well as for IEA/WEO future expectations. The future overnight cost for nuclear power of 4500 EUR/MW in 2050 represents the so-called “nth-of-a-kind” cost for new reactor designs, with assumed substantial cost reductions from the first-of-a-kind projects, while this violates the historical experience of nuclear power technology.
OK, so when does the first one come online? "The strategy calls for construction to start on two new large-scale reactors by 2035, for five more to be planned or under development by 2040 and for at least one reactor to be under construction outside Ontario by 2035." That's not serious. Construction start is too far away.
Ok, I was kind of excited about this, until you pointed out the dates. Of all Western developed countries, Canada is pretty much the last hope for a country with the skills to build nuclear at something that's within spitting distance of being economical. The US and France have shat the bed royally over the past two decades, they're out of the game of construction competence. The UK stopped doing their own and outsou…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More renewables means the need for more base load? This is the first I’ve seen anybody say that.
Crypto, AI and EV. Heating/Cooling. Raw material processing. There's going to be a need for every KW that's available. Hell, there's probably going to be a copper shortage the way things are going.
Copper prices are through the roof, and the usual copper players are seemingly unwilling to expand much
(Atleast in India)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, I was kind of excited about this, until you pointed out the dates. Of all Western developed countries, Canada is pretty much the last hope for a country with the skills to build nuclear at something that's within spitting distance of being economical. The US and France have shat the bed royally over the past two decades, they're out of the game of construction competence. The UK stopped doing their own and outsou…
Environmental assessments and consultation with native groups will quite literally require 2+ years. Impact assessments and community approval will take at least another year. None of this will run in parallel, at least not much of the time. Beyond that, while laudable, there is a quite rigid tender process which must be followed, to ensure contracts are fair, equitable, and not influenced by government officials. Th…
Because my friend had the craziest protectionism story.
He wanted to build a multi family home on his existing lot.
Of course all kinds of studies need to be done. One of them is a tree study. Which costs $3,000 alone per tree. He hired firm and they were doing a study (for building purposes).
Then one day a crew shows up and cuts the tree all of a sudden. Turns out that his neighbour, unknown to him, was complaining that the tree was creating too much shade. So without any study they just came and cut it down.
That’s before even his study results came back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All forms of generation have downsides. > Canada needs new power now. Not 15-20 years from now, Building nuclear doesn't stop you from building whatever else you want. Though I assume that Canada being Canada, it'll take 15 years just to complete the requisite negotiations with every indigenous tribe and to arrive at a settlement with whatever environmental and assorted NIMBY groups are already warming up their lawsu…
>Building nuclear doesn't stop you from building whatever else you want. It kind of does though, since it demands pretty lavish subsidies to be built at all and those subsidies would give WAY more bang for the buck if used on pumped storage, batteries, solar and wind. You also have to cap liability in case of nuclear disaster. Private insurers won't touch nuclear power with a barge pole unless taxpayers are forced to…
Imo, the answer should always be, yes, build, please.
Heavy industries (which support blue collar growth) come to places with cheaper power.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If not aware - uk government is backing Roll Royce to produce small reactor solutions (SMR). And Rolls is going around the world signing up sales agreements for them. The underlying tech though is yet to be proven, so some risk won’t deliver on time/to budget/at all.
SMR's seem like a pipe dream tbh.
Should look at the the historical record and consider the scale of cost overruns and delays that major nuclear projects have experienced. While everyone involved may have good intentions, the reality is that these projects often end up costing significantly more and taking much longer than originally projected. Wind and solar could be deployed for a fraction of the proposed $100 billion investment and should be consi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We also know how to get rid of it entirely, leaving only material that will decay to safe levels within hundreds of years In the interests of fairness, is like a citation showing that
It's called "closed [nuclear] fuel cycle". Just google it. I studied it at a university. TLDR; if you have enough fast neutrons, you can transmute anything into safe materials. Fast neutron reactors produce enough, classic PWR reactors do not. The only commercial fast reactor right now is in Russia. If at some point humanity decides to stop making reactors altogether, it's still possible to burn the waste with partic…