Canada plans 'nuclear renaissance' with up to 10 reactors built by 2040

Post by Moldoteck » Wed, Jun 24, 2026, 5:26 AM UTC

troupo wrote: post #399

myrmidon wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> nuclear reactors are capable of changing power output at 3-5% of nameplate capacity per minute This is not a technical problem, but nuclear plants already struggle to compete on cost of energy when running 24/7. Every minute such a plant runs at less than nominal output, those already bad economics grow worse.

> when running 24/7. Key word: running 24/7. Which neither solar nor wind can do. > Every minute such a plant runs at less than nominal output, those already bad economics grow worse. Is that why countries that boast "we have so much renewable energy now" tend to import electricity from stable sources (nuclear and hydro) the moment there's a long period of overcast skies with little to no wind?

Post by Moldoteck » Wed, Jun 24, 2026, 5:43 AM UTC

bildung wrote: post #342

stymaar wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you forgot the most important one, that justify nuclear over the alternatives: - is very far North and can't really use solar at all for 3 month per year because in winter the nights are long, the weather is terrible and the sun is always low in the sky.

Canada (at least the part with people) seems to be significantly more in the south than most of Northern Europe, where PV seems to work just fine?

Post by Moldoteck » Wed, Jun 24, 2026, 5:50 AM UTC

kelseydh wrote: post #307

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A need for more baseload to work with the large amount of solar and wind that Ontario has added in the last 10 years. Once you have base load from nuclear why do you need solar and wind at all?

Because solar and wind are renewable, cheaper and cleaner than nuclear. They don't require destructive mining for enriched uranium or create the security implications of dealing with fissile material. Solar/wind do not create long term hazardous waste that's complicated to dispose or create the risk of widespread radioactive fallout. They also help to decentralise the energy grid making it less dependent on a single…

Post by Moldoteck » Wed, Jun 24, 2026, 5:54 AM UTC

nickserv wrote: post #146

consensus1 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see that France has the most nuclear heavy grid and also some of the cheapest energy costs and lowest CO2 emission per unit energy in the world. When I see that matched by a solar / wind focused grid I will believe the cheap renewables hype. And even when I see that, the low energy density still has its own problems. The amount of resources needed for the panels and batteries is massive in itself. And the land area…

France has higher prices than several EU countries. Spain in particular has low prices thanks to their solar and wind, and the Nordics thanks to hydro.

Post by jibal » Wed, Jun 24, 2026, 6:22 AM UTC

b112 wrote: post #300

jibal wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article: "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," Reduction in burning carbon and producing greenhouses is the number one concern of environmentalists and is a major driver of the increased acceptability of nuclear power production, especially if saf…

Reduction in burning carbon and producing greenhouses is the number one concern of environmentalists Is it? Nothing is more environmentally friendly than hydroelectric dams. In Canada, there are endless rivers to dam, while also leaving endless rivers undammed. Further, damming a river doesn't destroy nature, it does however turn a river into a lake. Over the years it takes to build and complete the project, includin…