@leveller_ottawa I really did wish we were investing into our own CANDU MONARK reactors. We would use raw Uranium from Sask, get Canadian engineering firms to build it, and not worry as much about waste.
Nuclear is an important part of the mix for high energy density industrial activities especially. It’s importance is secondary to renewables.
What were missing here is the energy efficiency bit. Our building codes and transportation infra are weak and not fit for a low energy eroei metabolism that will be required post fossil fuels.
I just wish we went whole hog into wind and Solar. Nuclear is great but the push for it online makes me feel like that’s something going on.
It’s worth noting that Canada produces the majority of medical isotopes, enough so that there was a worldwide shortage when one of the CANDU reactors went offline for repairs a few years back. We could use more for that reason alone, but not that many more. As much as I like the idea of nuclear, I think it will be eclipsed by renewables, hydro, and cheaper battery storage. That said, in some parts of canada nuclear is the most reliable option.
Nuclear waste is way overblown as a concern. The total volume of waste is miniscule, relative to the power generated. Nuclear also uses almost no land for the reactor, compared with solar, and is essentially 100% dependable 24/7/365.
Solar is great, and costs are diminishing incredibly rapidly. And if the news of sodium-based batteries at ~9% the cost of lithium batteries plays out, then stirring solar becomes cheap. Still not dependable for Canadian winters, of course. Solar also used lots of land, and lots of mass of semiconductors (which of course has its own climate impacts to produce, ship, and recycle/dispose of).
I’m not super looped in to the technology specifics, but I understand that some modern nuclear designs are meltdown proof, too, so there isn’t really any rational NIMBY case to be made against them.
Having read the whole article, they don’t have any specifics that justify their concerns. They quote the price of nuclear facility construction, but don’t contrast those costs against any competing technologies, so the numbers are effectively meaningless. They complain about nuclear waste, but their only evidence is quoting NIMBYs who don’t want a facility put in close to them.
I’m open to being convinced that nuclear isn’t in Canada’s interests, but this article did not make a compelling case.
Arguably nuclear power has a lesser environmental impact than hydro despite its good reputation as a renewable.
Nuclear is just scary for the average person, even though the world has seen more dams breaking than nuclear reactor faults.
It’s just power hungry AI data centers wanting people to subsidize their power costs. Nuclear reactors cost a fortune to build and run.
Ugh no nuclear.
It’s far better than fossil fuels, especially with the newest generation of reactors.
I too like thought-provoking takes backed by real world data…
