By Peter Moore Canadian environmental groups are questioning the wisdom of a nuclear power comeback in Ontario and its expansion to the rest of Canada. Energy generating projects are included in the federal government’s Building Canada Act which plans to speed up infrastructure projects that are “in the national interest”. To date, neither Prime Minister …
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 storing solar becomes cheap. Still not dependable for Canadian winters, of course. Solar also uses 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.
More people have died for the equivalent amount of power put out for every power creator than nuclear. Nuclear is by far the less dangerous than anything else, however when something goes wrong with nuclear it gets news because of the massive damage.
Even if the score is kept off, there’s the angle of the Sun and cloud cover. There’s just less sunlight to be had, even if the panels are kept clear of snow.
Hell, Vancouver Island gets practically no snow at all in many areas, and solar does much worse in its cloudy/rainy season (winter).
Yes, per area solar potential isn’t always high, so you do need more paneled land for the same thing. It still comes out cheaper at this point IIRC. On the prairies it’s actually comparatively great, solar-loving Germany is more like BC.
In the arctic you’d have to store it for a full season, so they’re probably going to stick with other things in the near future, but that’s a small share of the population and demand.
Liquid fluoride thorium reactors are designed to be meltdown proof. A fusible plug at the bottom of the reactor melts in the event of a power failure or if temperatures exceed a set limit, draining the fuel into an underground tank for safe storage.
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 storing solar becomes cheap. Still not dependable for Canadian winters, of course. Solar also uses 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.
More people have died for the equivalent amount of power put out for every power creator than nuclear. Nuclear is by far the less dangerous than anything else, however when something goes wrong with nuclear it gets news because of the massive damage.
In a large, fixed installation, maintaining a constant temperature should be no problem. They might actually have to cool it.
Molten metal batteries are also a technology in consideration for that reason.
Even if the score is kept off, there’s the angle of the Sun and cloud cover. There’s just less sunlight to be had, even if the panels are kept clear of snow.
Hell, Vancouver Island gets practically no snow at all in many areas, and solar does much worse in its cloudy/rainy season (winter).
Yes, per area solar potential isn’t always high, so you do need more paneled land for the same thing. It still comes out cheaper at this point IIRC. On the prairies it’s actually comparatively great, solar-loving Germany is more like BC.
In the arctic you’d have to store it for a full season, so they’re probably going to stick with other things in the near future, but that’s a small share of the population and demand.
Is not possible, with new reactors it becomes very difficult but with the upgraded uranium it is a near zero but not zero.
Source
And, y’know, it’s actually melted from the start.
Like, you could say “accident proof” is impossible, but a meltdown is a very specific thing.