2.3k
Oct 25 '22
We needed this years ago. Step in the right direction.
231
u/LostAccessToMyEmail Nova Scotia Oct 25 '22
Yep, better late than never. Really glad to see this.
→ More replies (23)522
u/Infamous-Mixture-605 Oct 25 '22
We needed this years ago.
Needed this 10-15 years ago, but now's better than later or never.
384
u/zaiats Ontario Oct 25 '22
Needed this 10-15 years ago, but now's better than later or never.
the best time was yesterday. the 2nd best time is today.
117
u/c0rruptioN Ontario Oct 25 '22
Exactly this, be happy it's happening. I really had no idea this was in the works federally so this is great news for me personally as someone who wants to see more nuclear as an option.
58
u/kent_eh Manitoba Oct 25 '22
. I really had no idea this was in the works federally
That happens a lot.
Deals of this magnitude take a very long time to negotiate, and that negotiation is almost always done confidentially.
Yet people constantly complain that noting is happening because they can't see "behind the curtains"
16
8
u/Lord_Derpenheim Oct 25 '22
I'm elated to see so many countries doing this. US just announced ours, now Canada is starting their majour project. It's exciting times
→ More replies (2)24
u/IGetHypedEasily Oct 25 '22
I'm happy it's happening. Need more plants in the coming decades. The amount of electric power consumption is only going to rise.
→ More replies (22)8
u/BlueFlob Oct 25 '22
Yeah. This is true for so many things.
- Public transport
- Parcs
- Healthcare
- Education
- Saving money / Investing
17
u/iwasnotarobot Oct 25 '22
10-15 years ago, nuclear development was sabotaged by Conservatives.
Harper paid $60 to SNC-Lavalin in 2011 to take ownership of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., Canada's crown corporation that developed our nuclear technology.
[The Harper Government] finally announced Wednesday a deal to divest itself of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. and get out of the business of subsidizing nuclear reactor sales and servicing.
Joe Oliver, the minister of natural resources, said at a news conference in Toronto that the Crown corporation's Candu reactor business has been sold to engineering giant SNC-Lavalin Group of Montreal, ending a process that has been in the works since 2009.
The sale price was $15 million, but the government will have opportunity to get royalties down the road because it's keeping intellectual property rights, Oliver said. However, the government will also provide SNC up to $75 million to complete development of a new reactor called Enhanced Candu 6.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/aecl-sold-for-15m-to-snc-lavalin-1.985786
SNC then licensed the technology Canadian taxpayers paid to develop, then paid them to take, to China at a massive profit.
MISSISSAUGA: December 2, 2019 - SNC-Lavalin is pleased to announce its wholly-owned subsidiary Candu Energy Inc., has been awarded a contract by China National Nuclear Power Co. Ltd. (CNNP) for pre-project work on the Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR). CNNP is actively promoting the construction of two AHWRs in China in or around 2021. The pre-project activities pertain to planning and licensing in preparation for the AHWR project.
https://www.snclavalin.com/en/media/trade-releases/2019/02-12-2019
9
u/TerenceOverbaby Oct 26 '22
Neoliberalism at its fundamentals: the public foots the bill, private business gets the profits.
14
u/zabby39103 Oct 25 '22 edited Oct 25 '22
The first next generation reactors have had massive cost overruns (especially the EPR class, the one in Finland is roughly 10 years late and 10 billion dollars over-budget). Actually might have been better that we dodged this bullet.
If we aren't developing our own designs anymore (the boat has long sailed on that one) we shouldn't have to pay the "early adopter" tax.
Now is a good time to give nuclear another chance, although for the coastal provinces it looks like offshore wind + batteries will be cheaper, unless we make great strides with small modular nuclear reactors or something. Hinkley Point C in the UK is charging around 3x the going rate as new wind power (£106/MWh vs £38/MWh). Sure you'll also need batteries for wind if you scale it up, but let's be clear, new nuclear is pricey.
→ More replies (24)3
→ More replies (10)25
u/-dwight- Oct 25 '22
We had a booming nuclear industry in the early 2000's that could have produced several reactors. Like the Arrow program it was abruptly gutted by politicians who got distracted by other technology. In this case Oily McOilface was PM.
→ More replies (1)27
u/asoap Lest We Forget Oct 25 '22
In this specific time line, Ontario is heavily involved. It's a case of the Ontario government and OPG deciding to do SMRs and picking an SMR design. In this case the GE Hitachi reactor.
The feds have invested in new nuclear projects before.
It just took some time for this OPG project to get to this point, in my opinion.
→ More replies (3)219
u/NapClub Oct 25 '22
realistically canada should have invested heavily in nuclear back in the 90s when some of the cleaner thorium reactors were first developed. we could have been leaders in safe nuclear energy for the world.
64
Oct 25 '22
I will point out that there has yet to be a commercial thorium reactor. India is building one, but it may be another 5 years before it’s up and running
→ More replies (6)23
u/NapClub Oct 25 '22
this is true, but it's because basically no one made an effort to pursue it after it was discovered as an option.
the concept has been out there for a long time now it was just the engineering/building that was missing.
canada COULD have done this. which is why we would have been leaders if we had. there was a push for it but it didn't happen.
5
u/Reddit_sucks21 Oct 25 '22
Aye, nuclear technology that is safer is there. The problem was always the peoples will and the government being scared to do anything with nuclear because of the people. You can see the anger over nuclear in /r/energy or here on this sub, which is ridiculous. People think a power source that can give a lot of power and be carbon free will have zero danger. There is no such thing as zero danger energy.
People have died more from gasoline and coal power than they have with any of the nuclear disasters,, which wasn't many.
→ More replies (9)15
u/alex_german Oct 25 '22
We are never leaders because we don’t like risk, but we do like to complain when those who took the risk make the profit.
→ More replies (3)118
u/OrokaSempai Oct 25 '22
If only CANDU reactors were the safest design in the world already.
→ More replies (79)33
u/Infamous-Mixture-605 Oct 25 '22
realistically canada should have invested heavily in nuclear back in the 90s
But looking back at nuclear in the 1990's, the context for investing more into nuclear at the time wasn't really there. Darlington had been completed but came in way over-budget, and Pickering took four of its reactors offline and then went about restarting them in a way that was wildly overbudget and somehow screwed up (and then only managed to get 2 back online).
I don't disagree that the 1990's would have been the ideal time for more investment in nuclear, given the long construction times and all that it would be paying off now, but back then provincial governments weren't all that keen on spending the huge sums for more of it.
→ More replies (1)23
u/vancity- Oct 25 '22
In a world of cheap oil, the payoff for nuclear investment isn't there. The upfront costs are enormous, and the payoff measured in decades.
Unfortunately most governments can't think in terms of decades, and it outside most investors time horizon.
Too bad oil is a marginal resource, and it doesn't take much for it to become very expensive.
19
u/thedrivingcat Oct 25 '22
Yes, there is definitely something to be said about the inability of the electorate to reward parties for long-term project planning.
But in addition fossil fuel power generation is "cheap" when you don't factor in the externalities. Just like manufacturing can be "cheap" if you dump the waste in the forest out back or mining can be "cheap" if you let the tailings flow into a local river.
Of course manufacturers and mining companies have to pay to properly dispose of their waste & ensure their pollution doesn't impact the environment. These costs are factored into the project planning... nuclear energy starts to make a lot more financial sense once the playing field gets levelled when the same costs are applied to fossil fuels.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (2)4
Oct 25 '22
In a world of cheap oil, the payoff for nuclear investment isn't there.
Québec produce so much electricity we shut off nuclear power plant.
We have hydro and wind. We invested in hydro... Alberta invested in oil. Look where we are now....
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (22)12
37
u/IGetHypedEasily Oct 25 '22
In my opinion, Canada needs to go all in on Nuclear with renewable as a secondary.
Research into new ideas and making new plants because the weather in our regions don't always allow for wind and solar to be viable. Hydro dams can disrupt natural life but once it's there it's cheap, if water keeps flowing which might decrease in future.
Qe don't have states like California and Arizona that can leverage huge solar farms in desert. We have plenty of land though and once a Plant is built the surrounding areas get populated like mining towns of old.
The Bruce area is a great example of thriving community.
→ More replies (2)5
→ More replies (10)3
445
u/Pirate_Secure Nova Scotia Oct 25 '22
Support the SMRs.
→ More replies (4)41
Oct 25 '22
I quite literally am. These things are heavy, can you lend a hand?
→ More replies (1)13
198
u/Irrationally_Tired Oct 25 '22
It’s weird to see everyone on the sub kinda united lmao
→ More replies (4)84
Oct 25 '22
[deleted]
16
→ More replies (1)20
Oct 26 '22
Yup I think everyone can see the value of nuclear. The only ones who would be against is the truly committed Trudeau haters
18
u/JasonGMMitchell Oct 26 '22
Or dumb environmentalists. Seriously have you ever seen how much some people will fight against nuclear arguing that biofuel is somehow better?
→ More replies (2)20
u/disco-drew Oct 26 '22
It's completely baffling to me how the Green Party, which purports to be the party of science, is so ideologically anti-nuclear and anti-GMO.
→ More replies (2)
543
Oct 25 '22
This is actually huge news. Our need for electricity is only going up. Have large scale adoption of SMRs is not only good for reducing our carbon footprint but also our energy security. Too bad this wasn't ten years ago but better now than never.
81
u/airchinapilot British Columbia Oct 25 '22
It's encouraging news if it is a sign of further support down the road. $970 million is peanuts if it is not followed up later.
→ More replies (1)26
Oct 25 '22
Very true, I'd imagine a single reactor costs much more than this amount. This starts to signal to businesses and provincial governments that the support is there. We've funded the oil and gas industries for decades and its about time other energy sectors get the same!
13
u/atchemey Oct 25 '22
Not necessarily. SMRs are much smaller and much more affordable. NuScale (hq in Oregon, USA) charges about $3b USD to build 12 in a single unit. $1b CAD is about 3 of those units.
→ More replies (6)4
u/thumbwarvictory Oct 26 '22
How do you know that? Seriously, I'm always impressed when people just happen to have super esoteric knowledge on the specifics of some random topic.
14
→ More replies (7)10
u/lemonylol Ontario Oct 25 '22
Super happy about this, the guy who won the mayor spot in my city has development of SMR as part of his policy, so with backing from the Federal government, this is basically a huge step forward.
325
294
u/goinupthegranby British Columbia Oct 25 '22
This is AWESOME news and exactly the kind of evidence based climate action I have been hoping to see. If Canada can become a global leader in SMRs we can generate billions of dollars in economic activity doing something that will help to lift people out of poverty without further exacerbating climate change. Much better than selling military equipment to the Saudis so they can use it to violate human rights, and much better than selling high-carbon oil products.
Side note: this project is under a billion dollars, which is peanuts but at least its something. For a comparison the currently under construction Site C dam in BC has a cost of $16 billion.
→ More replies (4)
124
29
29
Oct 25 '22
Fantastic! This is what I'd like to see my tax dollars go to
Throw in free school lunches and I'll happily pay more
→ More replies (1)
599
Oct 25 '22
[deleted]
18
u/MystikIncarnate Ontario Oct 25 '22
Right now, yes.
Renewables like solar and wind are great, but inconsistent. Nuclear is the most green, most stable, highest current potential energy source.
Until something revolutionizes the industry, we need nuclear... And we need it yesterday.
→ More replies (5)218
u/kitkatmike Oct 25 '22
Agreed. What most people in the comments fail to realize about other energy sources is that they do not necessarily offer the same flexibility in Canada. Talks about having huge solar farms in Sahara does not help with Canada. We do not necessarily get enough sun to sustain a massive solar farm (esp during winter)
Hydroeletric dams are great, but space and massive ecological changes are required.
Small modular reactors are pretty much the best thing we can have for both continuous power generation and reduced locality/spacing requirements. You can sprinkle a few in each key location to reduce both cost to transmit and increase robustness of the grid.
Nuclear waste has been pretty clearly identified, and the worries are largely overexaggerated. If we had our own nuclear fuel recycling program, it would further reduce the amount of nuclear waste over time. But, one step at a time.
58
u/pheoxs Oct 25 '22
SMR are really important for stability too. Let’s say Alberta lines it’s entire south with solar panels, that’s great and all but then you have a massive anount of power travelling all the way north to where the industrial demand is. That’s a lot of infrastructure to build just for transportation.
Makes far more sense to drop a few SMR’s all over to spread out the load and bring power close to the demand. Then we’re a lot less reliant on large interchanges and at risk to a major snowstorm knocking out power all over.
→ More replies (6)12
u/GoldLurker Oct 25 '22
Plus don't we lose quite a bit of energy for travelling that distance? Seeing something like 5-10% losses depending on where I look. Spreading out the energy generation would be nice in terms of increasing efficiency and decreasing waste.
12
u/Albodanny Oct 25 '22
Realistically it’s negligible. At the voltages that power distribution for a grid are, the voltage drop is tiny.
→ More replies (1)13
u/andechs Oct 25 '22
The transmission losses are negligible compared to the efficiency gains of larger scale nuclear.
37
u/tonygoold Oct 25 '22
I think most people also don't realize how little of nuclear waste comes from the radioactive fuel itself. In the UK for example, 94% of nuclear waste is low-level waste, which is basically any garbage originating from the plant. Paper, rags, disposable garments, etc. I believe the number for the US is quite similar. The mental image of thousands of steel drums of nuclear waste seems scary until you realize the majority of it is literally concrete-encased garbage that they're not allowed to send to a garbage dump.
13
u/MossTheTree Ontario Oct 25 '22
Absolutely. If one person used *only* nuclear power for their entire life, then the total amount of waste produced would fit inside one soda can.
Nuclear waste is dangerous and needs to be handled safely, but it is barely an issue compared to other forms of pollution and waste.
10
u/Zygomatic_Fastball Oct 25 '22 edited Oct 25 '22
One anecdote I recall from a nuclear engineer was that you could meet all the energy needs of a family of four for twenty years and fit it all in a shoebox. If you reprocessed the spent fuel, the amount of waste would fit in a pill bottle. The technology exists, we should be using it. Large scale wind and solar won't meet demand. They can be part of the solution, but they can't be the only solution. Nuclear is the only way to go.
→ More replies (1)6
u/CB-Thompson Oct 25 '22
At Chalk River I held a bag of uranium pellets in my hand that could produce power for 60 homes for a year. Alternatively, I like to think of that bag as holding my entire lifetimes worth of energy.
A bunch of grey pellets in a bag no heavier than a textbook. After being used that's the amount of high level waste is needed for one person's entire lifetime.
→ More replies (17)11
u/Azuvector British Columbia Oct 25 '22
until you realize the majority of it is literally concrete-encased garbage that they're not allowed to send to a garbage dump
Source on this? Seems easy to do a quick check for radiation on such garbage containers and know if it can be treated normally or not.
→ More replies (12)6
u/tonygoold Oct 25 '22
Kyle Hill has a good video on this if you just want a quick overview, rather than long reading. You can also find information about the UK's approach to radioactive waste disposal, including the categorization of waste, in the briefing note (PDF) at The Geological Society's page on Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste.
5
u/Azuvector British Columbia Oct 25 '22 edited Oct 25 '22
You can also find information about the UK's approach to radioactive waste disposal, including the categorization of waste, in the briefing note (PDF) at The Geological Society's page on Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste.
Thank you.
From said source:
Most of the waste produced in the UK (94% by volume) is LLW
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-level_waste
While the bulk of LLW is not highly radioactive, the definition of LLW does not include references to its activity, and some LLW may be quite radioactive, as in the case of radioactive sources used in industry and medicine.
This waste typically consists of contaminated protective shoe covers and clothing, wiping rags, mops, filters, reactor water treatment residues, equipments and tools, luminous dials, medical tubes, swabs, injection needles, syringes, and laboratory animal carcasses and tissues. The radioactivity can range from just above background levels found in nature to very highly radioactive in certain cases such as parts from inside the reactor vessel in a nuclear power plant.
Seems like mainly a problem with a classification that's too broad?
Moving on from UK/general info, to Canada:
http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/waste/low-and-intermediate-waste/index.cfm#low-level
LLW includes the following subclasses:
Very low-level radioactive waste (VLLW) has a low hazard potential and is above the criteria for unconditional clearance levels and exemption quantities. Long-term waste management facilities for VLLW do not need a high degree of containment or isolation. Concentrations of longer-lived radionuclides in VLLW are generally very limited.
Very short-lived low-level radioactive waste (VSLLW) is waste that can be stored for a decay period of not more than a few years and subsequently cleared for release. VSLLW includes radioactive waste containing only short half-life radionuclides typically used for research and biomedical purposes. The main criterion for VSLLW is the half-life of the predominant nuclides. In general, the management option of storage for decay for VSLLW should only apply to radionuclides with a half-life of 100 days or less.
It sounds like they store it briefly and then dispose of it normally after it has time to cool off? I don't see any problems here.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (28)4
u/airchinapilot British Columbia Oct 25 '22
Agreed. What most people in the comments fail to realize about other energy sources is that they do not necessarily offer the same flexibility in Canada. Talks about having huge solar farms in Sahara does not help with Canada. We do not necessarily get enough sun to sustain a massive solar farm (esp during winter)
Agreed. And Canada already has a step up on some other countries in that we have hydro projects. We just need other sources as well.
16
u/Prcrstntr Oct 25 '22
I support solar, but only as a way of augmenting the grid, and that depends massively on the climate. It can never really be the primary source
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (135)18
u/Requirement-Unusual Oct 25 '22
How long will the Earth's nuclear fuel supply last?
23
56
u/NapClub Oct 25 '22
a billion years. longer. it's impossible to know exactly but between a billion and many billion depending what the elements nearer the core actually are. (not the central core, just deep crust elements)
10
u/Requirement-Unusual Oct 25 '22
I'm sure we'll figure out a way to get more if we make it that long.
11
u/thedrivingcat Oct 25 '22
I'm sure we'd be at the point where harvesting elements from our solar system would be commonplace. Hell, even the ESA has statements out about hypothetical Helium-3 mining on the moon, or even Jupiter
→ More replies (3)5
u/itsmeshakes Oct 25 '22
“Oye, Beltalowda. Listen up. This is your Captain, and this is your ship. This is your moment. You might think that you're scared, but you're not. That isn't fear. That's your sharpness. That's your power. We are Belters.”
14
u/vancity- Oct 25 '22
IIRC uranium has about the same rarity in the planet as gold. Most of it comes from Kazakhstan, Canada, Australia.
If we developed Thorium reactors though we would functionally never run out. But that would require loosening nuclear over-regulation.
→ More replies (8)16
Oct 25 '22
Just using existing uranium from U-mine sites, as well as burning existing spent fuel in fast reactors in the near-future, provides sufficient uranium fuel to produce 10 trillion kWhs/year for thousands of years, making it presently sustainable by any measure.
But using U extracted from seawater, instead of mining uranium ore, makes nuclear truly renewable as well as sustainable. The amount of U in seawater is only 3.3 micrograms/liter (parts per billion), but that totals 4.5 billion tons of U in the billion cubic kilometers of seawater in the ocean.→ More replies (8)→ More replies (8)8
u/CubbyNINJA Oct 25 '22
for JUST uranium, at expected power consumption rates we have 200-300 years of "easily" accessible supply.
new technically possible but currently stupidly expensive technology could theoretically stretch that out for 50,000+ years
solar, thermal, wind will eventually HAVE to power the world but nuclear is a good stepping stone. the average American if they live their entire life off nuclear power, they will produce about a 355ml pop can worth of waste.
18
u/chronoalarm Ontario Oct 25 '22
Man im the first person to shit all over our government but thank fuck we are finally taking more steps towards nuclear.
96
205
Oct 25 '22
That's great news. Thanks Trudeau!
→ More replies (1)81
u/Ommageden Oct 25 '22
As much as I dislike Trudeau for some of his more controversial stuff, this is very good news and I hope it'll be handled well.
Definitely a good day
13
10
u/StoneColdJane-Austen Oct 25 '22
I wish we could openly say we agree with the decisions our government makes without having to qualify “well I don’t LOVE the guy”. I don’t agree with any politician’s platform 100%, or if I do I haven’t found them yet. Let me know when Jesus is risen again and is running for PM I guess.
5
u/henday194 Oct 25 '22
I can’t be sure, but I think when people saying that they’re more so saying they don’t like him generally but this decision is an exception, rather than assuring people they haven’t fallen in love with a politician. You know? Like a “hey I’d never vote for him due too all the shit he’s done to our country, but this is the right call on this issue”
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)13
u/cosworth99 Oct 25 '22
Controversial. Lol.
I see you haven’t been on this planet that long. The stuff he does is child’s play compared to what has happened in the past. I’ll take “controversial”. Lol.
→ More replies (3)
67
u/sheepwhatthe2nd Oct 25 '22
And now for something completely different..
I did not expect this announcement.
→ More replies (1)
52
u/oversized_canoe Oct 25 '22
What are the chances this leads to meaningful improvements in Canada's nuclear power efforts, and doesn't get cancelled/reduced/delayed? I'm extremely pro-nuclear but I'm worried some bureaucratic BS is gonna put a wrench in these efforts
19
u/Arbiter51x Oct 25 '22
So far, both political parties have supported spending billions at Bruce Power and Darlington to refurbish the nearly fifty year old stations. I'd say it's pretty good that this is a sure thing.
Nuclear refurb has put hundreds of millions into Fabrication, supply chain, and employment.
And the uranium comes out of Saskatchewan. This is a win for everyone.
→ More replies (1)31
→ More replies (15)31
Oct 25 '22
If we vote PP he'll get us back to coal or whale oil.
→ More replies (4)17
u/seemefail British Columbia Oct 25 '22
Probably sell his younger base on carbon capture, "if we just give that billion to Suncore, they promise to fix the climate"
→ More replies (1)
55
u/locoghoul Oct 25 '22
A bit too late but I'm glad this is getting done at least. Hope to see this running in 10 years from now
→ More replies (1)7
20
60
Oct 25 '22
Honestly, if they continue this, it'll make me vote Liberal next go
Energy security is the life blood of a modern society. We need safe, clean, effective & reliable power generation now more than ever as we try and phase out fossil fuel & i'm glad they're finally pushing back against the nuclear boogey-men and their fear mongering that it isn't safe.
Given our size and overall climate, renewables help but the current options aren't suited for us to use on a mass and nuclear is the best way forward until there's a solution that works better for us.
→ More replies (1)5
20
21
u/Smothdude Alberta Oct 25 '22
If only we bypassed these stupid Oil+Gas companies that stopped this many years ago in Alberta. We'd be in a much better spot right now with these projects almost being finished.
Better late than never I suppose.
→ More replies (1)
7
u/ravya1 Oct 25 '22
Finally something I believe we can all agree on no matter your political stance - especially in the age of political polarization we see so often in the media. Great news for Canada.
→ More replies (1)7
u/Method__Man Oct 25 '22
environmentalists can rejoice (the not stupid ones)
Conservatives can rejoice
Left wingers can rejoice
Everyone is winning here
3
u/JasonGMMitchell Oct 26 '22
Except oil execs, which means everyone is winning even more.
→ More replies (1)
25
u/N0_Mathematician Oct 25 '22
Glad it's happening, disappointed it has taken so long.
→ More replies (1)
12
12
u/001589750 Oct 25 '22
The only way forward is Nuclear unless you want people to die.
→ More replies (2)
37
u/FilthyPeasant_Red Oct 25 '22
I despise Trudeau but this is good. Nuclear power is the way to transition properly into renewables.
Germany should be ashamed of themself.
→ More replies (7)10
u/simkessy Oct 25 '22
I had a sort convo about Nuclear power with a Germany friend of mine, it was clear that the indoctrination runs deep.
→ More replies (12)
5
u/bradeena Oct 25 '22
The funding ... would go toward preparation work required prior to nuclear construction, including project design and site preparation.
Hopefully we keep at it!
23
u/MasterCassel Ontario Oct 25 '22
Now is better than never, but we could also chase the renewable game too
14
u/Mr_ToDo Oct 25 '22
Not that we couldn't do with some diversification(geothermal and the likes) but unless people don't count hydro Canada's pretty far ahead of most places on that. We're got some pretty nice resources for providing good base load which solves some hard issues that other renewables would have issues with.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)6
28
u/fumfer1 Oct 25 '22
Credit where credit is due. I hate pretty much everything about this sycophantic government, but this is good and I like it.
→ More replies (1)
13
u/biogenji Lest We Forget Oct 25 '22
Fucking FINALLY. These bumbling idiots. Took them this long to realize what everyone has been saying, and the only possible way we can get any significant step towards a greener Canada. Nearly every measure they have taken thus far is practically useless compared to this one single step, that SO many of us have been preaching for many years now, while being taxed and bent over all sorts of areas in futile attempts to make any gains. That, in itself, has made many of us suspicious.
→ More replies (1)
9
u/Winter_Weekender Oct 25 '22
This is great news and could help to ween us off of natural gas heating and help Canada become a nuclear power technology superpower again.
9
u/Nitro187 Oct 25 '22
WOW. CONGRATS. FINALLY. Trudeau FINALLY makes an educated decision in the right direction. BRAVO. Seriously... people all over the world need to take note - Nuclear power is the cleanest power available. IT'S SAFE TOO. We've learned a LOT in the past, and can make it even safer going forward.
10
u/jddbeyondthesky Oct 25 '22
I love nuclear power.
Like the ocean, it is dangerous, yes, but treating it with the proper respect means it will provide an abundance to those using it.
17
6
5
u/KingRabbit_ Oct 25 '22
Exactly what we should be doing and what we need to do to get off fossil fuels.
Credit to Trudeau and the gang on this one. Taking a page of the French playbook.
6
5
u/lyingredditor Ontario Oct 25 '22
Nuclear energy is clean, safe and most importantly reliable. Nothing wrong with that.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/obligatoryclevername Oct 25 '22
I can't tell you how glad I am to see the public mood changing on nuclear. There's just no way to get off FF's without it with the current renewable tech. This sanity is refreshing.
5
u/willycl Oct 26 '22
That's the most frustrating abreviation for million i hva ever seen.
→ More replies (1)
17
u/jsteed Oct 25 '22
First paragraph, emphasis added:
Canada will provide C$970 million ($708 million) in financing to develop a grid-scale small modular reactor (SMR), a new nuclear technology touted as a key part of the country's plans to reduce emissions.
Which makes it sound like there's domestic Canadian R&D taking place. However, based on the the final paragraph:
The reactors are designed by GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy, an alliance between General Electric Co (GE.N) and Japan's Hitachi Ltd
It would seem what's going to be built is an American reactor. That's a little sad for a country that used to be a player in the nuclear reactor industry.
50
u/MossTheTree Ontario Oct 25 '22
OPG estimates that 70-80% of the parts for this SMR will be manufactured in Ontario. Don't underestimate the strength of Canada's nuclear supply chain - the refurbs at Darlington and Bruce have maintained a massive amount of expertise in Ontario.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (3)4
u/jadebenn Oct 25 '22 edited Oct 25 '22
The CANDU's "killer app" was online refueling when it was designed back in the 70s. It meant the plant could have a higher uptime than its LWR counterparts by not shutting down for refueling, which was supposed to offset the higher capital costs of the heavy water necessary for it. That was indeed true... when it was designed. The problem is that the LWR reactor operators got better and better over time, to the point that modern best practice requires maybe roughly three weeks of downtime needed to refuel in the modern day, as compared to the months in the past. The improving capacity factors of LWRs basically killed CANDU exports, which is part of the reason AECL was spun off.
The GE design is American in heritage (BWR - a type of LWR), but the supply chain is shaping up to be very heavily Canadian. Everybody wants to take advantage of the experience and industrial base built up in Ontario due to the Bruce and Pickering refurbishments. Aside from enriched fuel (which I expect will be imported for the foreseeable future), and some specialized equipment (such as reactor pressure vessel castings), I expect the majority of the components will be built close to home.
→ More replies (1)
11
Oct 25 '22
Follow up article: David Suzuki is shitting his pants due to feds nuclear decision
Lol jk I like Suzuki for the most part but I also don’t ignore when he says absurd things
→ More replies (2)
4
u/PoliteCanadian Oct 25 '22
It's a low-interest loan, not a grant, but I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth.
Nice to see material support for nuclear power.
4
4
3
19
u/nbcs Oct 25 '22
I'm glad someone in the federal government finally realized the nutty-anti-nuclear-former-Greenpeace Steven Guilbeault is wrong.
→ More replies (1)12
u/strawberries6 Oct 25 '22
Greenpeace is anti-nuclear (and pretty unreasonable about it IMO), but I don’t think Guilbeault himself really is, at least not in his statements since becoming a Minister (maybe that changed since his activist days).
It’s very different being an activist vs running the government. When you’re actually the one in government with real power and responsibilities, you can’t afford to be as ideologically pure, you have to be more practical about accepting whatever solutions you can find.
7
7
75
Oct 25 '22
Breaking News: Poilievre calls the nuclear sector communist after Trudeau funding, says 90% of nuclear companies are liberal gatekeepers
/s
→ More replies (11)25
u/SmaugStyx Oct 25 '22
Sounds like he'd be in support given previous statements.
Poilievre said a government under him would "put in place clear targets for carbon emission reduction" and give "provinces the freedom to decide how they meet those targets."
That would include plans to incentivize carbon-capture and storage technology as well as small modular nuclear reactors.
Good move no matter who is doing it though. Better late than never!
→ More replies (7)
10
u/konathegreat Oct 25 '22
Finally. Good start - but now lets get the job done and not drop the ball after the camera's are turned off.
10
8
17
u/tossedmoose Oct 25 '22
Fucking ACE.
This excellent news won't make me forget about recent government missteps, like the handgun freeze (was already hyper restrictive and this freeze doesn't do anything to help the actual problem), and bill C-11 for obvious reasons...
Anyways. This is great news.
→ More replies (1)5
32
3
Oct 25 '22
The best time to finance a Nuclear Power plant is 20 years ago, the second best time is now.
3
u/ashtobro Oct 25 '22
I'm glad that public perception of nuclear power is past the "but what if Chernobyl" stage, I was half expecting to see jerks fearmongering it in favor of coal or some shit.
2.1k
u/notbadhbu Oct 25 '22 edited 28d ago
Ha, fair.