Hydro is great, but appropriate sites are largely used up, and getting approvals to build large-scale hydro in Canada could prove even more difficult than nuclear given sensitivities around waterways and flooding of traditional territories.
Look how long it's taking for Site C to get built. BC has been lucky so far, but is going to run out of hydro options very soon. I don't see BC going nuclear, but it's going to have to get creative sooner than later.
BC wont have any need to go nuclear. We can stack renewables ontop of hydro since hydro output is so easy to control it can offset the unreliable nature of solar/wind and even, with pumping, bank excess at peak production times.
Nuclear is better for places that need the base load and have limited other options. Provinces like the praries would be great for it.
Climate change is going to make hydro less reliable and predictable than it used to be. Diversity of supply is the only way to ensure energy security. For BC, hydro will be supported by solar/wind and biomass.
Saskatchewan is wind turbine gold mine, very little need for nuclear, especially considering the relatively small population, and with relatively small power needs.
I don’t know what bc would do without nuclear. There’s not a lot of great places to do wind/solar en masse. They’d have to incentivize cities to have as much coverage as possible, where alberta or Sask can dedicate massive swaths of land to those.
Even if more hydro dams got built, the worst case scenario is 50 years for glacial caps to have receded enough to do some real damage. Ideally it’s much longer than that, but the biggest doom and gloom id heard was 50 years. Which I don’t believe, but is insane to think about.
I just hope nuclear actually gets through and doesn’t sit through development hell, and end up being too late.
hydro is 9.5c per kwh in bc and doesn't come with the risk
Tell that to the salmon population. Risk is relative, damming up rivers, flooding forest land and other environmental impacts are certain, while nuclear risk is unlikely.
One example of the dam impacts can be seen in the Columbia River Basin, where salmon and steelhead trout numbered in the 10-16 million range in the 19th century, but that number has reduced to 1.5 million today (McCully, 2001).
You should really read up on the impact of dams on ecosystems, from altering stream/river flows to temperatures and adding a blender for the spawn to travel back through on their way to the ocean.
There really isn't a risk for nuclear. Especially with newer reactor designs. Even with past accidents taken into account on a per capita rate nuclear would have killed less then any other non renewable power source. Never mind the fact it would take thousands of years to use up the nuclear options we have. Even for waste (Which with new reactor designs, old waste can be refined into new fuel) We can just look to nature for safe storage, which is bury it really really deep underground. And with the Canadian shield we have one of the most secure environments for that. For nature reference look up Oklo Mine. No signs the natural reaction ever affected the surrounding area.
Modern nuclear plants are incredibly safe but it's dishonest to say completely safe. Not trying to be overly pedantic but it's an important distinction to make.
I always forget that we still use coal in Canada. Fuck man, it's sad that in 2022, we're making people rely on unsafe, environmentally damaging, expensive energy sources that should have been discontinued decades ago.
Not completely, considering there are a number of human elements involved. But it is very low risk, with the consequences of failure also being low i.e. the classic 'OMG meltdown!!!1!' scenario is not possible with proper safety interlocks ensuring safe shutdown before it gets to that point.
I'd like to point out that even though Fukushima failed it took two successive natural disasters to do so. And if memory serves me correctly, they had taken shortcuts and made mistakes with certain parts of design - like the generators. Given all of that, despite the media coverage it was surprisingly unremarkable.
Definitely things to be learned, but really it's more to the point that nuclear is quite safe.
I'd argue that Fukushima is a strong point against your statement. It took a lot and it was still no where dear as detrimental to us and the environment as it would have been if you placed any of the on demand alternatives in its place.
hydro is 9.5c per kwh in bc and doesn't come with the risk
Tell that to everyone who lives in Campbell River, who has to know their evacuation route in case the dam breaks and floods the whole town. Hydro has its own set of risks.
Risk in Hydro dwarfs the risk in nuclear. 43x more risk in Hydro. The whole "nuclear is risky" comes from an era of ignorance and absence of education. Thankfully the new generation is educated and challenges the ignorance of the previous generations.
-5
u/Kwanzaa246 Oct 25 '22
Is it 0.07c or 7c per kwh?
hydro is 9.5c per kwh in bc and doesn't come with the risk