Heather Scoffield (Toronto Star) - Ottawa must decide if nuclear power is the key to Canada's green future

[Moviefan-2]

Heather Scoffield at the Toronto Star has an interesting column on how the Trudeau government must soon decide whether it's committed to nuclear power as the key to reducing emissions.

Heather Scoffield: If nuclear power is the key to Canada’s green future, Ottawa needs to say so — now

The bubbling tension needs to be resolved if Canada is to make serious progress in moving to a low-carbon economy, Heather Scoffield writes.

www.thestar.com

If the government is serious about wanting to reduce man-made CO2 emissions, the answer is going to have to be yes.

Attempting to reduce emissions without a massive investment in nuclear power will only create a homegrown energy crisis with skyrocketing prices and no statistically significant difference in emissions.

Even with nuclear power, Canada's ultimate impact on global emissions will be meaningless. Canada's population is too tiny to make any difference on a global scale.

 

[Frankfooter]

Nukes provide a steady amount of power, base power. You can't use them to cover changes in renewable outputs, for that its better and cheaper to invest in either hydro or electric storage.
I'm not against nukes, but Fukishima horror stories and the lack of any real storage plan, after half a century of use, are major issues.

Besides, wind is way, way cheaper.
Typical of right wingers to go for the most expensive and dangerous option, isn't it?

 

[dirtydaveiii]

Nuclear is the way of the future and the only real sustainable lost cost low emissions energy. If Canada is to be a world power it is through cutting edge technology like safe nuclear power

 

[Anbarandy]

Nuclear is the way of the future and the only real sustainable lost cost low emissions energy. If Canada is to be a world power it is through cutting edge technology like safe nuclear power

What if they can figure out a way to make coal as clean as tar sands bitumen?

Bring back micro beads. Hand brush micro beaded coal paste on every lump of coal, rinse and add to the coal furnace.

"Go Back Better" - now there's a slogan.

 

[JohnLarue]

Heather Scoffield at the Toronto Star has an interesting column on how the Trudeau government must soon decide whether it's committed to nuclear power as the key to reducing emissions.

Heather Scoffield: If nuclear power is the key to Canada’s green future, Ottawa needs to say so — now

The bubbling tension needs to be resolved if Canada is to make serious progress in moving to a low-carbon economy, Heather Scoffield writes.

www.thestar.com

If the government is serious about wanting to reduce man-made CO2 emissions, the answer is going to have to be yes.

Attempting to reduce emissions without a massive investment in nuclear power will only create a homegrown energy crisis with skyrocketing prices and no statistically significant difference in emissions.

Even with nuclear power, Canada's ultimate impact on global emissions will be meaningless. Canada's population is too tiny to make any difference on a global scale.

This would be funny if it were not so sad

Guilbeault, a former environmental activist with a history of opposing nuclear power, didn’t turn his back on his past.

Trudeau made a point of clarifying the next day, reminding the public that every option, including nuclear, is on the table when it comes to cutting greenhouse gases.

It only took six years as PM for Justin to finally say something part way intelligent


Maybe Guilbeaylt should ask JWR what happens when a liberal Ministers views oppose Justin / Gerald''s

 

[JohnLarue]

What if they can figure out a way to make coal as clean as tar sands bitumen?

Bring back micro beads. Hand brush micro beaded coal paste on every lump of coal, rinse and add to the coal furnace.

"Go Back Better" - now there's a slogan.

Do you always rinse your energy source before tossing it into your furnace?
Hint: water does not burn well

 

[Moviefan-2]

Typical of right wingers to go for the most expensive and dangerous option, isn't it?

The Scoffield article says Justin Trudeau spoke in favour of using nuclear energy to cut emissions during the climate gabfest last November in Glasgow.

 

[Frankfooter]

The Scoffield article says Justin Trudeau spoke in favour of using nuclear energy to cut emissions during the climate gabfest last November in Glasgow.

Likely because Doug Ford is pushing for small scale reactors for Ontario, along with pointless highways.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Likely because Doug Ford is pushing for small scale reactors for Ontario, along with pointless highways.

More likely because Trudeau - or someone in his government - knows it will be impossible to even come close to the targets to reduce emissions without a massive shift to nuclear power.

They would also remember what happened when Ontario wasted billions on wind and solar power.

 

[Ref]

More likely because Trudeau - or someone in his government - knows it will be impossible to even come close to the targets to reduce emissions without a massive shift to nuclear power.

They would also remember what happened when Ontario wasted billions on wind and solar power.

Efficiency and affordability will dictate what form of power that people will use.

Throughout history this has been the case with any product. When coal was the main source of power and nuclear/gas was coming on to the scene there must have been a time that those new technologies were not affordable and further R&D was needed to refine and produce a product that not only worked more efficient, but was also much cleaner and affordable to the majority of consumers. I am sure the coal industry of the day put up a fight to retain market share, however the consumer ended up making the final decision.

Renewables will eventually play a bigger role and will likely replace gas/nuclear as technology and affordability improve. As Moviefan noted, Ontario wasted billions by forcing a young technology too soon. Had they used those funds to invest in the R&D of that technology the province would have been further ahead.

I read about both ends of the argument on this forum. Right now our reliability on fossil fuels is high and we cannot simply stop using them or else all chaos would break out. On the other hand we need to continue to invest in new technologies for the better of the environment. They can both be done at the same time because history has shown us that we transitioned from coal to cleaner sources of power.

What I hate about today's government is that its mantra is a divide and conquer approach where it should be more neutral and focused on investment, not winning seats via needless propaganda.

 

[Frankfooter]

What I hate about today's government is that its mantra is a divide and conquer approach where it should be more neutral and focused on investment, not winning seats via needless propaganda.

Trudeau is actually investing in research for small scale reactors.

PEGGY CAMERON: Trudeau making mistake investing in nuclear research

PEGGY CAMERON Guest Opinion

www.saltwire.com

I'm not sold on this plan, but its probably wise to check all options as we transition.

 

[HungSowel]

Smaller nuclear reactors have the potential to maneuver their output to try to match the load to keep the electricity system balanced.

Current large nuke plants have to keep a constant output because changing the output will cause thermal stress and fuck the nuke up.

If Canada went 100% conventional nuke then we would have to find some way to use or store the huge amount of energy that the nukes are generating during the night when the load is at its lowest.

 

[Frankfooter]

Smaller nuclear reactors have the potential to maneuver their output to try to match the load to keep the electricity system balanced.

Current large nuke plants have to keep a constant output because changing the output will cause thermal stress and fuck the nuke up.

If Canada went 100% conventional nuke then we would have to find some way to use or store the huge amount of energy that the nukes are generating during the night when the load is at its lowest.

Really?
How does that work, sounds like small scale reactors are less flexible than the large plants from what I've read, which isn't that much, admittedly.

 

[JohnLarue]

Efficiency and affordability will dictate what form of power that people will use.

Throughout history this has been the case with any product. When coal was the main source of power and nuclear/gas was coming on to the scene there must have been a time that those new technologies were not affordable and further R&D was needed to refine and produce a product that not only worked more efficient, but was also much cleaner and affordable to the majority of consumers. I am sure the coal industry of the day put up a fight to retain market share, however the consumer ended up making the final decision.

Renewables will eventually play a bigger role and will likely replace gas/nuclear as technology and affordability improve. As Moviefan noted, Ontario wasted billions by forcing a young technology too soon. Had they used those funds to invest in the R&D of that technology the province would have been further ahead.

I read about both ends of the argument on this forum. Right now our reliability on fossil fuels is high and we cannot simply stop using them or else all chaos would break out. On the other hand we need to continue to invest in new technologies for the better of the environment. They can both be done at the same time because history has shown us that we transitioned from coal to cleaner sources of power.

What I hate about today's government is that its mantra is a divide and conquer approach where it should be more neutral and focused on investment, not winning seats via needless propaganda.

Renewables will eventually play a bigger role and will likely replace gas/nuclear as technology and affordability improve.

That is very unlikely to happen soon

Wind and solar are intermittent
Intermittent supply will cause grid instability and failure
The ability to store grid quantity of energy would need to be solved

This will require a quantum leap in technological advancement

The battery was invented in 1859 and we have pour massive resources in researching storage ever since
There are some fundamental forces such as heat dissipation and irreversible reactions at material interfaces which will limit further advancements io small incremental gains