this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2025
31 points (91.9% liked)

Canada

9207 readers
2817 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
otter
mp3
31
Prioritizing nuclear power and natural gas over renewable energy is a risky move for Ontario’s energy future. (theconversation.com)
submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/canada
10 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] rekabis 17 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)

Prioritizing natural gas is risky. Prioritizing nuclear power, not so much.

Even hydroelectric is more risky than nuclear. And in an era of climate change, inconsistent weather can bring inconsistent rainfall. There might come a time when reservoirs simply don’t stay full enough to generate electricity. And yes, while Nuclear power requires water to cool, this water can also be recycled through cooling towers. You don’t need massive bodies of water for nuclear power.

And what hydroelectric, solar, and wind power do, is make electrical systems resilient. Solar power in particular, tends to peak at about the same time that maximum power is needed for air conditioning during the summertime. And the right kind of nuclear reactor can be throttled up and down quite quickly in response to varying demands on the electrical system. If everyone pumping solar power back onto the grid, nuclear power can come to an almost complete standstill in only a matter of minutes. You can’t do that with traditional fossil fuel power plants.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (3 children)

The risk with nuclear isn’t safety, it’s in the cost overruns and ever expanding build timelines. When it at best takes ten years and twice the funding to match what battery backed solar can do in six months, there is significantly more time for things like inflation and fossil fuel funded lawsuits to turn what is already a questionably profitable investment into a significant loss.

When the primary thing limiting the energy transition is lack of funding, it makes sense to foucus said funding on renewables which can be built cheaply and quickly over more expensive and slower build methods like Nuclear, conventional Hydro, and deep Geothermal.

[–] nik282000 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Solar is fast to install and "cheap" but the lifespan of panels is no more than 20 years, and batteries last 1s of years if cycled every day. Not to mention Ontario only gets ~1200kWh/m^2^ per year of sunlight, in the southern US it's >2000.

Nuclear is very expensive and takes a long time to build you are getting a plant that will last for decades without needing to have every part replaced and gives you more than 20kWh/m^2^ including the area taken up by support buildings and employee parking. (The Pickering plant is about 1km^2^ and puts out 23.6TWh)

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

Firstly, the standard lifespan for modern solar panels is typically 25 to 30 years, while nearly all grid scale batteries are rated for 5000 to 8000 0-100% cycles, which is 13 to 20 years of daily cycling. If you are not completely discharging the batteries every day that lifetime can be far longer.

Secondly, it’s worth remembering that said rated lifespan is not when the pannel or battery stops working, but rather the point at which it hits 80% of the capacity it had when installed. This means that when that happens if you just do nothing for another decade or two, you are still getting well more than half of a brand new power plant’s worth of output for free, as this output is often not calculated in the cost of the plant. This also means you only need to replace panels on the same timeline as nuclear plants need far more expensive complete refurbishments.

Thirdly, yes, solar outputs less than it does in some parts of the world, which means you need proportionally more space and funding to build it. Still far less than the cost of a nuclear plant of the same output, and as for land use, I was unaware that Canada was such a small dense country, completely devoid of parking lots much less vast grassland parries.

Finally, you realize that nuclear plants have far higher operational costs than wind and solar, with the Pickering plant for instance requiring over three thousand staff to keep operating, while most solar fields don’t even have a single full time employee?

Ultimately however, the largest demonstration that nuclear will not clean up Canada’s energy is that in the quarter century that Canada had known without doubt that it must replace its oil and gas plants, it has not tried to do so with nuclear despite building nuclear reactors only getting more and more expensive with each passing year. As such, of the government has so thoroughly demonstrated it is unwilling to replace oil and gas with a more expensive option, maybe we should focus our efforts on getting them replaced with less expensive options instead.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)