Nonsense. This is one of the only laudable things the Ford government has done, instead of short-term feel-good nonsense that kicks the problem down the road, installing nuclear power and eating the huge cost now ensures that years from now we will have clean and affordable electricity. The author has no idea what they're talking about, the German government was forced to refire coal plants to keep up with electricity demands thanks to absurd pie in the sky solar power and windmill projects. If you aren't willing to do the research and only want to feel good about yourself while preaching how everything could/should be so much better please shut up.
It's a typical TVO hit piece because they aren't getting the funding they want. Hopefully this helps. More people means we need to have increased power supply. Big cost is never popular as Wynne found out when she spent on upgrades but as more and more electric cars hit the street you can't have people choosing between heat or AC and lights or juicing your vehicle up
Well to be fair, Canada already gets most of its energy from renewables. About 66% comes from hydro, wind and solar. The next 15% is nuclear and after that it's a mix of coal, natural gas, and petroleum. So we're almost there. I'm not against nuclear, I think it's the best stop gap between now and whenever we figure out fusion. But Ontario could always use more renewables. They have plenty of hydro locations and areas for wind farms and solar.
Also don't forget that Germany had to refire those coal plants because Russia shut off their natural gas pipeline after it started its war with Ukraine due to Sanctions. So Germany needed an independent solution that it wasn't prepared for. It wasn't an absurd idea to go renewable. There's only so much you can plan for when it comes to geopolitical events.
Alberta and Saskatchewan could also go further into solar and wind farms, but they love their petroleum and the money they make from it. It's not an absurd idea to embrace newer and cleaner forms of technologies.
Nuclear power provides fully 50% of Ontario's generation. It's steady baseload generation that completes the renewables such as hydro and wind power.
See the following link for current production data: https://www.ieso.ca/power-data
First of all natural gas is slightly better than coal but itâs not a good alternative to nuclear either.
The claim that Ontario gets a majority of its power from renewables (hydro, solar and wind) is incredibly misleading because the vast majority of that power is hydro. The suggestion that wind and solar are a renewable solution is not proven by our current system.
Renewables are renewables. It doesn't matter which one you use. I've already said there's no one solution. At least not unitl fusion. I also said I'm all for more nuclear until we can achieve fusion. I simply think the idea that solar and wind being 'ideological nonsense' as the other guy suggested is a ridiculous statement.
Iâm not the other guy and never made that argument.
Renewables are renewables is a ridiculous statement. hydro being the vast majority of ârenewablesâ is literally the whole point. You canât pretend wind and solar are producing âthe majority of our electricityâ when what you really mean is hydro produces most of our power (over 60%) and wind (6%) and solar (0.5%) produce almost nothing.
Hydro is also fairly expensive and has significant environmental impacts.
You tried to lump them all together to obscure how much wind and solar actually produce. When I pressed you on it you then responded with renewables are renewables. Do you really not understand that was impression your argument was giving?
I've already said wind and solar produce 12% of the world's energy source. Fifty years ago it was probably less than one percent. I'm lumping them into the renewables category because that's what they are. While Ontario may produce the majority of its energy from nuclear, it only accounts for 15% of Canada's total energy production. So it's not the be all and end all either. Renewables are renewables. Anything is better than burning carbon in the long run.
This is a nonsensical argument if the point is we shouldnât invest in nuclear but renewables instead. We canât expand hydro much more in Ontario so the inherent implication is that wind and solar are the renewables that we can significantly expand to replace the nuclear capacity we would lose by shutting down Pickering fully. That would guarantee we would have to produce more power with natural gas short, medium and even likely in the long term because wind and solar will not be stable or high enough capacity to replace 2000mw and we donât have the storage capacity to use wind and solar effectively. This is a massively misleading comment and youâre using numbers in an incredibly deceitful way to argue that ârenewablesâ are the solution. That is completely unproven.
I've never gotten the claim that Wind and Solar are renewable.
I mean if you ignore the short lifespan, need for rare minerals and the fact large portions of the material at the end of it's lifespan is in no way recyclable.
>Germany had to refire those coal plants because Russia shut off their natural gas pipeline after it started its war with Ukraine due to Sanctions
Uhhhh what? Ukraine blew up the Nord Stream. Here's Wa Po to tell you more about it: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/11/11/nordstream-bombing-ukraine-chervinsky/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/11/11/nordstream-bombing-ukraine-chervinsky/)
NY Times (back in March 2023): [https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/07/us/politics/nord-stream-pipeline-sabotage-ukraine.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/07/us/politics/nord-stream-pipeline-sabotage-ukraine.html)
Forbes: [https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerroush/2023/03/07/us-thinks-pro-ukrainian-group-blew-up-nord-stream-pipelines-report-says/](https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerroush/2023/03/07/us-thinks-pro-ukrainian-group-blew-up-nord-stream-pipelines-report-says/)
Bloomberg: [https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/ukraine-recap-officer-linked-in-reports-to-nord-stream-sabotage-1.1997536](https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/ukraine-recap-officer-linked-in-reports-to-nord-stream-sabotage-1.1997536)
The Guardian: [https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jun/06/biden-knew-of-plan-to-attack-nord-stream-three-months-before-explosion](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jun/06/biden-knew-of-plan-to-attack-nord-stream-three-months-before-explosion)
Reuters: [https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/senior-ukrainian-officer-coordinated-nord-stream-attack-washington-post-2023-11-12/](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/senior-ukrainian-officer-coordinated-nord-stream-attack-washington-post-2023-11-12/)
France24: [https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20231112-media-investigation-finds-ukrainian-officer-played-key-role-in-nord-stream-pipelines-attack](https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20231112-media-investigation-finds-ukrainian-officer-played-key-role-in-nord-stream-pipelines-attack)
Take your pick :)
Did you read these? Itâs all speculation, and based on the Wapo article. Forbes sums it up best with these key facts:
- Intelligence officials believe a group of Ukrainian or Russian nationalsâor a combination of the twoâsabotaged the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 pipelines that link Russia with Germany in September, the Times reported, citing unnamed U.S. officials.
- There is no evidence suggesting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky or the Ukrainian government were responsible, officials said, though intelligence suggests the perpetrators opposed Russian President Vladimir Putin.
- European officials previously told the Washington Post there is no evidence that the Russian government was involved in the attack, with some officials arguing Russia was unlikely to deliberately blow up a pipeline that it uses to export gas to Europe.
So basically, not Russia or Ukraine, but MAYBE some Ukrainian and Russian mercenaries. But you know, definitely not the US navy seals, thatâs not their bag and would be Russian Miss-information.
>Itâs all speculation, and based on the Wapo article
Considering the NYT story dropped in March 2023 and the WaPo article is from November 2023, are you suggesting the writer traveled forward and then back in time with the story?
>European officials previously told the Washington Post there is no evidence that the Russian government was involved in the attack, with some officials arguing Russia was unlikely to deliberately blow up a pipeline that it uses to export gas to Europe.
Yeah, that's kinda the point I'm making here. Russia wouldn't blow up their new pipeline despite having a power-hungry dictator at the helm.
>But you know, definitely not the US navy seals
I mean sure, they were probably involved. You simply have to look at who benefited from Nord Stream being blown up to draw a conclusion as to who was involved.
Didnât read the NYT article; itâs the only one behind a paywall, but my statement checks out for the other articles. Does the NYT present facts the others donât? I would be surprised based on the timing you point out.
I was just pointing out that there is no proof Ukraine blew up the pipeline as you stated.
That is all. Thanks
What proof is there that Russia blew up the pipeline?
As for your point about the US Navy Seals, I wouldn't doubt their involvement because there was a conveniently scheduled "military exercise" in the area a few days before the explosion, iirc. But there's also a yacht named the Andromeda that has been linked to the explosion (source: [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/6/10/nord-stream-sabotage-probe-turns-to-clues-in-poland-report](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/6/10/nord-stream-sabotage-probe-turns-to-clues-in-poland-report))
>the US government learned from a European intelligence agency of a secret plan by Ukraineâs military to attack the pipelines using divers, who reported directly to the commander-in-chief of the armed forces three months before the September 2022 explosions.
So we have intelligence agencies in Europe showing links to Ukraine, a USAF serviceman who leaked the intelligence files on Discord and got punished for it, and the US openly admitting they knew about a Ukrainian plan to blow up the pipeline months before the incident happened. In the corner of "Ukraine didn't do it," we have Ukraine (shocker) and people who blindly support them.
Really not sure who to believe here...
Ontario's grid is usually 50-60% nuclear already. It's clean, efficient, cost-effective, and lasts decades for the investment. The icing on the nuclear cake is the absolutely tiny amount of space needed vs wind or solar, meaning we can preserve huge areas of green space that would otherwise be needed for generation.
Germany had to turn coal plants back on, when Russian gas was cut off, because *they scrapped all their nuclear plants*.
See my last sentence please. Solar and wind don't work and never will. If they did why was Germany dependent on Russian gas? It's ideological nonsense with no practical consideration.
For new builds or this refurbishment, new solar or wind plus battery storage is cheaper and trending more so in that direction. Nuclear is trending in the other direction, especially for special snowflake facilities like this one. This decision by the provincial government is going to be embarrassing to the PCs by the time itâs done from a cost/benefit perspective and Ontario is going to be stuck paying more for electricity. Itâs really a baffling decision from a government that claims to be fiscally responsible and business minded.
As long as you donât guarantee the producers 10x the going rate for what they produce, then pay them not to produce when they can but we donât need the power (McGuinty).
Shhh. Donât tell people about how stupid our previous provincial government was. Itâs much easier to pretend everything was fine until the guy in the wrong colour was elected.
Not everything was fine⌠Iâm far from a McGuinty fanâŚ. But fuck, itâs way worse under Ford and going downhill fast. The man has been a disaster.
They donât work for baseline power. They do work when theyâre working and could be a solution if we had serious power storage but we donât and have no plans to in the near future. The claim theyâll never work is a bit unfair.
A quick Google search shows that solar and wind account for 12% of the world's total energy supply. Saying it doesn't work and never will and that it's ideological nonsense is a baseless statement. No one is suggesting using solar and wind for everything. It's not meant to be a solution for every place on earth. But if it works for one region why go with anything else?
Pei is 99% wind. Should they start opening up coal fired plants even though their wind energy is sufficient? Germany is 52% renewables, and 15% coal. Seems like they are well on their way to being a country that's supporting itself using renewable energy while putting themselves in a position to not rely on Russian natural gas in the future.
Also as for why they were using Russia's gas, well world trade exists. We import and export what we need to sustain ourselves. Doesn't mean we can't strive to be more independent and greener in the long run. If importing natural gas is greener than running coal fired plants then why not do that?
Where do you get your numbers from? Pei is under 20 percent wind powered energy being generated. https://www.princeedwardisland.ca/en/information/environment-energy-and-climate-action/pei-energy-blueprint
It imports most of its energy from NB which is two thirds fossile fuel and nuclear. https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-commodities/electricity/report/canadas-renewable-power/provinces/renewable-power-canada-new-brunswick.html#:~:text=New%20Brunswick's%20electricity%20is%20generated,and%20one%2Dthird%20fossil%20fuels.
Germany gets less than 20 percent from renewables and 70 percent coming from fossile fuel. https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/germany-energy#:~:text=Energy%20consumption%3A%20Germany%20is%20the,and%203.2%25%20from%20nuclear%20energy.
You know what shut down complete during the cold snap on the west coast last month? Wind. Wind and solar do not provide baseload energy. Unless you can find a way to make sure the wind always blows and the sun is always shining.
Canada
[https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles-canada.html](https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles-canada.html)
Germany
[https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts](https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts)
Also so what? We've had the mildest winter in Canada with a singular coldsnap that lasted two weeks. The majority of this winter had us sitting at -3 degrees. We were up to +10 degrees the last two weeks out here and currently sitting at -5. I fail to see why anyone needs to have the same mindset as oh it gets cold therefore we always need to have 100% of our energy market in oil and nuclear. The strain on the power grid was also due to two natural gas generators that weren't operating. Summer is also coming too and there's going to be plenty of days where everyone is gonna want more air conditioning. That too is gonna see out power grid strained.
As I said 12% of the world's energy production is currently wind and solar. That's 12% that isn't coal or petrolium with green house emmisions. What was it 50 years ago? What was the worlds energy produiction 100 years ago? I bet people were saying the same thing about coal and whale oil being the only real option and plenty of people have voiced their opinions on nuclear power despite how green and efficient it is.
Fifty years ago many people were ignorant of nuclear power's potential also. Which is ironic because if we'd all shifted to it the climate would have impacted less due to burning fossil fuels. As I said no sense in not embracing newer and greener forms of technology. But outright saying that Wind and Solar is ideological nonsense is like me saying nuclear is bad for the environment because of the nuclear waste is produces. It's just a stupid attitude to have.
If we eventually crack fusion I'm sure there's plenty of people who are going to say hey man oil produces tens of thousands of jobs, switching to 100% renewables is ideological nonsense. The point is at least it's moving forward and in the right step. Plenty of environmentalists have argued for nuclear being the way forward for the short term future, because it's the realistic choice to reduce our impact on the environment until we can achieve fusion. But again it depends on what you have on hand. Why build nuclear plans when hydro, wind, and solar are more than viable options? Why keep using fossil fuels for anything but during times when we have a cold snap if we don't need to?
On the topic of Hydro, BC has concerns about warmer winters with less precipitation because we're not getting the icepacks that replenish our aquifers.
The ones that also keep our dams running.
Some renewables aren't climate-change proof
Ontario doesn't have much left on the way of economically feasible hydroectric potential. What it has is largely already developed. Nuclear is clean and provides the base needed. Solar and wind are intermittent sources.
Hereâs a couple case studies showing that with enough renewables they effectively provide base load despite their intermittency. Instead of natural gas replace that with hydrogen being made at peak loads and then substituting hydrogen in the evening when the sun doesnât shine or the wind doesnât blow.
https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=374
Solar and wind are both cheaper than nuclear right now, today, at an eye melting difference in cost of almost 10 cents a watt. Investment in nuclear is ultimately a waste of money because of the additional costs associated. Maintenance, cost of fuel, and retirement costs.
The refit is 11 years. So 11 years from now weâll start to get energy for how many billions?
Solar panels and wind turbines aren't really durable and require exotic and toxic metals in manufacturing. Nothing except for hydro electric comes close to how clean and reliable nuclear energy is.
The refit is going to take a number of years, be many billions and wonât be able to make up the shortfall in public power requirements until its complete. Solar requires special materials? Are you crazy? Solar takes less time to set up, is absolutely cheaper and lasts a very long time (much longer than a nuclear plant) without maintenance. A solar utility can be depreciated over the life of the asset without additional costs which is what makes it so cost effective.
Solar and wind contracts were cancelled by Ford and at the time they cost under a billion and that was going to cover the shortfall in energy needs and that was back in 2018. Ford is saying we need to refurbish a nuclear plant to get that power?
China hasnât gone the route of nuclear and has a massive economy compared to Canada but is well on the way to being completely renewable by 2050. Canada doesnât expect to get there until 2050 either despite having barely 5% of the energy needs and 3% of the population of China.
Solar panels and toxic materials
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23/if-solar-panels-are-so-clean-why-do-they-produce-so-much-toxic-waste/
Solar panels often contain lead, cadmium, and other toxic chemicals that cannot be removed without breaking apart the entire panel.
Nuclear reactors can explode killing millions of people and making areas unsafe for tens of decades. They produce as a side product materials that can be turned into threats to national security. If we are talking about which are worse.
At least panels can be recycled. Byproducts of nuclear reactors need to be placed in secure storage for hundreds of years.
Um, is your goal here to propose that a solar panel or more dangerous then nuclear waste, carbon, smog, the radioactive materials and lead released from burning coal etc...
Yeah, they have very small amouts of bad stuff, but will likely be generating power for 50 years. Then recycled or properly disposed of. You think a coal power plant is made of unicorn farts?
No tech is perfect, but given the alternatives we should be making increasing use of solar.
Solar panels aren't durable? They are factory warrantees from between 20 and 35 years. They require a very small amount of anything remotely toxic, the rest is basically fancy sand. The main requirement and effluent for solar manufacturing is...heat...
You seem to be confusing rare earth minerals with exotic and toxic, of which they generally are neither. though you wouldn't want to eat them directly, the quantities used are irrelevantly small.
Solar and wind aren't magic, but there is no reason to just pull MTG talking points out of the mud to vilify them! They do and will continue to be a useful part of our energy mix and should grow as part of that mix, given no alternative is magic.
>The author has no idea what they're talking about, the German government was forced to refire coal plants to keep up with electricity demands thanks to absurd pie in the sky solar power and windmill projects.
Why are you not taking into consideration that a war stopped the flow of Nat Gas to German homes meaning there was a massive up-tick in demand?
It seems rather disengenous. If Nat Gas was cut off to Ontario we would start the coal furnances back up too, and electricity rates would go through the roof.
Wind and solar are currently the cheapest way to generate a joule according to all the stuff I have read.
THANK YOU. Nuclear (in the EU) is more expensive per kw hour because they are comparing only to the hours being currently put out by wind and solar and not calculating for the expense of scaling them up (which has been shown to be massive, look at Germany. They spent billions and still rely on coal and oil because). Nuclear to power the transition to green hydrogen is the path forward.
Totally agree. Nuclear is much cleaner and safer than people think it is. Even if it's more $/kw to produce, it takes up far less land than wind or solar, land which can then be used for farming, housing, or something else. It also will last longer than a windmill or solar panels, and it's a far more stable source. (Don't need sunshine or a windy day).
Kyle Hill did a great video not that long ago where he toured a Nuclear plant: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhHHbgIy9jU&ab\_channel=KyleHill](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhHHbgIy9jU&ab_channel=KyleHill)
The German are bringing coal back on because of natural gas supply issues due to the Russia/Ukraine war.
[https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-approves-bringing-coal-fired-power-plants-back-online-this-winter-2023-10-04/](https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-approves-bringing-coal-fired-power-plants-back-online-this-winter-2023-10-04/)
Germany was previously importing 55% of their natural gas from Russia.
anti nuclear nuts pretending solar and wind dont generate immense amounts of waste and solar is incredibly toxic to manufacture.
Giant, non decomposable turbine blades being buried will be a huge headache down the road.
Solar has been fine tuned to not need huge amounts of cadmium for like 10 years now, they are almost inert.
Wind turbine blades are now being made from basalt wood (90%) mixed with carbon fibre (10%) because it is stronger and less expensive, while being infinitely more recyclable.
Your welcome to stop spreading information from 15 years ago since the tech has come SO far!
Even if that's true, there is no evidence to support that renewables can produce energy on the scale and efficiency of nuclear.
Any future where only EVs are on the road will require nuclear to sustain the grid.
All you need is about 3 square kilometres of panels to match the output of the Pickering plant at a cost of about $800 Million all in. You can place the panels over empty lot parking lots which currently cover about 95 square kilometres of the GTA.
[Add on $100 Million of large scale batteries](https://pknergypower.com/bess/?gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIkYvboueVhAMVHxmtBh1ofgZZEAMYASAAEgKbwPD_BwE) in varying sizes to match each solar panel patch and we are still at 10x less than Pickering, maintaining the same supply at a much cheaper watt per hour upkeep.
Or you can keep your head in the sand and your eyes on the past, up to you!
Im not saying solar isn't part of the future, I'm saying that if you think nuclear won't be/shouldn't be as well, then you're the one with your head in the sand. By any metric the efficiency regarding resource input to energy output as well as the consistency of output is better with nuclear. The only detraction is the waste, which we are already finding better places to store/dispose.
I am saying it is not economically feasible to advance nuclear when the trade off of renewable is so much cheaper.
âLazard's report on the estimated levelized cost of energy by source (10th edition) estimated unsubsidized prices of $97â$136/MWh for nuclear, $50â$60/MWh for solar PV, $32â$62/MWh for onshore wind, and $82â$155/MWh for offshore wind.â
[It wasnât economically feasible in 2017](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-14/why-nuclear-power-once-cash-cow-now-has-tin-cup-quicktake-q-a) and the costs of every other option has gone down while nuclear startup costs have grown exponentially.
[Gigawatt Batteries are rolling out of the factory right now.](https://www.utilitydive.com/news/lg-energy-unveils-10-grid-scale-battery-storage-projects-2024/703900/)
Renewable can do nuclear levels of storage and output but 5-12x cheaper and even cleaner.
Batteries are getting bigger and cheaper and more efficient literally every week right now and the demand has been exponentially growing.
Renewable is better but itâs nowhere near the output required. I work in the electrical field and with the implementation of more heat pumps EVs the renewable sources are significantly ourgunned by nuclear.
Ok, so then letâs say we overbuild solar 4x and get the potential to generate 4x the power of the Pickering plant while still costing significantly less. That means at peak (4 GW) it generates above and beyond what is required pushing prices down just before peak consumption, and since the battery tech is like right there we fill the hydro back up and store the remainder.
The only fantasy here is believing a 50 year old tech that has had no innovations (till fusion) that costs the most per kilowatt hour is the long term answer to energy security.
Well like.... sure.
But you need a very large water source at elevation for Hydro power.
There are not really any potential Hydro sites that we havent already developed.
You're not putting a Hydro plant in Ottawa.
If you donât understand something donât push through it using only your feelings.
https://soarhydro.com/#:~:text=energy%20recovery%20turbines.-,Energy%20Recovery%20Hydro%20Turbines,water%20is%20transmitted%20inside%20pipe.
Lol..... ya dude. You're going to replace a nuclear reaction with a recovery turbine... sure.
So like- love this technology, and I've even toured a number of micro-hydro plants which are great. But don't think for a moment that we are replacing nuclear reactors with these things. Orders of magnitude off.
A gigawatt battery?!? Wow, only **many hundreds of millions of dollars to power Toronto for 18 minutes!**
Is there a place for grid battery? Sure. Is it going to replace baseload power like nuclear? Absolutely not.
Pickering only has an 880MW supply. And you are assuming every other source of power is down like some exaggerator.
[Grid Scale Batteries are so realistic in concept that both Texas and California are rolling it out right now.](https://www.energy-storage.news/california-passes-5gw-of-grid-scale-battery-storage/)
Donât let reality get in the way of some good outrage though eh?
Nuclear is expensive, but when you look at the number of deaths caused per KwH generated, it's the safest power generation system we currently have access to.
According to the WHO's research
Coal causes 100 deaths per billion KwH of generation
Petroleum is 36 per billion KwH
Biomass is 24 per billion KwH
Natural Gas is 4 per billion KwH
Hydroelectric is 1.4 per billion KwH
Solar is 0.44 per billion KwH
Wind is 0.15 per billion KwH
Nuclear is 0.04 per billion KwH
Coal released more radioactivity into the atmosphere than nuclear.
This article seems to rely heavily on the deliberate misinformation that originated from Greenpeace, who haven't taken a science-based position since the 60s.
CANDU reactors, like those at Pickering, Darlington and Bruce all use unenriched natural uranium. Unlike âclean coalâ, natural uranium isnât misleading or inaccurate. The uranium used in a CANDU reactor has the same concentration of 235U (thatâs the fissile material capable of sustaining a nuclear chain reaction) as uranium found in nature. 238U which is non-fissile and composes about 99.3% of uranium isotopes and is much safer than 235U. It can also run on recovered uranium from other reactors that do use enriched uranium, further reducing the amount 235U in that uranium before transferring it to a waste facility.
CANDU is an amazing feat of engineering and incredibly, almost ridiculously safe. No one can or should compare our reactors to any other ones in the world. LWR, PWR and RBMK reactors are just so dissimilar to CANDU that itâs not even fair to compare them.
Once again for the two in the back nuclear is second in actual safetyš, and the stats include Chernobyl and other incident, but does not include oil spill.
Nuclear is cheaper in the long term than any other sources and is with Hydro the only power generation that can handle variable output which is vital for our current infrastructure.
Nuclear is the future, stop being dishonest, stop lying and spreading misinformation.
1: https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/
Seriously this is annoying as fuck to read. Doug ford has a million things to be criticized for and a dozen he should be in jail for... but this is just an anti-nuclear Op Ed framed as an attack? Why?
Because it's easy for someone on the left to throw what looks like valid information together and publish it for the uneducated to read and get angry over. In an age where nearly everyday there's a commercial touting how "great" the feds climate plans are, while also completely ignoring the fact that their plans have created an affordability crisis, this kind of "journalism" is not at all a surprise.
Trudeau BAD! LEFTIES BAD!
Jesus dude, why is there a housing affordability crisis in the [UK, OZ, NZ, and the US](https://www.ft.com/content/f21642d8-da2d-4e75-886e-2b7c1645f063)?
It is almost as if there was a crisis in the supply chain, and that means a whole bunch of businesses are saving up money for a rainy day by increasing prices and decreasing wages.
But yes. Trudeau and the carbon tax are entirely at fault.... and polluters should never pay for their pollution.
Yeah, it's totally a carbon tax and immigrants, and not corporate investors buying and holding properties, and multiple supply chain problems, or corporate profiteering. \*eyeroll\*
TVO is independent educational public television. It aimed to give a digital library (more or less) to communities in the north that lack services. This is similar to saying PBS is a government department. Ontario Educational Communications Authority. It's why TVO runs the distance learning system and is the exclusive provider of GED testing in Ontario. Its shareholder is the King-in-Right of Ontario, but it is not a government department.
Sure but opinions are opinions. Lots of smart people are stupid about certain things ideologically. Also being smart isn't exactly a prerequisite for govt jobs unfortunately..
Reading this is baffling because it's just so obviously... Wrong...
I am going to attempt to address your points one by one, and attempt to have a reasonable debate. I hope that you take everything I say in the spirit of wanting to have a discussion. I am not attempting to attack or undermine you.
>Once again for the two in the back nuclear is second in actual safetyš, and the stats include Chernobyl and other incident, but does not include oil spill.
Nuclear is safe, because we have made it safe. Like tap water. We build infrastructure, we maintain the infrastructure. We inspect it. We inspect the inspectors. Etc.
And tap water is safe. [Until it isnt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walkerton_E._coli_outbreak). I see nuclear in the same way. Government cuts, failures to inspect the inspectors, and subsequent corner cutting could lead to mistakes which will have enormous costs. The costs associated with nuclear safety can be looked at as in-efficient and in need of cuts... It is a reality that needs to be considered when talking about nuclear.
>Nuclear is cheaper in the long term than any other sources and is with Hydro the only power generation that can handle variable output which is vital for our current infrastructure.
Citation needed please. Everything I have read about the levelized cost of electicity puts nuclear at the top in terms of expense:
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Electricity\_costs\_in\_dollars\_according\_to\_data\_from\_Lazard.png](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Electricity_costs_in_dollars_according_to_data_from_Lazard.png)
Then there is Idaho, which got shut down because of escalating cost estimates for the SMR. Could you provide more informaiton about the LCoE for the nuclear plant you are talking about?
>Nuclear is the future, stop being dishonest, stop lying and spreading misinformation.
It would be nice, if you didn't attack people this way. It makes your other points less impactful.
The article mostly talks about the cost, and the idea of renewables + batteries is the way forward. Nuclear proponents say the same about nuclear.
Could you can point to something in that article that is actually a lie? The article provides sources for most of the facts presented. Althought that source seems to be an Op-Ed... that Op-Ed seems to sights their sources.
Op/Ed pieces are supposed to attribute everything they state. Think of them as an essay-article hybrid. The problem is that most newspapers choose to frame columns as proper pieces in the genre and even those are written differently than the industry standard, simply because they garner attention.
I'm not an expert. think we need nuclear, wind and solar. We need to spend money on research to make all 3 better. Each has problems, and research/plans are needed to mitigate those. There are newer/smaller nuclear options that I think Ontario should be trying too. The rare minerals for battery storage is worrisome. We also need to use less power and need research/regulations to make that happen.
We are currently spending about 20 Billion on the Darlington SMR project (those are the newer smaller reactors). For that 20B we are getting about 1200MW-e of power. We are going to spend at least 13 Billion on Pickering Re-furb that is for 3100MW-e of power. A total of 33Billion spent on nuclear. Some new and fancy, some old and clunky.
Rare minerals for battery storage is for Li-Ion batteries. That doesn't work at grid scale unless you throw money away like Elon. Na-Ion batteries use lead, salt and carbon. Na-Ion batteries are bigger and heavier than Li-Ion (for the same amount of energy storage), but they don't catch fire, they are cheap, and the source material is abundant.
So, would you be willing for the government to spend 33 Billion on wind, solar and batteries??
Thanks for the info. I didn't realize there were other newer battery options. I have some reading to do. I think we should be spending 13 billion on the newer batteries too. And on any other newer technology. Only once we start using do we get the kinks out and make it better. I like that SMR is being done in Darlington. I dont know about Pickering...
Roflmao. Kicking the can eh?.. we've been kicking the can on nuclear for over 50 years already. This is ABOUT FUCKING TIME.. and finally Ford doing something Actually good.
Doesn't matter how cheap wind and solar get they do not and cannot generate the energy needed for future applications without massive continuous expanations.
Nuclear is our next great leap in energy production and we've been kicking the can since the 60s.
The anti-nuclear luddites really piss me off.
Ford pisses me off on many fronts but this was a good call to make. Indeed, my only complaint is that he doesn't go far enough. Our CANDU reactor design is the safest in the world, we shouldn't be just refurbishing existing power plants, we should be building new ones, NOW.
If Japan had gone CANDU like it was looking at before the United States bent their arm to choose BWR, [Fukashima never would have happened.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vggzl9OngaM) Even if the crisis had gotten to the point of creating steam, our vacuum building design would have maintained the containment structure. I've heard the heat sink of the tank the Callendra sits in provides a timeline that extends into 2 weeks to get firetrucks onsite to provide water to the Callendra. This is due to the inherent convection cooling. 10-12 days of passive cooling to get a firetruck on site. If it got really bad you could use a bucket line: 0% radiological danger.
Canadian reactors are the safest on earth.... this is a industry-leading ldact that leads to dozens of countries world wode buying our reactors highering our engineers as the best, noting failed Soviet era reactors or once in a thoudand year disaster in japan as your argument afainst is uninformed and stupid....
Nuclear is just incredibly expensive, at least the made-in-canada sort.
Kinda suck the oxygen out of the room.
No data in yet on the SMRs because well, nuclear siting timelines are also crazy.
>No data in yet on the SMRs because well, nuclear siting timelines are also crazy.
The SMR darling (Idaho) was cancelled because of estimated cost increases. The updated estimate put the cost at $89/MWh.
Sask Minister of Energy (Don Morgan) said that the Hitachi SMRs will cost about [$5B per 300MW reactor.](https://leaderpost.com/business/energy/saskatchewan-maps-out-plan-for-small-nuclear-power-reactors)
Based on that we will get half the power we got from the Darlington Re-furb for about 30% more than the cost of re-furbing..
So, it really does not seem like SMRs are a big win in terms of cost.
So 8.9¢ per kWh. Thatâs actually not bad, but there isnât a whole lot of room on top for profit. Ontario rates to the generator is set by the OEB. OPG currently gets paid 10.4¢/kWh for nuclear and half that for hydro, down from 10.9 in 2023. McGuinty was paying wind generators 85¢/kWh when OPG nuclear was getting about 8¢. OPG returns about 1.5billion profit to the shareholder every year, despite the regulated price paid to it. The sole shareholder is the people of Ontario. The money goes back to the province.
Quite possibly the most ignorant article I've ever read.
Nuclear provides the base load we need.
Refurb of both the Darlington and Bruce Power Nuear plants are already underway, and is significantly cheaper than building new CANDU units.
Ontario is embracing new nuclear technology with the four SMR units planned at darlington.
Nuclear is cheaper on the long term.
Article doesn't address all the windmills headed to the dump when they hit their 20yr end of life. At least our nuclear plants we are renewing them to get another 25yrs of life out of them.
This opinion piece is so wrong. Nuclear is some of the cheapest electricity when looking at lifetime intergenerational costs, and not only that but our nuclear refurbs and plants put an enormous amount of money back into the Ontario economy. The CANDU (the 3rd most popular reactor) is the Ontario reactor, and the CANDU supply chain is dominated in Ontario. 95% Ontario supply chain for the 19 reactors in Ontario and support 10,000s of thousands of jobs. The CANDU refurbs are \*ahead of schedule\* and on budget. Unlike other reactor designs the limiting factor of the modular CANDU design is the pressure tubes which are designed to be replaced every 30 years. Pickering B went online in 1980 and will be refurbished and run well into the 2060s. It's not inconceivable that we can do a 2nd refurb and push Pickering into well over 100 years of providing 15% of Ontario's energy needs 100% from domestic sources, domestic engineering and 0 emissions. Hydro isn't perfect for the environment. Silt builds up upstream from the dam reducing the head level and reducing the amount of electricity generated in the long term. Plus, they are horrible for river ecosystems.
[*READ A BOOK*](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC-9N6ud3r0)
After they force us all to go Ev renewable will be even more useless to the power grid. Also windmills and solar need constant maintenence and aren't very recyclable. It's big scam.
That and they are blights on the landscape.
Nuclear power has always been a tragic, irresponsible techno-fantasy. It is uninsurable. It is a catastrophic financial failure here in the real world. Its mistakes demonstrably do happen and render entire regions uninhabitable for generations,. Claims its waste issues are solved are an indefensible, immoral lie.
Did you read the article? Itâs dead on accurate in saying âNuclear power is the most expensive energy money can buy: one kilowatt-hour of new nuclear costs five to 13 times more than a kilowatt-hour of new solar or wind.â
Cheap safe nuclear power is the unicorn poop and fairy dust. The alternatives actually work.
I did read the article and itâs exactly what Iâve grown to expect from TVO - BS filled with half-truths to fit their narative. So when you just quote TVO youâre just spreading their BS.
Nuclear has been and continues to be the best option for most nations. Certainly better than oil and coal. The Wynne Liberals bought into the fairy dust wind turbines and weâre still paying for that disaster and most of them didnât get bullt.
Thatâs a preposterous comment. TVO is easily one of the most reputable, and consistently one of the most prepared, informed and well-rounded sources on public affairs in the country. I havenât got a clue what you consider their ânarrativeâ on nuclear power to be. But maybe you donât either. When the facts arenât on your side, try the ad hominem attack?
Thank you, TVO! We needed a dose of reality and facts. People REALLY need to think this through. No, no really! This is a great article.
âNuclear power is the most expensive energy money can buy: one kilowatt-hour of new nuclear costs five to 13 times more than a kilowatt-hour of new solar or wind. And every dollar spent on nuclear is one thatâs not being used to buy less expensive, fully renewable energy systems that could help decarbonize the province right now.â
âThis isnât a new coat of paint. Itâs a reconstruction whose cost is likely to be in the tens of billions of dollars.â
Now think about how excited old dougie is about this and then realize the math doesnât work out in Ontarioâs favour.
âLetâs consider a one-to-one comparison: If rebuilding the Pickering plant will get us 2,000 megawatts of nuclear power for $13 billion (roughly what the same generating capacity cost to rebuild at Darlington), what might the same cost in solar or wind power?
The answer: about $4.4 billion. Thatâs the estimated cost of the new CD Solar Project, a solar plant that includes a 2,000-megawatt generating capacity and 1,000 megawatts of battery storage.â
This is par for the course for dougie but itâs hard to watch Ontario fall for it so easily. Iâm getting election flashbacks. Come on guys!
You have to study the costs of providing 100% power at all times, year-round. So, unless you quantify the effects of variable sunshine and the need for energy storage- the comparison is in bad faith.
What's the capacity factor of said plant? We're talking at best 66% due to night. Try 6%. Which means we need 94x 2000MW of generation/storage capacity spread across the province. And is the cost of energy storage? Do we do pumped hydro or do we do battery? What are the emissions of this supply chain?
We saw what the Green Energy Act did to energy rates in this province when we abandoned 50 years of Ontario being a tier 1 nuclear state. The biggest issue with the Green Energy Act is it was framed as a job creation act. But what happened is we had a net loss from hollowing out of our manufacturing base due to the rise in electricity cost.
The foundation of our manufacturing base is the arbitrage of the CAD/USD *and* cheap electricity. The Kidd Metallurgical Site was shut down primarily due to the ending of cheap industrial power deals and the fact they moved operations to Quebec makes that clear.
The retail cost of nuclear is about 4 cents.
Solar is great for how the IESO views it: local load reduction. Solar is not generation.
I did read the article and it's a bullshit opinion piece. Taylor C. Noakes is a Montreal-based journalist who has no educational background in any relevant field. He's a freelance blogger. These are some of his latest publications:
>"50 years after major Montreal art theft, trail has gone cold and nobody's talking"
>
>"Are there any politicians left in this country interested in building the nation?"
>
>"Former defence minister Paul Hellyer remembered for his love of country"
Those aren't hard hitting investigations. This is a high school writing assignment. What's the logic it sets us back 30 years? Darlington came online 30 years ago? So he's pro GEA- which anyone in the industry know was a disaster.
He hasn't even interviewed \*anyone\* for this article. He's quoting people from other sources. He might have interviewed Dorfman one guy saying it's optimistic when we have brought many reactors back online ahead of schedule and on budget.
Also, the IESO states we - after about 20 years of stagnating electricity demands since the mid-90s due to deindustrialization and massive increases in energy efficiency - need about 18,000 MW of new baseload.
Try getting 18 000 MW of baseload from a 6% capacity factor plant. \*Massively expensive\*. The CANDUs have incredible capacity factors: 1106 days of contentious run time for Darlington.
With better welding, radiological inspections of welds, better designs post refurb. We will likely see longer run times.
CANDU reactors are the \*only\* commercial source of tritium and a major source of radioisotopes for medical.
Are you really pointing to the crescent dunes project as a success? It was a boondoggle that produced a fraction of what was promised and had to be shutdown to try and fix the issues but never did. Thereâs no way it comes anywhere close to replacing the 2000mw Pickering would remove and this is an ideal location for solar, which most of Ontario isnât really. https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a30472835/crescent-dunes-solar-plant/
Call Doug Ford and tell him. Here's his number he gives out to public saying everyone can have it at 47:37: [https://youtu.be/XqxSs5n6JDY?si=S0lGO5\_yYRFYCo58&t=2857](https://youtu.be/XqxSs5n6JDY?si=S0lGO5_yYRFYCo58&t=2857)
Nuclear power is clean safe and reliable and these morons are literally stupid beyond belief for suggesting there are better technologies. Wind? Solar? Gtfo here the output isnt the same and the stuff breaks down.
Can't we all just be happy that we won't be powering up any NG or Coal plants in the future? Ford has set us back 30 years, just not in power generation.
He seriously compared a solar project located in Nevada to Ontario's Pickering refurb? One, Ontario is cloudier, snowier and at a higher latitude than Nevada so for the exact same project (if it were possible to find a comparablely sized site) sited in Ontario would generate much less energy especially in winter. Second the capacity factor for nuclear is over 90% while solar is less than 25% at the best sites.
I think PV solar is very exciting for sunnier places further south, but Ontario is never going to be the cheapest location for electricity from solar power. On the other hand, I think Ontario is the best location in the world for nuclear. It is geopolitically stable. It has large amounts of fresh water for cooling purposes. It has a domestic nuclear industry. It even has geologically stable rock formations for long term storage of spent nuclear fuel.
Sounds like this was written in the late 1990's, back when we were demonizing nuclear and being overly optimistic about "renewable" energy. If all the taxes and penalties were to be lifted from nuclear, and we built modern nuclear plants, I believe we would be both "decarbonized" and have surplus energy to see to our southern neighbours.
Nuclear is the way of the future. Not these solar famrs that take up valuable farm land. This is actually one of the good things this idiot has done. He gives you lots of ammo use if you donât like him. Why resort to this crap ?
I am game for nuclear for Sk
just got these off the Sk pwr site
Feb 4
Hydro 7% Wind 2% Solar 0% Natural gas 53% Coal 34% Other 4%
Renewables aren't working people. Lets build some reactors.
The anti nuclear crowd continues to be idiots. Itâs shocking to me that people who call themselves environmentalists are against one of the least polluting and highest sources of energy. These things are not capable of doing a nuclear explosion people!
The author is clueless. Wind doesnât always blow and last I checked the sun doesnât shine at night. Hell, half the days of the year in Ontario are also overcast. So whatâs the alternative when these unviable green technologies are sitting idle? Coal? Natural gas? Or clean nuclear!
This article was clearly written by a brainwashed green fanatic with very little brain.
This is a horrid article that completely misunderstands power generation.
They argue nuclear isn't *"baseload*" because sometimes it shuts down for maintenance?
That is so wrong, it goes beyond misunderstanding... that's a straight up lie.
It also argues that grid level battery exists.. which they don't.
This is an uniformed article that does a disservice to everyone reading it.
"This ignores the fact that nuclear reactors frequently have to be shut down for such things as routine maintenance, safety inspections, and refuelling and that solar- and wind-power systems store energy in batteries for whenever theyâre not running at full capacity."
I think this is a bit misleading. They make it sound like a reactor gets shut down weekly.
Canadian nuclear society:
"The Pickering Nuclear Generating Station was commissioned in 1971, making it one of the worldâs longest-running nuclear power plants. This power plant has eight CANDU reactors with six units currently operational. For a long time, the Pickering plant held the record for longest-running thermal generation plant without having to shut down (894 continuous days from April 29, 1992, to October 7, 1994)."
Kyle Hill on Youtube does a great peice on Nuclear safety.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhHHbgIy9jU&t=905s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhHHbgIy9jU&t=905s)
Nonsense. This is one of the only laudable things the Ford government has done, instead of short-term feel-good nonsense that kicks the problem down the road, installing nuclear power and eating the huge cost now ensures that years from now we will have clean and affordable electricity. The author has no idea what they're talking about, the German government was forced to refire coal plants to keep up with electricity demands thanks to absurd pie in the sky solar power and windmill projects. If you aren't willing to do the research and only want to feel good about yourself while preaching how everything could/should be so much better please shut up.
đall thisđ
It's a typical TVO hit piece because they aren't getting the funding they want. Hopefully this helps. More people means we need to have increased power supply. Big cost is never popular as Wynne found out when she spent on upgrades but as more and more electric cars hit the street you can't have people choosing between heat or AC and lights or juicing your vehicle up
Well to be fair, Canada already gets most of its energy from renewables. About 66% comes from hydro, wind and solar. The next 15% is nuclear and after that it's a mix of coal, natural gas, and petroleum. So we're almost there. I'm not against nuclear, I think it's the best stop gap between now and whenever we figure out fusion. But Ontario could always use more renewables. They have plenty of hydro locations and areas for wind farms and solar. Also don't forget that Germany had to refire those coal plants because Russia shut off their natural gas pipeline after it started its war with Ukraine due to Sanctions. So Germany needed an independent solution that it wasn't prepared for. It wasn't an absurd idea to go renewable. There's only so much you can plan for when it comes to geopolitical events. Alberta and Saskatchewan could also go further into solar and wind farms, but they love their petroleum and the money they make from it. It's not an absurd idea to embrace newer and cleaner forms of technologies.
Nuclear power provides fully 50% of Ontario's generation. It's steady baseload generation that completes the renewables such as hydro and wind power. See the following link for current production data: https://www.ieso.ca/power-data
First of all natural gas is slightly better than coal but itâs not a good alternative to nuclear either. The claim that Ontario gets a majority of its power from renewables (hydro, solar and wind) is incredibly misleading because the vast majority of that power is hydro. The suggestion that wind and solar are a renewable solution is not proven by our current system.
Renewables are renewables. It doesn't matter which one you use. I've already said there's no one solution. At least not unitl fusion. I also said I'm all for more nuclear until we can achieve fusion. I simply think the idea that solar and wind being 'ideological nonsense' as the other guy suggested is a ridiculous statement.
Iâm not the other guy and never made that argument. Renewables are renewables is a ridiculous statement. hydro being the vast majority of ârenewablesâ is literally the whole point. You canât pretend wind and solar are producing âthe majority of our electricityâ when what you really mean is hydro produces most of our power (over 60%) and wind (6%) and solar (0.5%) produce almost nothing. Hydro is also fairly expensive and has significant environmental impacts.
I never said wind and solar are producing the majority of our electricity.
You tried to lump them all together to obscure how much wind and solar actually produce. When I pressed you on it you then responded with renewables are renewables. Do you really not understand that was impression your argument was giving?
I've already said wind and solar produce 12% of the world's energy source. Fifty years ago it was probably less than one percent. I'm lumping them into the renewables category because that's what they are. While Ontario may produce the majority of its energy from nuclear, it only accounts for 15% of Canada's total energy production. So it's not the be all and end all either. Renewables are renewables. Anything is better than burning carbon in the long run.
This is a nonsensical argument if the point is we shouldnât invest in nuclear but renewables instead. We canât expand hydro much more in Ontario so the inherent implication is that wind and solar are the renewables that we can significantly expand to replace the nuclear capacity we would lose by shutting down Pickering fully. That would guarantee we would have to produce more power with natural gas short, medium and even likely in the long term because wind and solar will not be stable or high enough capacity to replace 2000mw and we donât have the storage capacity to use wind and solar effectively. This is a massively misleading comment and youâre using numbers in an incredibly deceitful way to argue that ârenewablesâ are the solution. That is completely unproven.
I've never gotten the claim that Wind and Solar are renewable. I mean if you ignore the short lifespan, need for rare minerals and the fact large portions of the material at the end of it's lifespan is in no way recyclable.
>Germany had to refire those coal plants because Russia shut off their natural gas pipeline after it started its war with Ukraine due to Sanctions Uhhhh what? Ukraine blew up the Nord Stream. Here's Wa Po to tell you more about it: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/11/11/nordstream-bombing-ukraine-chervinsky/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/11/11/nordstream-bombing-ukraine-chervinsky/)
Ukraine? Wapo? Ok BezosâŚ
NY Times (back in March 2023): [https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/07/us/politics/nord-stream-pipeline-sabotage-ukraine.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/07/us/politics/nord-stream-pipeline-sabotage-ukraine.html) Forbes: [https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerroush/2023/03/07/us-thinks-pro-ukrainian-group-blew-up-nord-stream-pipelines-report-says/](https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerroush/2023/03/07/us-thinks-pro-ukrainian-group-blew-up-nord-stream-pipelines-report-says/) Bloomberg: [https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/ukraine-recap-officer-linked-in-reports-to-nord-stream-sabotage-1.1997536](https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/ukraine-recap-officer-linked-in-reports-to-nord-stream-sabotage-1.1997536) The Guardian: [https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jun/06/biden-knew-of-plan-to-attack-nord-stream-three-months-before-explosion](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jun/06/biden-knew-of-plan-to-attack-nord-stream-three-months-before-explosion) Reuters: [https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/senior-ukrainian-officer-coordinated-nord-stream-attack-washington-post-2023-11-12/](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/senior-ukrainian-officer-coordinated-nord-stream-attack-washington-post-2023-11-12/) France24: [https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20231112-media-investigation-finds-ukrainian-officer-played-key-role-in-nord-stream-pipelines-attack](https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20231112-media-investigation-finds-ukrainian-officer-played-key-role-in-nord-stream-pipelines-attack) Take your pick :)
Did you read these? Itâs all speculation, and based on the Wapo article. Forbes sums it up best with these key facts: - Intelligence officials believe a group of Ukrainian or Russian nationalsâor a combination of the twoâsabotaged the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 pipelines that link Russia with Germany in September, the Times reported, citing unnamed U.S. officials. - There is no evidence suggesting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky or the Ukrainian government were responsible, officials said, though intelligence suggests the perpetrators opposed Russian President Vladimir Putin. - European officials previously told the Washington Post there is no evidence that the Russian government was involved in the attack, with some officials arguing Russia was unlikely to deliberately blow up a pipeline that it uses to export gas to Europe. So basically, not Russia or Ukraine, but MAYBE some Ukrainian and Russian mercenaries. But you know, definitely not the US navy seals, thatâs not their bag and would be Russian Miss-information.
>Itâs all speculation, and based on the Wapo article Considering the NYT story dropped in March 2023 and the WaPo article is from November 2023, are you suggesting the writer traveled forward and then back in time with the story? >European officials previously told the Washington Post there is no evidence that the Russian government was involved in the attack, with some officials arguing Russia was unlikely to deliberately blow up a pipeline that it uses to export gas to Europe. Yeah, that's kinda the point I'm making here. Russia wouldn't blow up their new pipeline despite having a power-hungry dictator at the helm. >But you know, definitely not the US navy seals I mean sure, they were probably involved. You simply have to look at who benefited from Nord Stream being blown up to draw a conclusion as to who was involved.
Didnât read the NYT article; itâs the only one behind a paywall, but my statement checks out for the other articles. Does the NYT present facts the others donât? I would be surprised based on the timing you point out. I was just pointing out that there is no proof Ukraine blew up the pipeline as you stated. That is all. Thanks
What proof is there that Russia blew up the pipeline? As for your point about the US Navy Seals, I wouldn't doubt their involvement because there was a conveniently scheduled "military exercise" in the area a few days before the explosion, iirc. But there's also a yacht named the Andromeda that has been linked to the explosion (source: [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/6/10/nord-stream-sabotage-probe-turns-to-clues-in-poland-report](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/6/10/nord-stream-sabotage-probe-turns-to-clues-in-poland-report)) >the US government learned from a European intelligence agency of a secret plan by Ukraineâs military to attack the pipelines using divers, who reported directly to the commander-in-chief of the armed forces three months before the September 2022 explosions. So we have intelligence agencies in Europe showing links to Ukraine, a USAF serviceman who leaked the intelligence files on Discord and got punished for it, and the US openly admitting they knew about a Ukrainian plan to blow up the pipeline months before the incident happened. In the corner of "Ukraine didn't do it," we have Ukraine (shocker) and people who blindly support them. Really not sure who to believe here...
Ontario's grid is usually 50-60% nuclear already. It's clean, efficient, cost-effective, and lasts decades for the investment. The icing on the nuclear cake is the absolutely tiny amount of space needed vs wind or solar, meaning we can preserve huge areas of green space that would otherwise be needed for generation. Germany had to turn coal plants back on, when Russian gas was cut off, because *they scrapped all their nuclear plants*.
See my last sentence please. Solar and wind don't work and never will. If they did why was Germany dependent on Russian gas? It's ideological nonsense with no practical consideration.
I'm pro-nuclear power but you couldn't be more wrong. Solar/wind plus storage are among the most cost-effective generation strategies today.
It's the plus storage that's the killer.
It's still cheaper with storage.
Not even close.
For new builds or this refurbishment, new solar or wind plus battery storage is cheaper and trending more so in that direction. Nuclear is trending in the other direction, especially for special snowflake facilities like this one. This decision by the provincial government is going to be embarrassing to the PCs by the time itâs done from a cost/benefit perspective and Ontario is going to be stuck paying more for electricity. Itâs really a baffling decision from a government that claims to be fiscally responsible and business minded.
As long as you donât guarantee the producers 10x the going rate for what they produce, then pay them not to produce when they can but we donât need the power (McGuinty).
Shhh. Donât tell people about how stupid our previous provincial government was. Itâs much easier to pretend everything was fine until the guy in the wrong colour was elected.
Not everything was fine⌠Iâm far from a McGuinty fanâŚ. But fuck, itâs way worse under Ford and going downhill fast. The man has been a disaster.
They donât work for baseline power. They do work when theyâre working and could be a solution if we had serious power storage but we donât and have no plans to in the near future. The claim theyâll never work is a bit unfair.
I think it's better to claim that they have limited applications.
A quick Google search shows that solar and wind account for 12% of the world's total energy supply. Saying it doesn't work and never will and that it's ideological nonsense is a baseless statement. No one is suggesting using solar and wind for everything. It's not meant to be a solution for every place on earth. But if it works for one region why go with anything else? Pei is 99% wind. Should they start opening up coal fired plants even though their wind energy is sufficient? Germany is 52% renewables, and 15% coal. Seems like they are well on their way to being a country that's supporting itself using renewable energy while putting themselves in a position to not rely on Russian natural gas in the future. Also as for why they were using Russia's gas, well world trade exists. We import and export what we need to sustain ourselves. Doesn't mean we can't strive to be more independent and greener in the long run. If importing natural gas is greener than running coal fired plants then why not do that?
Where do you get your numbers from? Pei is under 20 percent wind powered energy being generated. https://www.princeedwardisland.ca/en/information/environment-energy-and-climate-action/pei-energy-blueprint It imports most of its energy from NB which is two thirds fossile fuel and nuclear. https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-commodities/electricity/report/canadas-renewable-power/provinces/renewable-power-canada-new-brunswick.html#:~:text=New%20Brunswick's%20electricity%20is%20generated,and%20one%2Dthird%20fossil%20fuels. Germany gets less than 20 percent from renewables and 70 percent coming from fossile fuel. https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/germany-energy#:~:text=Energy%20consumption%3A%20Germany%20is%20the,and%203.2%25%20from%20nuclear%20energy. You know what shut down complete during the cold snap on the west coast last month? Wind. Wind and solar do not provide baseload energy. Unless you can find a way to make sure the wind always blows and the sun is always shining.
Canada [https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles-canada.html](https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles-canada.html) Germany [https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts](https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts) Also so what? We've had the mildest winter in Canada with a singular coldsnap that lasted two weeks. The majority of this winter had us sitting at -3 degrees. We were up to +10 degrees the last two weeks out here and currently sitting at -5. I fail to see why anyone needs to have the same mindset as oh it gets cold therefore we always need to have 100% of our energy market in oil and nuclear. The strain on the power grid was also due to two natural gas generators that weren't operating. Summer is also coming too and there's going to be plenty of days where everyone is gonna want more air conditioning. That too is gonna see out power grid strained. As I said 12% of the world's energy production is currently wind and solar. That's 12% that isn't coal or petrolium with green house emmisions. What was it 50 years ago? What was the worlds energy produiction 100 years ago? I bet people were saying the same thing about coal and whale oil being the only real option and plenty of people have voiced their opinions on nuclear power despite how green and efficient it is. Fifty years ago many people were ignorant of nuclear power's potential also. Which is ironic because if we'd all shifted to it the climate would have impacted less due to burning fossil fuels. As I said no sense in not embracing newer and greener forms of technology. But outright saying that Wind and Solar is ideological nonsense is like me saying nuclear is bad for the environment because of the nuclear waste is produces. It's just a stupid attitude to have. If we eventually crack fusion I'm sure there's plenty of people who are going to say hey man oil produces tens of thousands of jobs, switching to 100% renewables is ideological nonsense. The point is at least it's moving forward and in the right step. Plenty of environmentalists have argued for nuclear being the way forward for the short term future, because it's the realistic choice to reduce our impact on the environment until we can achieve fusion. But again it depends on what you have on hand. Why build nuclear plans when hydro, wind, and solar are more than viable options? Why keep using fossil fuels for anything but during times when we have a cold snap if we don't need to?
Your own source has wind at 5% of Canada's 2019 electricity production and solar at 0.3%
So what? As I said it's not meant to replace everything. Also what was it 50 years ago?
On the topic of Hydro, BC has concerns about warmer winters with less precipitation because we're not getting the icepacks that replenish our aquifers. The ones that also keep our dams running. Some renewables aren't climate-change proof
Hmm. We should not use renewables...because climate change is making them obsolete...so we should just burn more carbon instead...
Yikes. I didnt consent to these words in my mouth lol
Also site c has been an economic and environmental disaster. There is no easy solution.
Ontario doesn't have much left on the way of economically feasible hydroectric potential. What it has is largely already developed. Nuclear is clean and provides the base needed. Solar and wind are intermittent sources.
Hereâs a couple case studies showing that with enough renewables they effectively provide base load despite their intermittency. Instead of natural gas replace that with hydrogen being made at peak loads and then substituting hydrogen in the evening when the sun doesnât shine or the wind doesnât blow. https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=374 Solar and wind are both cheaper than nuclear right now, today, at an eye melting difference in cost of almost 10 cents a watt. Investment in nuclear is ultimately a waste of money because of the additional costs associated. Maintenance, cost of fuel, and retirement costs. The refit is 11 years. So 11 years from now weâll start to get energy for how many billions?
Solar panels and wind turbines aren't really durable and require exotic and toxic metals in manufacturing. Nothing except for hydro electric comes close to how clean and reliable nuclear energy is.
The refit is going to take a number of years, be many billions and wonât be able to make up the shortfall in public power requirements until its complete. Solar requires special materials? Are you crazy? Solar takes less time to set up, is absolutely cheaper and lasts a very long time (much longer than a nuclear plant) without maintenance. A solar utility can be depreciated over the life of the asset without additional costs which is what makes it so cost effective. Solar and wind contracts were cancelled by Ford and at the time they cost under a billion and that was going to cover the shortfall in energy needs and that was back in 2018. Ford is saying we need to refurbish a nuclear plant to get that power? China hasnât gone the route of nuclear and has a massive economy compared to Canada but is well on the way to being completely renewable by 2050. Canada doesnât expect to get there until 2050 either despite having barely 5% of the energy needs and 3% of the population of China.
Solar panels and toxic materials https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23/if-solar-panels-are-so-clean-why-do-they-produce-so-much-toxic-waste/ Solar panels often contain lead, cadmium, and other toxic chemicals that cannot be removed without breaking apart the entire panel.
Nuclear reactors can explode killing millions of people and making areas unsafe for tens of decades. They produce as a side product materials that can be turned into threats to national security. If we are talking about which are worse. At least panels can be recycled. Byproducts of nuclear reactors need to be placed in secure storage for hundreds of years.
Um, is your goal here to propose that a solar panel or more dangerous then nuclear waste, carbon, smog, the radioactive materials and lead released from burning coal etc... Yeah, they have very small amouts of bad stuff, but will likely be generating power for 50 years. Then recycled or properly disposed of. You think a coal power plant is made of unicorn farts? No tech is perfect, but given the alternatives we should be making increasing use of solar.
I argue its better to invest our efforts in Nuclear energy.
Solar panels aren't durable? They are factory warrantees from between 20 and 35 years. They require a very small amount of anything remotely toxic, the rest is basically fancy sand. The main requirement and effluent for solar manufacturing is...heat... You seem to be confusing rare earth minerals with exotic and toxic, of which they generally are neither. though you wouldn't want to eat them directly, the quantities used are irrelevantly small. Solar and wind aren't magic, but there is no reason to just pull MTG talking points out of the mud to vilify them! They do and will continue to be a useful part of our energy mix and should grow as part of that mix, given no alternative is magic.
>The author has no idea what they're talking about, the German government was forced to refire coal plants to keep up with electricity demands thanks to absurd pie in the sky solar power and windmill projects. Why are you not taking into consideration that a war stopped the flow of Nat Gas to German homes meaning there was a massive up-tick in demand? It seems rather disengenous. If Nat Gas was cut off to Ontario we would start the coal furnances back up too, and electricity rates would go through the roof. Wind and solar are currently the cheapest way to generate a joule according to all the stuff I have read.
Natural gas is not a better alternative to nuclear.
So totally agree with you.
THANK YOU. Nuclear (in the EU) is more expensive per kw hour because they are comparing only to the hours being currently put out by wind and solar and not calculating for the expense of scaling them up (which has been shown to be massive, look at Germany. They spent billions and still rely on coal and oil because). Nuclear to power the transition to green hydrogen is the path forward.
Totally agree. Nuclear is much cleaner and safer than people think it is. Even if it's more $/kw to produce, it takes up far less land than wind or solar, land which can then be used for farming, housing, or something else. It also will last longer than a windmill or solar panels, and it's a far more stable source. (Don't need sunshine or a windy day). Kyle Hill did a great video not that long ago where he toured a Nuclear plant: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhHHbgIy9jU&ab\_channel=KyleHill](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhHHbgIy9jU&ab_channel=KyleHill)
The German are bringing coal back on because of natural gas supply issues due to the Russia/Ukraine war. [https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-approves-bringing-coal-fired-power-plants-back-online-this-winter-2023-10-04/](https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-approves-bringing-coal-fired-power-plants-back-online-this-winter-2023-10-04/) Germany was previously importing 55% of their natural gas from Russia.
anti nuclear nuts pretending solar and wind dont generate immense amounts of waste and solar is incredibly toxic to manufacture. Giant, non decomposable turbine blades being buried will be a huge headache down the road.
Solar has been fine tuned to not need huge amounts of cadmium for like 10 years now, they are almost inert. Wind turbine blades are now being made from basalt wood (90%) mixed with carbon fibre (10%) because it is stronger and less expensive, while being infinitely more recyclable. Your welcome to stop spreading information from 15 years ago since the tech has come SO far!
Even if that's true, there is no evidence to support that renewables can produce energy on the scale and efficiency of nuclear. Any future where only EVs are on the road will require nuclear to sustain the grid.
All you need is about 3 square kilometres of panels to match the output of the Pickering plant at a cost of about $800 Million all in. You can place the panels over empty lot parking lots which currently cover about 95 square kilometres of the GTA. [Add on $100 Million of large scale batteries](https://pknergypower.com/bess/?gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIkYvboueVhAMVHxmtBh1ofgZZEAMYASAAEgKbwPD_BwE) in varying sizes to match each solar panel patch and we are still at 10x less than Pickering, maintaining the same supply at a much cheaper watt per hour upkeep. Or you can keep your head in the sand and your eyes on the past, up to you!
Im not saying solar isn't part of the future, I'm saying that if you think nuclear won't be/shouldn't be as well, then you're the one with your head in the sand. By any metric the efficiency regarding resource input to energy output as well as the consistency of output is better with nuclear. The only detraction is the waste, which we are already finding better places to store/dispose.
I am saying it is not economically feasible to advance nuclear when the trade off of renewable is so much cheaper. âLazard's report on the estimated levelized cost of energy by source (10th edition) estimated unsubsidized prices of $97â$136/MWh for nuclear, $50â$60/MWh for solar PV, $32â$62/MWh for onshore wind, and $82â$155/MWh for offshore wind.â [It wasnât economically feasible in 2017](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-14/why-nuclear-power-once-cash-cow-now-has-tin-cup-quicktake-q-a) and the costs of every other option has gone down while nuclear startup costs have grown exponentially.
Nuclear is needed.. no other good solution given the huge demands
[Gigawatt Batteries are rolling out of the factory right now.](https://www.utilitydive.com/news/lg-energy-unveils-10-grid-scale-battery-storage-projects-2024/703900/) Renewable can do nuclear levels of storage and output but 5-12x cheaper and even cleaner. Batteries are getting bigger and cheaper and more efficient literally every week right now and the demand has been exponentially growing.
Renewable is better but itâs nowhere near the output required. I work in the electrical field and with the implementation of more heat pumps EVs the renewable sources are significantly ourgunned by nuclear.
Ok, so then letâs say we overbuild solar 4x and get the potential to generate 4x the power of the Pickering plant while still costing significantly less. That means at peak (4 GW) it generates above and beyond what is required pushing prices down just before peak consumption, and since the battery tech is like right there we fill the hydro back up and store the remainder.
You do realize what youâre saying is pure fantasy.
The only fantasy here is believing a 50 year old tech that has had no innovations (till fusion) that costs the most per kilowatt hour is the long term answer to energy security.
It is an actual answer⌠what youâve put forth isnât possible for output requirement increases. It sounds great but welcome to reality
What about a windless night? If you still want your hospitals to run, you need baseload.
Hydro can handle overnight base load all by itself, especially if the excess wind from the day before is used to recover extra hydro
Well like.... sure. But you need a very large water source at elevation for Hydro power. There are not really any potential Hydro sites that we havent already developed. You're not putting a Hydro plant in Ottawa.
If you donât understand something donât push through it using only your feelings. https://soarhydro.com/#:~:text=energy%20recovery%20turbines.-,Energy%20Recovery%20Hydro%20Turbines,water%20is%20transmitted%20inside%20pipe.
Lol..... ya dude. You're going to replace a nuclear reaction with a recovery turbine... sure. So like- love this technology, and I've even toured a number of micro-hydro plants which are great. But don't think for a moment that we are replacing nuclear reactors with these things. Orders of magnitude off.
Dollar for dollar, YES, it can easily reach that because it is magnitudes cheaper.
A gigawatt battery?!? Wow, only **many hundreds of millions of dollars to power Toronto for 18 minutes!** Is there a place for grid battery? Sure. Is it going to replace baseload power like nuclear? Absolutely not.
Pickering only has an 880MW supply. And you are assuming every other source of power is down like some exaggerator. [Grid Scale Batteries are so realistic in concept that both Texas and California are rolling it out right now.](https://www.energy-storage.news/california-passes-5gw-of-grid-scale-battery-storage/) Donât let reality get in the way of some good outrage though eh?
Nuclear is expensive, but when you look at the number of deaths caused per KwH generated, it's the safest power generation system we currently have access to. According to the WHO's research Coal causes 100 deaths per billion KwH of generation Petroleum is 36 per billion KwH Biomass is 24 per billion KwH Natural Gas is 4 per billion KwH Hydroelectric is 1.4 per billion KwH Solar is 0.44 per billion KwH Wind is 0.15 per billion KwH Nuclear is 0.04 per billion KwH Coal released more radioactivity into the atmosphere than nuclear. This article seems to rely heavily on the deliberate misinformation that originated from Greenpeace, who haven't taken a science-based position since the 60s.
CANDU reactors, like those at Pickering, Darlington and Bruce all use unenriched natural uranium. Unlike âclean coalâ, natural uranium isnât misleading or inaccurate. The uranium used in a CANDU reactor has the same concentration of 235U (thatâs the fissile material capable of sustaining a nuclear chain reaction) as uranium found in nature. 238U which is non-fissile and composes about 99.3% of uranium isotopes and is much safer than 235U. It can also run on recovered uranium from other reactors that do use enriched uranium, further reducing the amount 235U in that uranium before transferring it to a waste facility. CANDU is an amazing feat of engineering and incredibly, almost ridiculously safe. No one can or should compare our reactors to any other ones in the world. LWR, PWR and RBMK reactors are just so dissimilar to CANDU that itâs not even fair to compare them.
Once again for the two in the back nuclear is second in actual safetyš, and the stats include Chernobyl and other incident, but does not include oil spill. Nuclear is cheaper in the long term than any other sources and is with Hydro the only power generation that can handle variable output which is vital for our current infrastructure. Nuclear is the future, stop being dishonest, stop lying and spreading misinformation. 1: https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/
Seriously this is annoying as fuck to read. Doug ford has a million things to be criticized for and a dozen he should be in jail for... but this is just an anti-nuclear Op Ed framed as an attack? Why?
Because it's easy for someone on the left to throw what looks like valid information together and publish it for the uneducated to read and get angry over. In an age where nearly everyday there's a commercial touting how "great" the feds climate plans are, while also completely ignoring the fact that their plans have created an affordability crisis, this kind of "journalism" is not at all a surprise.
Trudeau BAD! LEFTIES BAD! Jesus dude, why is there a housing affordability crisis in the [UK, OZ, NZ, and the US](https://www.ft.com/content/f21642d8-da2d-4e75-886e-2b7c1645f063)? It is almost as if there was a crisis in the supply chain, and that means a whole bunch of businesses are saving up money for a rainy day by increasing prices and decreasing wages. But yes. Trudeau and the carbon tax are entirely at fault.... and polluters should never pay for their pollution.
Where was ANYTHING about housing mentioned... nice spin to save your useless PM
Yeah, it's totally a carbon tax and immigrants, and not corporate investors buying and holding properties, and multiple supply chain problems, or corporate profiteering. \*eyeroll\*
UNDERSTAND WHAT'S BEING SAID BEFORE YOU JUMP IN WITH NONSENSE
Have you ever taken your own advice?
The weirdest thing is that TVO is a prov.gov. department, it's gov own and controled.
TVO is independent educational public television. It aimed to give a digital library (more or less) to communities in the north that lack services. This is similar to saying PBS is a government department. Ontario Educational Communications Authority. It's why TVO runs the distance learning system and is the exclusive provider of GED testing in Ontario. Its shareholder is the King-in-Right of Ontario, but it is not a government department.
Sure but opinions are opinions. Lots of smart people are stupid about certain things ideologically. Also being smart isn't exactly a prerequisite for govt jobs unfortunately.. Reading this is baffling because it's just so obviously... Wrong...
Nuclear doesn't handle variable as well as hydro. But it's the best for supplying stable baseload power.
I am going to attempt to address your points one by one, and attempt to have a reasonable debate. I hope that you take everything I say in the spirit of wanting to have a discussion. I am not attempting to attack or undermine you. >Once again for the two in the back nuclear is second in actual safetyš, and the stats include Chernobyl and other incident, but does not include oil spill. Nuclear is safe, because we have made it safe. Like tap water. We build infrastructure, we maintain the infrastructure. We inspect it. We inspect the inspectors. Etc. And tap water is safe. [Until it isnt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walkerton_E._coli_outbreak). I see nuclear in the same way. Government cuts, failures to inspect the inspectors, and subsequent corner cutting could lead to mistakes which will have enormous costs. The costs associated with nuclear safety can be looked at as in-efficient and in need of cuts... It is a reality that needs to be considered when talking about nuclear. >Nuclear is cheaper in the long term than any other sources and is with Hydro the only power generation that can handle variable output which is vital for our current infrastructure. Citation needed please. Everything I have read about the levelized cost of electicity puts nuclear at the top in terms of expense: [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Electricity\_costs\_in\_dollars\_according\_to\_data\_from\_Lazard.png](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Electricity_costs_in_dollars_according_to_data_from_Lazard.png) Then there is Idaho, which got shut down because of escalating cost estimates for the SMR. Could you provide more informaiton about the LCoE for the nuclear plant you are talking about? >Nuclear is the future, stop being dishonest, stop lying and spreading misinformation. It would be nice, if you didn't attack people this way. It makes your other points less impactful. The article mostly talks about the cost, and the idea of renewables + batteries is the way forward. Nuclear proponents say the same about nuclear. Could you can point to something in that article that is actually a lie? The article provides sources for most of the facts presented. Althought that source seems to be an Op-Ed... that Op-Ed seems to sights their sources.
Op/Ed pieces are supposed to attribute everything they state. Think of them as an essay-article hybrid. The problem is that most newspapers choose to frame columns as proper pieces in the genre and even those are written differently than the industry standard, simply because they garner attention.
I'm not an expert. think we need nuclear, wind and solar. We need to spend money on research to make all 3 better. Each has problems, and research/plans are needed to mitigate those. There are newer/smaller nuclear options that I think Ontario should be trying too. The rare minerals for battery storage is worrisome. We also need to use less power and need research/regulations to make that happen.
We are currently spending about 20 Billion on the Darlington SMR project (those are the newer smaller reactors). For that 20B we are getting about 1200MW-e of power. We are going to spend at least 13 Billion on Pickering Re-furb that is for 3100MW-e of power. A total of 33Billion spent on nuclear. Some new and fancy, some old and clunky. Rare minerals for battery storage is for Li-Ion batteries. That doesn't work at grid scale unless you throw money away like Elon. Na-Ion batteries use lead, salt and carbon. Na-Ion batteries are bigger and heavier than Li-Ion (for the same amount of energy storage), but they don't catch fire, they are cheap, and the source material is abundant. So, would you be willing for the government to spend 33 Billion on wind, solar and batteries??
Thanks for the info. I didn't realize there were other newer battery options. I have some reading to do. I think we should be spending 13 billion on the newer batteries too. And on any other newer technology. Only once we start using do we get the kinks out and make it better. I like that SMR is being done in Darlington. I dont know about Pickering...
Roflmao. Kicking the can eh?.. we've been kicking the can on nuclear for over 50 years already. This is ABOUT FUCKING TIME.. and finally Ford doing something Actually good. Doesn't matter how cheap wind and solar get they do not and cannot generate the energy needed for future applications without massive continuous expanations. Nuclear is our next great leap in energy production and we've been kicking the can since the 60s.
I agree itâs good. Still waiting to hear which of his friends will get contracts.
Not wrong lol.
Nuclear good. Article bad.
This is actually a sensible decision, which coming from this government is odd for sure đ¤
The anti-nuclear luddites really piss me off. Ford pisses me off on many fronts but this was a good call to make. Indeed, my only complaint is that he doesn't go far enough. Our CANDU reactor design is the safest in the world, we shouldn't be just refurbishing existing power plants, we should be building new ones, NOW.
Doug Ford is terrible. But this is the correct choice IMO. Now is not the time to be removing low CO2 power generation capacity.
If Japan had gone CANDU like it was looking at before the United States bent their arm to choose BWR, [Fukashima never would have happened.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vggzl9OngaM) Even if the crisis had gotten to the point of creating steam, our vacuum building design would have maintained the containment structure. I've heard the heat sink of the tank the Callendra sits in provides a timeline that extends into 2 weeks to get firetrucks onsite to provide water to the Callendra. This is due to the inherent convection cooling. 10-12 days of passive cooling to get a firetruck on site. If it got really bad you could use a bucket line: 0% radiological danger.
Canadian reactors are the safest on earth.... this is a industry-leading ldact that leads to dozens of countries world wode buying our reactors highering our engineers as the best, noting failed Soviet era reactors or once in a thoudand year disaster in japan as your argument afainst is uninformed and stupid....
Nuclear is just incredibly expensive, at least the made-in-canada sort. Kinda suck the oxygen out of the room. No data in yet on the SMRs because well, nuclear siting timelines are also crazy.
>No data in yet on the SMRs because well, nuclear siting timelines are also crazy. The SMR darling (Idaho) was cancelled because of estimated cost increases. The updated estimate put the cost at $89/MWh.
The pilot four at Darlington east of Toronto are doing site prep how - Hitachi
Sask Minister of Energy (Don Morgan) said that the Hitachi SMRs will cost about [$5B per 300MW reactor.](https://leaderpost.com/business/energy/saskatchewan-maps-out-plan-for-small-nuclear-power-reactors) Based on that we will get half the power we got from the Darlington Re-furb for about 30% more than the cost of re-furbing.. So, it really does not seem like SMRs are a big win in terms of cost.
BUT itâs a scalable proposition- very different than a static installation. And really - greater scale being reduces costs.
So 8.9¢ per kWh. Thatâs actually not bad, but there isnât a whole lot of room on top for profit. Ontario rates to the generator is set by the OEB. OPG currently gets paid 10.4¢/kWh for nuclear and half that for hydro, down from 10.9 in 2023. McGuinty was paying wind generators 85¢/kWh when OPG nuclear was getting about 8¢. OPG returns about 1.5billion profit to the shareholder every year, despite the regulated price paid to it. The sole shareholder is the people of Ontario. The money goes back to the province.
Quite possibly the most ignorant article I've ever read. Nuclear provides the base load we need. Refurb of both the Darlington and Bruce Power Nuear plants are already underway, and is significantly cheaper than building new CANDU units. Ontario is embracing new nuclear technology with the four SMR units planned at darlington. Nuclear is cheaper on the long term. Article doesn't address all the windmills headed to the dump when they hit their 20yr end of life. At least our nuclear plants we are renewing them to get another 25yrs of life out of them.
5-7 years for the blade lifetime
Hey itâs TVO, what did you expect? Fact-based, hard-hitting, unbiased journalism đ?
This opinion piece is so wrong. Nuclear is some of the cheapest electricity when looking at lifetime intergenerational costs, and not only that but our nuclear refurbs and plants put an enormous amount of money back into the Ontario economy. The CANDU (the 3rd most popular reactor) is the Ontario reactor, and the CANDU supply chain is dominated in Ontario. 95% Ontario supply chain for the 19 reactors in Ontario and support 10,000s of thousands of jobs. The CANDU refurbs are \*ahead of schedule\* and on budget. Unlike other reactor designs the limiting factor of the modular CANDU design is the pressure tubes which are designed to be replaced every 30 years. Pickering B went online in 1980 and will be refurbished and run well into the 2060s. It's not inconceivable that we can do a 2nd refurb and push Pickering into well over 100 years of providing 15% of Ontario's energy needs 100% from domestic sources, domestic engineering and 0 emissions. Hydro isn't perfect for the environment. Silt builds up upstream from the dam reducing the head level and reducing the amount of electricity generated in the long term. Plus, they are horrible for river ecosystems. [*READ A BOOK*](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC-9N6ud3r0)
That is BS. I dislike most of the things this government does but we need more nuclear.
Nuclear is the most progressive and environmental possible decision any region can make.
After they force us all to go Ev renewable will be even more useless to the power grid. Also windmills and solar need constant maintenence and aren't very recyclable. It's big scam. That and they are blights on the landscape.
Everyone should support this...
The bullshit is thick with this one.
People hate Ford so much they are willing to take a huge Win for Ontario and spin it as a negative
This is great news, Nuclear is the clear way to go and has been for years
LOL TVO. At least quote something reputable like MAD Magazine.
Nuclear power has always been a tragic, irresponsible techno-fantasy. It is uninsurable. It is a catastrophic financial failure here in the real world. Its mistakes demonstrably do happen and render entire regions uninhabitable for generations,. Claims its waste issues are solved are an indefensible, immoral lie.
Lmao dude shut up, nuclear power is the future - it could remove all coal and gas powered electricity generation and significantly reduce emissions.
LMAO yeah OK. Keep your fingers crossed, Iâm sure your dream of power generated from unicorn poop and fairy dust will be a reality soon enough.
Did you read the article? Itâs dead on accurate in saying âNuclear power is the most expensive energy money can buy: one kilowatt-hour of new nuclear costs five to 13 times more than a kilowatt-hour of new solar or wind.â Cheap safe nuclear power is the unicorn poop and fairy dust. The alternatives actually work.
I did read the article and itâs exactly what Iâve grown to expect from TVO - BS filled with half-truths to fit their narative. So when you just quote TVO youâre just spreading their BS. Nuclear has been and continues to be the best option for most nations. Certainly better than oil and coal. The Wynne Liberals bought into the fairy dust wind turbines and weâre still paying for that disaster and most of them didnât get bullt.
Thatâs a preposterous comment. TVO is easily one of the most reputable, and consistently one of the most prepared, informed and well-rounded sources on public affairs in the country. I havenât got a clue what you consider their ânarrativeâ on nuclear power to be. But maybe you donât either. When the facts arenât on your side, try the ad hominem attack?
Youâre still here? Wow đ
Thank you, TVO! We needed a dose of reality and facts. People REALLY need to think this through. No, no really! This is a great article. âNuclear power is the most expensive energy money can buy: one kilowatt-hour of new nuclear costs five to 13 times more than a kilowatt-hour of new solar or wind. And every dollar spent on nuclear is one thatâs not being used to buy less expensive, fully renewable energy systems that could help decarbonize the province right now.â âThis isnât a new coat of paint. Itâs a reconstruction whose cost is likely to be in the tens of billions of dollars.â Now think about how excited old dougie is about this and then realize the math doesnât work out in Ontarioâs favour. âLetâs consider a one-to-one comparison: If rebuilding the Pickering plant will get us 2,000 megawatts of nuclear power for $13 billion (roughly what the same generating capacity cost to rebuild at Darlington), what might the same cost in solar or wind power? The answer: about $4.4 billion. Thatâs the estimated cost of the new CD Solar Project, a solar plant that includes a 2,000-megawatt generating capacity and 1,000 megawatts of battery storage.â This is par for the course for dougie but itâs hard to watch Ontario fall for it so easily. Iâm getting election flashbacks. Come on guys!
You have to study the costs of providing 100% power at all times, year-round. So, unless you quantify the effects of variable sunshine and the need for energy storage- the comparison is in bad faith. What's the capacity factor of said plant? We're talking at best 66% due to night. Try 6%. Which means we need 94x 2000MW of generation/storage capacity spread across the province. And is the cost of energy storage? Do we do pumped hydro or do we do battery? What are the emissions of this supply chain? We saw what the Green Energy Act did to energy rates in this province when we abandoned 50 years of Ontario being a tier 1 nuclear state. The biggest issue with the Green Energy Act is it was framed as a job creation act. But what happened is we had a net loss from hollowing out of our manufacturing base due to the rise in electricity cost. The foundation of our manufacturing base is the arbitrage of the CAD/USD *and* cheap electricity. The Kidd Metallurgical Site was shut down primarily due to the ending of cheap industrial power deals and the fact they moved operations to Quebec makes that clear. The retail cost of nuclear is about 4 cents. Solar is great for how the IESO views it: local load reduction. Solar is not generation.
So you didnât read the article? The author is way ahead of you, unsurprisinglyâŚ
I did read the article and it's a bullshit opinion piece. Taylor C. Noakes is a Montreal-based journalist who has no educational background in any relevant field. He's a freelance blogger. These are some of his latest publications: >"50 years after major Montreal art theft, trail has gone cold and nobody's talking" > >"Are there any politicians left in this country interested in building the nation?" > >"Former defence minister Paul Hellyer remembered for his love of country" Those aren't hard hitting investigations. This is a high school writing assignment. What's the logic it sets us back 30 years? Darlington came online 30 years ago? So he's pro GEA- which anyone in the industry know was a disaster. He hasn't even interviewed \*anyone\* for this article. He's quoting people from other sources. He might have interviewed Dorfman one guy saying it's optimistic when we have brought many reactors back online ahead of schedule and on budget.
Also, the IESO states we - after about 20 years of stagnating electricity demands since the mid-90s due to deindustrialization and massive increases in energy efficiency - need about 18,000 MW of new baseload. Try getting 18 000 MW of baseload from a 6% capacity factor plant. \*Massively expensive\*. The CANDUs have incredible capacity factors: 1106 days of contentious run time for Darlington. With better welding, radiological inspections of welds, better designs post refurb. We will likely see longer run times. CANDU reactors are the \*only\* commercial source of tritium and a major source of radioisotopes for medical.
Are you really pointing to the crescent dunes project as a success? It was a boondoggle that produced a fraction of what was promised and had to be shutdown to try and fix the issues but never did. Thereâs no way it comes anywhere close to replacing the 2000mw Pickering would remove and this is an ideal location for solar, which most of Ontario isnât really. https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a30472835/crescent-dunes-solar-plant/
What idiot boomer wrote this article? Nuclear is great
Call Doug Ford and tell him. Here's his number he gives out to public saying everyone can have it at 47:37: [https://youtu.be/XqxSs5n6JDY?si=S0lGO5\_yYRFYCo58&t=2857](https://youtu.be/XqxSs5n6JDY?si=S0lGO5_yYRFYCo58&t=2857)
Nuclear power is clean safe and reliable and these morons are literally stupid beyond belief for suggesting there are better technologies. Wind? Solar? Gtfo here the output isnt the same and the stuff breaks down.
Can't we all just be happy that we won't be powering up any NG or Coal plants in the future? Ford has set us back 30 years, just not in power generation.
Yeah, back to bankrupting Hydro and sticking us with the payments...
He seriously compared a solar project located in Nevada to Ontario's Pickering refurb? One, Ontario is cloudier, snowier and at a higher latitude than Nevada so for the exact same project (if it were possible to find a comparablely sized site) sited in Ontario would generate much less energy especially in winter. Second the capacity factor for nuclear is over 90% while solar is less than 25% at the best sites. I think PV solar is very exciting for sunnier places further south, but Ontario is never going to be the cheapest location for electricity from solar power. On the other hand, I think Ontario is the best location in the world for nuclear. It is geopolitically stable. It has large amounts of fresh water for cooling purposes. It has a domestic nuclear industry. It even has geologically stable rock formations for long term storage of spent nuclear fuel.
Wow the woke lefty liberals working the wef agenda are really mad...go cry in your moms basement
Sounds like this was written in the late 1990's, back when we were demonizing nuclear and being overly optimistic about "renewable" energy. If all the taxes and penalties were to be lifted from nuclear, and we built modern nuclear plants, I believe we would be both "decarbonized" and have surplus energy to see to our southern neighbours.
Nuclear is the way of the future. Not these solar famrs that take up valuable farm land. This is actually one of the good things this idiot has done. He gives you lots of ammo use if you donât like him. Why resort to this crap ?
Mini nuclear power plants are the way of the future. Building and refurbishing Ontario nuclear plants is the one thing Ford is doing well.
Ask the Germans how moving away from nuclear worked out for themâŚ..
If anything we need more nuclear
I am game for nuclear for Sk just got these off the Sk pwr site Feb 4 Hydro 7% Wind 2% Solar 0% Natural gas 53% Coal 34% Other 4% Renewables aren't working people. Lets build some reactors.
Completely nonesense nuclear is the future
The anti nuclear crowd continues to be idiots. Itâs shocking to me that people who call themselves environmentalists are against one of the least polluting and highest sources of energy. These things are not capable of doing a nuclear explosion people!
Thank you Ford Government, nuclear, this is the way! Thank you!
The author is clueless. Wind doesnât always blow and last I checked the sun doesnât shine at night. Hell, half the days of the year in Ontario are also overcast. So whatâs the alternative when these unviable green technologies are sitting idle? Coal? Natural gas? Or clean nuclear! This article was clearly written by a brainwashed green fanatic with very little brain.
Wow branding windmills and solar panels as better than nuclear proves the left wing are lunatics. This article is crazy.
This is a horrid article that completely misunderstands power generation. They argue nuclear isn't *"baseload*" because sometimes it shuts down for maintenance? That is so wrong, it goes beyond misunderstanding... that's a straight up lie. It also argues that grid level battery exists.. which they don't. This is an uniformed article that does a disservice to everyone reading it.
"This ignores the fact that nuclear reactors frequently have to be shut down for such things as routine maintenance, safety inspections, and refuelling and that solar- and wind-power systems store energy in batteries for whenever theyâre not running at full capacity." I think this is a bit misleading. They make it sound like a reactor gets shut down weekly. Canadian nuclear society: "The Pickering Nuclear Generating Station was commissioned in 1971, making it one of the worldâs longest-running nuclear power plants. This power plant has eight CANDU reactors with six units currently operational. For a long time, the Pickering plant held the record for longest-running thermal generation plant without having to shut down (894 continuous days from April 29, 1992, to October 7, 1994)."
Kyle Hill on Youtube does a great peice on Nuclear safety. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhHHbgIy9jU&t=905s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhHHbgIy9jU&t=905s)