The Head of the International Energy Agency said the current geopolitical moment presents a 'once in a lifetime opportunity' for Canada to be a 'real energy export superpower,' but it needs to move quickly.
He had me in the first half, but the second half of the article pivots to where I thought this conversation was going to lead to all along: Another nuclear shill trying desperately to get governments to build overpriced nuclear plants. Either spend decades building large reactors or bank on SMRs becoming a real thing. It only needs a massive buy-in from governments. I remain thuroughly unconvinced nuclear is the answer, both in the short- and the long-term.
Absolutely, nuclear plants already in existence should keep operating but building new nuclear now is dumb. Renewables + storage is by far the best choice on every front - economically, speed of deployment, environmentally, up front costs, lifetime costs, cost per watt produced, long term easiness, short term easiness, politically, etc. etc. etc.
Nuclear energy can be renewable. France used to operate nuclear w 98% of nuclear waste being recycled. Astrix, I believe, was the name before it was shut down. It just didn’t spread in concept.
Recycling nuclear waste is simply not economically viable, which is the reason that only countries with nukes recycle their nuclear waste. And that still doesn’t solve the problem of less radioactive waste that still need to be stored for thousands of years and can’t be upcycled.
You say that, but even amongst countries w nukes, only France really ever recycled their nuclear waste. So I don’t think that’s the distinguishing factor.
I don’t think the remaining 2% of radioactive waste is a significant concern.
He had me in the first half, but the second half of the article pivots to where I thought this conversation was going to lead to all along: Another nuclear shill trying desperately to get governments to build overpriced nuclear plants. Either spend decades building large reactors or bank on SMRs becoming a real thing. It only needs a massive buy-in from governments. I remain thuroughly unconvinced nuclear is the answer, both in the short- and the long-term.
Absolutely, nuclear plants already in existence should keep operating but building new nuclear now is dumb. Renewables + storage is by far the best choice on every front - economically, speed of deployment, environmentally, up front costs, lifetime costs, cost per watt produced, long term easiness, short term easiness, politically, etc. etc. etc.
Nuclear energy can be renewable. France used to operate nuclear w 98% of nuclear waste being recycled. Astrix, I believe, was the name before it was shut down. It just didn’t spread in concept.
Recycling nuclear waste is simply not economically viable, which is the reason that only countries with nukes recycle their nuclear waste. And that still doesn’t solve the problem of less radioactive waste that still need to be stored for thousands of years and can’t be upcycled.
You say that, but even amongst countries w nukes, only France really ever recycled their nuclear waste. So I don’t think that’s the distinguishing factor.
I don’t think the remaining 2% of radioactive waste is a significant concern.
So everyone is stupid? You cannot run a reliable grid on wind and solar alone.
Well i definitely wouldn’t say everyone is stupid, that’s why i wrote “+ storage”
Darlington ON SMRs will be online 2030.
China has multiple SMRs running, as does Russia.