““If our goal is to double our grid and build a low-carbon economy in less than 25 years, there is no credible plan to do that without nuclear energy and the clean, reliable baseload power it provides,” Hodgson told a news conference in Newmarket, Ont.”
This clown is either completely misinformed or on the take.
Of course renewable CAN provide baseload, I live in BC, which is >95% renewable, but where we don’t have the low hanging fruit, we would need to over build them.
I’m the end, I’m worried about what it takes for us to make a renewable transition as quickly as possible, and the best way for that is a mix of renewables and nuclear.
Because transitioning to fully renewables takes a LOT of overbuilding, and by that point we will have taken all the lowlying fruit.
As an example, in BC, we recently completed the Site C dam, which was considered an ok, if not ideal, location for a dam. Now to meet BC’s growing energy demands, they are investigating the Site E location .
When the utility applied to the B.C. Utilities Commissions to build Site C in 1980, it said Site E “would have required major relocations, flooded considerably more farmland, resulted in extensive instability of the reservoir banks … and had a considerable effect on development in the Taylor area.”
The fact that we are digging up a highly problematic, previously rejected project shows we are running out of viable locations for clean hydro in BC. Because of this, people are already pushing for Natural Gas generation to back things up, which defeats the purpose of a clean transition.
Furthermore, switching completely to renewables and utility-scale batteries shifts the bottleneck from building reactors to digging mines & building factories. To overbuild that much infrastructure requires an astronomical amount of copper, lithium, and rare earth metals. Spinning up a single new large-scale mine from exploration to production takes 10 to 15 years due to regulatory and engineering hurdles.
Neither option is a quick fix. But if both paths require a multi-decade timeline, why not diversify into something Canada has a lot of, and is carbon neutral: nuclear.
I’m not sure why you’re bringing up hydro so much. Yes, it’s a component in storage but so are batteries and many other forms of storage.
Furthermore, switching completely to renewables and utility-scale batteries shifts the bottleneck from building reactors to digging mines & building factories.
They already exist. A new nuclear plant, by definition, does not.
To overbuild that much infrastructure requires an astronomical amount of copper, lithium, and rare earth metals. Spinning up a single new large-scale mine from exploration to production takes 10 to 15 years due to regulatory and engineering hurdles.
Sodium ion batteries are perfect for grid storage applications with no rare earth components. Panels and wind turbines are being recycled.
It’s obvious you’ve made an emotional decision that nuclear = fucking awesome, and now you’re trying and failing to justify your stance.
Im bringing up hydro so much, since that the local renewable that drives BC, where i live.
I’m confused how you say that the facilities we would have to build to support the transition already exist, when by definition they dont, anymore than the nuclear doesn’t exist. We don’t have the resource extraction or manufacturing capacity for a full renewable transition yet, we are still building it. We can, and should, continue to use our current factories, but they are incapable of meeting the scope we will need as we transition.
Sodium ion batteries are perfect for grid storage applications with no rare earth components. Panels and wind turbines are being recycled.
Strongly agree, doesn’t change the facts.
Since you have decided to debate in bad faith, It’s obvious you’ve made an emotional decision that renewables = fucking awesome, and now you’re trying and failing to justify your stance.
Renewables are amazing, but we can’t risk slowing our transition by ignoring nuclear. Getting a grid to 70% or 80% renewable is relatively straightforward. Getting it to 100% is where the difficulty spikes exponentially.
We don’t have the resource extraction or manufacturing capacity for a full renewable transition yet, we are still building it. We can, and should, continue to use our current factories, but they are incapable of meeting the scope we will need as we transition.
If you’re going to make claims like this, at least back them up with some kind of trustworthy source. Globally we already have massive supply chains for storage, panels and turbines and have had for some time.
Since you have decided to debate in bad faith, It’s obvious you’ve made an emotional decision that renewables = fucking awesome, and now you’re trying and failing to justify your stance.
I’m basing my opinions on data. Studies such as this one:
““If our goal is to double our grid and build a low-carbon economy in less than 25 years, there is no credible plan to do that without nuclear energy and the clean, reliable baseload power it provides,” Hodgson told a news conference in Newmarket, Ont.”
This clown is either completely misinformed or on the take.
Or both.
Strongly agree with him, renewables are amazing, but a nuclear baseload is needed to ensure we can always meet demand.
That’s not how it works. Read up on storage vs base load, I just found this article but there are plenty more.
https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=374
Of course renewable CAN provide baseload, I live in BC, which is >95% renewable, but where we don’t have the low hanging fruit, we would need to over build them.
I’m the end, I’m worried about what it takes for us to make a renewable transition as quickly as possible, and the best way for that is a mix of renewables and nuclear.
How is it quicker when your solution involves a power source that takes 10-15 years to build and will likely go over budget and schedule?
Because transitioning to fully renewables takes a LOT of overbuilding, and by that point we will have taken all the lowlying fruit.
As an example, in BC, we recently completed the Site C dam, which was considered an ok, if not ideal, location for a dam. Now to meet BC’s growing energy demands, they are investigating the Site E location .
The fact that we are digging up a highly problematic, previously rejected project shows we are running out of viable locations for clean hydro in BC. Because of this, people are already pushing for Natural Gas generation to back things up, which defeats the purpose of a clean transition.
Furthermore, switching completely to renewables and utility-scale batteries shifts the bottleneck from building reactors to digging mines & building factories. To overbuild that much infrastructure requires an astronomical amount of copper, lithium, and rare earth metals. Spinning up a single new large-scale mine from exploration to production takes 10 to 15 years due to regulatory and engineering hurdles.
Neither option is a quick fix. But if both paths require a multi-decade timeline, why not diversify into something Canada has a lot of, and is carbon neutral: nuclear.
I’m not sure why you’re bringing up hydro so much. Yes, it’s a component in storage but so are batteries and many other forms of storage.
They already exist. A new nuclear plant, by definition, does not.
Sodium ion batteries are perfect for grid storage applications with no rare earth components. Panels and wind turbines are being recycled.
It’s obvious you’ve made an emotional decision that nuclear = fucking awesome, and now you’re trying and failing to justify your stance.
Im bringing up hydro so much, since that the local renewable that drives BC, where i live.
I’m confused how you say that the facilities we would have to build to support the transition already exist, when by definition they dont, anymore than the nuclear doesn’t exist. We don’t have the resource extraction or manufacturing capacity for a full renewable transition yet, we are still building it. We can, and should, continue to use our current factories, but they are incapable of meeting the scope we will need as we transition.
Strongly agree, doesn’t change the facts.
Since you have decided to debate in bad faith, It’s obvious you’ve made an emotional decision that renewables = fucking awesome, and now you’re trying and failing to justify your stance.
Renewables are amazing, but we can’t risk slowing our transition by ignoring nuclear. Getting a grid to 70% or 80% renewable is relatively straightforward. Getting it to 100% is where the difficulty spikes exponentially.
If you’re going to make claims like this, at least back them up with some kind of trustworthy source. Globally we already have massive supply chains for storage, panels and turbines and have had for some time.
I’m basing my opinions on data. Studies such as this one:
https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-energyplus-lcoeplus/
You are not.