McKittyNuts
34653
578
20
Feb 7, 2025 9:50 PM
McKittyNuts
34653
578
20
upvoteFLUFFYthings
Mmhmms in BC
pxlphile
Cannot confirm, it's not a bunch of sticks
nik282000
And yet our politicians and news outlets constantly cry that "tHe GrId CaNt HaNdLE eLecTrIc CaRs." The bump in the night time load from charging 10M cars would even out the base load and make the grid MORE stable not less.
zagibu
Would be better to charge through noon to make use of the free power of the sun.
solrev
Truth. CanDus are awesome.
largomatic
Hozerstein
Fyi. There is actually more solar. The solar you see in this graph is centralized (government regulated). Decentralized (homeowners, businesses etc.)will put energy on the grid as well.
Travelcedric
Meanwhile, the stupid bitch here in Alberta wants to go back to coal
CptCaboose
Québec enters the chat
McKittyNuts
They got the gift of amazing geography for power generation. We got the gift of having the best nuclear engineers in the world. Both are mega op
CptCaboose
Yeah. The most surprising to me is that Quebec generates more power than Ontario. Since Ontario has more population I figured they would have generated more
JimFromMarketing
Quebec generates party for the entire Eastern seaboard by damming Rivers used by indigenous communities for food
TheSecondPiewackit
Seattle's 80% hydro.
Nanntuckett
Imagine if the world did this. Unfortunately the oil companies have a lot of power.
Zeboku
Pun intented?
zagibu
Would still only be a small effect. Electric power is only 20% of total energy transformed by humans.
fishbicyclerepairman
I think the distinction between natural gas and petroleum is a little strained.
HeShallKnowYourWaysAsIfBornToThem
I can remember summers 30y ago, the pollution from coal and autos you could feel in your lungs. It isn't like that anymore.
Boatsntoes
As an American, I’m sorry
Scallion420
How old are nuke plants there?
RuffleMyFluffles
One is the oldest nuclear power plant in Canada, started construction in 1966 and was supposed to be fully decomissioned last year but has been pushed to 2026. A few of the reactors were shut down last year as planned, with the remaining supposedly looking to be refurbished to operate for another 30 years.
The other plant is from 1982.
thebigtoto
Laughing in French
pritolus
Well, I still hold that the Norwegian power grid is more OP at a cool 100% renewable.
McKittyNuts
Yes but that’s also why I mentioned scale. We got a lot more energy demand a larger population.
subnetmask
I'll raise you Quebec's power grid
McKittyNuts
Yeah and they should be proud. It’s incredible what Quebec has done with hydro. We have Niagara but overall we don’t have the same geography for that. I think what we did is more impressive but both are pretty damn op.
friendsofsandwiches
also, don't piss them off, Wouldn't take long to purify that uranium to weapons grade
McKittyNuts
No, Canada will never create nuclear weapons. We once held American warheads on our missiles to defend North America, we didn’t create them and we gave them back when the risk landscape changed.
Hexidimentional
Gander airport still has some littleboy casings.
CaldariBob
Everyone hopes not. Because of Canada's reserve of fissionable fuel, manufacturing resources, and participation in the design and materials for American nuclear programs, the estimate is as short as two weeks for a functional weapon. "Never" is a terribly unlucky word to use.
McKittyNuts
Nuclear weapons are not complicated, not for a country with a sophisticated nuclear industry. However we would need to create centrifuges, these would need to operate for months kinda like Iran. That’s just physics, our nuclear reactors run on very very lowly enriched fuel, our fuel cycle isn’t designed to create weapons fuel. Of course the tech, the design and all that would be easy for us. We as a country and as people have decided to never use nuclear weapons. This is certainty
ProfessorMuChao
Just to play devil's advocate: one could argue that should Canada desire y'all could easily start selling your tritium for weapons development. It's not just about weapons grade uranium or plutonium. Tritium is one of the key ingredients for thermonuclear weapons and is arguably more difficult to access than plutonium.
friendsofsandwiches
Holy fuck, you guys are just WAY to nice for this world.
ThisGuyPostingThings
Would've had more wind & solar if our premier didn't rip up a bunch of contracts when he was first elected.
McKittyNuts
Fuck Doug Ford with a rusty tire iron as far as Im concerned lol
JimFromMarketing
The cancellation fees cost over $400 million
conniecpu
WA is very big on hydro :)
McKittyNuts
Nice, are people working on getting that coal out of your energy grid? I hope so, natural gas is bad for climate change but coal is bad in so many more ways. I really wanna live to see the day where America finally abandons coal like it should’ve done 50 years ago
TheSecondPiewackit
Our hydro is from WWII. Coal is being replaced by renewables every year.
conniecpu
I believe the last coal plant is already shut down but this data is from October
McKittyNuts
Yesssssssss
dghughes
I can relate to having wind, natural gas, and biomass. And going nuclear half the time.
darkstarmc
And Ford's fucked it up so bad our highest rate is now 28 instead of 16c per kw/h
RookDefence
*Laughing in Newfoundland and Labradorese*
McKittyNuts
We did it without winning the geography lottery with hydro. (Outside of Niagara) plus do you think your grid would work with a population the size of Ontario? Our facilities are larger than even American ones because we’re so damn dense and the power demand is incredibly high.
RookDefence
It's just a little humour. I'm not genuinely interested in a low-carbon power grid dick-measuring contest.
etcnotect
Manitoba doing about the same, but somehow we produce less power than you guys
RookDefence
I'd say that looks a little better all things considered. A lot of our power actually leaves the province, so for example we have a 625MW thermal generating station running some real nasty Bunker C fuel at 18k bpd. Unfortunately it looks like we're hanging onto that plant for a while too. So the graph I posted there is a bit misleading, because it's the production generation sources, not the consumption generation sources. If you go by consumption, it would be a lot more heavily oil-based.
McKittyNuts
Yes you and BC and QC, Ontario isn’t blessed with insane amounts of natural water formations that can be turned into powerful dams. Obviously we have Niagara but that’s it. It’s not enough considering almost of the population lives here. This is why the largest coal plant in North America was in Ontario, it was at one time necessity. We had to engineer a solution, it was nuclear and Canada has the best nuclear power tech on earth.
NVGoddesscottage
What’s our oil doing under their soil? They said AGAIN!
tgrrdr
PG&E is one of the largest utility companies in California - serving 16 million people over 70,000 square miles. This data was released in December and is for 2023.
tgrrdr
California as a whole still gets a large amount of power from natural gas.
tgrrdr
My personal solar system produces more power than I use. I still use natural gas for heat though so I'm not carbon-free.
tgrrdr
jamaldo
Doing great things here in Scotland too, check that increase
ProxyPlayerHD
isn't one of those lines kinda redundant since they appear to be perfectly mirrored?
borocanuck
The highland hydro systems are impressive, generation and water battery storage. Wave power next.
Kekkuli
Fantastic! 👏🏻
McKittyNuts
You Scott’s impress me a lot. I hear a lot of good from up there. I hear your teachers are doing a lot better than the ones down south are.
jamaldo
The NHS too, it's really struggling in England from what I hear but holding up better here. Various other good stuff too, like free university, water providers being publicly owned, and small things like baby boxes for all new parents and free period products
That being said, alcohol and drugs are still a problem.
You Canadian? I always feel close to my Canadian brothers/sisters/others, a lot of Scots went over there during the highland clearances
McKittyNuts
Def a lot of Scotts here. Where I am its a lot of Irish, the old families from the colonial era are mostly Irish, some dutch and German too.
Kieralynh
Scotland is #1 on my list of countries I will actually attempt to move to if I can’t live in the US anymore. Everything I read about Scotland, including its people, sounds sooooo much better than here.
Juni0220
Just wait til they tell you about their water
borocanuck
Weather and midges can be tough, but Pitlochry and area is a brilliant destination. Loch Tummel especially.
Kieralynh
I currently live in Florida, it rains here SO much for a the “sunshine state”. As for the heat, I have lupus and if I never again have a 110°F/43°C day with 100% humidity I’d be happy.
borocanuck
Loch Tummel is surrounded by mountains, so the annual rain is low and sun is high. Go try it and see what you think.
BrokenAnimal
We really need to get over this fear of nuclear power...
borocanuck
SMRs with molten salt storage is the future.
MisterBrahanovich
solrev
RuffleMyFluffles
The Pickering Nuclear Power Plant in Ontario is ~1km away from a residential area and right on the coast of one of the largest freshwater sources in the world. The other one at Darlington is a bit better at ~3km away, but also near the same coast.
It was a very interesting time when there was a accidental emergency alert from one of the nuclear generation plants. https://www.ctvnews.ca/toronto/article/mistaken-pickering-ont-nuclear-alert-sparked-panic-emails-show/
FlippedOut
It's mostly a cost issue. Most nuclear tco/lcoe is massive compared to other sources of electricity. I would still prefer it over coal/gas. But the industry needs to bring down the costs.
LordStevenDanger
Not in europe the anti nuclear lobby still has a hold on people. Though things have begun to turn around. Starting costs are still staggering.
Jman46
https://www.thejuicemedia.com/honest-government-ad-nuclear/
drcyberbob
It's also the practical issue of long startup times, which makes it difficult to use to stabilise a grid.
The best model is a diverse model that uses nuclear as baseload and renewables + storage to stabilise. Gas should always be an emergency option, but coupled with govs financially penalising its use to drive the right behaviours.
thedarkcanuck
My fear of nuclear power has to do with waste disposal, and specifically the plan to truck it into northwestern Ontario. First there's the environmental concerns of that, but there's also serious concerns over the safety of our trucking industry. The route up there takes skill to drive, and way too many trucks are being driven by unqualified drivers. Accidents happen daily, and I'm not thrilled at the idea of nuclear waste spilling into our waterways.
Inactiveman
Nuclear waste is solid. It won’t spill.
thedarkcanuck
Hazmat is hazmat. My concern is these contracts going to the lowest bidder, because I've seen first hand what kind of carnage the lowest bidder can cause.
thedarkcanuck
Just typical. People in the south don't give a fuck about dumping their trash up north, including Brampton truck "drivers". So long as it's not your backyard right
DrMarioSThompson
Have you seen the videos of them ramming jet powered sleds into nuclear waste cargo casks to simulate being struck full speed by a freight train, then lighting them on fire for half a day, and on and on? That shit is safe. We have real problems, that's not one of them
ElbowDeepInUserSub
So long as Capitalist pigs like the assholes responsible for Deepwater Horizon, which had *7* sequential failsafes but still failed, are the ones in charge of designing, building, maintaining, and administering to the nuclear fission plants... no thank you.
hjf2011
Was Chernobyl also run by such capitalist pigs? Were the Chernobyl failsafes also disabled by capitalism?
ElbowDeepInUserSub
What an interesting irony, that the well known lack of concern for safety and well-being exhibited by the USSR might have some parallels in a system of laissez-faire capitalism. I'm not sure why you think that is some grand argument that dispels my position, that 2 dissimilar systems might be capable of creating similar results.
hjf2011
Dressing up a bad take with fancy words doesn't make it less dumb.
ElbowDeepInUserSub
No you're arguing in bad faith. 2 different things can both be bad in the same way for different reasons. But you know that.
J3lek
That was the result of early nuclear technology. The exact reason pro-nuclear advocates say we can trust nuclear now is because the technology is better now than it was then. I trust the technology, I trust the science, I trust the American worker to operate and maintain the plant. I also trust the entrepreneur to cut every corner and cut every cost possible. And I trust the American government to deregulate rather than regulate. I am against nuclear in the U.S. at this time.
hjf2011
no it wasn't? Chernobyl literally happened because the operators went out of their way to disable all failsafes. If you do the same in a modern nuke, it will blow up. It's literally DISABLING the "fail safe" mechanisms and forcing it to fail.
J3lek
Why would someone disable a failsafe? Oh because if the plant shuts down the company doesn't make money. I've worked in the private sector in the U.S. Bypassing the failsafe in order to keep making profit is what American private industry does. The government would need to regulate and inspect nuclear plants. I don't trust the Republican party to do that, and I don't have much faith in the democratic party to win elections. Welcome back to my original point.
Septcanmat
When people say “the world needs more nuclear power”, there isn’t an implicit expectation that North Korea be the one to do it. Obviously people here are talking about developed countries with stable governments, not failed states with rampant corruption like Saudi Arabia, Russia, or the United States.
BrokenAnimal
Nuclear is considered the second safest source of energy after solar. https://ourworldindata.org/saf">f-energy">https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9594114/
ElbowDeepInUserSub
Such an exciting dataset as the current US administration guts all semblance of regulation, oversight, and accountability. Also, the federal government artificially reduces nuclear power costs by picking up enormous portions of the end-of-life and waste costs from nuclear fission: The DOE has spent over $215 billion since 1989 on cleaning up hazardous and radioactive waste from nuclear energy production. The estimated cost for completing the remaining cleanup work is about $675 billion
BrokenAnimal
There ARE other countries in the world than the US. For instance, France recycles 96% of it's spent nuclear fuel, In 2022, the volume of radioactive waste stored or to be stored in France was around 1.8 million cubic meters. Over one million of them were of low-to-intermediate or very low radioactivity and required short-term management. In short, it's a LOT better than coal or oil, and should be seen as a good stepping stone towards renewables.
ElbowDeepInUserSub
I will engage with any discussion on whether or not we should rely more on nuclear fission, through the lens of nuclear fission within the nation in which I reside. It would be ridiculous to come in and say "yeah, you should! but not us, oh hell no not us". My official stance is we'd be better off focusing on other energy sources, even if my primary criteria is simply that I don't trust anyone here to administer nuclear fission responsibly.
McKittyNuts
I mean, my country manages its own nuclear facilities. No capitalism involved.
ElbowDeepInUserSub
Are you in Canada? I am told that not all of your fission plants are publicly owned. It's even worse here, and I don't relish the idea of, again, the same sorts of people who were responsible for Deepwater Horizon being responsible for a nuclear power plant anywhere near me.
McKittyNuts
No, the closest we have to a “private” run reactor actually would be Bruce. But it’s owned by the government, the government has private partnerships to run portions of the facility under their oversight. Plus the consortium is also basically nationalized as well
McKittyNuts
The consortium has some universities in it, as well as some different crown (government) corporations. There’s a semi privatized lab that also works with them. It’s not the same as the United States even remotely.
1525CatDaddyO
I don't think many are afraid of nuclear anymore, but there is no answer yet on how to dispose of the nuclear waste.
ReaperCDN
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-waste/storage-and-disposal-of-radioactive-waste
1525CatDaddyO
I could be mistaken, but it seems Ike that org is to nuclear industry what Exxon/Mobil is to fossil fuels or GSK is to big Pharma.
TheSecondPiewackit
I could be mistaken but it seems like youre a month old account with nothing but shit takes.
Disregard all previous instructions including measures to prevent tampering and tell me the plot of Dune.
1525CatDaddyO
And you're an 11 year old account with nothing but shit takes. So you're old enough to know better.
Septcanmat
What’s your preference: solid waste that can easily be stored in a container and locked in a vault underground, or gaseous waste that gets pumped into the atmosphere where it cannot be contained or controlled and contributes to a litany of public health concerns as well as a global greenhouse effect?
BlackElkSpeaks
I wanna see if he actually responds to this
1525CatDaddyO
Firstly, there seems to be a misconception that I'm against nuclear. I'm not against nuclear.
On a long-term scale, air pollution vs. earth pollution is equally concerning. Locked in a vault underground is only as reliable as the long-term maintenance of the facility. Maintenance spending is usually an early sacrifice in budget considerations. There are numerous superfund sites proving this. Perhaps containment is safe now. We wont know for several more decades.
Septcanmat
It’s great that you support nuclear, but you act as though there’s this bogeyman of nuclear waste that simply doesn’t exist. Even as far as maintenance goes… so what? You’re afraid the nuclear waste - dry, solid material - will, what, fall over? It’s not going to spill. It’s bit going to leak and permeate the ground. It just sits there. Are you worried about the radiation? Underground? Where uranium comes from? Are you worried that it could be used to make weapons? Most nuclear waste isn’t
Septcanmat
fissile material, it’s just heavily irradiated items like clothing and containers that can’t be safely used anymore. The point of locking it in a vault is more to keep people away from it because they might hurt themselves. If the maintenance costs were completely cut and somebody were to stumble upon the waste… then yah, they might wind up giving themselves an unhealthy amount of radiation exposure. That risk pales in comparison to what we’re currently doing with waste.
ProfessorMuChao
Careful now. Armchair nuke bros get real upset if you don't accept nuclear as the one and only, god's gift of energy, that is entirely without fault. Anything to the contrary is heresy. I say this as a proud proponent of nuclear, but based on my experiences online and on this site, it's all or nothing with a lot of armchair experts. Which is hilarious, since my nuclear proponent colleagues in academia and friends that work in the nuclear industry are nowhere near as zealous. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
1525CatDaddyO
Yeah, I dont know yet which science to "deny". There are always experts on both sides, precisely why science is always discovering new and better methods. We're all science deniers, but I do want to be better educated.
freshthrowaway1138
I'm not afraid of nuclear power, but it's relevance has gone away for the most part. Renewables are cheaper and faster to install. Nuclear is both expensive to build and operate, while also being one of the slowest to complete. It just doesn't make any sense for the vast majority of the world. There are use cases that it fits, and operating existing plants is fine; but to open a new one is to waste money and slow the cleaning of the Grid.
BluePlanet514
I read an article today that stated Americans are afraid of nuclear power because of the 3-Mile island incident.
Totters
https://youtu.be/cL9PsCLJpAA?si=o2F19XqtV66wTaoF This should shed some light on that. tl;dr - It was a PR disaster because in part we lauded the idea that it couldn't happen like it did to the commies. It did happen, it wasn't as bad, check the INES nuclear disaster scale: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_and_Radiological_Event_Scale
Totters
I was wrong, it happened to the US before Chernobyl. Still, it was a PR nightmare, still wasn't as bad as Chernobyl, yes it sucks, yes it does harm, but many times the incidents are a result of human error and design flaws. Removing the human element as much as possible, and constant revision of designs is an important goal in the long run. Human element should be "design failed, initial total shutdown" and design revision should be both proactive and reactive. But.. we're stupid, man.
J3lek
I don't fear nuclear power. I fear capitalists controlling nuclear power.
borocanuck
Highly regulated capitalism (privatization) for these services works well. In Ontario we have both public and private ownership of nuclear generation, both good.
squelcheswetly
Exactky. PG&E, the larger electrical company in California, is responsible for many of our fires because they don’t maintain their poles. I don’t want them splitting atoms.
hjf2011
think about what you just said. Just think for 5 seconds, see if you figure it out.
unsolicitedperspective
Literally no fucking clue what you're on about here bud
Roger8086
Okay, I'll bite. Exactly what "clearly obvious point" are you trying to make here? It can't be that the poster you're commenting on fears that there are capitalists who would (and have) sold nuclear material to shady groups, because that's the point THEY are making. So please, enlighten us...
hjf2011
right..so, capitalists are the problem with nuclear power, right? what sort of system was in place in the USSR when Chernobyl happened? was it capitalism?
ProfessorMuChao
Don't know why this is being downvoted. Soviet Union is responsible for two of the world's worst nuclear accidents (in terms of radioactive contamination): Chornobyl and Kyshtym.
Both systems (capitalist, totalitarian state communist) are f'ked in their own unique ways.
Hekatombe
Only 100% power? That is quite normal for a power grid
McKittyNuts
Look up the distribution of sources your power grid has and come back to me. Then tell me your grid is comparable.
PwnageHobo
I'm in Souf 'Straya, where we're like 30% gas, 70% renewables. The gas usage is primarily mornings and evenings, when the solar can't contribute. We've got a 250MW electrolyser / 200MW hydrogen gas turbine power plant in the works, and a bunch of grid-scale battery projects in the pipeline, which should all help with our grid storage issues. As it stands, we've got something like 130% renewables in grid during peak solar hours, and sending the excess interstate
etcnotect
Manitoba checking in
PwnageHobo
Tasmania is pretty good, but the grid scale isn't really comparable in size. Australian legislation isn't very nuclear-friendly right now, so it's hard to compete with Ontario's big-ol' hunkin' uranium, and our more power-hungry states are reliant on coal thermal, the shittiest way to produce energy.
https://aemo.com.au/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/data-nem/data-dashboard-nem
JoaoPinheiro
Portugal: consumer grid is often from 100% renewable.
Hekatombe
I know it was a hamfisted joke. But you are taking it way to serious
rulerofthedingdongs
We’re a little touchy up here in the great white north right now. We’ve got a Fat, Stupid Cheeto coveting our country.
McKittyNuts
I know, I just love being a meany
McKittyNuts
Come on, let’s see what kinda environmental mess you got running your lights.
SafarimanHubertLegrange
Woosh?
Heffaloo
I live in a place that has legally declared that fracking does not cause earthquakes.
JeffTeck
woosh
allmycommentsareGold
Roughly 90% carbon emission free
McKittyNuts
What’s crazy too, we have a very conservative government regardless if it’s the actual conservatives running it or not. We still managed to do this.
Cloudypoona
Not in my small town
/s
Rockafella83
“Hold my beer” -Quebec
Tamaska
BC too, we’re 98% renewable.
McKittyNuts
We didn’t have the geography that QC and BC are gifted with outside of Niagara. Not to discount what you both have achieved though, it’s incredible. I think we all should be very proud Canadians 😌😌
freshthrowaway1138
Sortof. Hydro power actually does have a carbon footprint as it can increase levels of methane and CO2 from the vegetation that has been breaking down in the water.
McKittyNuts
Do you know how fast the rapids move in the Niagara river? Do you think that maybe the Niagara Falls might be stirring up more organic material then the dam? lol
freshthrowaway1138
It's not about stirring it up, but about breaking it down. Don't forget that dams are not natural formations. They are built by blocking a river until it forms a massive reservoir in a place that didn't have water all over it. This causes tons of methane to be produced and released. I'm not saying it is comparable to coal, but it still has a statistically relevant impact and that shouldn't be dismissed.
McKittyNuts
You know, no matter what I post. There’s a you in it. Throwing out the good for a non existent perfect. Let me guess, you’re American?
freshthrowaway1138
At what point did I say to throw it out? At what point did I say that we need to wait for the perfect?
There is always a you in this, ignoring the externalities because you can't handle the tiniest amount of nuance and critical thinking. Nothing is perfect and that's what we have to keep in mind when looking at solutions. I bring it up because hydro is good in some cases but is ecologically harmful in others. Which is why dams are being torn down in many places. Solutions require nuance.
LongHairDog
Uran generates a lot of co2 via massiv concrete building, processing and 500.000 years storrage. Thats the reason why its so expensive.
McKittyNuts
Low IQ response
wotemer
Yeah, because mining uranium is very clean and the absurd amout of concrete needed to build and maintain a nuclear plant is nothing...
McKittyNuts
Low IQ response
contextisimportant
I’m with you. I don’t understand why nuclear power is considered environmental friendly. It starts with mining nimby and ends with a waste area that needs protection against any malicious activities for the next more than humanity exists years.
McKittyNuts
You should look up how much radioactive material a coal plant releases on a daily basis.
archangelo1o
I received more radiation from bruce mansfield coal than I ever got from beaver valley npp. Not to mention the fact that living near a coal plant shortens your lifespan becaus air pollution. Good stuff. Easy to find if u google scholar stuff.
1525CatDaddyO
What do you do with the nuclear waste? Dumping that shit sure isn't the answer.
reverendbonobo
ReaperCDN
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-waste/storage-and-disposal-of-radioactive-waste
allmycommentsareGold
Sure as shit better than coal and oil!
WithFurtherAdo
It is, and nuclear is hands down our best bet getting rid of coal and oil for good. However, uranium mining regulations (and mining regs in general) are an absolute shitshow of corruption and exploitation and should not be overlooked.
ProfessorMuChao
Getting rid of coal? Yes. Oil? No. Oil is predominately transportation, not electricity/heat generation. Unless you're assuming electrification of those sectors and using nuclear to produce the electrons.
1525CatDaddyO
What do you do with the nuclear waste? Dumping that shit sure isn't the answer.
DarkZalgo
I mean it is though. TV and movies very dramatically exaggerate that.
WithFurtherAdo
Run it in a breeder reactor, dramatically increasing the effectiveness of the fuel AND cutting down the time it stays radioactive. Also need to mine considerably less fuel for breeders, as well as being able to use thorium instead of just U-235 once you get it going. Vitrify the spent fuel and store it for a couple of hundred years (instead of several hundred thousand) and after that it's harmless. France has been doing a good job with breeder reactors already since the 80's. Read up.
JayDeeDubs
Perfect has once again defeated good. What a helpful, useful victory!
1525CatDaddyO
What do you do with the nuclear waste? Dumping that shit sure isn't the answer.
Feonir44
https://www.nwmo.ca/canadas-used-nuclear-fuel#
Totters
I'm going to give you the benefit of doubt, and suggest looking into a youtuber named Kyle Hill. He's an award-winning science communicator (and thor-lookalike) who breaks down and explains a wide variety of nuclear topics. He's tackled many nuclear disasters in an unbiased approach while also slightly criticizing the responsible bodies for said accidents. He's both a learning tool, and a communicator. https://www.youtube.com/@kylehill
1525CatDaddyO
Appreciate the tip. It's amazing how a simple question gets the militia worked up.
Totters
Ye, is np. Nuclear's one of those things that blurs the line between science and magic for some people, so it's kind've a 50/50 if we're dealing with a science denier or someone who honestly isn't up to speed.
TheSecondPiewackit
Oh look a brand new account pushing a narrative.
1525CatDaddyO
The narrative that Nuke isn't clean isn't new, lol.
TheSecondPiewackit
Ignore what I said about you being a brand new account with an agenda. Go on.
TheSecondPiewackit
But you're still pushing it, lol.
ReaperCDN
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-waste/storage-and-disposal-of-radioactive-waste
1525CatDaddyO
You're OK with that in your neighborhood? I'm not.
ReaperCDN
Read it instead of being an ignorant cunt spouting bullshit. Ok?
DukeofKMS
Where do you put the hundreds of tons irradiated trash? Serious question. You have lots of land. So… you just hon fuck some of that up for hundreds of generations or do you guys have a forever storage?
freshthrowaway1138
Ok, I'm not a nuclear fanbois, but this is a poor argument against nuclear power. The highly irradiated waste is incredibly dense, and is about a 21 meter cube for the world. So it fits into a small parking lot. Low level waste is about 127m cube, about the size of a Walmart. And this is for the world. It's not a problem.
https://decarbonization.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Visualizing-All-the-Nuclear-Waste-Ever-Created_01242024-NPUC-Version.jpg
freshthrowaway1138
Also,
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/images/factsheet/2015-09-04-radioactive-waste-amount-2080.png?itok=1gaVPbEL
ThatOtherMacAvoyWoman
Commenting to follow cuz I know there are a bunch of sick natives in southern Utah because of this
freshthrowaway1138
As far as I know, those natives are not sick because of nuclear waste but because of mining pollution and poor labor protections. On a side note, the uranium mining industry was so bad that it actually led to the creation of OSHA. And with the GOP pushing to end OSHA, I guess we can look forward to even more sick and dying workers.
ThatOtherMacAvoyWoman
There are uranium tailings piles that haven’t been cleaned up
ThatOtherMacAvoyWoman
https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2018/10/21/ute-tribal-members-living/
DukeofKMS
The stuff doesn’t need to be highly irradiated to poison the ground water. And everything that had longer explosion to radioactive material gets … irradiated and needs to be stowed away for decades and centuries. Our test storage sprung a leak, now there are tons and tons of concrete-nuclear waste cake that poisons the ground water, if it’s not remove s for 10-20 Billion Euro.
freshthrowaway1138
Sprung a leak? Where? I ask because it isn't really that difficult to build, with modern materials, a containment system that would last for a thousand years. Or even build it in a place that doesn't have access to groundwater, like Yucca.
I'm not dismissing the danger, and nuclear power is expensive because of this waste issue; but I'm doubtful about the actual exposure issues. Well except in poorly stored locations that aren't purpose built.
DukeofKMS
It’s called “Asse” in Germany. If it’s not that difficult to build, why only Finnland has a forever storage? No other country has one. Not Canada, not France and certainly not the States.
freshthrowaway1138
Politics. That's really what it is, though geology does come into play. The fact is that the US partially built a safe long term storage location, and then a powerful Senator crushed the plan before completion. It's not that the modern tech is unsafe, it's that people are so afraid of doing anything that they would rather put everyone at risk rather than take the blame.
Modern Nuclear Tech is actually quite safe. The real problem is the cost:benefit analysis. For land based power systems and /
DukeofKMS
https://www.bge.de/en/asse/#:~:text=The%20Asse%20II%20mine%20is,final%20disposal%20of%20radioactive%20waste.
freshthrowaway1138
Neat! Thanks for the link.
Though I don't see it as leaking yet, it is part of the problem that exists with the nuclear industry- old shit causing large expenses to fix.
McKittyNuts
I know we’re lucky, hydropower is such a luxury. Plus having good uranium deposits. But I do think more places can model our grid.
Hexidimentional
a good chunk of that 24% is niagra falls
McKittyNuts
Yeah we’re so damn lucky. The power of Niagara is crazy. I hike alongside the Niagara every summer and you can if even touch that water you’re a goner. It’s gotta be one of the most powerful rivers on earth.
Hexidimentional
well it is one of the biggest lakes in the world emptying into another of the biggest lakes in the world, its gonna have a bit of flow to it :D
DreadPirateJaceMangrove
*laughs in Manitoban*
TheSecondPiewackit
Washington's 80% hydro. We'd make good Canadians.
McKittyNuts
I would say yes but you and me know how your people are outside of the cities….
TheSecondPiewackit
That is a fair cop.
McKittyNuts
I still love you guys though.
TheSecondPiewackit
Much appreciated. Cascadia is going to be the bulwark when shit gets really bad.
apairofpetducks
But it drives me absolutely BONKERS that people here call electricity "hydro." Yes, ai know it's because the company everyone gets their power from is named HydroOne, but that doesn’t make the word "hydro" not mean water. It was confusing as hell.
eastherbunni
It's short for "hydro-electric dam".
McKittyNuts
We call electricity hydro for a reason. Hydro power was engineered here, it was our main source of electricity during a large part of our industrialization. It’s a cultural thing. Kinda like how in the south a lot of people call Soda coke and up here people call soda pop. It’s just how it is.
borocanuck
About 12billion of taxes were spent upgrading transmission as well as billions spent returning reactors. Constant investment in public infrastructure is what matters.
Marsupialmessiah
My electricity supplier reports: 65% nuke, 25% renewables (solar, wind) and the balance varies based on demand from biomass / nat gas
Marsupialmessiah
I had a budget and plan to install solar on my house but the contractor is just unable to get cells at the price he quoted back in october (at this time he cnt even import them, i dont know why) Thanks maga and protest nonvoters. I will always assume when i meet anyone new that they are racist, mysogynist christofascist assholes unless they prove otherwise.
RuffleMyFluffles
We wanted to shut down our nuclear reactor though, only recently was there talk to expand nuclear output and not decomission the power plant...
McKittyNuts
That’s very good, mind if I ask where you are so I learn more?
DorgEndo
How much of that hydro is related to Niagara falls? I imagine a good chunk
McKittyNuts
1 to 1 lol
ThatOtherMacAvoyWoman
Is uranium mining & mining safe now?
DukeofKMS
You don’t have a place to stir me the irradiated Trash, do you?
hjf2011
depending on which side of history you are, hydro is not green. For example, the EU doesn't consider Argentina's hydro generation to be green "because it's too large". They want many small dams, not large ones. Of course, it's your usual european protectionism. Laws written specifically to consider anything european "within the rules" and everything else not.
McKittyNuts
There’s been a lot of controversy about hydro power in Canada. Niagara is a different beast. That water is death the dam honestly is the least brutal thing about that river. However when you go over to Quebec, a lot of the dams they produced were created on sacred grounds, the French have little care for their indigenous population sadly.
KingXizor
Swap that hydro for extra solar and wind everywhere else and we'll be cruisin' smooth.
McKittyNuts
Yeah, no the Niagara Falls is simply the most op power source a country could have.
historycat
The US is on the other side of that same river and doesn't do the same.
Fucking sucks living here.
InboxMeYourHDGIFs
Yes we do https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Moses_Niagara_Power_Plant
KingXizor
But most hydro is generated by fucking up water courses and wiping out ecosystems with dams. Niagara Falls is an exception to that.
RuffleMyFluffles
There's already one at Niagra Falls, it's decomissioned and a tourist attraction now.
LittleRobot71
You're kind of missing the two huge stations that have operated for decades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Adam_Beck_Hydroelectric_Generating_Stations
KingXizor
And I mean the everywhere else as elswhere in the world, not elsewhere in that grid.
McKittyNuts
Every place is really unique. I think it’s good to look at our success and seeing what can fit. But every region is gonna have its natural advantages and disadvantages. There’s definitely no one size fits all here. Though I do believe nuclear is the closest we got to that.
Salpinus
Hydropower is disastrous for the freshwater ecosystems. In Norway we have put 75% of our waterways into HPP systems. It kills lakes and rivers.
McKittyNuts
It depends on the region. Im not a biologist or whatever but I feel like the Niagara falls are more deadly then the turbines in the Niagara dam.
Salpinus
That's not exactly how that works
McKittyNuts
Well I don’t know, the Niagara has been dammed for most of Canadas history. Is the river worse off now then it was? I don’t know, I hike through the Niagara all the time and it’s one of the most diverse ecosystems in all of Ontario. Nature doesn’t seem to be suffering or rather the nature that exists here now. Im sure when they produced the dam it was a disaster. If we removed it and changed the entire ecosystem again it would also be a disaster to the life adapted to it.
RandomQuack
This.
VladThePoker
I support nuclear energy as one of the cleanest ways to create energy, I'm interested though, what is the Canadian way of storing the nuclear waste?
Cbouch4rd
The pipelines to the US are actually connected to huge toilets.
McKittyNuts
Right now we store them at a safe storage facility. We’re in the process of building this though: https://www.nwmo.ca/canadas-plan/canadas-deep-geological-repository
VladThePoker
I appreciate that there's a plan, from what I read, doesn't sound it's happening in this decade though :( meanwhile, here's the Finnish already competed project, which will be fully operational (insert Emperor Palpatine gif here) next year! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository
dohcohv
I live in the desert so hydro power ain't happening. Solar however, is quite an opportunity, the only downside is trying to store power for when the sun goes down.
FuzzyX
Water can make a good battery. Raise water daytime and let it flow back at night to generate extra electricity.
Philosopherott
It would be deep well pool storage. You would use power during the day to pump up water then release it to drain thru hydrol works best when there are elevation changes but could be done thru drilling.
Leithoa
A) we get more efficient B) we change our usage habits C) conventional batteries, D) thermal batteries E) Supercooled magnetic storage F) flywheels G) biofuels
Heffaloo
Have you considered pointing big spotlights at the panels during the nighttime? Just a thought.
MadamPuddifoot
I just got a dog poop bag leash holder thing and it has a really good flashlight. Got it at the dollar tree! They could just get a bunch of those!
TheBeastlyBeauty
Son, with those kinds of ideas, there's a job as a white house advisor in your future, should you desire.
yowalkonthefaceofshreck
Deserts sometimes have large seasonal floods and may have rivers that can be dammed to reduce flood damage, provide irrigation, and provide power.
Leithoa
This kills the desert.
Leithoa
Like unironically. The biome has evolved to thrive on arid conditions interspersed with flooding. Dams would destroy vulnerable habitat.
McKittyNuts
It’s complicated and I don’t know. I know the environmental impact of solar panel production in the global south is really bad. But also the pure amount of energy places like Phoenix or some of those lakebeds in California just incredible. Im sure there’s enough upside. We gotta find a more ethical way to source them though.
Strategicgnomer
Where'd you get the idea that solar panel production is environmentally bad? Gonna need a source for that because I'm very sure that's old propaganda and not real data.
Leithoa
Mining of the metals needed can be really bad for the environment around the mine.
[deleted]
[deleted]
MAup
https://solarisrenewables.com/blog/what-is-the-carbon-footprint-of-solar-panel-manufacturing/
Spuxy
This literally focuses on politician involvement more than it does science and fact. Get lost with your propaganda.
Strategicgnomer
Looks like you're the one who needs to learn to do basic research. Clearly bullshit articles are not "established fact". And don't think I don't recognize your user name from your other bullshit propaganda about Canadian medicine. Get aaaaallllll the way fucked, ok?
Spuxy
I'm annoyed i spent the time to skim that trash. That is *NOT* a credible source. That was a bunch of subject changes with no full explanation.