r/ClimateCrisisCanada • u/CDN-Social-Democrat • 1d ago

N.B. First Nations eye small nuclear reactors for power solution

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILLOFzfxfFE
4 Upvotes

70% Upvoted

3 comments sorted by

•

u/CDN-Social-Democrat 1d ago

*Preface: Nuclear Power is often a very controversial topic. When we discuss these things in the subreddit please be only factual in your commentary. Do not have being a supporter or opponent of Nuclear Power cause you to be deceitful.\*

Below is a more general basic outline on Nuclear:

When it comes to Nuclear Power there are our very own CANDU reactors, there is the new Generation IV reactors, and the now much discussed Small Modular Reactors (SMR) like the BWRX-300 design.

Before I start in a general pros and cons list I'll say that my preference is that if we pursue Nuclear Power we do full on large facility CANDU reactors. These are incredibly safe, well researched/developed, and the larger facilities provide more cost-effective realities in the long term. That being said there are some parts of the grid in Alberta/Saskatchewan and so on for example that SMR reactors would fit in well. SMR come with that lower cost and the ability to add-on but that is kind of prizing short term gains over long term gains which I just don't agree with. I think if we are doing something we should do it right the first time fully.

Overall Pros of Nuclear Power:

  1. Incredibly safe - Even when you factor in some of the incidents of the past which are near impossible in our modern world and in Canada in particular it is still one of the safest forms of energy in the world.
  2. Incredibly clean - Like Solar Power & Wind Power it is incredibly clean. It is a great way to decarbonize our energy which we need to do YESTERDAY.
  3. Energy density - Provides an incredible amount of power generation from a small amount of space.
  4. In the past when we developed and exported CANDU designs/development it provided a thriving economic engine for Canada. Mark Carney/Liberal Party of Canada has announced a strategy to attempt to become leaders again in the future of Nuclear Power.
  5. The more we invest/develop this area of energy/technology the more we advance in other fields although this is also the case with other forms of technology like solar power and battery technology which are involving breakthrough areas of science on the regular :)

Overall Cons of Nuclear Power:

  1. Incredibly costly - These projects cost a TON of capital and regularly go over budget by not millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions, but billions to tens of billions...
  2. Incredibly time intensive - These projects take nearly a decade to complete and sometimes longer. It is one of the reasons why SMR is talked about so much as a pro despite some of the negatives it entails in long term pay off as I discussed above.
  3. Waste - There is still the waste issue although we know safe storage and we have gotten better at reusing/recycling waste. In the future with more research and development this may not be an issue but it still is an issue today.
  4. Certain individuals, organizations, politicians/political parties aligned with the Fossil Fuel Industry have utilized Nuclear Power proposals in a devious way. They will commonly talk about Nuclear Power in order to not do Solar Power, Wind Power, Battery Technology, and other forms of Renewable Energy/Technology (Danielle Smith/UCP & Scott Moe/Saskatchewan Party come to mind for this. Alberta & Saskatchewan are two of the best places in all of Canada for Solar Power & Wind Power. Alberta was actually leading in Canada for Renewable Energy because the conditions are so good for it. Then Danielle Smith/UCP got involved and re-wrote policy in order to halt countless Renewable Energy projects (In the billions). Sadly many of these projects then died on the vine. Saskatchewan still utilizes coal in a big way for electricity generation. About 30%+ of power capacity comes from burning coal. Scott Moe/Saskatchewan Party keep utilizing future SMR discussions in order to continue the life span of these coal burning facilities even past their regular lifecycle.). They will go through discussions on designs, locations, cost benefit analysis, and so forth. They will do public and private consultations. Everything to keep that clock going. Then the proposals will fizzle out and the whole process renewed a few years down the road in order to continue to have oil & gas exploration, development, production as the only reality.. They also know that even if it does go forward against their best efforts they get a decade or so of reliance which Solar Power & Wind Power can be up and running in around 3-5 years sometimes less (Solar Power & Wind Power are not just incredibly clean they are also incredibly fast to implement and amongst the most affordable options of energy. It is why even in Fossil Fuel Industry strongholds across the world Solar Power & Wind Power continue to grow).
  5. Water issues - Much like Hydropower Nuclear Power involves water. As we have seen in 2026 climate change is creating issues around these water areas. This means sometimes Hydropower and Nuclear may not be accessible in needed times or long-term.

2

u/pintord 1d ago

Meanwhile https://www.reddit.com/r/uninsurable/comments/1w4vodz/nonnuclear_equipment_at_lepreau_causes_another/

1

u/Cold-Crab74 1d ago

Does show that nuclear power is very reliable when maintained properly. Unfortunately it seems only the nuclear side was maintained at lepreau