[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by Torture

Yup, at least a decade to get permitted, another decade to build, and most nuclear goes waaaaaaay overbudget. By that point, you're starting to be too late for the timeframes we need to get to net-zero within as well.

I'm not anti-nuclear in that I like that it's clean baseload energy and I can see a place for it. But it's timeline (decade+ to build if we start today) doesn't help and the tendency to go billions over budget/timeline is worrisome (but hey, if we're going to spend billions of public money, better off doing it on nuclear than a pipeline to nowhere or NWR refinery).

These aren't problems you can't solve, but they're definitely things to watch out for.

Could you imagine the blowback on a plan going 10 yrs and 10B overbudget? (oh wait, that's basically NWR boondoggle)

You've said so much in here worth touching on.

You're describing the US experience post-TMI when you talk about consistent time delays and cost overruns. Countries that are committed to a program have had tremendous success with their nuclear builds - (Lovering, et al).



This outcome is not a given. The US has too many parties that push their way in for a piece of the pie, and the fabricators, financiers and constructors all make money on keeping people happy. The plants can sustain ALL of this pork barrel bull####.

The EPR reactors being built are being done in a world where the gap between designers and fabricators is wider than ever. The lack of construction activity has allowed nuclear skill sets to atrophy and it does show in the results. Jury is still out on the cost-experience curve on the EPR and we may never get to see it's full potential as new designs that can reach very high temperatures are pretty much racing to prove commercial viability, China and Russia continue to expand their influence in this arena, and the concept of the EU continues to be tested. The UK appears to be very warm on the idea of revitalizing it's domestic skill base by building out both EPRs and promoting their own SMR program...

This is a big problem with Nuclear's first act... Once you get it going, don't let it stop. This inertia and requirement for multi-generational stewardship of knowledge, skill and materials is not a negative in my point of view, but one of the technology's largest benefits. It brings us in tune with thinking and acting for the long term, which is a rare driver it seems.

Nuclear has tremendous capacity and longevity. France decarbonized it's national grid in roughly 17 years. Renewables have been seriously commercial since the 70s during the oil embargo and have barely made a dent in the "low hanging fruit". When do we get to cleaning up transportation fuels and process heat demand for "stuff"? When do people recognize that there is nothing FAST about renewables, and that turning over an energy grid is a 100 year task at minimum?

And yes, energy demand is projected to increase by about 3x from today's rates on the merit of population and quality of life improvement projections. They typically do not account for the overbuild of low net energy producing technologies like renewables, or the declining net energy of our fossil fuel basket. No one can predict with reasonable precision what adapting to climate change will take, but I'd be willing to bet most people understand that this will not be a trivial effect after living through the last 12 months.

I don't know where people get the idea that we "still have time". The smart people in the room first saw this in 1896. We have had lots of time and still don't care, most people do not have the luxury to care over concerns of short term survival. We are too late to stop it, we are in full adaptation mode while also trying to put the brakes on it. We without question need to get serious about mastering carbon sequestration and manipulation on a global scale. This scenario is not the only one that would be rendered survivable with the ability to do this at "will" and outside of geologic timescales! THAT will take tremendous amounts of energy.

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

Where are you seeing 120GW? I think you may have added a 0 there.

Sadly, no. Don't forget how much energy we export via sales. The 120 GW number I used came from an NDP policy working group that my friend is involved with. They were assessing Alberta's total energy requirement and that was the value they landed on. I am just parroting.

Looking up published data, Alberta consumed 285 PJ of electricity in 2019 (about 9 MW of capacity running 24/7/365). We also consumed 2,125 PJ of natural gas, and another 1,319 PJ of refined petroleum products. 73 PJ of biofuels and "others" at 2 PJ. (LINK)

So you could say that electricity made up about 7.5% of our total energy diet.

Our industrial demand alone is something like 1/3 of Canada's total consumption IIRC...

How renewables hope to practically supplant this is not something I can defend in good faith.