Sorry, just catching up here. Apologies for the repeats to those who have followed along over the past couple months.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoho
|
Full credit to Danielle Smith on content here. She was spot on with everything she said. Nuclear can’t get built in time, and batteries are merely a cute solution to manage hourly and mayyyyyybe daily volatility. They aren’t a solution for the 2 week long cold fronts in the winter where the wind doesn’t blow much and the sun isn’t up. It’s so frustrating seeing everyone unable to overcome their hatred for her on this one and actually try to understand the issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maccalus
What makes Alberta so incapable that we can't build a nuclear power plant before 2035 when Ontario Can? Canada has an established Nuclear industry, established regulatory framework and experience in the industry. Even lowely new brunswick has a nuclear plant and was an earlier investor into SMR reactors than Alberta. Just more can't do attitude by our premier on the energy file.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/londo...uild-1.6897701 |
I’m completely team nuclear as the baseload of the future. It is the only non-emitting generation source with high enough energy density to give us a shot at maintaining our standard of living in an environmentally sustainable way. However it is unrealistic to think it can get through stakeholder engagement (NIMBYs will be fun on this one), regulatorily approved, designed, constructed, and commissioned in 11 years. Furthermore, the ideal technology isn’t even there yet. It’s the next generation that that should be available soon which could be the real game changer for this province…ones that generate high enough pressure steam for our in situ oil sands production. Decarbonize all that, create a base industry there, from which you can slowly start bolting on turbines to make non-emitting power. That’s my dream for the province. Start with the high intensity emissions in one of our key economic engines which then creates a springboard for power. Don't start by ****ing with our power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maccalus
Most of the delays are regulatory framework related though, something that having creative governments who work together can improve. The federal government wants Alberta to decarbonize the grid, nuclear is a viable way to do that. Work together and get things done. Nuclear is only one option that that can and should be explored.
The global average is well below 15 years for nuclear plant construction.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...rs-since-1981/ |
No, it is not the only option that should be explored. Nuclear is a baseload supply. It is not dispatchable. It cannot turn up and down to match renewable supply and consumer demand volatility. Only gas peakers and hydro can do this with high capacity and long duration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tron_fdc
I do agree with her here though. Wind and solar are not 100% reliable and there are going to be times that you need baseload capacity to cover their shortfalls.
So either you improve the provincial interties to accommodate when Alberta needs it (buy power from the USA, BC/Sask), or you turn to nuclear, gas or coal plants. Likely gas because nuclear takes forever to build, and coal won't work for obvious environmental reasons. Gas turbines can be immediately brought on when load is required and they're a lot easier to get built in comparison.
Pretty sure it was Germany that already went through this exercise and learned the hard way that you need to be able to cover baseload when renewables aren't running.
|
Great post, but just to clarify the bolded and echo the above. Nuclear is not a suitable backup for variable renewables. It is a great solution to replace our baseload converted coal plants and combined cycle plants once they’re at the end of their lives though. You're spot on that gas peakers are the only feasible solution we control. Now the ideal is dozens of tie-lines with BC's hydro. Then who cares if we overbuild renewables. When they're pumping way more than we need we export the power to them and pump the water back up hill, then draw it down when renewables aren't producing. Now THAT's a "battery" that can actually provide what we need.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizaro86
Nuclear should absolutely take less than 15 years, and having a reasonable regulatory framework operated by competent governments with a decisive and timely legal system would definitely help with that. Unfortunately that isn't the situation we are in here in Canada (see: pipelines).
I think new nuclear plants at the locations where we used to have coal plants makes a lot of sense for Alberta. It has the potential to provide the low cost base load generation we need to supplement the intermittent renewables.
|
Again, nuclear isn’t something that supplements intermittent renewables. That’s the literal definition of baseload…it’s the base that is always on.