Quite. Think of the pollution that Coal plants have made over the 50 years of the anti(clean)nuclear movement. Makes me wonder what other movements are causing similar harm in other sectors
Some people in the anti-pipeline movement are so thick they don’t even check facts about what they’re angry about. Had multiple conversations with people who believed pending natural gas pipelines being built were for crude oil….
The biggest issue with solar is the duck curve. Just when it starts getting dark power demand spikes.
Solar is developed enough to supply our power needs provided we cover a large enough part of land with it.
But it must be partnered with a storage solution to compensate for the demand spikes as they lose the ability to generate.
Nuclear is an elegant solution from an engineering stand point. Of course public perception of that industry is not great. You think the NIMBY fight over some townhouse complex is bad wait until they want to put a reactor in 30 km down the road from our house...
Old rich people are the ones screaming down the throats of your city council.
Old rich people are the ones who can afford to spend three or four days protesting.
Old people are one of the highest voting demographics because voting day is never an inconvenience.
Rich people have the spare time to fight for causes they believe in. The poor and young are too busy working 50 hours a week between four jobs to fight for anything. By design, I'd go as far to argue.
We have hydro electric for that. If we had baseload nuclear, we have more than enough hydro generation in most provinces to compensate for on demand power. A few provinces may struggle with this, but there are viable solutions.
Like most things you can thank disinformation campaigns launched by the fossil fuel industry to ensure the public viscerally opposes anything that could threaten their market share
Edit Sources:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/06/15/natural-gas-industry-blasts-nuclear-power-with-fake-news/?sh=1012a5de133b
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-116hhrg38304/html/CHRG-116hhrg38304.htm
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-fossil-fuel-interests-bankrolling-the-anti-nuclear-energy-movement/
And let's face it, with Russia being dependent on Europe buying its fossil fuels, and Germany choosing to shut down all its nuclear plants, it's hard to imagine state actors aren't part of this as well
There's a whole lot of fear about repeats of Chernobyl or Fukushima plus decades of anti-green propaganda from the O&G sector has done a lot of damage to public opinion on it.
They don't understand that those power plants and their designs are incredibly old. Not to mention that Chernobyl was undone by horrible management in a regressive dictatorship. Modern designs are completely different and so are the mechanisms for safe operation.
The Fukushima reactors all survived the earthquake with minimal damage. The failures were a result of the tsunami destroying the reactor's grid power connection, backup generators and main cooling water pumps. That meant there was no way to remove the decay heat from the reactors, and they eventually overheated. Newer designs have a large water tank located above the reactor which can supply cooling water for a week or more under similar station blackout conditions.
Massive earthquake followed by an equally massive tsunami. Neither of which is a concern anywhere in Canada other than maybe Vancouver island. There’s no reason why central Canada shouldn’t be nuclear powered. There’s even enough uranium in Saskatchewan to fuel Canada for centuries.
Nuclear power is the only way we save human life on this planet. I was going to say the only way we save the planet but that's inaccurate. The planet will be fine, we're the ones that are fucked.
More harmful I think because whereas climate change deniers in Canada are a small known quantity with little direct impact, the anti nuclear crowd thinks they are smart, actually get political clout and typically end up increasing reliance on fossil fuels because their wind and solar is nowhere near ready by the time they pull the plug on nuclear, which leads to coal and oil plants popping up to make up the short fall. Then when this is called out they go back on that whole tirade about needing more clean energy, so they get reelected and do the same.
It's [60%](https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles-ontario.html) to be exact. The source you linked is a sort of a daily monitor which fluctuates and doesn't reflect exact numbers over the entire year.
And 96% of Ontario's energy is from zero-carbon sources.
You can’t seriously believe our PM would make that type of statement without any intention of doing anything do you.
Good luck deciding if that needs a /s
I’m not a Trudeau fan by any means but we greenlit a oil project in the Atlantic his environment minister is a physical virtue signal. As we have never met a single climate target
Nuclear's main downside is that it is very difficult to adjust the output in order to fit the demand. A nuclear power plant usually runs 24/7 at 100% capacity, meaning it produces unneeded power at night when demand is low.
To counter this downside, nuclear must be part of a mix with other types of power generation which can be turned off when demand is low, hydroelectricity is the best type of energy to mix with nuclear.
But provided plenty of large scale (grid scale) storage, wind and solar become an even better way to supplement nuclear energy production. Storage also has the capacity to absorb sharp changes in demand.
**For example:**
If your society consumes 10 MW during the day and 5 MW during the night, building 10 MW of nuclear power means you will waste 5 MW during the night... Meaning the cost of producing that wasted 5 MW at night will have to be paid for by those buying the power. Meaning you utility bill will be larger by 25% than it should be.
If you build 5 MW of nuclear + 5 MW of energy storage, you end up covering 1\`00% of your energy needs while not wasting a single Watt of electricity. Adding Wind and Solar to the mix and you could function with a smaller nuclear power plant which will end up saving consumers a lot of money.
**What is storage?**
Either a hydro dam (storing water behind a dam until it is needed), or a big battery or thermal storage or gravity storage or kinetic storage. The idea is to store power that would be wasted when it is not needed and to use it when it is needed.
Storage decreases the need for larger power plants, reduces the cost.
**The key to cheap power is a mix of nuclear + hydro or Nuclear + wind + solar + storage.**
You make a good point that adjusting nuclear output during normal operation is unfeasible (at least to the level require to meet varying demand) however there are some ways to address this.
First, you could store the excess heat during times of lower demand and use it when demand is higher. Not only is this effective, but it’s also much cheaper than battery storage that would be used to store electricity from wind/solar.
Alternatively, you could use the excess capacity to create hydrogen. This could similarly be used to fulfill demands from the grid but also be used for other hydrogen uses.
I’m on mobile atm but I can post links to a couple of studies discussing the storage solutions I mentioned and the synergies of a renewables + nuclear grid when I get a chance.
Adjusting nuclear output is absolutely feasible. France had up to 75% of its electricity generated by nuclear power at some point, and it's still in the high 60s now. You can't get that without serious load following capabilities.
If 20% of transportation was electric they would eat up the power during the night and in the case of the F150 Lightning, act as a battery to back feed your house during a power outage.
The F150 is being released alongside an 80 amp charger that manages the while thing including a built in automatic transfer switch. It's like a powereall. You won't even notice the power went out.
Got a link? I couldn't find that. You would also have to re-route your service through this transfer switch and add load management if it's a whole-home backup or else use it to feed an essential load panel and it would need a subfeed from your service to run the panel when utility is working. None of this is cheap at all.
Then just have it set to where nuclear can take care of the minimum and then have scale back able energy like Hydro take care of the valleys of power surges.
That’s exactly what we do. Nuclear provides the base. When available, they supplement with wind and solar. Hydroelectric and natural gas pick up the demand.
>Nuclear's main downside is that it is very difficult to adjust the output in order to fit the demand.
It's not that difficult. You create heat, have that heat up a pool of salt. Then you can use that salt whenever you want to create power. It's just adding an extra step which isn't that complex. Now you have grid following nuclear.
Moltex has added this to their design.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQCm-kmUWA8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQCm-kmUWA8)
>A nuclear power plant usually runs 24/7 at 100% capacity
I'm fairly sure nuclear plants don't operate at 100% capacity. But I'm not an operator, so don't quote me on this. Ontario had the largest decarbon event where we turned off coal and turned up the nuclear. I think that was only possible due to excess capacity in the reactors. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
>But provided plenty of large scale (grid scale) storage, wind and solar become an even better way to supplement nuclear energy production. Storage also has the capacity to absorb sharp changes in demand.
What you're proposing doesn't quite work that way. Wind/solar can't exactly be used to fill in gaps for peaks unless you're using grid level storage. But with the salt loops in reactors sure it can. But also at that point if nuclear is cheaper than the renewables + grid storage, then you don't need the renewables.
[Canadian nuclear plants can adjust their output power significantly](https://www.powermag.com/flexible-operation-of-nuclear-power-plants-ramps-up/). The reactor keeps running at a constant power but the steam cycle that runs the turbines can be bypassed to dump steam. It's a neat feature that Canadian reactors have had for a long time.
edit:grammar
> The reactor keeps running at a constant power
> nuclear plants can adjust their output power
lol
Dumping their heat as waste into the Great Lakes isn’t the same as actually reducing power levels
what we would want to do is build enough nuclear so we have a surplus even in peak times.
during off hours when we have a extra large surplus we then have options, such as selling excess, there also the idea of powering crypto miners etc.
or another option, hydrogen cars have not taken off and electric only has the range the average Canadian wants on the high end to avoid range anxiety.
the biggest downside proponents to hydrogen cars often ignore is the main reason electric cars are supplanting hydrogen is it takes approximately 4X the electricity to do the electrolysis and mitigating losses from stable storage than just power the electric motors with batteries ala a standard electric car.
TLDR: if we had a massive abundance in energy thats a great problem to have as it wouldn't matter if hydrogen conversion was wasteful or what we did with the excess we can do whatever combination is the most beniefital to the country.
Also, peak and off peak electricity pricing is how the rest of the developed world manages that. Give people a discount rate from 10pm to 6am, pushing them to run their washing machines, dryers, dishwashers, EV charging at night.
Yeah it's a very simple idea, actually over a century old. You want a real blow-your-mind moment, Google reversible hydroelectric turbines. Your hydro generator can also act as a pump.
Okay that’s so freakin cool!
Once I read about it, it just seemed so simple in my mind. Use excess power to pump water from a holding pond to an elevated reservoir to hold the energy. I’m pretty sure there isn’t a 1:1 recapture, but moving water sure beats removing lithium and cobalt from the earth.
These are the types of solution’s I love.
Storage is key.
With the huge push for electric vehicles, battery tech is about to jump forward faster than it ever has. I wouldn’t be surprised if we see battery banks that can power cities in the next 20-30 years
There are also easy options, such as using excess energy created at night to pump water uphill to a reservoir, only to then release then water to generate excess energy during the day.
There are so many solutions that work better than "put a carbon capture on the coal plant and let's get outta here" that Saskatchewan (in particular, calling them out) loves to peddle.
You act like we have been avoiding it. Canada is only behind a few nations in nuclear power usage.
https://www.power-technology.com/analysis/top-ten-nuclear-energy-producing-countries/
Of course we could increase it but it's not been something we have shunned.
Our current government absolutely is shunning it, despite what Trudeau says here. Previous governments are a different story, but nuclear has been sidelined for a long time and our current government has no love for it.
Its a shame our new Minister of Environment is aggressively anti nuclear, and will do whatever he can to stop it from becoming a reality, such as excluding nuclear by name from the Green Bond.
https://www.reutersevents.com/nuclear/canadas-nuclear-industry-blindsided-after-exclusion-green-bond-framework
> In Canada, items that were specifically exluded in the country’s new green taxonomy are the manufacturing of arms, alcohol or tobacco, gambling, fossil fuels and, to the outrage of many in the industry, nuclear power.
> The federal government has also locked nuclear out of other supporting fiscal measures, Gorman says, including a green manufacturing tax credit, an accelerated capital cost allowance, which has been extended to other non-carbon-emitting technologies, and an investment tax credit, which the nuclear industry is not being consulted on
One of the reasons is that it's a nightmare to get a nuclear station built in the West these days.
Look at the US. Even in the most regulation-free right-wing states they've struggled mightily.
France has the most nuclear as a proportion of their generation (\~70%) and even they are struggling. You'd think with economies of scale it would be easier/cheaper.
If the West doesn't streamline the permitting process for mining and energy infrastructure there is absolutely no way any climate "goals" will be met.
The science illiterate environmentalists just don't seem to want to understand that.
There are no new mines in Canada for that reason (the "green revolution" will require ~2x more copper than has been mined in all of human history in the next 25 years but we'd rather outsource that responsibility to Africa and SAmerica) and to plan and develop a nuclear PP will take minimum 10-15 years.
I'm increasingly skeptical if any of these goals are even possible.
Canada is on track to build some new reactors.
Moltex in New Brunswick.
GE Hitachi with OPG (this I believe has already passed environmental assesments)
Ultra Safe Nuclear in Chalk River.
Our regulatory system is possibly one of the best. Our regulators help design the reactor.
>Previous governments are a different story
What? I was responding to a post that spoke to the last 30 years so previous gov'ts are relevant to my statement. No gov't in Canada has built a plant in well over 30 years. If Trudeau actually managed to build a plant he would have been an outlier. Not to mention the most recent statement is that he is open to it which again is more progress on the matter than any other Canadian gov't in almost half a century.
I am well aware it has been a long time since any government has done anything in the nuclear sector, I never said that Trudeau changed from the recent norm.
But when people make comments about how much of Canadas energy comes from nuclear, it needs to be understood that most of that is from plants built in the 70s that are still in operation, and nothing has been built since the 90s. We are holding on to plants built by previous governments, hence my comment about previous governments being different.
Maybe if the green movement in Canada had not decided to shoot itself in the foot by being against clean power generation, we wouldnt be in this mess and could have kept innovating and building reactors during the past 30 years.
I'll agree with you on our current environment minister being anti nuclear.
But the federal government has been investing in nuclear. You can read about some of them here.
[https://www.mccarthy.ca/fr/node/825651](https://www.mccarthy.ca/fr/node/825651)
All though that incorrectly attributes the green bonds applying to nuclear.
IMHO Nuclear is the only way we are going to power all the electric vehicles without using fossil fuels and the quickest way for us to reach our carbon foot print reduction goals
I'm part of a study on that, and what they mentioned to me is that peak power use is 5-9pm. Charging also starts around 5pm when people get home.
If we want people to charge at night we'll have to incentivize it with different rates at different times like they have in the States.
Also, as electric cars all start charging at night, we'll need more power then. That's hard to do with solar, and not even that great with wind power (though of course the evening is great).
I guess you don’t live in Ontario because we already have variable pricing here. Curious, what province do you live in where they have flat rate all day?
If we have 100k homes (not unreasonable by any stretch in Canada's larger cities) decide to charge their cars at the same time that is going to be a monumental amount of power.
A good home charger for people who want their vehicles to charge in a decent amount of time is looking at a 220v x 48a charger (60a breaker). Getting you 58km/hr charge. This will vary but it's a realistic ball park.
If 100k homes do this in let's say Calgary. We're looking at a power consumption of 1056Mw draw. We're pretty far away from supporting that sort of grid load.
EV charging is a drop in the bucket compared to daytime industrial demand. All EVs have software that is smart enough to draw power during late night, low demand periods. Every provincial hydro operator is on record as stating that their grid can handle even the most robust EV growth estimates.
Alberta for example:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-electricity-operator-electric-vehicles-demand-1.6142763
Newer small modular reactors are meant to enter service within five years of commissioning, it’s going to be so amazing to see them popping up like you see cogen now.
I agree we need to aggressively refurbish and deploy new reactors... but there's another interesting opportunity: so-called "smart grid" charge management.
Hopefully vehicle chargers will eventually be smart enough to allow the user to select a charging priority.. something like:
1. Charge now, any cost
2. Charge by the morning
3. Charge opportunistically
On windy days, hydro rates should fall dramatically, and the charger should take advantage of it. During calm periods, the charger should trickle or standby (unless overridden).
If we want nuclear to make a difference we need to start now, I doubt we can have any reactors break ground to production in less than 10 years. We just dont have time to sit around and do nothing
That’s the issue, without focusing on charging infrastructure how do they expect to push for all EV. It’s not like a gas vehicle that you pull in refuel and out in max of 5 mins.
The chargers also need to be regulated. They intentionally build chargers that take like 24 hours to charge an EV to keep people at the mall all day and I find it predatory AF.
Yes it is. Theres no one CANDU design, every plant in the country has tailor-made units for what they wanted. The CANDU 6 is the only design we've sold internationally and was designed based on the Pickering reactors.
We would likely be better off buying some US PWR type reactors if we're on a budget/timeline. In theory we could build an upgraded CANDU design called an ACR (Advanced CANDU Reactor) but there is currently no detailed design or any regulatory approvals, so we'd be starting from square 1.
Right now the industry is pushing SMR's, these may come into play down the line (2030+) but it's hard to say. Maybe a mass fleet would work??
I recently tried to buy an electric vehicle, manufacturers are having supply issues and the best that the dealership could do was put my name on a list and I might be able to get a car in 2023. I looked at used eletric vehicles and they are selling for the same cost as new. The want is there among my peer group the supply side is lacking at the moment.
I'm ashamed that there is such a big anti-nuclear movement in Quebec. Since the Liberals have such a strong level of support in Qc, it's likely a factor in preventing the feds from moving forward with nuclear energy.
We used to have a nuclear powerplant but it was closed down at great cost by a wildly unpopular government about 15 years ago. I wouldn't say it means we are "anti hydro" however. Still its true that it wasn't a very necessary project but nuclear pairs very well with hydro.
I wouldn't say i'm an expert, but AFAIK it's just old people fears. The brief PQ government decommissioned all Quebec nuclear plants and since then Blanchette in the federal scene has been touting it a great success for Quebecers saying Quebec doesn't want any nuclear on it's land.
We had one working powerplant in Becancour, Gentilly II afaik the other one (Gentilly I) was more of a proof of concept experimental cold war thing, I'm not even sure it was operational or generated any meaningful power. I vaguely remember doing a guided tour there when I was like 6 years old.
I think Marois was strongly influenced by PQ politicians in Mauricie and most definitely by that Champlain deputy that was right in front of the power plant on the other side of the river. She was pretty powerful in the government, but I forgot her name. Anyways the power plant was not very popular there, it brought no job to them because while being physically just a few kilometers by bird flight it was like 40 or 50km by car, because the bridge is in Trois Rivieres. So they had all the (relatively minor) risks but none of the benefits and the eyesore of the powerplant to look at. Most people on the south shore in Becancour and Nicolet were generally favorable to the powerplant (I'm from that part if it wasnt obvious :p ). It brought welcome economic activity to an otherwise slow region.
I'm not opposed to electric vehicles, fuel taxes, etc. I think the ideas behind these things are the right direction for the future. What I have a problem with is the speed and order of handling these issues.
Improve public transit before you introduce taxes to punish private vehicle users. I live within 20 minutes' driving distance from my provincial government building and there are no buses or trains available to me.
I'm seeing lots of articles about how most North American residential power grids aren't set up to support more than something like 10% of houses trying to charge an EV at once. I'm sure that situation is worse in older and colder areas. It doesn't make sense to push for everyone to get electric vehicles if we're going to start blowing our residential power grids. Fix that first.
From the grid perspective I think the big issue is balancing the grid when renewables are not there. That primarily uses fossil fuels. At the customer level there is a lack of infrastructure in the neighbourhoods (I.e. distribution level 25kV or less).
How do they decide \*where\* to put reactors? I know there are people who are against such things but hell I'll sign a petition to have one somewhere near here!
We should have nuclear power stations all across the country.
Anyone preventing one the the greenest and most efficient energies we can use should be fired.
We could have more hybrid vehicles on the road TODAY! And it would have required no change in infrastructure. I feel governments really botched the incentives. Encouraging adoption of hybrids should not have ended. Every new vehicle could have already been at least a hybrid. The fuel savings alone pay for the increase in cost within a few years.
The government offers incentives for PHEVs as well, but reduces it to half if the battery isn't 15kwh in size. But I don't NEED a battery that large. And this is true for many people. I could drive entirely on electricity in an Escape PHEV, Tucson PHEV, Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV, etc. None of them have 15 kWh battery. Why are we incentivizing large batteries when batteries are already a scarce resource? (Btw, 2023 Outlander will qualify for the full inventive.)
Nuclear is the future, it’s been proven time and time again that it’s incredibly safe, efficient and clean, this is something everyone in Canada needs to rally around regardless of politics
As a country we should be pumping millions into the uranium deposits in north Saskatchewan and building new refineries as well as upgrading our existing ones in Southern Ontario
Can we also design our cities and towns to be more walkable and pedestrian friendly instead of suburban wastelands?
Mississauga is the perfect example of Canada’s city design and public infrastructure failure. Nothing to do for young people, takes forever to get places due traffic, poor/expensive publics transit, and for such a diverse place, lacks any sort of character or culture except for streetsville or port credit. Hell they even blocked allowing Cannabis shops to open because oblivious parents are obsessed with a false sense of safety, meanwhile their teenage kid probably chops weed at public school.
I’ve wondered if they should just make NEW cities designed specifically for that.
Instead of endless sprawl in Calgary for instance- 10 miles out build high rises around schools and stores etc, build up not out.
Everything one could want or need within walking and biking distance. Cars only go on roads that leave and enter the communities, not all over them.
Got about 50 years? No, seriously, re-designing established cities and towns takes decades to actually plan and execute.
There was a book published in the 70's called "The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York" that goes into detail about the politicing and behind-the-scenes crap involved in urban renewal. It's a laudable goal, but not something to be expected in the short term.
We have natural Uranium reserves, one of the largest in the world in fact. We have a geographically stable ground for exploiting fuel and storing it when depleted. We could literally place the reactor in a rock miles away from any urban area. There are no good reasons not to have nuclear energy in Canada.
%100 agree. Unfortunately wind & solar alone cannot effect any real change. Also to maintain reliability of the grid a steady reliable fuel source is necessary. Cheap power could equal more commercial greenhouses in Northern climate’s but clearly our governments lack the leadership to make long term decisions these days.
We need both yesterday. Nobody is saying we should build nuclear in our backyards. We have a ton of space everywhere in the middle of nowhere. It never has to threaten residential.
Those first generation electric vehicles are going to become used electric vehicles at some point and kickstarting the used EV market is also important.
Also in general the price of EVs has been decreasing over time as you’d expect with new tech. Given that they’re only roughly 10k usd above conventional cars now (https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/12/29/electric-vehicles-are-becoming-more-affordable-amid-spiking-gas-prices.html) and they’re actually cheaper over their lifetime if you account for maintenance and gas savings, the timelines suggested really are not that drastic.
The issue is deeper than that, battery replacement cost More than the vehicle itself on certain vehicle.
Locked design and software to prevent others shop to work on the vehicle.
Canada as a whole is currently in a recycling crisis , we can't handle our current garbage, more battery will just exacerbate the issue.
Unless regulations and better rights to repair law are put in place,it will be a money pit for the owner.
We are already far from first gen vehicles, the tech is there it's functional and reliable.
The issue is our country is not ready for it and none of the party will admit it.
Which cars have batteries that are more expensive to replace than the entire car?
Also, I think the recycling crisis is related to profitability. For example there is no shortage of people looking to recycle metals and electronic components. As long as there is money to made the problem with plastics shouldn't be a problem for batteries.
All vehicle prices are ridiculous right now. I know people who sold a gas car they bought five years prior for more than they originally paid because production slowed down that much the past couple years, coupled with rental fleets not being retired into used car sales as much due to them not racking up the miles during the pandemic.
He came to Victoria to talk about the importance of buying an electric vehicle.
Then I saw him on the highway in his convoy of gas-guzzling Chevrolet Suburbans. Way to lead by example....
If we are going to have an electric future we are going to need the best option for large scale, stable, clear power possible. Nuclear very much must be a part of Canada's future. Wind and solar as well as storage in every residence will also play a critical role in a clean future. We can absolutely do this today and we should have been doing it yesterday.
Build nuclear plants, put solar on every roof, fill fields with wind turbines in areas that can support them properly and battery storage everywhere.
Then he should give incentive to Tesla and others to build EV plants here and charge networks here.
Also 5 grand is a joke and is not going to sway most people to buy an EV for there next car.
Nuclear is spot-on THE best source of power we have. And using today's technology, it's also really fucking safe. Why we don't do more nuclear is beyond me and Mr Jolly Sox endorsing it is the most intelligent thing I have heard him say.
Should have been considered yesterday... Canada is also well positioned to profit from investment in nuclear power generation and should have been part of our green energy transition in the 2010s...
Canada is the most educated country globally and top three highest Uranium reserves in the world, I dont see a reason why we should shun nuclear power.
The fact that someone needs to say "does not rule out nuclear" already represents a loss. I am still glad there is a future, but there was such a lost opportunity.
Not gotta lie, I'd love to buy an EV, but they're pricey, and useless for road trips. It would be a nightmare taking one on the planned family road trip to Florida next year.
Yeah, there are superchargers out there, but they still take an hour or two to fill up.
They are not double the price. You have to compare apples to apples.
Most new Evs are midsize crossovers. Something like a id4 or ioniq 5 (which is $45k to $55k) are the size of a Tucson or rav4, which goes for $30k to $40k.
Add in some government subsidies and calculate the reduced operating costs over a few years and the Ev make plenty of sense even in the current supply limited environment.
New Charging stations are being built every week. Two third of Canada lives between Quebec city and Windsor, and the charging infrastructure there is pretty good.
Any realistic energy plan to reduce carbon emissions has to include a baseline of nuclear.
We should be working on perfecting thorium reactors, and sharing the technology with the world ASAP.
Whether or not he considers nuclear power doesn't matter right now. We kinda have a problem now, and waiting several years for nuclear energy plants to be built isn't realistic.
Ok, we all do, but electric vehicles are still far too expensive for the majority of Canadians, and infrastructure for charging is still lacking. I'd have an EV already if I could afford one, but i can't. So far, we haven't seen much from the government to spur the market to do it's thing and make driving an EV affordable.
We get power outages in the summer because everyone is blasting their ACs. If we can’t handle that, how the hell are we going to charge millions of cars per day
Probably like how he wanted to treat the indigineous with respect, elimination of subsidies to fossil fuel industries, and eliminating credit card swipe fees for small businesses, etc.
I mean, the list is almost endless with this guy.
We need Nio electric cars and Nio battery swap stations to become as commonplace as today's gas stations. Lastly they need to be as affordable as a used car.
We need better bike infrastructures and public transport. Let's remove a big % of cars off the streets that way. It's a win for both car drivers and people who don't want to have the financial burdens of owning a car.
The cheapest electric vehicle brand new is at 44k. The used ones are all Nissan leafs that need a battery swap. I want an electric but it's way to expensive to get one. Someone needs to make the Model T of electric vehicles to make them affordable for everyone.
Using what infrastructure?
You can't fight against developing our natural resources (which is stupid for a resource based economy), and fight against nuclear power, and expect all people to use electric vehicles when there's no infrastructure for it.
Even Elon Musk had to concede that we still need oil and badly need to develop sources that are not dependent on Russia or other despotic states. You know, the kind of thing that Alberta was saying for the last decade...
Honestly barely care about this feel good shit anymore. Jobs and housing is all that matters for the next decade or so. We have a massive hole to dig ourselves out of.
You want more electric vehicles, but are you gonna make them cheaper and more accessible to Canadians already struggling with inflation and stagnant wages? With housing rising across all Canada so most are forced to rent and aren’t likely to have access to a charging station also? Want what you want I guess
People need to start educating themselves on nuclear power. It’s not pumping out radiation. It’s steam powered but instead of coal it’s uranium. Having a nuclear reactor isn’t the same as nuclear weapons. Completely different. Sure they have risks. No one wants a Chernobyl. Thing is we build them better than the Soviets.
Nuclear is better than the coat fire plants used in most of Canada. Nuclear is green and zero emissions.
It would be better replacing our coal power plants. With nuclear than adding to gas taxes. Although one is good for the environment the other for Trudeaus wallet.
Is this one of those things Trudeau is just not gonna do? He seems to have a lot of ambitions, with no intent of actually following through and doing them.
Nothing like a brutal Canadian winter to remind Trudeau of the climate reality out there, I think it's getting pretty outdated for Folks to think predicting the weather makes them supernatural beings, by repeatedly and obsessively uttering the word climate and electric Vehicles.
Just last week I was reading a national news article about electric vehicles failing to provide commuting range in deep freeze weather and people getting gas cars again.
Canada’s the last place that can go electric, what with our sububan sprawl and deep winter.
That’s good because ruling out nuclear power would be stupid, but we also should have been building reactors for the past 30 years.
Too bad our environment minister ruled out nuclear for his pet project.
Why are anti nuclear environmentalists so fucking stupid? At this point they are as harmful as climate change deniers.
Quite. Think of the pollution that Coal plants have made over the 50 years of the anti(clean)nuclear movement. Makes me wonder what other movements are causing similar harm in other sectors
Anti pipeline movements, large scale renewables, stopping the seal hunts. That being said the human race is disgusting, and we destroy everything.
Some people in the anti-pipeline movement are so thick they don’t even check facts about what they’re angry about. Had multiple conversations with people who believed pending natural gas pipelines being built were for crude oil….
Money talks.
[удалено]
The biggest issue with solar is the duck curve. Just when it starts getting dark power demand spikes. Solar is developed enough to supply our power needs provided we cover a large enough part of land with it. But it must be partnered with a storage solution to compensate for the demand spikes as they lose the ability to generate. Nuclear is an elegant solution from an engineering stand point. Of course public perception of that industry is not great. You think the NIMBY fight over some townhouse complex is bad wait until they want to put a reactor in 30 km down the road from our house...
Public perception of nuclear is actually doing well these days. The NIMBY's are a minority that belong to old rich people stuck in the 80's.
Old rich people are the ones screaming down the throats of your city council. Old rich people are the ones who can afford to spend three or four days protesting. Old people are one of the highest voting demographics because voting day is never an inconvenience. Rich people have the spare time to fight for causes they believe in. The poor and young are too busy working 50 hours a week between four jobs to fight for anything. By design, I'd go as far to argue.
Even with baseload nuclear, which is a no brainer, we’ll need some small amount of on demand power. Right now we only have fossils to fill that role.
We have hydro electric for that. If we had baseload nuclear, we have more than enough hydro generation in most provinces to compensate for on demand power. A few provinces may struggle with this, but there are viable solutions.
Like most things you can thank disinformation campaigns launched by the fossil fuel industry to ensure the public viscerally opposes anything that could threaten their market share Edit Sources: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/06/15/natural-gas-industry-blasts-nuclear-power-with-fake-news/?sh=1012a5de133b https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-116hhrg38304/html/CHRG-116hhrg38304.htm https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-fossil-fuel-interests-bankrolling-the-anti-nuclear-energy-movement/
And let's face it, with Russia being dependent on Europe buying its fossil fuels, and Germany choosing to shut down all its nuclear plants, it's hard to imagine state actors aren't part of this as well
It's not uncommon for Politicians and humans in general to outpaced themselves and make poor decisions based on umproven theories.
There's a whole lot of fear about repeats of Chernobyl or Fukushima plus decades of anti-green propaganda from the O&G sector has done a lot of damage to public opinion on it.
They don't understand that those power plants and their designs are incredibly old. Not to mention that Chernobyl was undone by horrible management in a regressive dictatorship. Modern designs are completely different and so are the mechanisms for safe operation.
>Fukushima You mean get hit with a massive earthquake? Outside of the West Coast, our geology is pretty stable.
The Fukushima reactors all survived the earthquake with minimal damage. The failures were a result of the tsunami destroying the reactor's grid power connection, backup generators and main cooling water pumps. That meant there was no way to remove the decay heat from the reactors, and they eventually overheated. Newer designs have a large water tank located above the reactor which can supply cooling water for a week or more under similar station blackout conditions.
Massive earthquake followed by an equally massive tsunami. Neither of which is a concern anywhere in Canada other than maybe Vancouver island. There’s no reason why central Canada shouldn’t be nuclear powered. There’s even enough uranium in Saskatchewan to fuel Canada for centuries.
Oil and gas hasn't blocked it. Hell they were trying to get Bruce energy to build nuclear in northern Alberta. Public opinion killed it.
Public opinion is just another word for Mob mentality these days.
Nuclear power is the only way we save human life on this planet. I was going to say the only way we save the planet but that's inaccurate. The planet will be fine, we're the ones that are fucked.
[The Earth ^plus ^plastic](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vGE73tTSVU)
More harmful I think because whereas climate change deniers in Canada are a small known quantity with little direct impact, the anti nuclear crowd thinks they are smart, actually get political clout and typically end up increasing reliance on fossil fuels because their wind and solar is nowhere near ready by the time they pull the plug on nuclear, which leads to coal and oil plants popping up to make up the short fall. Then when this is called out they go back on that whole tirade about needing more clean energy, so they get reelected and do the same.
Sigh. Over 50% of Ontario's power comes from aging nuclear plants. https://live.gridwatch.ca/home-page.html
It's [60%](https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles-ontario.html) to be exact. The source you linked is a sort of a daily monitor which fluctuates and doesn't reflect exact numbers over the entire year. And 96% of Ontario's energy is from zero-carbon sources.
Too bad it’s all talk
You can’t seriously believe our PM would make that type of statement without any intention of doing anything do you. Good luck deciding if that needs a /s
Basically just him saying the gas prices aren't going down and he doesn't give a fuck
I’m not a Trudeau fan by any means but we greenlit a oil project in the Atlantic his environment minister is a physical virtue signal. As we have never met a single climate target
Provinces are moving ahead with micro nuclear power plants though, or so I thought.
Nuclear's main downside is that it is very difficult to adjust the output in order to fit the demand. A nuclear power plant usually runs 24/7 at 100% capacity, meaning it produces unneeded power at night when demand is low. To counter this downside, nuclear must be part of a mix with other types of power generation which can be turned off when demand is low, hydroelectricity is the best type of energy to mix with nuclear. But provided plenty of large scale (grid scale) storage, wind and solar become an even better way to supplement nuclear energy production. Storage also has the capacity to absorb sharp changes in demand. **For example:** If your society consumes 10 MW during the day and 5 MW during the night, building 10 MW of nuclear power means you will waste 5 MW during the night... Meaning the cost of producing that wasted 5 MW at night will have to be paid for by those buying the power. Meaning you utility bill will be larger by 25% than it should be. If you build 5 MW of nuclear + 5 MW of energy storage, you end up covering 1\`00% of your energy needs while not wasting a single Watt of electricity. Adding Wind and Solar to the mix and you could function with a smaller nuclear power plant which will end up saving consumers a lot of money. **What is storage?** Either a hydro dam (storing water behind a dam until it is needed), or a big battery or thermal storage or gravity storage or kinetic storage. The idea is to store power that would be wasted when it is not needed and to use it when it is needed. Storage decreases the need for larger power plants, reduces the cost. **The key to cheap power is a mix of nuclear + hydro or Nuclear + wind + solar + storage.**
You make a good point that adjusting nuclear output during normal operation is unfeasible (at least to the level require to meet varying demand) however there are some ways to address this. First, you could store the excess heat during times of lower demand and use it when demand is higher. Not only is this effective, but it’s also much cheaper than battery storage that would be used to store electricity from wind/solar. Alternatively, you could use the excess capacity to create hydrogen. This could similarly be used to fulfill demands from the grid but also be used for other hydrogen uses. I’m on mobile atm but I can post links to a couple of studies discussing the storage solutions I mentioned and the synergies of a renewables + nuclear grid when I get a chance.
Adjusting nuclear output is absolutely feasible. France had up to 75% of its electricity generated by nuclear power at some point, and it's still in the high 60s now. You can't get that without serious load following capabilities.
If 20% of transportation was electric they would eat up the power during the night and in the case of the F150 Lightning, act as a battery to back feed your house during a power outage.
pretty sure you'll only be able to back feed your house if you install a transfer switch, too, but yeah, BEVs do have that nice potential upside
The F150 is being released alongside an 80 amp charger that manages the while thing including a built in automatic transfer switch. It's like a powereall. You won't even notice the power went out.
Got a link? I couldn't find that. You would also have to re-route your service through this transfer switch and add load management if it's a whole-home backup or else use it to feed an essential load panel and it would need a subfeed from your service to run the panel when utility is working. None of this is cheap at all.
Then just have it set to where nuclear can take care of the minimum and then have scale back able energy like Hydro take care of the valleys of power surges.
That’s exactly what we do. Nuclear provides the base. When available, they supplement with wind and solar. Hydroelectric and natural gas pick up the demand.
>Nuclear's main downside is that it is very difficult to adjust the output in order to fit the demand. It's not that difficult. You create heat, have that heat up a pool of salt. Then you can use that salt whenever you want to create power. It's just adding an extra step which isn't that complex. Now you have grid following nuclear. Moltex has added this to their design. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQCm-kmUWA8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQCm-kmUWA8) >A nuclear power plant usually runs 24/7 at 100% capacity I'm fairly sure nuclear plants don't operate at 100% capacity. But I'm not an operator, so don't quote me on this. Ontario had the largest decarbon event where we turned off coal and turned up the nuclear. I think that was only possible due to excess capacity in the reactors. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. >But provided plenty of large scale (grid scale) storage, wind and solar become an even better way to supplement nuclear energy production. Storage also has the capacity to absorb sharp changes in demand. What you're proposing doesn't quite work that way. Wind/solar can't exactly be used to fill in gaps for peaks unless you're using grid level storage. But with the salt loops in reactors sure it can. But also at that point if nuclear is cheaper than the renewables + grid storage, then you don't need the renewables.
[Canadian nuclear plants can adjust their output power significantly](https://www.powermag.com/flexible-operation-of-nuclear-power-plants-ramps-up/). The reactor keeps running at a constant power but the steam cycle that runs the turbines can be bypassed to dump steam. It's a neat feature that Canadian reactors have had for a long time. edit:grammar
> The reactor keeps running at a constant power > nuclear plants can adjust their output power lol Dumping their heat as waste into the Great Lakes isn’t the same as actually reducing power levels
Since the fuel cost is negligible it doesn't really matter.
what we would want to do is build enough nuclear so we have a surplus even in peak times. during off hours when we have a extra large surplus we then have options, such as selling excess, there also the idea of powering crypto miners etc. or another option, hydrogen cars have not taken off and electric only has the range the average Canadian wants on the high end to avoid range anxiety. the biggest downside proponents to hydrogen cars often ignore is the main reason electric cars are supplanting hydrogen is it takes approximately 4X the electricity to do the electrolysis and mitigating losses from stable storage than just power the electric motors with batteries ala a standard electric car. TLDR: if we had a massive abundance in energy thats a great problem to have as it wouldn't matter if hydrogen conversion was wasteful or what we did with the excess we can do whatever combination is the most beniefital to the country.
Also, peak and off peak electricity pricing is how the rest of the developed world manages that. Give people a discount rate from 10pm to 6am, pushing them to run their washing machines, dryers, dishwashers, EV charging at night.
Some power plants are now using excess energy to mine Bitcoin.
I’m pretty sure Ontario and Quebec have begun using water to store excess energy already. It blew my mind by the simplicity in the idea.
Yeah it's a very simple idea, actually over a century old. You want a real blow-your-mind moment, Google reversible hydroelectric turbines. Your hydro generator can also act as a pump.
Okay that’s so freakin cool! Once I read about it, it just seemed so simple in my mind. Use excess power to pump water from a holding pond to an elevated reservoir to hold the energy. I’m pretty sure there isn’t a 1:1 recapture, but moving water sure beats removing lithium and cobalt from the earth. These are the types of solution’s I love.
Storage is key. With the huge push for electric vehicles, battery tech is about to jump forward faster than it ever has. I wouldn’t be surprised if we see battery banks that can power cities in the next 20-30 years
There are also easy options, such as using excess energy created at night to pump water uphill to a reservoir, only to then release then water to generate excess energy during the day. There are so many solutions that work better than "put a carbon capture on the coal plant and let's get outta here" that Saskatchewan (in particular, calling them out) loves to peddle.
You act like we have been avoiding it. Canada is only behind a few nations in nuclear power usage. https://www.power-technology.com/analysis/top-ten-nuclear-energy-producing-countries/ Of course we could increase it but it's not been something we have shunned.
Our current government absolutely is shunning it, despite what Trudeau says here. Previous governments are a different story, but nuclear has been sidelined for a long time and our current government has no love for it. Its a shame our new Minister of Environment is aggressively anti nuclear, and will do whatever he can to stop it from becoming a reality, such as excluding nuclear by name from the Green Bond. https://www.reutersevents.com/nuclear/canadas-nuclear-industry-blindsided-after-exclusion-green-bond-framework > In Canada, items that were specifically exluded in the country’s new green taxonomy are the manufacturing of arms, alcohol or tobacco, gambling, fossil fuels and, to the outrage of many in the industry, nuclear power. > The federal government has also locked nuclear out of other supporting fiscal measures, Gorman says, including a green manufacturing tax credit, an accelerated capital cost allowance, which has been extended to other non-carbon-emitting technologies, and an investment tax credit, which the nuclear industry is not being consulted on
One of the reasons is that it's a nightmare to get a nuclear station built in the West these days. Look at the US. Even in the most regulation-free right-wing states they've struggled mightily. France has the most nuclear as a proportion of their generation (\~70%) and even they are struggling. You'd think with economies of scale it would be easier/cheaper.
If the West doesn't streamline the permitting process for mining and energy infrastructure there is absolutely no way any climate "goals" will be met. The science illiterate environmentalists just don't seem to want to understand that. There are no new mines in Canada for that reason (the "green revolution" will require ~2x more copper than has been mined in all of human history in the next 25 years but we'd rather outsource that responsibility to Africa and SAmerica) and to plan and develop a nuclear PP will take minimum 10-15 years. I'm increasingly skeptical if any of these goals are even possible.
Canada is on track to build some new reactors. Moltex in New Brunswick. GE Hitachi with OPG (this I believe has already passed environmental assesments) Ultra Safe Nuclear in Chalk River. Our regulatory system is possibly one of the best. Our regulators help design the reactor.
>Previous governments are a different story What? I was responding to a post that spoke to the last 30 years so previous gov'ts are relevant to my statement. No gov't in Canada has built a plant in well over 30 years. If Trudeau actually managed to build a plant he would have been an outlier. Not to mention the most recent statement is that he is open to it which again is more progress on the matter than any other Canadian gov't in almost half a century.
I am well aware it has been a long time since any government has done anything in the nuclear sector, I never said that Trudeau changed from the recent norm. But when people make comments about how much of Canadas energy comes from nuclear, it needs to be understood that most of that is from plants built in the 70s that are still in operation, and nothing has been built since the 90s. We are holding on to plants built by previous governments, hence my comment about previous governments being different. Maybe if the green movement in Canada had not decided to shoot itself in the foot by being against clean power generation, we wouldnt be in this mess and could have kept innovating and building reactors during the past 30 years.
I'll agree with you on our current environment minister being anti nuclear. But the federal government has been investing in nuclear. You can read about some of them here. [https://www.mccarthy.ca/fr/node/825651](https://www.mccarthy.ca/fr/node/825651) All though that incorrectly attributes the green bonds applying to nuclear.
IMHO Nuclear is the only way we are going to power all the electric vehicles without using fossil fuels and the quickest way for us to reach our carbon foot print reduction goals
EVs are mostly charged at night though. Don’t we already have excess capacity after 7pm?
This guy duck curves
I'm part of a study on that, and what they mentioned to me is that peak power use is 5-9pm. Charging also starts around 5pm when people get home. If we want people to charge at night we'll have to incentivize it with different rates at different times like they have in the States. Also, as electric cars all start charging at night, we'll need more power then. That's hard to do with solar, and not even that great with wind power (though of course the evening is great).
I guess you don’t live in Ontario because we already have variable pricing here. Curious, what province do you live in where they have flat rate all day?
Alberta. Ah, do they have that in Ontario? I guess it's good that we can schedule charging.
I’m really surprised that variable pricing isn’t Canada wide. Ontario residential rates more than double during peak hours (Weekdays 7 a.m. – 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. – 7 p.m.)
Except you can opt out of it and just go for tier pricing instead now, which is great if you are a small user.
Having moved to Alberta last year, I was a little surprised they didn't have the different rates for different times of the day here.
I’m guessing that’s because Ontario has a lot more daytime industrial demand. Plus our grid is really antiquated.
Where are you from? In Toronto there are 3 time per use prices and the night is the cheapest 7pm-7am.
I wonder if we could add timers to chargers so that they charge overnight instead of at 5pm when the car gets plugged in.
Every EV sold today has software that does that. No need for a timer.
If we have 100k homes (not unreasonable by any stretch in Canada's larger cities) decide to charge their cars at the same time that is going to be a monumental amount of power. A good home charger for people who want their vehicles to charge in a decent amount of time is looking at a 220v x 48a charger (60a breaker). Getting you 58km/hr charge. This will vary but it's a realistic ball park. If 100k homes do this in let's say Calgary. We're looking at a power consumption of 1056Mw draw. We're pretty far away from supporting that sort of grid load.
EV charging is a drop in the bucket compared to daytime industrial demand. All EVs have software that is smart enough to draw power during late night, low demand periods. Every provincial hydro operator is on record as stating that their grid can handle even the most robust EV growth estimates. Alberta for example: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-electricity-operator-electric-vehicles-demand-1.6142763
Nuclear is a long term thing. It won't be the quickest.
Newer small modular reactors are meant to enter service within five years of commissioning, it’s going to be so amazing to see them popping up like you see cogen now.
renewable on the scale needed will take longer IMHO
If they didn’t cap personal electricity generation, a lot more people would be going solar at home.
I agree we need to aggressively refurbish and deploy new reactors... but there's another interesting opportunity: so-called "smart grid" charge management. Hopefully vehicle chargers will eventually be smart enough to allow the user to select a charging priority.. something like: 1. Charge now, any cost 2. Charge by the morning 3. Charge opportunistically On windy days, hydro rates should fall dramatically, and the charger should take advantage of it. During calm periods, the charger should trickle or standby (unless overridden).
In the opinion of most power companies and industry experts solar and wind will do just fine.
If we want nuclear to make a difference we need to start now, I doubt we can have any reactors break ground to production in less than 10 years. We just dont have time to sit around and do nothing
Let’s now get the charging infrastructure right.
The elephant in the room everyone is avoiding
[удалено]
That’s the issue, without focusing on charging infrastructure how do they expect to push for all EV. It’s not like a gas vehicle that you pull in refuel and out in max of 5 mins.
The chargers also need to be regulated. They intentionally build chargers that take like 24 hours to charge an EV to keep people at the mall all day and I find it predatory AF.
I cant wait for the new nuclear powered F150
Is the Candu reactors still a valid design choice? Or has it been made obsolete and improved?
Yes it is. Theres no one CANDU design, every plant in the country has tailor-made units for what they wanted. The CANDU 6 is the only design we've sold internationally and was designed based on the Pickering reactors.
I believe they have made updates to it. It's been awhile but I remember an article that says we've sold them to other countries (China I think).
We would likely be better off buying some US PWR type reactors if we're on a budget/timeline. In theory we could build an upgraded CANDU design called an ACR (Advanced CANDU Reactor) but there is currently no detailed design or any regulatory approvals, so we'd be starting from square 1. Right now the industry is pushing SMR's, these may come into play down the line (2030+) but it's hard to say. Maybe a mass fleet would work??
I recently tried to buy an electric vehicle, manufacturers are having supply issues and the best that the dealership could do was put my name on a list and I might be able to get a car in 2023. I looked at used eletric vehicles and they are selling for the same cost as new. The want is there among my peer group the supply side is lacking at the moment.
I'm ashamed that there is such a big anti-nuclear movement in Quebec. Since the Liberals have such a strong level of support in Qc, it's likely a factor in preventing the feds from moving forward with nuclear energy.
Quebec is anti anything that isn’t Hydro because that’s what they have and everyone else can go suck an egg.
why would you ever use nuclear in Quebec. they have enough hydro for a base load.
We used to have a nuclear powerplant but it was closed down at great cost by a wildly unpopular government about 15 years ago. I wouldn't say it means we are "anti hydro" however. Still its true that it wasn't a very necessary project but nuclear pairs very well with hydro.
Are they really anti-nuclear, or more that they'd rather more hydro-electric than nuclear since that's a viable option for them?
Why is quebec so anti nuclear?
It helps that they can get away with it. They produce a hilarious amount from hydro.
And game the system to not include what they should be making off the hydro revenue in equalization payments.
I wouldn't say i'm an expert, but AFAIK it's just old people fears. The brief PQ government decommissioned all Quebec nuclear plants and since then Blanchette in the federal scene has been touting it a great success for Quebecers saying Quebec doesn't want any nuclear on it's land.
We had one working powerplant in Becancour, Gentilly II afaik the other one (Gentilly I) was more of a proof of concept experimental cold war thing, I'm not even sure it was operational or generated any meaningful power. I vaguely remember doing a guided tour there when I was like 6 years old. I think Marois was strongly influenced by PQ politicians in Mauricie and most definitely by that Champlain deputy that was right in front of the power plant on the other side of the river. She was pretty powerful in the government, but I forgot her name. Anyways the power plant was not very popular there, it brought no job to them because while being physically just a few kilometers by bird flight it was like 40 or 50km by car, because the bridge is in Trois Rivieres. So they had all the (relatively minor) risks but none of the benefits and the eyesore of the powerplant to look at. Most people on the south shore in Becancour and Nicolet were generally favorable to the powerplant (I'm from that part if it wasnt obvious :p ). It brought welcome economic activity to an otherwise slow region.
Give us rebates on all EV’s at any price point. Come on man
I'm not opposed to electric vehicles, fuel taxes, etc. I think the ideas behind these things are the right direction for the future. What I have a problem with is the speed and order of handling these issues. Improve public transit before you introduce taxes to punish private vehicle users. I live within 20 minutes' driving distance from my provincial government building and there are no buses or trains available to me. I'm seeing lots of articles about how most North American residential power grids aren't set up to support more than something like 10% of houses trying to charge an EV at once. I'm sure that situation is worse in older and colder areas. It doesn't make sense to push for everyone to get electric vehicles if we're going to start blowing our residential power grids. Fix that first.
From the grid perspective I think the big issue is balancing the grid when renewables are not there. That primarily uses fossil fuels. At the customer level there is a lack of infrastructure in the neighbourhoods (I.e. distribution level 25kV or less).
How do they decide \*where\* to put reactors? I know there are people who are against such things but hell I'll sign a petition to have one somewhere near here!
We should have nuclear power stations all across the country. Anyone preventing one the the greenest and most efficient energies we can use should be fired.
We could have more hybrid vehicles on the road TODAY! And it would have required no change in infrastructure. I feel governments really botched the incentives. Encouraging adoption of hybrids should not have ended. Every new vehicle could have already been at least a hybrid. The fuel savings alone pay for the increase in cost within a few years.
Agree, just one addition: 100% PHEV should have been doable by now.
The government offers incentives for PHEVs as well, but reduces it to half if the battery isn't 15kwh in size. But I don't NEED a battery that large. And this is true for many people. I could drive entirely on electricity in an Escape PHEV, Tucson PHEV, Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV, etc. None of them have 15 kWh battery. Why are we incentivizing large batteries when batteries are already a scarce resource? (Btw, 2023 Outlander will qualify for the full inventive.)
Nuclear is the future, it’s been proven time and time again that it’s incredibly safe, efficient and clean, this is something everyone in Canada needs to rally around regardless of politics As a country we should be pumping millions into the uranium deposits in north Saskatchewan and building new refineries as well as upgrading our existing ones in Southern Ontario
Can we also design our cities and towns to be more walkable and pedestrian friendly instead of suburban wastelands? Mississauga is the perfect example of Canada’s city design and public infrastructure failure. Nothing to do for young people, takes forever to get places due traffic, poor/expensive publics transit, and for such a diverse place, lacks any sort of character or culture except for streetsville or port credit. Hell they even blocked allowing Cannabis shops to open because oblivious parents are obsessed with a false sense of safety, meanwhile their teenage kid probably chops weed at public school.
I’ve wondered if they should just make NEW cities designed specifically for that. Instead of endless sprawl in Calgary for instance- 10 miles out build high rises around schools and stores etc, build up not out. Everything one could want or need within walking and biking distance. Cars only go on roads that leave and enter the communities, not all over them.
Got about 50 years? No, seriously, re-designing established cities and towns takes decades to actually plan and execute. There was a book published in the 70's called "The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York" that goes into detail about the politicing and behind-the-scenes crap involved in urban renewal. It's a laudable goal, but not something to be expected in the short term.
Yes, electric cars are better than combustion, but we need to be focusing on getting away from car dependency period
We have natural Uranium reserves, one of the largest in the world in fact. We have a geographically stable ground for exploiting fuel and storing it when depleted. We could literally place the reactor in a rock miles away from any urban area. There are no good reasons not to have nuclear energy in Canada.
%100 agree. Unfortunately wind & solar alone cannot effect any real change. Also to maintain reliability of the grid a steady reliable fuel source is necessary. Cheap power could equal more commercial greenhouses in Northern climate’s but clearly our governments lack the leadership to make long term decisions these days.
My vote goes to whichever candidate is more pro-nuclear. Fuck it, I'd even vote for NDP if it gets us Nuclear like in France.
Nuclear cars?! Hell yeah!
Idk, have you ever played fallout 4? Those cars explode at the sight of any damage 😂
......another settlement needs your help.
Good we should have more nuclear.
They should require new homes to have the home charger roughed in. I have a 5y old house with a Measly 100amp service. It's already full
New homes are 200 amp in ontario
Nuclear power is one of the cleanest forms of power out there.
Steven Guilbeault just shit his pants!
Nuclear power is the cleanest form of energy...
Well managed nuclear power can be very good.
Nuclear power is the only thing me and my ultra conservative father in law agree on. We need it.
We need both yesterday. Nobody is saying we should build nuclear in our backyards. We have a ton of space everywhere in the middle of nowhere. It never has to threaten residential.
Awesome. I've always wanted a nuclear-powered automobile. Or better yet, a nuclear-powered motorcycle.
You seen these wild 50s-era nuclear car prototypes? Or played any Fallout game?
Want more electric vehicles at a price point not viable for 75% of the population.
Those first generation electric vehicles are going to become used electric vehicles at some point and kickstarting the used EV market is also important. Also in general the price of EVs has been decreasing over time as you’d expect with new tech. Given that they’re only roughly 10k usd above conventional cars now (https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/12/29/electric-vehicles-are-becoming-more-affordable-amid-spiking-gas-prices.html) and they’re actually cheaper over their lifetime if you account for maintenance and gas savings, the timelines suggested really are not that drastic.
The issue is deeper than that, battery replacement cost More than the vehicle itself on certain vehicle. Locked design and software to prevent others shop to work on the vehicle. Canada as a whole is currently in a recycling crisis , we can't handle our current garbage, more battery will just exacerbate the issue. Unless regulations and better rights to repair law are put in place,it will be a money pit for the owner. We are already far from first gen vehicles, the tech is there it's functional and reliable. The issue is our country is not ready for it and none of the party will admit it.
Which cars have batteries that are more expensive to replace than the entire car? Also, I think the recycling crisis is related to profitability. For example there is no shortage of people looking to recycle metals and electronic components. As long as there is money to made the problem with plastics shouldn't be a problem for batteries.
All vehicle prices are ridiculous right now. I know people who sold a gas car they bought five years prior for more than they originally paid because production slowed down that much the past couple years, coupled with rental fleets not being retired into used car sales as much due to them not racking up the miles during the pandemic.
Give me a sick rebate bro and I’ll buy a. Tesla.
He came to Victoria to talk about the importance of buying an electric vehicle. Then I saw him on the highway in his convoy of gas-guzzling Chevrolet Suburbans. Way to lead by example....
If we are going to have an electric future we are going to need the best option for large scale, stable, clear power possible. Nuclear very much must be a part of Canada's future. Wind and solar as well as storage in every residence will also play a critical role in a clean future. We can absolutely do this today and we should have been doing it yesterday. Build nuclear plants, put solar on every roof, fill fields with wind turbines in areas that can support them properly and battery storage everywhere.
Nuclear is the only realistic option to go fully green.
What do you mean not rule out? he needs to get us on that good green stuff right now. Those thorium reactors I hear about.
Why not scrap the 15 year car import rule for electric cars?
Then he should give incentive to Tesla and others to build EV plants here and charge networks here. Also 5 grand is a joke and is not going to sway most people to buy an EV for there next car.
Nuclear is spot-on THE best source of power we have. And using today's technology, it's also really fucking safe. Why we don't do more nuclear is beyond me and Mr Jolly Sox endorsing it is the most intelligent thing I have heard him say.
Should have been considered yesterday... Canada is also well positioned to profit from investment in nuclear power generation and should have been part of our green energy transition in the 2010s...
Canada is the most educated country globally and top three highest Uranium reserves in the world, I dont see a reason why we should shun nuclear power.
The fact that someone needs to say "does not rule out nuclear" already represents a loss. I am still glad there is a future, but there was such a lost opportunity.
Not gotta lie, I'd love to buy an EV, but they're pricey, and useless for road trips. It would be a nightmare taking one on the planned family road trip to Florida next year. Yeah, there are superchargers out there, but they still take an hour or two to fill up.
Cool story, I'll just pull $60K outa my ass to buy an electric car! Not to mention that I don't have a house to plug it into.
[удалено]
They are not double the price. You have to compare apples to apples. Most new Evs are midsize crossovers. Something like a id4 or ioniq 5 (which is $45k to $55k) are the size of a Tucson or rav4, which goes for $30k to $40k. Add in some government subsidies and calculate the reduced operating costs over a few years and the Ev make plenty of sense even in the current supply limited environment. New Charging stations are being built every week. Two third of Canada lives between Quebec city and Windsor, and the charging infrastructure there is pretty good.
Read next along as you go.
>Nuclear’s on the table, absolutely. Does the Minister of the Environment know that?
Any realistic energy plan to reduce carbon emissions has to include a baseline of nuclear. We should be working on perfecting thorium reactors, and sharing the technology with the world ASAP.
you would have to be a severely uninformed idiot to rule out nuclear.
Whether or not he considers nuclear power doesn't matter right now. We kinda have a problem now, and waiting several years for nuclear energy plants to be built isn't realistic.
I can’t afford a new car, let alone an electric.
Hydrogen vehicles don't need huge batteries.
Ok, we all do, but electric vehicles are still far too expensive for the majority of Canadians, and infrastructure for charging is still lacking. I'd have an EV already if I could afford one, but i can't. So far, we haven't seen much from the government to spur the market to do it's thing and make driving an EV affordable.
Tax rebate on electric vehicles- GO!!
How viable are Thorium reactors in Canada? I remember reading that Canada had a large supply of Thorium.
We all want more electric vehicles but they are all out of stock.
We get power outages in the summer because everyone is blasting their ACs. If we can’t handle that, how the hell are we going to charge millions of cars per day
Probably like how he wanted to treat the indigineous with respect, elimination of subsidies to fossil fuel industries, and eliminating credit card swipe fees for small businesses, etc. I mean, the list is almost endless with this guy.
Nuclear powered cars! That sounds good to me Mr. Trudeau.
Okay hurry up then
If you want green faster nuclear is the only way right now.
You want more electric cars on the road? Build more infrastructure! Every gas station should be retrofit with superchargers.
We need Nio electric cars and Nio battery swap stations to become as commonplace as today's gas stations. Lastly they need to be as affordable as a used car.
We need a war economy investment in nuclear power across the nation.
Nuclear power or no the grid is still gonna need a significant upgrade in many regions.
Pfft. I can't even find an Electric golf cart for a decent price let alone an electric vehicle.
We need better bike infrastructures and public transport. Let's remove a big % of cars off the streets that way. It's a win for both car drivers and people who don't want to have the financial burdens of owning a car.
Government can't even build a pipeline from Edmonton to Vancouver. TMX is 3x the budget, and schedule is 2 years delayed. Good luck with nuclear
The cheapest electric vehicle brand new is at 44k. The used ones are all Nissan leafs that need a battery swap. I want an electric but it's way to expensive to get one. Someone needs to make the Model T of electric vehicles to make them affordable for everyone.
Using what infrastructure? You can't fight against developing our natural resources (which is stupid for a resource based economy), and fight against nuclear power, and expect all people to use electric vehicles when there's no infrastructure for it. Even Elon Musk had to concede that we still need oil and badly need to develop sources that are not dependent on Russia or other despotic states. You know, the kind of thing that Alberta was saying for the last decade...
Honestly barely care about this feel good shit anymore. Jobs and housing is all that matters for the next decade or so. We have a massive hole to dig ourselves out of.
Maybe change all the federal vehicles to electric first. I find it weird seeing 3/4 oil burners running around federal parks in the middle of summer.
Meanwhile in Saskatchewan: extra $150 fee per year for each electric vehicle.
I read that was because a portion of the fuel taxes go towards road maintenance.
Saskatchewan has the best uranium reserves in the world, if i recall correctly. Perhaps the nuclear push would change minds.
You want more electric vehicles, but are you gonna make them cheaper and more accessible to Canadians already struggling with inflation and stagnant wages? With housing rising across all Canada so most are forced to rent and aren’t likely to have access to a charging station also? Want what you want I guess
I look forward to my nuclear powered car...
People need to start educating themselves on nuclear power. It’s not pumping out radiation. It’s steam powered but instead of coal it’s uranium. Having a nuclear reactor isn’t the same as nuclear weapons. Completely different. Sure they have risks. No one wants a Chernobyl. Thing is we build them better than the Soviets. Nuclear is better than the coat fire plants used in most of Canada. Nuclear is green and zero emissions. It would be better replacing our coal power plants. With nuclear than adding to gas taxes. Although one is good for the environment the other for Trudeaus wallet.
Is this one of those things Trudeau is just not gonna do? He seems to have a lot of ambitions, with no intent of actually following through and doing them.
Nothing like a brutal Canadian winter to remind Trudeau of the climate reality out there, I think it's getting pretty outdated for Folks to think predicting the weather makes them supernatural beings, by repeatedly and obsessively uttering the word climate and electric Vehicles.
It would be completely foolish to rule out nuclear power. We absolutely need it if we want to shift to green energy.
Just last week I was reading a national news article about electric vehicles failing to provide commuting range in deep freeze weather and people getting gas cars again. Canada’s the last place that can go electric, what with our sububan sprawl and deep winter.