10 ms·
It looks like there may be a typo with the estimated year of deployment in Ontario: the estimate is likely for 2028, not 2018. The article was published on Jul
by foldedcornice 4y ago
It looks like there may be a typo with the estimated year of deployment in Ontario: the estimate is likely for 2028, not 2018.
The article was published on July 11, 2022, but opens with: "Saskatchewan and Ontario have each chosen GE-Hitachi as the supplier of small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs), which could be deployed in the Prairie province by the 2030s and in Ontario by 2018." Then, the article concludes with: "GEH and Ontario plan to construct up to four 300 MWe small module reactors, with the first coming online by 2028."
A separate source by The Canadian Press [0] also reflects an estimate of 2028 for Ontario: "The governments of Ontario, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Alberta have put forward a nuclear plan that they say will transition them toward cleaner energy. The provinces’ energy ministers agreed today to a joint plan for small modular reactors, with the first 300-megawatt plant to be built in Darlington, Ont., by 2028."
[0] https://financialpost.com/commodities/energy/renewables/ontario-saskatchewan-new-brunswick-and-alberta-agree-on-plan-to-build-small-nuclear-reactors https://financialpost.com/commodities/energy/renewables/onta...
- QuadrupleA 4y agoArticle goes on to mention a "300W-solar power farm" (could power a desktop PC for $300M) and that the SMR could power "240,0000 homes".
- osuairt 4y agoThere is a push by conservative Canadian politicians in Ontario and Saskatchewan to use Uranium. Saskatchewan wants to have a mining contract. While Doug Ford of Ontario, wants to maintain the energy monopoly in the province, and has actively torn down recently completed and functional wind farm projects. I would gather that you will be hearing less about this after Doug Ford leaves.
- arcticbull 4y agoWhile I also hate Ford and think he's a national embarrassment, 60% of Ontario's power comes from 3 nuclear power plants: Bruce, Darlington and Pickering. We're happy with our nuclear [1]. We'd be happy with wind and solar too - but substantially the entire Ontario grid is already renewable. 92% zero-carbon power. [2] [1] https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/canadians-support-government-investment-in-renewables-and-clean-nuclear-energy-to-fight-climate-change-despite-competing-economic-priorities-reveals-new-study-836855313.html https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/canadians-support-gove... [2] https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles-ontario.html https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/pr...
- osuairt 4y agoIf you have to mine a finite Uranium resource from Saskatchewan, you do not have renewable energy. https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural-resources/energy-sources-distribution/renewable-energy/about-renewable-energy/7295 https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural-resources/energy-sources...
- jopsen 4y agoJust curious, how finite is it?
- tedk-42 4y agoAgreed. Conflating nuclear with renewable into 'zero carbon' is wrong
- rowanG077 4y agoIs that really a problem? I mean technically any energy resource is finite/non-renewable due to second law of thermodynamics. That doesn't mean anything in practice.
- throwaway5959 4y agoAh yes, the old “what will we do in 10000 years when the Uranium runs out” problem.
- naasking 4y agoEasily mined uranium will deplete in less than 100 years unless we start using breeder or thorium reactors that are more efficient in using up fuel.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- arcticbull 4y ago100,000 years supply is dissolved in the ocean. Breeder technology, and (thorium fuel cycle) are pretty well understood at this point. In fact, CANDU reactors widely deployed already support thorium fuel cycle. The reason we don't use them is because with all the uranium available, it's not necessary.
- pjc50 4y ago> actively torn down recently completed and functional wind farm projects. WTF?
- osuairt 4y agohttps://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/doug-ford-green-energy-wind-turbines-cancelled-230-million-1.5364815 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/doug-ford-green-energ...
- jopsen 4y ago9 wind turbines is nothing.
- pjc50 4y ago""For this government to rip up contracts and literally rip wind turbines out of the ground is a huge waste of money and makes absolutely no sense," said Green party Leader Mike Schreiner."" Well, yes. $230m to prevent power being generated, either for ideological reasons or bribes.
- ipaddr 4y agoAt this point in time the cost is Wind: .75/kilowatt hour Nuclear: 0.05/kilowatt hour Makes sense for a lot of reasons. The most costly energy was the fixed rate 75c per hour that was for ideological reasons going to transform Ontario into the solar power maker of the world. That went to California then and now China.
- tiagod 4y agoDo those numbers take into account construction and dismantling costs?
- helloooooooo 4y agoDarlington, Bruce and Pickering are reaching EoL and all three together supply 60% of Ontario’s electricity. How do you propose the province replace that amount of supply? The go with solar or wind would mean colossal investments in high tension transmission infrastructure, given the distributed nature of those power sources. We already have appropriate infrastructure in place for nuclear distribution; and the added benefit is that these SMRs can power northern regions as well when fully developped
- ZeroGravitas 4y agoWind? The 24% hydro they have will help bridge demand and supply just as it does with nuclear today. What do you see as the problem with that?
- multiplegeorges 4y agoLast night, at peak, Ontario was generating ~140MW of wind power. Not bad. Yesterday, all day without variation, Ontario was generating 9300-9600MW of nuclear power. They aren't even in the same universe. Source: https://www.ieso.ca/power-data https://www.ieso.ca/power-data
- ZeroGravitas 4y agoYeah, well if they shut down the nuclear plants, they'll be generating 0. So they need to either build a lot of nuclear or build a lot of wind. One of these is cheap, easy and fast, one is hard, expensive and slow. 3-4 years of German rollout of onshore wind would probably do the job.
- Zachsa999 4y agoI hear that the Nelson River in Manitoba has an extremely large capacity for power production. Just saying.
- idiotsecant 4y agoBuilding new dams in the west is almost entirely unfeasible. Too much environmental impact sensitivity (maybe a good thing) and NIMBYisim (not so good)
- Zachsa999 4y agoManitoba Hydro spends a lot of marketing money on making renewable resources attractive, specifically Hydro Generating Stations. Isn't the newest one from 2018?
- Hamuko 4y agoA low-power desktop PC, since my not-massively-impressive gaming PC (i5-10600KF and RTX 3060) draws 330 W from the wall at peak.
- Semaphor 4y agoEh, my WQHD and FHD monitors, Ryzen 3600, RX 6600 tops out at about 320 W, so that should easily be below 300 for just the PC ;)
- unsigner 4y agoI have noticed that bad things' energy output is measured in watts, and good things' energy output is measured in "homes powered". It's probably taught in journalism school nowadays, it's pervasive.
- idiotsecant 4y agoTo be pedantic, neither energy output is measured in watts :P, one of them might have power measured in watts though.
- snewman 4y agoNice. Yeah, the numbers in press articles are basically always wrong; it's just a question of whether you can notice the error. https://climateer.substack.com/p/numbers https://climateer.substack.com/p/numbers
- mistrial9 4y agonotice the "western investor" source ..