12 ms·

Canada plans 'nuclear renaissance' with up to 10 reactors built by 2040

593 points by geox 4mo ago

bluefirebrand 4mo ago
[flagged]
- ex1fm3ta 4mo ago
  unfortunately yes. Too much bullshits jobs (to suck up funds mostly and critize every aspects of non existant projects) and not enough people to take risks and do the job.
- ttul 4mo ago
  Canada is not an infrastructure “joke.” It is a country with some world-class delivery organizations operating inside a political system that too often destroys continuity. Relative to the G7, that makes it mediocre and volatile, not uniquely incompetent. And, in nuclear specifically, probably no worse positioned than its peers, though the ten-reactor rhetoric is substantially more ambitious than the underlying commitments at this time... (not surprising - it's a politician making an announcement, which is something of a prerequisite for making a "real plan" anyways). As a Canadian, I think Canada’s primary hurdle is not a lack of engineering competence, but rather political volatility. Projects like Calgary’s Green Line often suffer from shifting scopes, fragmented authority, and delayed funding. Conversely, the recent Darlington nuclear plant refurbishment finished early and under budget. This proves that Canada can successfully execute megaprojects when planning is front-loaded and standardized. Another comment I'd make is that the Carney government is only just a bit more than one year old. They're writing a whole lot of new policy. Will they succeed more than past governments? Who knows. But, at least they're spending the majority of their political capital trying to build stuff.
  - phil21 4mo ago
    You can have all the technical competence in the world, but if those competent people are not allowed to build things your society simply is inept at building stuff in the end. It's a choice society has made. It's certainly not unique to Canada though. The US and other western societies have made similar choices. Much less risky to employ a lot of expensive people to come up with reasons to not build stuff vs. taking risks and upsetting people by building.
    - ttul 4mo ago
      Good points. I would refine my comment: Canada has isolated examples of excellent megaproject execution, but lacks a system that reproduces that performance reliably. The nuclear announcement is credible only insofar as Canada can replicate the OPG/Bruce fleet-program model—stable authority and funding, standardized designs, repeat teams and accumulated learning—rather than its usual election-cycle, one-off megaproject model. I dearly hope that we're not going to see that model again, but maybe that's likely.
  - bluefirebrand 4mo ago
    > As a Canadian, I think Canada’s primary hurdle is not a lack of engineering competence, but rather political volatility I never said it was a problem of engineering competence, you read that into my statement Political volatility getting projects delayed and cancelled is why we're a joke
    - ttul 4mo ago
      You're right: you didn’t claim a lack of engineering competence. I introduced that distinction. Sorry. If the question is whether the Canadian society can build reliably, then governance and political instability count as part of its overall competence, not as external excuses. I would agree with you that political volatility exists and stifles an otherwise decent country. It's very frustrating.
  - coastalpuma 4mo ago
    Which are these "world-class delivery organizations" and are they the exception or the rule? We can acknowledge that political volatility is a main cause but it's not some exogenous factor. It's inherent to the federal structure of the country and it hamstrings trying to build social goods, whether that's transit or healthcare infrastructure. There is also nowhere near a culture of developing and trusting institutional planning expertise. Infrastructure is done on a pork-barrel basis of which promises will get who elected and create which jobs and allocate which contracts. Or who complains the loudest about the design of any given plan. Canada's 20th century social system was also based on maintaining social stability through mass property ownership, which is now breaking down as unrestrained property speculation is displacing any kind of productive investments (while also ending the possibility of that mass property ownership in the near future). Sorry to bring the negativity but I feel as a whole that Canadians are much too tolerant of institutional dysfunction (in the manner of the classic "Canadian nice") and think our society is far more advanced than it actually is. It's a completely complacent and naive culture that is quickly being left in the dust by more functional systems.
  - TMWNN 4mo ago
    >Canada is not an infrastructure “joke.” It is a country with some world-class delivery organizations operating inside a political system that too often destroys continuity. >As a Canadian, I think Canada’s primary hurdle is not a lack of engineering competence, but rather political volatility. >Another comment I'd make is that the Carney government is only just a bit more than one year old. I know that Liberals since early 2025 have done their best to pretend that Justin Trudeau never existed, but one would think by your words that the Carney regime succeeded one of another party, as opposed to the Liberals in 2025 forming their fourth consecutive federal government, after 2021, 2019, and 2015.
- badc0ffee 4mo ago
  Federal funding for the green line was announced in 2015, and IIRC they originally predicted a 2026 opening date for branches covering the north and south of the city - street running in the north central part and a bit in Seton, a short tunnel downtown, and dedicated ROW elsewhere. This was back when planners were still really into streetcars/trams. The funding mix was supposed to be $1.5 billion each from the city, province and feds. The city sat on their hands for years, perfecting and re-routing the downtown part[1]. Eventually, the plan was shortened to 16 Ave N to Shepard with a long tunnel downtown. The city ordered $100s of millions of low-floor trains, incompatible with the existing ones, necessitating building a new maintenance facility. The cost at this point was $5.something billion. Then, in 2020, the provincial government put a "pause" on the project. When it came back to life, costs had increased dramatically, and the city came out with a modified plan the (the $6.8 billion stub train from downtown to Lynnwood). The province then threatened to pull their part of the funding, and commissioned a new downtown segment plan that advocated for elevated downtown, and nothing north of there. Today? We are building the original truncated south phase to Shepard (by 2031!), but not the downtown part. The city is still debating what's going to happen downtown, dismissing elevated. They are hearing from office building and parking lot owners who are worried about its effect on property values, but I think they are also rejecting any ideas from the province on principle. About the only positive thing I can say is that the project is tangibly under construction now, with actual bridges over roadways done or nearly complete. I blame the city (both planners and elected officials) and the province in that order, but mostly the city. [1] One positive thing to come from that is the routing in Inglewood/Ramsay and 26 Ave SE that avoids taking down heritage buildings and destroying a vital community corridor.
  - bluefirebrand 4mo ago
    > Today? We are building the original truncated south phase to Shepard (by 2031!), I know, I live by the Shepard station location by the Canadian Tire. Since 2020 they managed to put up a nice sign > We are building the original truncated south phase to Shepard (by 2031!) Yeah. 16 years after the federal funding was announced We have to do better than this. :/ > I blame the city (both planners and elected officials) and the province in that order, but mostly the city Me too don't worry
p2detar 4mo ago
To my surprise Canada are actually quite ahead with the Darlington New Nuclear Project. There is a construction site [0] with work taking place. Not sure how Kairos Power are progressing in the USA. Nice job, Canada. 0 - https://www.neimagazine.com/news/darlington-smr-secures-financing https://www.neimagazine.com/news/darlington-smr-secures-fina...
- preisschild 4mo ago
  Unfortunately its just a small boiling water reactor. More capacity is needed in most parts of the world. Lager reactors are needed.
  - chollida1 4mo ago
    I mean, Ontario runs the Bruce nuclear plant which is the second largest in the world in terms of the power it generates at 6,610 MW, Japan gets the top nod with a plant that generates 7,965 MW.
    - manquer 4mo ago
      Kashiwazaki-Kariwa ? It has been not in full commercial service for close to two decades now. Only one unit recently restarted this year. 6 units are offline now There are two South Korean plants (Kori, Hangul) larger than Bruce
      - chollida1 4mo ago
        You could be right about the Korean plants. I only relied on google to give me the top 5 nuclear plants active in the world. The Korean plants you mention were not on the list.
        manquer 4mo ago
        Wikpedia has more info, plus WNN and other industry publications usually are more up-to date. Kori[1] has 7 operational units today and 1 commissioning and 1 under construction Hansul[2] has 8 operational units and another 2 more under construction. All 4 new units are APR-1400 reactors ~1400 MW capacity. Kori should retains its top position, Saeul-3 in Kori Phase II has already reached criticality in April. Tianwan in China will come close but its 7/8 units are slightly behind in construction than Saeul-3/4 in South Korea, plus the plant is also bit smaller at 6600MW now . The Russian VVER-1200 design China are using is also slightly smaller than Korean APR-1400. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kori_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kori_Nuclear_Power_Plant [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanul_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanul_Nuclear_Power_Plant
_aavaa_ 4mo ago
Title is misleading, they want to start building not “build” (I.e. be operational). Though that only moves the needles from impossible to laughable. > If our goal is to double our grid and build a low-carbon economy in less than 25 years, there is no credible plan to do that without nuclear energy There are plenty of credible plans, they all involve wind and solar. But as anyone watching clean energy news will know, Alberta is trying its hardest to get rid of all wind and solar development from the province. As for the baseload argument, they already get >60% of the electricity from hydro and nuclear. How much more baseload do you really need? 100%?
- hodder 4mo ago
  The claim that Alberta is actively trying to get rid of all wind and solar development is internet hyperbole that ignores real capacity data. Alberta actually ranks second in Canada for clean energy growth, and its renewable output surged by over 25% year-over-year into 2026. The high-profile project cancellations people point to weren't a government ban. They happened because the province changed its transmission rules. Previously, ratepayers subsidized the massive utility costs required to connect remote wind and solar farms to the central grid. The province ended this, forcing private developers to internalize their own grid connection costs. Once forced to pay for their own infrastructure, highly speculative, unfinanced projects simply became economically unviable and dropped out of the queue. If a private wind or solar developer wanted to build a massive farm in a remote, rural area (like Southern Alberta) where land is cheap but high-voltage power lines do not exist, they only had to pay for the immediate wire connecting their project to the nearest local substation. Taxpayers were subsidizing those players, because it was a "load pays" system. Please do not fall pray to the general trope that Alberta is a backwards hillbilly province. Subsidizing private developments with public money is not something that should be encouraged. On Canada broadly, you are correct in your baseload numbers and I agree with you. (Energy trader here)
  - actionfromafar 4mo ago
    > Subsidizing private developments with public money is not something that should be encouraged. What other kind of subsidy is there?
chollida1 4mo ago
Makes alot of sense. Canada has: - one of the largest uranium reserves - a well respected and safe nuclear design in CANDU - experience with building and refurbishing nuclear reactors(Darlington) and for Ontario itself A need for more baseload to work with the large amount of solar and wind that Ontario has added in the last 10 years. Saskatchewan also now has a potential need for nuclear for industrial use now that wasn't present before from its existing population. if the government can clear the red tape by using a well tested reactor design then they could certainly get some of these reactors built in that time frame. 15 seems...ambitions, but if we're going to spend at a federal level this is probably one of the better things to invest in.
- kasey_junk 4mo ago
  Will Alberta go along?
  - jleyank 4mo ago
    Will Alberta go (away)? If/when the price of crude goes back down, they'll feel the cash crunch. Curiously, if they leave Canada, they need a path through a foreign country to get their oil out of Alberta.
    - TMWNN 4mo ago
      Alberta needs a pathway through a foreign country to get their oil out right now. Existing pipelines lead to the US, and the Keystone XL expansion Obama halted, Trump resumed, and Biden halted. An independent Alberta will likely join the US, and of course building a domestic-only pipeline is easier than doing so across national borders.
      - jleyank 4mo ago
        Alberta ships through BC now and I think they’ve gone from half to full capacity. That profit might not survive Hormuz opening and unfortunately much of it leaves Canada.
sleepyguy 4mo ago
Should look at the the historical record and consider the scale of cost overruns and delays that major nuclear projects have experienced. While everyone involved may have good intentions, the reality is that these projects often end up costing significantly more and taking much longer than originally projected. Wind and solar could be deployed for a fraction of the proposed $100 billion investment and should be considered as part of the interim solution, while nuclear remains a long-term strategic project. Rather than pursuing such an ambitious build out, a more practical approach might be to scale back the plan and focus on constructing one reactor each in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba as an initial phase.
- preisschild 4mo ago
  > Should look at the the historical record and consider the scale of cost overruns and delays that major nuclear projects have experienced. While everyone involved may have good intentions, the reality is that these projects often end up costing significantly more and taking much longer than originally projected. Canada has also regularly refurbished their CANDU reactors, which are large multi year projects. And they do it on-time and under budget https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/renewed-bruce-3-back-in-service https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/renewed-bruce-3-...
  - sleepyguy 4mo ago
    Historical Ontario Hydro Debt: By the late 1990s, aggressive nuclear builds resulted in $38.1 billion of debt for Ontario Hydro, of which $20.9 billion was stranded. The Bruce A refurbishment in the late 1990s and early 2000s saw five-fold cost overruns. Bruce A was originally projected to cost $0.9 billion but ended up at $1.8 billion. The Bruce B project was budgeted at $3.9 billion and ultimately cost $6 billion. https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/ontarios-costly-nuclear-folly https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/ontarios-costly-... Safety and operational issues also plagued the industry. The four units at Pickering had been shut down because of safety concerns—and then shut down again. By 1993, the performance of the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station, located on the shores of Lake Huron, had drastically declined. In 1997, Ontario Hydro announced that it would temporarily shut down its oldest seven reactors. By that time, the escalating costs of the newest reactors at the Darlington site were already a cautionary tale. Originally billed in 1978 at $3.9 billion the final cost in 1993 had more than tripled to $14.4 billion (1993 dollars).
whh 4mo ago
Hopefully this will kick Australia into gear.
- tuna74 4mo ago
  Australia is really good for solar, why build nuclear?
  - echelon 4mo ago
    Why not have a diverse set of energy inputs so your energy economy isn't fragile? Some black swan event could kill solar. Maybe some mega volcano explodes. It would suck to be 50+% dependent on it in that case. We should have wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, hydro, tidal, and even fossil fuels. We should have a total capacity in greater abundance than what we have today so that we can grow.
    - SugarReflex 4mo ago
      Great answer, also I imagine that in terms of space, one nuclear reactor would be equivalent to 10 square KM of solar panels (or something like that)
      - davewasthere 4mo ago
        One thing we're not short of here in Australia is space. And sunshine. I'm not opposed to nuclear in the mix though. It's pretty incredible. And the South Koreans have done a pretty awesome job in the UAE with their reactors it sounds like. If you're comparing nuclear reactors with solar panels though (which is tricky), depends which metric you go for. If total annual output? Then up it by almost an order of magnitude. 100km2+ would be needed to produce the same annual output as a 1GW at 90% nuclear station. But we've a ton of land, so it makes a lot of sense.
        fc417fc802 4mo ago
        I think you're off by an order of magnitude there. Intensity should be somewhere between 150 to 300 watts per sq meter per 24 hours. At 200 watts per sq meter that works out to 5 sq km. Estimating 50% panel efficiency that's 10 sq km. To hit 100 sq km at 50% panel efficiency would mean averaging 20 watts per sq meter (obviously wrong). Even assuming a paltry 10% panel efficiency would only get you to 100 watts per sq meter.
fsuts 4mo ago
I’m not Canadian so news to me that Canada has built nuclear plants around the world. As in the UK we were previously asking a French-Chinese partnership to build here so not sure why Canada didn’t get chosen for that.
- crypttales 4mo ago
  Because the Candu is insanely expensive.
- HerbManic 4mo ago
  So France and Canada both build nuclear plants. Must be something in the french language that makes folks just want to do the cool stuff. If it is anything like all my french cookware, it will be done wonderfully.
  - badc0ffee 4mo ago
    This analysis is missing that Quebec doesn't have any nuclear plants. (Although NB has one, which counts for half?)
    - applied_heat 4mo ago
      Quebec has one they shut it down, hydro Quebec is a hydro power company not a nuclear power company
    - HerbManic 4mo ago
      Well there goes that theory.
    - olalonde 4mo ago
      AtkinsRéalis (fka SNC-Lavalin) does build nuclear reactors and is headquartered in Montreal[0]. [0] https://www.atkinsrealis.com/en/markets-and-services/markets/nuclear https://www.atkinsrealis.com/en/markets-and-services/markets...
      - 4mo ago
BIGFOOT_EXISTS 4mo ago
Can't wait for this to get bogged down in legislation and never get done
- Plasmoid 4mo ago
  That might take a while. We need to bog down the HSR first.
preisschild 4mo ago
CANDUs are cool, hope to see more in the world
- credit_guy 4mo ago
  I love nuclear reactors and CANDU are quite cool. But I don't think that today we have any reasons to build CANDU reactors, except possibly that Canada can demonstrate they can build them for cheaper than others can build light water reactors. The ability to build is something that has little to do with the technical merits of a nuclear reactor design. But all things being equal, a PWR or a BWR should cost less per GW than a CANDU reactor and have other advantages too: - main problem with CANDU: proliferation. India was able to build nuclear weapons after using a Canadian built heavy water reactor (basically a CANDU reactor) [1]. There is no guarantee that another country will not try something similar in the future, the design has no built in proliferation resistance. An operator can remove irradiated fuel at any time, and if the IAEA discovers they engage in plutonium manufacturing and they get on a black list, they can manufacture their own fuel quite easily, because CANDU uses non-enriched uranium. With light water reactors, you need enriched fuel, so if you are flagged as a proliferator no fuel manufacturer will be allowed to sell you fuel, and it's going to be much harder for you to manufacture your own fuel, since you can't enrich. If you can enrich uranium, you might as well try to build a uranium bomb (like Iran is trying to do). Also, with light water reactors, you refuel only at discrete times, generally about 18 months apart, so it is much more difficult to extract lightly irradiated fuel without being caught by the IAEA. Now some less important problems: - because CANDU uses non-enriched uranium, it produces much more nuclear waste per GWh compared to light water reactors. Nuclear waste is not the boogeyman nuclear anti-advocates make it to be, but still, if you generate 5-10 times more nuclear waste than the mainstream alternatives, it is less than ideal. - there is one positive reactivity feedback loop in a CANDU design. Because of that CANDU designs are not licenseable in the US. The Canadian nuclear regulator is comfortable that the design is stable [2], but if you can choose between a design with one positive feedback loop and one without any positive feedback loop, why would you choose the first? - heavy water is a worse moderator than light water (by a large factor). It [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Nuclear_weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_and_weapons_of_mass_dest... [2] https://www.cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca/eng/resources/research/safety-analysis/positive-void-coefficient-of-reactivity-candus/ https://www.cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca/eng/resources/research/safety-an...
NuclearPM 4mo ago
We are trying.
mig39 4mo ago
A nuclear reactor in the Alberta Oil sands would take care of a large amount of the CO2 produced in the production of crude.
- _aavaa_ 4mo ago
  Doesn’t help with the burning part. Or the stranded infrastructure once the demand goes away.
  - speed_spread 4mo ago
    Demand will not go away. There'll be toxic waste to clean up for decades after.
  - bonesss 4mo ago
    Nuclear process heat in refining would enable releasing less CO2 per fuel-unit. It doesn’t solve burning directly, but reduces the impact of what is going to happen anyways.
- theeyescanner 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  - bluefirebrand 4mo ago
    Absolutely ridiculous that I was down voted and flagged for some mild griping about the state of my province's inability to execute on infrastructure projects, but offhand jokes (I hope it's a joke) about nuking my home is completely fine? :/
    - jibal 4mo ago
      Ridiculous whataboutism. What makes you think that anyone thought that it's completely fine? The comment is dead.
      - 4mo ago
panny 4mo ago
Isn't it interesting? Now that power generation is seen as the deciding factor between who wins/loses AI, nuclear is back on the table again.
martinbfine 4mo ago
[dead]
- shevy-java 4mo ago
  This is a problem that can be handled. Finland handles this pretty well IMO as one example. Also Canada is huge. That means lots of potential places (most Canadians live on the southern parts, close to the US border).
- crypttales 4mo ago
  If there's something Canada has in excess it's water and storage space.
- postalrat 4mo ago
  The sun uses much more water on earth than people do.
- gucci-on-fleek 4mo ago
  > But what do they do with the waste? The Canadian Shield [0] is uniquely well-suited for this: it's remote, sparsely populated, and geologically stable. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Shield https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Shield
  - martinbfine 4mo ago
    [dead]
- delecti 4mo ago
  Leaving aside that Canada is huge, waste is really just not that much of a problem. It would be easy to safely store all the waste that will ever be produced at a dedicated storage site, if you could drum up the political will for such a site to exist. But really, it's even easier to just store it all on-site. Not that much waste is produced; stick it in a cask and leave it alone.
  - theeyescanner 4mo ago
patmcc 4mo ago
Oh my god, yes, please. It should be 100 over the next 10 years but this is a great start. We should be cranking these out and building cities in the north with clean unlimited power.
- II2II 4mo ago
  Every time I see something interesting about nuclear power, comments like this pop up. Which makes me skittish. We need responsible growth. We need to acknowledge that there is no magic bullet for power generation, just managed risks. We need to acknowledge that those risks exist for all power sources, to varying degrees, and take different forms (whether it is the environmental impact or reliability of the power grid).
  - patmcc 4mo ago
    I was being a little flippant there - but I think we've gone way too far in the "nuclear is risky" direction, largely because of Chernobyl, which was a) a very specific disaster caused by a perfect storm of bad decisions and bad luck and b) not that deadly. In the US about as many people die every year due to coal pollution as have yet (or will ever) die because of Chernobyl. About the same number die in Europe every year because of a lack of AC. Those are just invisible risks that we accept already and we need to start seeing them.
    - x______________ 4mo ago
      Don't forget Fukushima! I'm all down with spamming nuclear plants but will that, in the end, give free electricity to the consumer? Lower the rates? ..or just continue to be an economic weapon against the masses?
thelonelyborg 4mo ago
would be good
shevy-java 4mo ago
Canada needs its own nuclear arsenal. Relying on Trump or any other clown, makes no more sense.
- crypttales 4mo ago
  Well those online refueling channels look mighty interesting don't they?
cmrdporcupine 4mo ago
The Ontario government is terrible at creating a structure which is capable of finishing any infrastructure project on time ...(see Eglinton Crosstown) and mostly seems to work as a funnel for moving public funds through public-private-partnerships to feed contractor/consultant income for projects that grow to many multiples of their time and budget. So, yeah, it makes sense that they love nuclear now -- blank cheque to drag on for multidecades over budget. Likely the right people donated the right funds to the PC party and/or attended/funded Ford Fest The first thing this government did when it got into power was pay out hundreds of millions in penalties for cancelling large wind projects, and for breaching its contract and exiting the cap and trade agreement with California and Quebec. Ford loves to waste money and then wag his finger about how everyone else is fiscally irresponsible.
- stackghost 4mo ago
  Nuclear industry in Canada is federally-regulated, not provincial.
  - cmrdporcupine 4mo ago
    The regulation of it is an entirely different thing from the budgeting and promotion of it. Promotion of nuclear power has become a very vocal Ford government thing in the last few months.
- wmoxam 4mo ago
  Darlington nuclear refurbishment finished ahead of schedule and under budget https://canada.constructconnect.com/dcn/news/projects/2026/02/deep-dive-the-high-stakes-12-8b-darlington-refurb https://canada.constructconnect.com/dcn/news/projects/2026/0...
  - tempest_ 4mo ago
    Yeah the last decade of Nuclear work is the ONE thing that they have been successful at wrt to project planning. Hopefully that expertise is well placed to execute on these other projects.
zuzululu 4mo ago
From what I've seen out of Canada, this is likely overly optimistic and probably will not be possible in that time frame. I think it's better to just outsource it to Koreans at least that way you can stay on budget and on time.
ungreased0675 4mo ago
This is great. Hopefully they can make enough to supply the US energy. Because we seem to be incapable of building new reactors.
- fastball 4mo ago
  Microreactor initiatives in the US are at least promising.
motohagiography 4mo ago
new micro reactor tech makes this much more appealing. We probably don't need Darlington scale plants, we just need a capacity to add new ones. Diversifying the ownership and management of them would also improve the economic benefits. We would need a leverage cap on securitization of energy as debt collateral. Something akin to banking leverage limits of 10-20x for them to be operated responsibly. We should have more nuclear, but they should be run for profit to hold them to account instead of massively indebting them to create public sector crony slush funds the way the current hydroelectric system has been run into the ground.
- pfdietz 4mo ago
  Micro reactors have micro markets. The diseconomies of scale kill it for general grid power.
  - motohagiography 4mo ago
    that's a philosophical view. We don't want a single grid, we want power in places we need it. Building for a single grid has a bunch of expensive opinions that serve mainly to provide a control layer instead of serving the basic economic need. A micro reactor can practically fund itself on model training, data processing, and cryptocurrencies, and where it can't there is actual usage.
slicktux 4mo ago
That’s great news ! Have they also solved the nuclear waste problem? Honest question; here in the USA we have not.
- measurablefunc 4mo ago
  Something for future generations to figure out with their AI chatbots.
- thfuran 4mo ago
  It's not really a problem. The alternative is to grind it up into fine dust, spray it into the air, and call it "clean coal".
  - fsh 4mo ago
    That would poison the entire country. Nuclear waste is many many orders of magnitude more radioactive than coal per energy generated. The meme about coal emitting more radiation comes from a 1970s paper that compared radioactive emissions and found them to be on the same order of magnitude between a BWR and an unfiltered coal power plant.
  - fennecbutt 4mo ago
    Excuse me that's "beautiful clean coal" I still can't believe that you guys actually chose him as president.
- Moldoteck 4mo ago
  Yes, canada aproved repository site. Similar to Onkalo
anotheraccount9 4mo ago
Hopefully, Canada will not get bullied by US for selling it cheaply.
- newsclues 4mo ago
  Who else can Canada sell excess power to?
  - boringg 4mo ago
    Hydrolysis.
  - 1over137 4mo ago
    No one else I guess. But they could use it themselves, building whatever plants/factories/server farms needed to use it.
Jedd 4mo ago
Perhaps relevant. 2005 ish - UK government release energy strategy and declares fission power plant intent. 2010 ish - UK government formally announces Hinkley Point site. It's declared the first reactor will come online 2019. 2019 - it does not. 2026 - best estimate is now 'around 2030'. Historical cost estimates are an utter quagmire - but roughly estimated at £18 billion a decade ago, back when it was estimated to be online last year. Current estimates - bring your own hubris - are roughly £46 billion. This story has been beaten to death, I know - but recall, this is a country with some history of building and operating nuclear fission power plants, with convenient (2h by rail) access to a lot of expertise from France, and it's a joint-venture with China General Nuclear Power Group so presumably plenty of expertise to draw upon there.
- gottorf 4mo ago
  These day's it's a common problem in all of the Anglosphere, but it does seem especially bad in the UK; they appear to have just given up the ability to build literally anything.
  - locallost 4mo ago
    They're not building anything. The French are building it and doing a terrible job for the third time straight. Flamanville at home, Olkiluoto in Finland and now Hinkley.
- Moldoteck 4mo ago
  Also relevant - all recent Canadian refurbs were on time and budget
  - Jedd 4mo ago
    When you say 'all' - is that five? Since 1999?
    - Moldoteck 4mo ago
      I mean these https://www.opg.com/news-resources/newsroom/our-stories/story/darlington-refurb-construction-completed-ahead-of-schedule-under-budget/ https://www.opg.com/news-resources/newsroom/our-stories/stor... https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/1007558/ontario-delivers-record-setting-nuclear-refurbishment-at-bruce-ahead-of-schedule-and-under-budget https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/1007558/ontario-delivers-...
rangestransform 4mo ago
Maybe this would’ve made economic sense 20 or 40 years ago, but nuclear is too expensive now compared with renewables. I can’t help but think this is a covert plan to bcecome an “almost nuclear” state in response to threats from the US.
- Moldoteck 4mo ago
  depends if you like gas/coal or not https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/DE/live/fifteen_minutes https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/DE/live/fifteen_min...
kvakerok 4mo ago
The idea is great, the timeline is super unrealistic. We'll see those reactors in 2070 the earliest, more likely in 2080.
ok_dad 4mo ago
[flagged]
deadbabe 4mo ago
Society grows great when old men build nuclear plants whose power they will never get to enjoy.
_heimdall 4mo ago
Interesting to see the general opinion on nuclear swing so far from environmental and safety concerns (whether warranted or not) to pretty broad support for energy independence. I can't help but think its a sign that those concerns were easy to hold when energy was cheap and you could actually trust your neighbors. If that's the case, again huge speculation, it sure makes the concerns feel a bit hollow now.
- jibal 4mo ago
  From the article: "If our goal is to double our grid and build a low-carbon economy in less than 25 years, there is no credible plan to do that without nuclear energy and the clean, reliable baseload power it provides," Reduction in burning carbon and producing greenhouses is the number one concern of environmentalists and is a major driver of the increased acceptability of nuclear power production, especially if safety concerns are met. Also from the article: > Unlike most other nuclear reactors, Candu reactors don't require enriched uranium. Ottawa says Western allies are turning away from Russia, one of the world's key suppliers of enriched uranium. The problem of course is that safety has costs and people cut corners, leading to events like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima.
  - b112 4mo ago
    Reduction in burning carbon and producing greenhouses is the number one concern of environmentalists Is it? Nothing is more environmentally friendly than hydroelectric dams. In Canada, there are endless rivers to dam, while also leaving endless rivers undammed. Further, damming a river doesn't destroy nature, it does however turn a river into a lake. Over the years it takes to build and complete the project, including the initial flooding, some species leave, new species take their place, and a healthy ecosystem remains. Yet dams are attacked with a ferocity in this country, as if somehow having a dam is worse than a coal power plant. And while nuclear is great, we're therefore left with nuclear power, and all the outcome if that goes wrong, because using 0.0000001% of our rivers to build a few more dams, is "bad" for the environment. Canada is massive. I'm sure someone will want to reply with how horrible dams are, the concrete and carbon cost of concrete. Yet what's really the problem is that some want nothing ever built. Not a single method of new power generation, ever. And so? This is what we end up with. Nuclear it is.
brikym 4mo ago
It's obvious to me there will be a renaisance, but the question is which design will win. There are so many companies building small modular reactors right and various different designs with different fuels and cooling mediums. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_small_modular_reactor_designs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_small_modular_reactor_...
TurdF3rguson 4mo ago
I wonder if anyone will tell them that's an oxymoron.
gaiagraphia 4mo ago
Always thought it was weird that the Commonwealth Realm nations had never pooled resources to have standardised reactor designs and expertise. Canada and Australia have loads of uranium - seems like an obvious strategic move. Instead, the UK turns to China, lol.
woodpanel 4mo ago
[flagged]
Animats 4mo ago
OK, so when does the first one come online? "The strategy calls for construction to start on two new large-scale reactors by 2035, for five more to be planned or under development by 2040 and for at least one reactor to be under construction outside Ontario by 2035." That's not serious. Construction start is too far away.
- epistasis 4mo ago
  Ok, I was kind of excited about this, until you pointed out the dates. Of all Western developed countries, Canada is pretty much the last hope for a country with the skills to build nuclear at something that's within spitting distance of being economical. The US and France have shat the bed royally over the past two decades, they're out of the game of construction competence. The UK stopped doing their own and outsourced to overpriced and unreasonable French reactors, that are only going forward with what be massive amounts of corruption in order to justify such expensive energy when there's cheaper batteries + offshore wind. Finland had France build them a reactor, and wisely negotiated a fixed price up front, and the construction overruns bankrupted the French company which is now really French in the sense that it bankrupted itself on Olkiluoto and had to be nationalized in the name of national security. That leaves Canada, with their famous CANDU reactors and can-do attitudes. But 9 years of planning before construction? Perhaps that's what's actually needed, and they'll have a chance of actually constructing it in five years, but.... super super doubtful. Canada, do not fall into the same trap as the rest of the nuclear frauds in the Western world. Five years for construction? Don't kid yourselves, even China breaks ridiculous timelines like that, and as good as you are, Canada, you're no China when it comes to massive massive construction projects. Just look at how hard it is to build in Vancouver, for example...
  - Animats 4mo ago
    China's current plan: Since the country’s first Hualong One unit came online in 2021, 6 additional units have begun commercial operation, 16 units are under construction, and 18 units have received government approval in China. According to the CNNC, the Hualong One will become the country’s mainstream type of third-generation thermal reactor by 2030. The Hualong One is a successor of the Westinghouse AP1000. The US has two of those operational, at Vogtle. Then Westinghouse Nuclear went bankrupt. China has four operational. All later units in China are Hualong One units or later designs. These are all classic pressurized water reactors, all about 1 gigawatt. Nothing exotic here. The technology is known and works well.
arjie 4mo ago
These are a bunch of contradictory quotes. We'll have to wait till NRCan or whatever comes up with a real plan. "Up to 10 reactors built by 2040" doesn't really match "two new large-scale reactors by 2035, for five more to be planned or under development by 2040 and for at least one reactor to be under construction outside Ontario by 2035". Like, what is that. "planned or under development" seems like a big "or". Like how BART has 1500 lines completed or described in concepts online.
jgord 4mo ago
Im surprised they haven't doubled down on deep drill geothermal.
- jgord 4mo ago
  not least because of the bureaucratic delays making nuclear slow to roll out.
lo_fye 4mo ago
So we're willing to put our greatest national asset (the environment) at risk in the name of "moar power". Well that's just great. I hope Jimmy Carter's ghost will be just as willing to help us out the next time a reactor goes into meltdown as his physical self was the first time that happened. RIP Jimmy Carter.
beloch 4mo ago
>Unlike most other nuclear reactors, Candu reactors don't require enriched uranium. Ottawa says Western allies are turning away from Russia, one of the world's key suppliers of enriched uranium. Even if Canada winds up relying more on CANDU reactors than SMR's, there is a case to be made for enriching domestically. There are a lot of potential customers looking for a reliable, ethical supplier. Canada has the raw minerals, political stability, and a long record of refusing to weaponize despite having the capability.
- Moldoteck 4mo ago
  Enrichment is already more or less done by Orano and Urenco. They could expand faster if assured that EU bans russian imports
totetsu 4mo ago
The Decouple podcast has taught me more about the Canadian Nuclear industry than I ever wanted to know. https://www.decouple.media/ https://www.decouple.media/
AugustusCrunch 4mo ago
Alberta has energy. Canada wants energy without Alberta. The Candu reactor program is so defunct that the feds have been trying to sell it for about a decade. Candu makes plutonium and was responsible for a lot of nuclear weapons proliferation in the 1980s, but again, Candu isn't Alberta. Also it's a way to spend an enormous amount of money, and Canada isn't quite bankrupt yet. I say go for it.
anon-3988 4mo ago
I am baffled why Canada don't have massive data centres yet? It is cold with abundant water and energy. Why not?
mentalgear 4mo ago
[flagged]
GL26 4mo ago
10 new reactos by 2040 is huge when you come to think of it, this is just in 14 years, this is about 0.72 reactors built each year. Knowing you need to build : the whole reactor building, the machines building, the whole plumbery system, the electrical system, the control command system, the reactor, reliability features, and all of that knowing you have to pass the nuclear regulation authorities controls.
- kioleanu 4mo ago
  Hopefully it will go better than the last time someone had such an ambitious plan with nuclear plants
lasky 4mo ago
to begin in 2035, eh? just join the US already
tmellon2 4mo ago
Totally unnecessary : I did the Math to cross-verify - Elon Musk is 100 % right ! Just ONE square mile of batteries and a TOTAL of 100 x 100 square miles of Solar can power the entire USA 24/7. Area required will be much lesser for Canada. See : https://finance.yahoo.com/sectors/energy/articles/elon-musk-says-only-100-140103053.html https://finance.yahoo.com/sectors/energy/articles/elon-musk-...
- fennecbutt 4mo ago
  How convenient for Musk that technology connections did this exact topic and these exact calculations (and much more) as a topic months and months ago: https://youtu.be/KtQ9nt2ZeGM?is=wOjIwPKFuYj2Smrh https://youtu.be/KtQ9nt2ZeGM?is=wOjIwPKFuYj2Smrh Why up Musk? Is he your primary source of news and ideas?
MeteorMarc 4mo ago
Lets see if there will be any private investments unless gov guarantees fixed minimum price of MWh.
hitanshu326 4mo ago
[dead]
WhereIsTheTruth 4mo ago
That's fire! pun intended, IYKYK Jokes aside, Canada is well positioned to lead a nuclear renaissance, now that they have easy access to raw materials, easy access to cooling facilities and they can export surplus to energy hungry neighbor, it also makes it a good candidate for hosting lots of datacenters
Geee 4mo ago
Are we finally re-entering the Atomic Age? It seems that the Soviets extended the Oil Age by about 40 years, by blowing up the Chernobyl plant in 1986.
rireads 4mo ago
Did people really forget just how much nuclear power sucks? Storage may not be a problem now but that's pushing the problem onto future generations yet again
- Moldoteck 4mo ago
  it doesnt suck as much as fossils https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/DE/live/fifteen_minutes https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/DE/live/fifteen_min...
stefantalpalaru 4mo ago
[dead]
4b11b4 4mo ago
The beginning of Shinra?

593 points by geox 4mo ago

bluefirebrand 4mo ago

[flagged]

ex1fm3ta 4mo ago
unfortunately yes. Too much bullshits jobs (to suck up funds mostly and critize every aspects of non existant projects) and not enough people to take risks and do the job.
ttul 4mo ago
Canada is not an infrastructure “joke.” It is a country with some world-class delivery organizations operating inside a political system that too often destroys continuity. Relative to the G7, that makes it mediocre and volatile, not uniquely incompetent. And, in nuclear specifically, probably no worse positioned than its peers, though the ten-reactor rhetoric is substantially more ambitious than the underlying commitments at this time... (not surprising - it's a politician making an announcement, which is something of a prerequisite for making a "real plan" anyways). As a Canadian, I think Canada’s primary hurdle is not a lack of engineering competence, but rather political volatility. Projects like Calgary’s Green Line often suffer from shifting scopes, fragmented authority, and delayed funding. Conversely, the recent Darlington nuclear plant refurbishment finished early and under budget. This proves that Canada can successfully execute megaprojects when planning is front-loaded and standardized. Another comment I'd make is that the Carney government is only just a bit more than one year old. They're writing a whole lot of new policy. Will they succeed more than past governments? Who knows. But, at least they're spending the majority of their political capital trying to build stuff.
- phil21 4mo ago
  You can have all the technical competence in the world, but if those competent people are not allowed to build things your society simply is inept at building stuff in the end. It's a choice society has made. It's certainly not unique to Canada though. The US and other western societies have made similar choices. Much less risky to employ a lot of expensive people to come up with reasons to not build stuff vs. taking risks and upsetting people by building.
  - ttul 4mo ago
    Good points. I would refine my comment: Canada has isolated examples of excellent megaproject execution, but lacks a system that reproduces that performance reliably. The nuclear announcement is credible only insofar as Canada can replicate the OPG/Bruce fleet-program model—stable authority and funding, standardized designs, repeat teams and accumulated learning—rather than its usual election-cycle, one-off megaproject model. I dearly hope that we're not going to see that model again, but maybe that's likely.
- bluefirebrand 4mo ago
  > As a Canadian, I think Canada’s primary hurdle is not a lack of engineering competence, but rather political volatility I never said it was a problem of engineering competence, you read that into my statement Political volatility getting projects delayed and cancelled is why we're a joke
  - ttul 4mo ago
    You're right: you didn’t claim a lack of engineering competence. I introduced that distinction. Sorry. If the question is whether the Canadian society can build reliably, then governance and political instability count as part of its overall competence, not as external excuses. I would agree with you that political volatility exists and stifles an otherwise decent country. It's very frustrating.
- coastalpuma 4mo ago
  Which are these "world-class delivery organizations" and are they the exception or the rule? We can acknowledge that political volatility is a main cause but it's not some exogenous factor. It's inherent to the federal structure of the country and it hamstrings trying to build social goods, whether that's transit or healthcare infrastructure. There is also nowhere near a culture of developing and trusting institutional planning expertise. Infrastructure is done on a pork-barrel basis of which promises will get who elected and create which jobs and allocate which contracts. Or who complains the loudest about the design of any given plan. Canada's 20th century social system was also based on maintaining social stability through mass property ownership, which is now breaking down as unrestrained property speculation is displacing any kind of productive investments (while also ending the possibility of that mass property ownership in the near future). Sorry to bring the negativity but I feel as a whole that Canadians are much too tolerant of institutional dysfunction (in the manner of the classic "Canadian nice") and think our society is far more advanced than it actually is. It's a completely complacent and naive culture that is quickly being left in the dust by more functional systems.
- TMWNN 4mo ago
  >Canada is not an infrastructure “joke.” It is a country with some world-class delivery organizations operating inside a political system that too often destroys continuity. >As a Canadian, I think Canada’s primary hurdle is not a lack of engineering competence, but rather political volatility. >Another comment I'd make is that the Carney government is only just a bit more than one year old. I know that Liberals since early 2025 have done their best to pretend that Justin Trudeau never existed, but one would think by your words that the Carney regime succeeded one of another party, as opposed to the Liberals in 2025 forming their fourth consecutive federal government, after 2021, 2019, and 2015.
badc0ffee 4mo ago
Federal funding for the green line was announced in 2015, and IIRC they originally predicted a 2026 opening date for branches covering the north and south of the city - street running in the north central part and a bit in Seton, a short tunnel downtown, and dedicated ROW elsewhere. This was back when planners were still really into streetcars/trams. The funding mix was supposed to be $1.5 billion each from the city, province and feds. The city sat on their hands for years, perfecting and re-routing the downtown part[1]. Eventually, the plan was shortened to 16 Ave N to Shepard with a long tunnel downtown. The city ordered $100s of millions of low-floor trains, incompatible with the existing ones, necessitating building a new maintenance facility. The cost at this point was $5.something billion. Then, in 2020, the provincial government put a "pause" on the project. When it came back to life, costs had increased dramatically, and the city came out with a modified plan the (the $6.8 billion stub train from downtown to Lynnwood). The province then threatened to pull their part of the funding, and commissioned a new downtown segment plan that advocated for elevated downtown, and nothing north of there. Today? We are building the original truncated south phase to Shepard (by 2031!), but not the downtown part. The city is still debating what's going to happen downtown, dismissing elevated. They are hearing from office building and parking lot owners who are worried about its effect on property values, but I think they are also rejecting any ideas from the province on principle. About the only positive thing I can say is that the project is tangibly under construction now, with actual bridges over roadways done or nearly complete. I blame the city (both planners and elected officials) and the province in that order, but mostly the city. [1] One positive thing to come from that is the routing in Inglewood/Ramsay and 26 Ave SE that avoids taking down heritage buildings and destroying a vital community corridor.
- bluefirebrand 4mo ago
  > Today? We are building the original truncated south phase to Shepard (by 2031!), I know, I live by the Shepard station location by the Canadian Tire. Since 2020 they managed to put up a nice sign > We are building the original truncated south phase to Shepard (by 2031!) Yeah. 16 years after the federal funding was announced We have to do better than this. :/ > I blame the city (both planners and elected officials) and the province in that order, but mostly the city Me too don't worry

p2detar 4mo ago

To my surprise Canada are actually quite ahead with the Darlington New Nuclear Project. There is a construction site [0] with work taking place. Not sure how Kairos Power are progressing in the USA. Nice job, Canada. 0 - https://www.neimagazine.com/news/darlington-smr-secures-financing https://www.neimagazine.com/news/darlington-smr-secures-fina...

preisschild 4mo ago
Unfortunately its just a small boiling water reactor. More capacity is needed in most parts of the world. Lager reactors are needed.
- chollida1 4mo ago
  I mean, Ontario runs the Bruce nuclear plant which is the second largest in the world in terms of the power it generates at 6,610 MW, Japan gets the top nod with a plant that generates 7,965 MW.
  - manquer 4mo ago
    Kashiwazaki-Kariwa ? It has been not in full commercial service for close to two decades now. Only one unit recently restarted this year. 6 units are offline now There are two South Korean plants (Kori, Hangul) larger than Bruce
    - chollida1 4mo ago
      You could be right about the Korean plants. I only relied on google to give me the top 5 nuclear plants active in the world. The Korean plants you mention were not on the list.
      - manquer 4mo ago
        Wikpedia has more info, plus WNN and other industry publications usually are more up-to date. Kori[1] has 7 operational units today and 1 commissioning and 1 under construction Hansul[2] has 8 operational units and another 2 more under construction. All 4 new units are APR-1400 reactors ~1400 MW capacity. Kori should retains its top position, Saeul-3 in Kori Phase II has already reached criticality in April. Tianwan in China will come close but its 7/8 units are slightly behind in construction than Saeul-3/4 in South Korea, plus the plant is also bit smaller at 6600MW now . The Russian VVER-1200 design China are using is also slightly smaller than Korean APR-1400. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kori_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kori_Nuclear_Power_Plant [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanul_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanul_Nuclear_Power_Plant

_aavaa_ 4mo ago

Title is misleading, they want to start building not “build” (I.e. be operational). Though that only moves the needles from impossible to laughable. > If our goal is to double our grid and build a low-carbon economy in less than 25 years, there is no credible plan to do that without nuclear energy There are plenty of credible plans, they all involve wind and solar. But as anyone watching clean energy news will know, Alberta is trying its hardest to get rid of all wind and solar development from the province. As for the baseload argument, they already get >60% of the electricity from hydro and nuclear. How much more baseload do you really need? 100%?

hodder 4mo ago
The claim that Alberta is actively trying to get rid of all wind and solar development is internet hyperbole that ignores real capacity data. Alberta actually ranks second in Canada for clean energy growth, and its renewable output surged by over 25% year-over-year into 2026. The high-profile project cancellations people point to weren't a government ban. They happened because the province changed its transmission rules. Previously, ratepayers subsidized the massive utility costs required to connect remote wind and solar farms to the central grid. The province ended this, forcing private developers to internalize their own grid connection costs. Once forced to pay for their own infrastructure, highly speculative, unfinanced projects simply became economically unviable and dropped out of the queue. If a private wind or solar developer wanted to build a massive farm in a remote, rural area (like Southern Alberta) where land is cheap but high-voltage power lines do not exist, they only had to pay for the immediate wire connecting their project to the nearest local substation. Taxpayers were subsidizing those players, because it was a "load pays" system. Please do not fall pray to the general trope that Alberta is a backwards hillbilly province. Subsidizing private developments with public money is not something that should be encouraged. On Canada broadly, you are correct in your baseload numbers and I agree with you. (Energy trader here)
- actionfromafar 4mo ago
  > Subsidizing private developments with public money is not something that should be encouraged. What other kind of subsidy is there?

chollida1 4mo ago

Makes alot of sense. Canada has: - one of the largest uranium reserves - a well respected and safe nuclear design in CANDU - experience with building and refurbishing nuclear reactors(Darlington) and for Ontario itself A need for more baseload to work with the large amount of solar and wind that Ontario has added in the last 10 years. Saskatchewan also now has a potential need for nuclear for industrial use now that wasn't present before from its existing population. if the government can clear the red tape by using a well tested reactor design then they could certainly get some of these reactors built in that time frame. 15 seems...ambitions, but if we're going to spend at a federal level this is probably one of the better things to invest in.

kasey_junk 4mo ago
Will Alberta go along?
- jleyank 4mo ago
  Will Alberta go (away)? If/when the price of crude goes back down, they'll feel the cash crunch. Curiously, if they leave Canada, they need a path through a foreign country to get their oil out of Alberta.
  - TMWNN 4mo ago
    Alberta needs a pathway through a foreign country to get their oil out right now. Existing pipelines lead to the US, and the Keystone XL expansion Obama halted, Trump resumed, and Biden halted. An independent Alberta will likely join the US, and of course building a domestic-only pipeline is easier than doing so across national borders.
    - jleyank 4mo ago
      Alberta ships through BC now and I think they’ve gone from half to full capacity. That profit might not survive Hormuz opening and unfortunately much of it leaves Canada.

sleepyguy 4mo ago

Should look at the the historical record and consider the scale of cost overruns and delays that major nuclear projects have experienced. While everyone involved may have good intentions, the reality is that these projects often end up costing significantly more and taking much longer than originally projected. Wind and solar could be deployed for a fraction of the proposed $100 billion investment and should be considered as part of the interim solution, while nuclear remains a long-term strategic project. Rather than pursuing such an ambitious build out, a more practical approach might be to scale back the plan and focus on constructing one reactor each in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba as an initial phase.

preisschild 4mo ago
> Should look at the the historical record and consider the scale of cost overruns and delays that major nuclear projects have experienced. While everyone involved may have good intentions, the reality is that these projects often end up costing significantly more and taking much longer than originally projected. Canada has also regularly refurbished their CANDU reactors, which are large multi year projects. And they do it on-time and under budget https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/renewed-bruce-3-back-in-service https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/renewed-bruce-3-...
- sleepyguy 4mo ago
  Historical Ontario Hydro Debt: By the late 1990s, aggressive nuclear builds resulted in $38.1 billion of debt for Ontario Hydro, of which $20.9 billion was stranded. The Bruce A refurbishment in the late 1990s and early 2000s saw five-fold cost overruns. Bruce A was originally projected to cost $0.9 billion but ended up at $1.8 billion. The Bruce B project was budgeted at $3.9 billion and ultimately cost $6 billion. https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/ontarios-costly-nuclear-folly https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/ontarios-costly-... Safety and operational issues also plagued the industry. The four units at Pickering had been shut down because of safety concerns—and then shut down again. By 1993, the performance of the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station, located on the shores of Lake Huron, had drastically declined. In 1997, Ontario Hydro announced that it would temporarily shut down its oldest seven reactors. By that time, the escalating costs of the newest reactors at the Darlington site were already a cautionary tale. Originally billed in 1978 at $3.9 billion the final cost in 1993 had more than tripled to $14.4 billion (1993 dollars).

whh 4mo ago

Hopefully this will kick Australia into gear.

tuna74 4mo ago
Australia is really good for solar, why build nuclear?
- echelon 4mo ago
  Why not have a diverse set of energy inputs so your energy economy isn't fragile? Some black swan event could kill solar. Maybe some mega volcano explodes. It would suck to be 50+% dependent on it in that case. We should have wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, hydro, tidal, and even fossil fuels. We should have a total capacity in greater abundance than what we have today so that we can grow.
  - SugarReflex 4mo ago
    Great answer, also I imagine that in terms of space, one nuclear reactor would be equivalent to 10 square KM of solar panels (or something like that)
    - davewasthere 4mo ago
      One thing we're not short of here in Australia is space. And sunshine. I'm not opposed to nuclear in the mix though. It's pretty incredible. And the South Koreans have done a pretty awesome job in the UAE with their reactors it sounds like. If you're comparing nuclear reactors with solar panels though (which is tricky), depends which metric you go for. If total annual output? Then up it by almost an order of magnitude. 100km2+ would be needed to produce the same annual output as a 1GW at 90% nuclear station. But we've a ton of land, so it makes a lot of sense.
      - fc417fc802 4mo ago
        I think you're off by an order of magnitude there. Intensity should be somewhere between 150 to 300 watts per sq meter per 24 hours. At 200 watts per sq meter that works out to 5 sq km. Estimating 50% panel efficiency that's 10 sq km. To hit 100 sq km at 50% panel efficiency would mean averaging 20 watts per sq meter (obviously wrong). Even assuming a paltry 10% panel efficiency would only get you to 100 watts per sq meter.

fsuts 4mo ago

I’m not Canadian so news to me that Canada has built nuclear plants around the world. As in the UK we were previously asking a French-Chinese partnership to build here so not sure why Canada didn’t get chosen for that.

crypttales 4mo ago
Because the Candu is insanely expensive.
HerbManic 4mo ago
So France and Canada both build nuclear plants. Must be something in the french language that makes folks just want to do the cool stuff. If it is anything like all my french cookware, it will be done wonderfully.
- badc0ffee 4mo ago
  This analysis is missing that Quebec doesn't have any nuclear plants. (Although NB has one, which counts for half?)
  - applied_heat 4mo ago
    Quebec has one they shut it down, hydro Quebec is a hydro power company not a nuclear power company
  - HerbManic 4mo ago
    Well there goes that theory.
  - olalonde 4mo ago
    AtkinsRéalis (fka SNC-Lavalin) does build nuclear reactors and is headquartered in Montreal[0]. [0] https://www.atkinsrealis.com/en/markets-and-services/markets/nuclear https://www.atkinsrealis.com/en/markets-and-services/markets...
    - 4mo ago

BIGFOOT_EXISTS 4mo ago

Can't wait for this to get bogged down in legislation and never get done

Plasmoid 4mo ago
That might take a while. We need to bog down the HSR first.

preisschild 4mo ago

CANDUs are cool, hope to see more in the world

credit_guy 4mo ago
I love nuclear reactors and CANDU are quite cool. But I don't think that today we have any reasons to build CANDU reactors, except possibly that Canada can demonstrate they can build them for cheaper than others can build light water reactors. The ability to build is something that has little to do with the technical merits of a nuclear reactor design. But all things being equal, a PWR or a BWR should cost less per GW than a CANDU reactor and have other advantages too: - main problem with CANDU: proliferation. India was able to build nuclear weapons after using a Canadian built heavy water reactor (basically a CANDU reactor) [1]. There is no guarantee that another country will not try something similar in the future, the design has no built in proliferation resistance. An operator can remove irradiated fuel at any time, and if the IAEA discovers they engage in plutonium manufacturing and they get on a black list, they can manufacture their own fuel quite easily, because CANDU uses non-enriched uranium. With light water reactors, you need enriched fuel, so if you are flagged as a proliferator no fuel manufacturer will be allowed to sell you fuel, and it's going to be much harder for you to manufacture your own fuel, since you can't enrich. If you can enrich uranium, you might as well try to build a uranium bomb (like Iran is trying to do). Also, with light water reactors, you refuel only at discrete times, generally about 18 months apart, so it is much more difficult to extract lightly irradiated fuel without being caught by the IAEA. Now some less important problems: - because CANDU uses non-enriched uranium, it produces much more nuclear waste per GWh compared to light water reactors. Nuclear waste is not the boogeyman nuclear anti-advocates make it to be, but still, if you generate 5-10 times more nuclear waste than the mainstream alternatives, it is less than ideal. - there is one positive reactivity feedback loop in a CANDU design. Because of that CANDU designs are not licenseable in the US. The Canadian nuclear regulator is comfortable that the design is stable [2], but if you can choose between a design with one positive feedback loop and one without any positive feedback loop, why would you choose the first? - heavy water is a worse moderator than light water (by a large factor). It [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Nuclear_weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_and_weapons_of_mass_dest... [2] https://www.cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca/eng/resources/research/safety-analysis/positive-void-coefficient-of-reactivity-candus/ https://www.cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca/eng/resources/research/safety-an...

NuclearPM 4mo ago

We are trying.

mig39 4mo ago

A nuclear reactor in the Alberta Oil sands would take care of a large amount of the CO2 produced in the production of crude.

_aavaa_ 4mo ago
Doesn’t help with the burning part. Or the stranded infrastructure once the demand goes away.
- speed_spread 4mo ago
  Demand will not go away. There'll be toxic waste to clean up for decades after.
- bonesss 4mo ago
  Nuclear process heat in refining would enable releasing less CO2 per fuel-unit. It doesn’t solve burning directly, but reduces the impact of what is going to happen anyways.
theeyescanner 4mo ago
[flagged]
- bluefirebrand 4mo ago
  Absolutely ridiculous that I was down voted and flagged for some mild griping about the state of my province's inability to execute on infrastructure projects, but offhand jokes (I hope it's a joke) about nuking my home is completely fine? :/
  - jibal 4mo ago
    Ridiculous whataboutism. What makes you think that anyone thought that it's completely fine? The comment is dead.
    - 4mo ago

panny 4mo ago

Isn't it interesting? Now that power generation is seen as the deciding factor between who wins/loses AI, nuclear is back on the table again.

martinbfine 4mo ago

[dead]

shevy-java 4mo ago
This is a problem that can be handled. Finland handles this pretty well IMO as one example. Also Canada is huge. That means lots of potential places (most Canadians live on the southern parts, close to the US border).
crypttales 4mo ago
If there's something Canada has in excess it's water and storage space.
postalrat 4mo ago
The sun uses much more water on earth than people do.
gucci-on-fleek 4mo ago
> But what do they do with the waste? The Canadian Shield [0] is uniquely well-suited for this: it's remote, sparsely populated, and geologically stable. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Shield https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Shield
- martinbfine 4mo ago
  [dead]
delecti 4mo ago
Leaving aside that Canada is huge, waste is really just not that much of a problem. It would be easy to safely store all the waste that will ever be produced at a dedicated storage site, if you could drum up the political will for such a site to exist. But really, it's even easier to just store it all on-site. Not that much waste is produced; stick it in a cask and leave it alone.
- theeyescanner 4mo ago

patmcc 4mo ago

Oh my god, yes, please. It should be 100 over the next 10 years but this is a great start. We should be cranking these out and building cities in the north with clean unlimited power.

II2II 4mo ago
Every time I see something interesting about nuclear power, comments like this pop up. Which makes me skittish. We need responsible growth. We need to acknowledge that there is no magic bullet for power generation, just managed risks. We need to acknowledge that those risks exist for all power sources, to varying degrees, and take different forms (whether it is the environmental impact or reliability of the power grid).
- patmcc 4mo ago
  I was being a little flippant there - but I think we've gone way too far in the "nuclear is risky" direction, largely because of Chernobyl, which was a) a very specific disaster caused by a perfect storm of bad decisions and bad luck and b) not that deadly. In the US about as many people die every year due to coal pollution as have yet (or will ever) die because of Chernobyl. About the same number die in Europe every year because of a lack of AC. Those are just invisible risks that we accept already and we need to start seeing them.
  - x______________ 4mo ago
    Don't forget Fukushima! I'm all down with spamming nuclear plants but will that, in the end, give free electricity to the consumer? Lower the rates? ..or just continue to be an economic weapon against the masses?

thelonelyborg 4mo ago

would be good

shevy-java 4mo ago

Canada needs its own nuclear arsenal. Relying on Trump or any other clown, makes no more sense.

crypttales 4mo ago
Well those online refueling channels look mighty interesting don't they?

cmrdporcupine 4mo ago

The Ontario government is terrible at creating a structure which is capable of finishing any infrastructure project on time ...(see Eglinton Crosstown) and mostly seems to work as a funnel for moving public funds through public-private-partnerships to feed contractor/consultant income for projects that grow to many multiples of their time and budget. So, yeah, it makes sense that they love nuclear now -- blank cheque to drag on for multidecades over budget. Likely the right people donated the right funds to the PC party and/or attended/funded Ford Fest The first thing this government did when it got into power was pay out hundreds of millions in penalties for cancelling large wind projects, and for breaching its contract and exiting the cap and trade agreement with California and Quebec. Ford loves to waste money and then wag his finger about how everyone else is fiscally irresponsible.

stackghost 4mo ago
Nuclear industry in Canada is federally-regulated, not provincial.
- cmrdporcupine 4mo ago
  The regulation of it is an entirely different thing from the budgeting and promotion of it. Promotion of nuclear power has become a very vocal Ford government thing in the last few months.
wmoxam 4mo ago
Darlington nuclear refurbishment finished ahead of schedule and under budget https://canada.constructconnect.com/dcn/news/projects/2026/02/deep-dive-the-high-stakes-12-8b-darlington-refurb https://canada.constructconnect.com/dcn/news/projects/2026/0...
- tempest_ 4mo ago
  Yeah the last decade of Nuclear work is the ONE thing that they have been successful at wrt to project planning. Hopefully that expertise is well placed to execute on these other projects.

zuzululu 4mo ago

From what I've seen out of Canada, this is likely overly optimistic and probably will not be possible in that time frame. I think it's better to just outsource it to Koreans at least that way you can stay on budget and on time.

ungreased0675 4mo ago

This is great. Hopefully they can make enough to supply the US energy. Because we seem to be incapable of building new reactors.

fastball 4mo ago
Microreactor initiatives in the US are at least promising.

motohagiography 4mo ago

new micro reactor tech makes this much more appealing. We probably don't need Darlington scale plants, we just need a capacity to add new ones. Diversifying the ownership and management of them would also improve the economic benefits. We would need a leverage cap on securitization of energy as debt collateral. Something akin to banking leverage limits of 10-20x for them to be operated responsibly. We should have more nuclear, but they should be run for profit to hold them to account instead of massively indebting them to create public sector crony slush funds the way the current hydroelectric system has been run into the ground.

pfdietz 4mo ago
Micro reactors have micro markets. The diseconomies of scale kill it for general grid power.
- motohagiography 4mo ago
  that's a philosophical view. We don't want a single grid, we want power in places we need it. Building for a single grid has a bunch of expensive opinions that serve mainly to provide a control layer instead of serving the basic economic need. A micro reactor can practically fund itself on model training, data processing, and cryptocurrencies, and where it can't there is actual usage.

slicktux 4mo ago

That’s great news ! Have they also solved the nuclear waste problem? Honest question; here in the USA we have not.

measurablefunc 4mo ago
Something for future generations to figure out with their AI chatbots.
thfuran 4mo ago
It's not really a problem. The alternative is to grind it up into fine dust, spray it into the air, and call it "clean coal".
- fsh 4mo ago
  That would poison the entire country. Nuclear waste is many many orders of magnitude more radioactive than coal per energy generated. The meme about coal emitting more radiation comes from a 1970s paper that compared radioactive emissions and found them to be on the same order of magnitude between a BWR and an unfiltered coal power plant.
- fennecbutt 4mo ago
  Excuse me that's "beautiful clean coal" I still can't believe that you guys actually chose him as president.
Moldoteck 4mo ago
Yes, canada aproved repository site. Similar to Onkalo

anotheraccount9 4mo ago

Hopefully, Canada will not get bullied by US for selling it cheaply.

newsclues 4mo ago
Who else can Canada sell excess power to?
- boringg 4mo ago
  Hydrolysis.
- 1over137 4mo ago
  No one else I guess. But they could use it themselves, building whatever plants/factories/server farms needed to use it.

Jedd 4mo ago

Perhaps relevant. 2005 ish - UK government release energy strategy and declares fission power plant intent. 2010 ish - UK government formally announces Hinkley Point site. It's declared the first reactor will come online 2019. 2019 - it does not. 2026 - best estimate is now 'around 2030'. Historical cost estimates are an utter quagmire - but roughly estimated at £18 billion a decade ago, back when it was estimated to be online last year. Current estimates - bring your own hubris - are roughly £46 billion. This story has been beaten to death, I know - but recall, this is a country with some history of building and operating nuclear fission power plants, with convenient (2h by rail) access to a lot of expertise from France, and it's a joint-venture with China General Nuclear Power Group so presumably plenty of expertise to draw upon there.

gottorf 4mo ago
These day's it's a common problem in all of the Anglosphere, but it does seem especially bad in the UK; they appear to have just given up the ability to build literally anything.
- locallost 4mo ago
  They're not building anything. The French are building it and doing a terrible job for the third time straight. Flamanville at home, Olkiluoto in Finland and now Hinkley.
Moldoteck 4mo ago
Also relevant - all recent Canadian refurbs were on time and budget
- Jedd 4mo ago
  When you say 'all' - is that five? Since 1999?
  - Moldoteck 4mo ago
    I mean these https://www.opg.com/news-resources/newsroom/our-stories/story/darlington-refurb-construction-completed-ahead-of-schedule-under-budget/ https://www.opg.com/news-resources/newsroom/our-stories/stor... https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/1007558/ontario-delivers-record-setting-nuclear-refurbishment-at-bruce-ahead-of-schedule-and-under-budget https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/1007558/ontario-delivers-...

rangestransform 4mo ago

Maybe this would’ve made economic sense 20 or 40 years ago, but nuclear is too expensive now compared with renewables. I can’t help but think this is a covert plan to bcecome an “almost nuclear” state in response to threats from the US.

Moldoteck 4mo ago
depends if you like gas/coal or not https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/DE/live/fifteen_minutes https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/DE/live/fifteen_min...

kvakerok 4mo ago

The idea is great, the timeline is super unrealistic. We'll see those reactors in 2070 the earliest, more likely in 2080.

ok_dad 4mo ago

[flagged]

deadbabe 4mo ago

Society grows great when old men build nuclear plants whose power they will never get to enjoy.

_heimdall 4mo ago

Interesting to see the general opinion on nuclear swing so far from environmental and safety concerns (whether warranted or not) to pretty broad support for energy independence. I can't help but think its a sign that those concerns were easy to hold when energy was cheap and you could actually trust your neighbors. If that's the case, again huge speculation, it sure makes the concerns feel a bit hollow now.

jibal 4mo ago
From the article: "If our goal is to double our grid and build a low-carbon economy in less than 25 years, there is no credible plan to do that without nuclear energy and the clean, reliable baseload power it provides," Reduction in burning carbon and producing greenhouses is the number one concern of environmentalists and is a major driver of the increased acceptability of nuclear power production, especially if safety concerns are met. Also from the article: > Unlike most other nuclear reactors, Candu reactors don't require enriched uranium. Ottawa says Western allies are turning away from Russia, one of the world's key suppliers of enriched uranium. The problem of course is that safety has costs and people cut corners, leading to events like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima.
- b112 4mo ago
  Reduction in burning carbon and producing greenhouses is the number one concern of environmentalists Is it? Nothing is more environmentally friendly than hydroelectric dams. In Canada, there are endless rivers to dam, while also leaving endless rivers undammed. Further, damming a river doesn't destroy nature, it does however turn a river into a lake. Over the years it takes to build and complete the project, including the initial flooding, some species leave, new species take their place, and a healthy ecosystem remains. Yet dams are attacked with a ferocity in this country, as if somehow having a dam is worse than a coal power plant. And while nuclear is great, we're therefore left with nuclear power, and all the outcome if that goes wrong, because using 0.0000001% of our rivers to build a few more dams, is "bad" for the environment. Canada is massive. I'm sure someone will want to reply with how horrible dams are, the concrete and carbon cost of concrete. Yet what's really the problem is that some want nothing ever built. Not a single method of new power generation, ever. And so? This is what we end up with. Nuclear it is.

brikym 4mo ago

It's obvious to me there will be a renaisance, but the question is which design will win. There are so many companies building small modular reactors right and various different designs with different fuels and cooling mediums. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_small_modular_reactor_designs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_small_modular_reactor_...

TurdF3rguson 4mo ago

I wonder if anyone will tell them that's an oxymoron.

gaiagraphia 4mo ago

Always thought it was weird that the Commonwealth Realm nations had never pooled resources to have standardised reactor designs and expertise. Canada and Australia have loads of uranium - seems like an obvious strategic move. Instead, the UK turns to China, lol.

woodpanel 4mo ago

[flagged]

Animats 4mo ago

OK, so when does the first one come online? "The strategy calls for construction to start on two new large-scale reactors by 2035, for five more to be planned or under development by 2040 and for at least one reactor to be under construction outside Ontario by 2035." That's not serious. Construction start is too far away.

epistasis 4mo ago
Ok, I was kind of excited about this, until you pointed out the dates. Of all Western developed countries, Canada is pretty much the last hope for a country with the skills to build nuclear at something that's within spitting distance of being economical. The US and France have shat the bed royally over the past two decades, they're out of the game of construction competence. The UK stopped doing their own and outsourced to overpriced and unreasonable French reactors, that are only going forward with what be massive amounts of corruption in order to justify such expensive energy when there's cheaper batteries + offshore wind. Finland had France build them a reactor, and wisely negotiated a fixed price up front, and the construction overruns bankrupted the French company which is now really French in the sense that it bankrupted itself on Olkiluoto and had to be nationalized in the name of national security. That leaves Canada, with their famous CANDU reactors and can-do attitudes. But 9 years of planning before construction? Perhaps that's what's actually needed, and they'll have a chance of actually constructing it in five years, but.... super super doubtful. Canada, do not fall into the same trap as the rest of the nuclear frauds in the Western world. Five years for construction? Don't kid yourselves, even China breaks ridiculous timelines like that, and as good as you are, Canada, you're no China when it comes to massive massive construction projects. Just look at how hard it is to build in Vancouver, for example...
- Animats 4mo ago
  China's current plan: Since the country’s first Hualong One unit came online in 2021, 6 additional units have begun commercial operation, 16 units are under construction, and 18 units have received government approval in China. According to the CNNC, the Hualong One will become the country’s mainstream type of third-generation thermal reactor by 2030. The Hualong One is a successor of the Westinghouse AP1000. The US has two of those operational, at Vogtle. Then Westinghouse Nuclear went bankrupt. China has four operational. All later units in China are Hualong One units or later designs. These are all classic pressurized water reactors, all about 1 gigawatt. Nothing exotic here. The technology is known and works well.

arjie 4mo ago

These are a bunch of contradictory quotes. We'll have to wait till NRCan or whatever comes up with a real plan. "Up to 10 reactors built by 2040" doesn't really match "two new large-scale reactors by 2035, for five more to be planned or under development by 2040 and for at least one reactor to be under construction outside Ontario by 2035". Like, what is that. "planned or under development" seems like a big "or". Like how BART has 1500 lines completed or described in concepts online.

jgord 4mo ago

Im surprised they haven't doubled down on deep drill geothermal.

jgord 4mo ago
not least because of the bureaucratic delays making nuclear slow to roll out.

lo_fye 4mo ago

So we're willing to put our greatest national asset (the environment) at risk in the name of "moar power". Well that's just great. I hope Jimmy Carter's ghost will be just as willing to help us out the next time a reactor goes into meltdown as his physical self was the first time that happened. RIP Jimmy Carter.

beloch 4mo ago

>Unlike most other nuclear reactors, Candu reactors don't require enriched uranium. Ottawa says Western allies are turning away from Russia, one of the world's key suppliers of enriched uranium. Even if Canada winds up relying more on CANDU reactors than SMR's, there is a case to be made for enriching domestically. There are a lot of potential customers looking for a reliable, ethical supplier. Canada has the raw minerals, political stability, and a long record of refusing to weaponize despite having the capability.

Moldoteck 4mo ago
Enrichment is already more or less done by Orano and Urenco. They could expand faster if assured that EU bans russian imports

totetsu 4mo ago

The Decouple podcast has taught me more about the Canadian Nuclear industry than I ever wanted to know. https://www.decouple.media/ https://www.decouple.media/

AugustusCrunch 4mo ago

Alberta has energy. Canada wants energy without Alberta. The Candu reactor program is so defunct that the feds have been trying to sell it for about a decade. Candu makes plutonium and was responsible for a lot of nuclear weapons proliferation in the 1980s, but again, Candu isn't Alberta. Also it's a way to spend an enormous amount of money, and Canada isn't quite bankrupt yet. I say go for it.

anon-3988 4mo ago

I am baffled why Canada don't have massive data centres yet? It is cold with abundant water and energy. Why not?

mentalgear 4mo ago

[flagged]

GL26 4mo ago

10 new reactos by 2040 is huge when you come to think of it, this is just in 14 years, this is about 0.72 reactors built each year. Knowing you need to build : the whole reactor building, the machines building, the whole plumbery system, the electrical system, the control command system, the reactor, reliability features, and all of that knowing you have to pass the nuclear regulation authorities controls.

kioleanu 4mo ago
Hopefully it will go better than the last time someone had such an ambitious plan with nuclear plants

lasky 4mo ago

to begin in 2035, eh? just join the US already

tmellon2 4mo ago

Totally unnecessary : I did the Math to cross-verify - Elon Musk is 100 % right ! Just ONE square mile of batteries and a TOTAL of 100 x 100 square miles of Solar can power the entire USA 24/7. Area required will be much lesser for Canada. See : https://finance.yahoo.com/sectors/energy/articles/elon-musk-says-only-100-140103053.html https://finance.yahoo.com/sectors/energy/articles/elon-musk-...

fennecbutt 4mo ago
How convenient for Musk that technology connections did this exact topic and these exact calculations (and much more) as a topic months and months ago: https://youtu.be/KtQ9nt2ZeGM?is=wOjIwPKFuYj2Smrh https://youtu.be/KtQ9nt2ZeGM?is=wOjIwPKFuYj2Smrh Why up Musk? Is he your primary source of news and ideas?

MeteorMarc 4mo ago

Lets see if there will be any private investments unless gov guarantees fixed minimum price of MWh.

hitanshu326 4mo ago

[dead]

WhereIsTheTruth 4mo ago

That's fire! pun intended, IYKYK Jokes aside, Canada is well positioned to lead a nuclear renaissance, now that they have easy access to raw materials, easy access to cooling facilities and they can export surplus to energy hungry neighbor, it also makes it a good candidate for hosting lots of datacenters

Geee 4mo ago

Are we finally re-entering the Atomic Age? It seems that the Soviets extended the Oil Age by about 40 years, by blowing up the Chernobyl plant in 1986.

rireads 4mo ago

Did people really forget just how much nuclear power sucks? Storage may not be a problem now but that's pushing the problem onto future generations yet again

Moldoteck 4mo ago
it doesnt suck as much as fossils https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/DE/live/fifteen_minutes https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/DE/live/fifteen_min...

stefantalpalaru 4mo ago

[dead]

4b11b4 4mo ago

The beginning of Shinra?