Canadian Federal Election

[WarrenC12]

What is the forecasted capital and operating cost of these SMRs, or any new Nuclear these days? I think it's just too expensive. Solar + battery keeps getting better and cheaper.

[Marty_Mcfly]

Originally Posted by travis3000

Ain't no way the CPC is picking up seats in Atlantic Canada. They won 8 seats in 2021 and the vote split was :

LPC= 43.5%
CPC= 31.5%
NDP= 16.9%

With NDP polling under 7% in all polls in Atlantic Canada that benefits the Libs.

There's a 12 point difference between LPC and CPC in the 2021 election results. Like you just pointed out, the average is now 20 points. The LPC will most definitely be picking up seats should the 20% average hold.

I open the potential for them picking up seats based on the stuff that polling averages miss. The Liberals have likely increased its vote share across all 32 districts by some amount, and so have the conservatives. But the increase is not likely uniform for each party across all districts.

My case in point: Long Range Mountains. A uniform swing would dictate that the Liberals are about 12 points ahead there. However, the local dynamics do tell a bit of a different story. The Liberals botched their nomination process and have a very unpopular nominee running there. The Conservatives have a very strong candidate who was within grasp of winning in 2021 had it not been for PPC vote split.

This is the kind of dynamic that can lead to election night surprises. Much like how in 2021 places like 338 had Coast of Bays listed as a "likely LPC hold" with the LPC +13 over the CPC, only for the Conservatives to squeak out a victory.

Now if the CPC were polling down around 2015 numbers in the region (20%) then there's no hope as that's an indication of a lack of strength in the region as a whole. But if they're polling above their 2021 numbers then there is room for areas of strength that may not be obvious.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

What is the forecasted capital and operating cost of these SMRs, or any new Nuclear these days? I think it's just too expensive. Solar + battery keeps getting better and cheaper.

There aren't many examples, but there's one in development in Utah. "NuScale and the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) announced costs of a 462-megawatt small modular reactor (SMR) have risen dramatically. As recently as mid-2021, the target price for power was pegged at $58 per megawatt-hour (MWh); it’s risen to $89/MWh, a 53% increase. The price would be much higher without $4 billion federal tax subsidies that include a $1.4 billion U.S. Department of Energy contribution and a $30/MWh break from the Inflation Reduction Act. The higher target price is due to a 75% increase in the estimated construction cost for the project, from $5.3 to $9.3 billion dollars". That's in in 2022 dollars.

Compare that to the battery storage in association with solar farms, already under construction in the same state.

[WarrenC12]

Yeah those aren't great numbers. I have little reason to believe we could execute a large scale project like that on a similar budget.

[bodaggin]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

The nuclear waste issue is overblown (you just need to bury it deep).

Vitrification.

People also forget that 95% of nuclear waste is reusable! The French have been doing it for decades in Orano La Hague. Throwing away spent fuel is very wasteful. Recycle and reuse the 95%. Vitrify the 5% of actual waste and launch it to some barren moon.

As for SMR's, Kaleidos, is the most interesting one I've seen so far. Canada should be pushing micro reactor startups and manufacturing to grow this industry. Every new cargo-ship in the world will be powered by nuclear micro-reactors like Kaleidos.

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by Marty_Mcfly

Now if the CPC were polling down around 2015 numbers in the region (20%) then there's no hope as that's an indication of a lack of strength in the region as a whole. But if they're polling above their 2021 numbers then there is room for areas of strength that may not be obvious.

The CPC is polling above their 2015 numbers. The big problem is the Liberals are also polling above their 2015 numbers. The Liberals are going to wind up having 200 seats, compared to the Conservatives 115-20.

As a result, the Party will break into two, with the moderates leaving to form their own party.

[travis3000]

Originally Posted by Marty_Mcfly

I open the potential for them picking up seats based on the stuff that polling averages miss. The Liberals have likely increased its vote share across all 32 districts by some amount, and so have the conservatives. But the increase is not likely uniform for each party across all districts.

My case in point: Long Range Mountains. A uniform swing would dictate that the Liberals are about 12 points ahead there. However, the local dynamics do tell a bit of a different story. The Liberals botched their nomination process and have a very unpopular nominee running there. The Conservatives have a very strong candidate who was within grasp of winning in 2021 had it not been for PPC vote split.

This is the kind of dynamic that can lead to election night surprises. Much like how in 2021 places like 338 had Coast of Bays listed as a "likely LPC hold" with the LPC +13 over the CPC, only for the Conservatives to squeak out a victory.

Now if the CPC were polling down around 2015 numbers in the region (20%) then there's no hope as that's an indication of a lack of strength in the region as a whole. But if they're polling above their 2021 numbers then there is room for areas of strength that may not be obvious.

I can see the logic here. Local races can sometimes be outliers to the national trend. I'm sure we will see some surprises on election night. I think a LPC sweep is not realistic, just as much as the CPC winning 10 seats in Atlantic Canada isn't realistic either. My guess is the LPC will win 26-28 seats VS 4-6 for the CPC. That's based on the race now. Further tightening or a debate fiasco tonight could change this obviously.

If we go into this election federally with a 45%(LPC), 40%(CPC), 8%(NDP), you are going to witness some wild things election night. We have never seen this vote breakdown before with a united left. The NDP was polling at 17-19% in the last three elections. Now 2/3 of their vote has vanished, mostly going to the LPC. I can see the CPC losing many ridings in Ontario with 40-44% support, while the LPC edges them out 45-48% due to the loss of the NDP vote. Same with BC.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

What is the forecasted capital and operating cost of these SMRs, or any new Nuclear these days? I think it's just too expensive. Solar + battery keeps getting better and cheaper.

Sure Solar and battery are both getting cheaper much cheaper. But 2025 prices are vastly higher than other options. If especially battery storage becomes dirt cheap we won't really have any debates about power sources as it will all be wind and solar with storage but that is far far from a proven outcome.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by bodaggin

As for SMR's, Kaleidos, is the most interesting one I've seen so far. Canada should be pushing micro reactor startups and manufacturing to grow this industry. Every new cargo-ship in the world will be powered by nuclear micro-reactors like Kaleidos.

As you note, that's a micro reactor, not an SMR. Very much more limited scale, and so far untested. They hope to get the first test reactor opertational at the Idaho National Laboratory DOME facility in 2026. There are seven other companies developing the same technology, under the US military research program.

There are more developed SMU projects for data centres, in Europe and in the US. Hyundai are already developing a nuclear powered container ship in Korea, but it's also in the design stage, and unproven. If it's built it will use SMU technology, but the output will be greater than the Kaleidos module. There are smaller vessels being considered using several micro reactors, but again, none actually exist (and they're for remote operations, not for regular cargo transportation).

None of these projects have any commercial costs associated with them yet. Meanwhile, in the real world, one of Canada's SMR start-up developers is facing closure if the administrators of its UK parent can't find a buyer.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Sure Solar and battery are both getting cheaper much cheaper. But 2025 prices are vastly higher than other options. If especially battery storage becomes dirt cheap we won't really have any debates about power sources as it will all be wind and solar with storage but that is far far from a proven outcome.

Are they? Did you read the post about the cost of Nuclear? It also takes upwards of a decade to deploy.

I wish nuclear was cheaper and faster, but it just doesn't seem to be. Solar and Wind are winning open bids for electricity around the world with very good pricing.

[Nouvellecosse]

I agree that there's too much opposition to nuclear on the grounds of environmental fears. However, it is not just an issue of where to store or bury the waste. It's also the issue of transporting the waste which is when it's at its most vulnerable to things like accidents and terrorism. Plus there's a fear of nuclear accidents like Fukushima. I think that nuclear accidents aren't as likely with newer systems and especially with the CANDU or similar designs which are resistant to melt downs. The risk with transport is real but it needs to be weighed against the risk of other options which all have risks or downsides of their own. So I wouldn't oppose nuclear for those reasons.

The only thing that makes me skeptical for nuclear as a climate solution is that it's so slow to design and build and is politically fraught for the reasons already mentioned. Whether or not the risks are valid reasons to oppose it, there is a loud contingent who oppose it which means you're going o waste time fighting. So if the goal is a solution that can bypass the fighting over renewables, I'm skeptical this is a solution. Plus, there's also the possibility that new nuclear technology such as thorium is right around the corner so to invest in current technology for something that takes a decade or more before it produces any power is a risk. Risks aren't necessarily deal-breakers, but they need to be considered.

However, nuclear does have one big advantage which is consistency. It can produce energy in pretty much any part of the world in any season, climate, weather, or time of day. That can't be said for most renewables. It's hard to have hydro power in a very flat region or a place without many big, fast, flowing rivers. You need to build big reservoirs which can be environmentally, and sometimes socially, harmful. It's harder to have solar in a cloudy, wet region and it stops at night. It's hard to have wind in a place with calm air. And even if it's usually windy there, calm days can still happen. But a big chunk of these issues can be addressed by improved energy storage technology. Finding ways to store power to keep the supply consistent when the sun goes down, when the wind stops, or the river runs low, etc.

Batteries tend to be very expensive for that, and even as prices drop, there's still competition for battery capacity with other functions like cars. And batteries still have a big environmental footprint even if it's smaller than fossil fuels'. There are lots of other options such as gravity, molten salt, electrolysis, etc. but these need further development and refinement. But if it becomes extremely easy and cheap to store energy, that instantly solves a big chunk of the problem because it unlocks off-peak production capacity. Currently, when we talk about the need for more power generation capacity it's generally peak capacity. But if we could consistently run the power production modes at max 24/7 and simply store the excess power not used during off-peak periods, your total production capacity immediately doubles or even triples. There would be little to no need for nuclear in that case except for niche situations.

[logicbomb]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...ely-to-be-higher-than-forecast-cibc-says

How is immigration and affordability not an issue in this election? It's borderline insanity. You literally have an unaffordability crisis and a horrible economic situation for youth in the labour market.

You look at the "canadaexpressentry" subreddit and you get people blatantly promoting backdoor ways in, including coming in as a student/tfw/visitor, ripping up documents and claiming asylum.

Carney's comments makes it seem like these caps are a temp measure before he ramps up the numbers again. PP is spineless.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Are they? Did you read the post about the cost of Nuclear? It also takes upwards of a decade to deploy.

I wish nuclear was cheaper and faster, but it just doesn't seem to be. Solar and Wind are winning open bids for electricity around the world with very good pricing.

Solar and win are winning bids for marginal Kwhs of energy around the world most of whom have energy costs 3X+ what we have. Those that are building energy infrastructure from scratch are not building solar wind and battery they are building coal+ solar and/or wind.

Electricity is not like other projects. You need a baseload. Producing more KWs than you need at a given hour makes them worthless and unless you want brownouts you need them even on a cloudy windless day.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Sure Solar and battery are both getting cheaper much cheaper. But 2025 prices are vastly higher than other options. If especially battery storage becomes dirt cheap we won't really have any debates about power sources as it will all be wind and solar with storage but that is far far from a proven outcome.

The costs of solar and wind, with battery storage, in Canada, are not 'vastly higher than other options'. Three years ago "Solar and wind already offer competitive or cheaper energy than natural gas generation in Ontario and Alberta (both with and without consideration of carbon pricing), with additional significant cost declines on the horizon." [source]. If solar and wind generation, with battery storage, wasn't a viable alternative, there wouldn't have been as many applications to develop projects across Alberta.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Solar and win are winning bids for marginal Kwhs of energy around the world most of whom have energy costs 3X+ what we have. Those that are building energy infrastructure from scratch are not building solar wind and battery they are building coal+ solar and/or wind.

Electricity is not like other projects. You need a baseload. Producing more KWs than you need at a given hour makes them worthless and unless you want brownouts you need them even on a cloudy windless day.

You're not providing a single source far any of your statements. And battery storage is the reason why cloudy, windless days aren't a major issue.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...ely-to-be-higher-than-forecast-cibc-says

How is immigration and affordability not an issue in this election? It's borderline insanity. You literally have an unaffordability crisis and a horrible economic situation for youth in the labour market.

You look at the "canadaexpressentry" subreddit and you get people blatantly promoting backdoor ways in, including coming in as a student/tfw/visitor, ripping up documents and claiming asylum.

Carney's comments makes it seem like these caps are a temp measure before he ramps up the numbers again. PP is spineless.

All parties have presented increased housing construction as part of their platforms, no?

Immigration numbers are coming down no matter who forms government. They will go back up if and when they need to.

[bodaggin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

As you note, that's a micro reactor, not an SMR. Very much more limited scale, and so far untested.

Yes. Should note, I'm talking about building the industry, not building domestic power stations. The machine that builds the machine. The point of SMR is modularity, to ship abroad. Create an export manufacturing market to boost GDP. Factory produced reactors can hopefully beat the time and cost problems with nuclear (13yrs average to build at $0.20/kwh LCOE).

On solar, commenters are mostly right here. Solar will power 80% of the world that is nearby high sunshine hours. Canada unfortunately isn't. So solar is virtually a no-go in Nordic nations. But for most of the world, it will dominate. Especially since solar panel prices have plunged to $0.10/watt.

On that note, how about Canada getting rid of that 154% Chinese Solar panel tariff. Plz.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by bodaggin

On solar, commenters are mostly right here. Solar will power 80% of the world that is nearby high sunshine hours. Canada unfortunately isn't. So solar is virtually a no-go in Nordic nations. But for most of the world, it will dominate. Especially since solar panel prices have plunged to $0.10/watt.

Solar is being built in Alberta and very economically viable, despite Smith's efforts against it.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by travis3000

I can see the logic here. Local races can sometimes be outliers to the national trend. I'm sure we will see some surprises on election night. I think a LPC sweep is not realistic, just as much as the CPC winning 10 seats in Atlantic Canada isn't realistic either. My guess is the LPC will win 26-28 seats VS 4-6 for the CPC. That's based on the race now. Further tightening or a debate fiasco tonight could change this obviously.

If we go into this election federally with a 45%(LPC), 40%(CPC), 8%(NDP), you are going to witness some wild things election night. We have never seen this vote breakdown before with a united left. The NDP was polling at 17-19% in the last three elections. Now 2/3 of their vote has vanished, mostly going to the LPC. I can see the CPC losing many ridings in Ontario with 40-44% support, while the LPC edges them out 45-48% due to the loss of the NDP vote. Same with BC.

6 seats for CPC in Atlantic Canada would be a polling miss though lumping all the provinces together opens that up a bit. There are often surprises from Atlantic Canada which don't mean much but if that's the result it could be an early sign the Cons will outperform.

[bodaggin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Solar is being built in Alberta and very economically viable, despite Smith's efforts against it.

Believe me, I'm a huge solar bull. But in Nordic winters, its intermittency exacerbates a two-fold problem:

1) Production is lower due to shorter days at high latitudes.
2) Demand is higher due to increased winter heat demand (heat is ~70% of household energy consumption)

So the system gets pinched on both sides of the equation. A dispatchable source is needed to bridge that gap. Or Pumped-Hydro Storage. Both add system cost. Alberta's winner will likely be geothermal. They've got the drilling expertise right there.

Canada's biggest untapped energy resource is Bay Of Fundy tidal. It needs much more exposure. But I'm getting off-thread, sorry.