The Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Floppa]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Anyway, back to the climate emergency.............

I don't understand these Suzuki types who are against carbon capture and the use of any fossil fuels. I couldn't care less if we shut down every windmill and solar power grid and replaced them all with coal and oil and I am being very serious, I don't care.

All I care about is reducing emissions to net-zero planet wide and greatly reduce pollutants but how we get their is completely irrelevant. Mother Nature doesn't give a damn how we do it as long as we do it. As far as I'm concerned, if Shell could come up with a way of using oil to bring our emissions & pollution levels down to net-zero and make trillions in the process then more power to them. If carbon capture of fossil fuel energy production is part of that then who cares?

This is one of the reasons why I am against a nationwide carbon tax. We live in a very diverse country and what may work in one part may not be the best choice in another. As long as the emissions goals are attained by every province who cares how they get there?

Suzuki Gang is also anti-nuclear. Again a stupid take. Not only is nuclear energy very cool (you're literally getting the energy from splitting atoms!), but it has a small footprint compared to solar and wind. And you can compare France (70% nuclear) and Germany (all nuclear plants being decommissioned). Germany has a much dirtier grid, and they're even building new coal plants to replace the nuclear. Anyone who thinks that we're going to not only electrify heating, transportation and industry AND also phase out fossil fuel for electrical generation AND also decommission any nuclear power plants prematurely is in for a wild ride

[GreaterMontréal]

The GFS is seeing a potential historic heat wave starting next week in Southern Quebec and parts of southern Ontario as well. 9 straight days of 90F+. possibility of beating the all time heat record. almost 40 °C, 10 years ago that seems impossible.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Floppa

Suzuki Gang is also anti-nuclear. Again a stupid take. Not only is nuclear energy very cool (you're literally getting the energy from splitting atoms!), but it has a small footprint compared to solar and wind. And you can compare France (70% nuclear) and Germany (all nuclear plants being decommissioned). Germany has a much dirtier grid, and they're even building new coal plants to replace the nuclear. Anyone who thinks that we're going to not only electrify heating, transportation and industry AND also phase out fossil fuel for electrical generation AND also decommission any nuclear power plants prematurely is in for a wild ride

The anti-nuclear stance of the mainstream environmental movement is insane. For most of the the world (places that don't have massive hydro dams) it is the only viable path to large scale clean energy with current technology. There is no way Ontario could have phased out coal in a reasonable length of time without a giant nuclear industry.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Anyway, back to the climate emergency.............

I don't understand these Suzuki types who are against carbon capture and the use of any fossil fuels. I couldn't care less if we shut down every windmill and solar power grid and replaced them all with coal and oil and I am being very serious, I don't care.

All I care about is reducing emissions to net-zero planet wide and greatly reduce pollutants but how we get their is completely irrelevant. Mother Nature doesn't give a damn how we do it as long as we do it. As far as I'm concerned, if Shell could come up with a way of using oil to bring our emissions & pollution levels down to net-zero and make trillions in the process then more power to them. If carbon capture of fossil fuel energy production is part of that then who cares?

This is one of the reasons why I am against a nationwide carbon tax. We live in a very diverse country and what may work in one part may not be the best choice in another. As long as the emissions goals are attained by every province who cares how they get there?

Setting aside the concerns of environmental groups on Carbon capture (and while I don't agree with them, it's clear you don't understand them at all), you seem completely ignorant to the economics here. There's no case at all to reduce emissions without a carbon price. Why exactly would any company build a carbon capture system that costs them money, when there's no penalty to emit?

You also seem to not understand the basic concept of the carbon cycle and how the burning of fossil fuels is upending it. If Shell puts on carbon capture at their refinery, that only captures carbon involved in processing the fuel. It doesn't capture the carbon that comes out of the tailpipe of your car.

All this kind of ignorance that can be easily manipulated is partly why these environmental groups are opposed to funding carbon capture.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The anti-nuclear stance of the mainstream environmental movement is insane.

It's also irrelevant. It's not really stopped nuclear development anywhere. And at least here in Canada, the current federal government is quite pro-nuclear and happy to fund the development of new reactor types like SMRs. Natural Resources Minister Seamus O'Reagan has been pretty outspoken on the need to invest in nuclear and has said net zero can't be achieved without nuclear.

The biggest issue I see for nuclear power remains cost and timelines. Plants tie up billions of dollars for years before delivering a single Watt. Meanwhile, one could construct a solar or wind farm within months of approval and expand as necessary. Return on capital is relatively quick. Combine that with batteries (a moving target as they get better and cheaper every year) and reserves like hydro, and it's easy to see why a lot of utilities simply pass on nuclear and go for some combination of renewables, gas and storage. Costs have to come down substantially for nuclear to compete. I'm not even sure conventional nuclear would be competitive at our $170/tonne in 2030. Maybe SMRs if they are developed by then.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's also irrelevant. It's not really stopped nuclear development anywhere. And at least here in Canada, the current federal government is quite pro-nuclear and happy to fund the development of new reactor types like SMRs. Natural Resources Minister Seamus O'Reagan has been pretty outspoken on the need to invest in nuclear and has said net zero can't be achieved without nuclear.

The biggest issue I see for nuclear power remains cost and timelines. Plants tie up billions of dollars for years before delivering a single Watt. Meanwhile, one could construct a solar or wind farm within months of approval and expand as necessary. Return on capital is relatively quick. Combine that with batteries (a moving target as they get better and cheaper every year) and reserves like hydro, and it's easy to see why a lot of utilities simply pass on nuclear and go for some combination of renewables, gas and storage. Costs have to come down substantially for nuclear to compete. I'm not even sure conventional nuclear would be competitive at our $170/tonne in 2030. Maybe SMRs if they are developed by then.

Solar/wind batter combination does not currently exist at any sort of scale and until it does neither can deliver stable power to the grid.

I agree the anti-nuclear movement in Canada has not gotten as much traction, but it has done enormous damage to the climate in Germany and Japan. Coal is 25% of Germany's electricity, which will go up when they have to close their remaining nuclear by next year. Japan used to get 25% of its electricity from nuclear and now gets 75% from fossil fuels, including 34% from coal. Contrast with nuclear-friendly france which is 80% nuclear and 15% renewable.

[jamincan]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's also irrelevant. It's not really stopped nuclear development anywhere.

I strongly disagree with this statement. While it would be absurdly reductionist to attribute the halt of nuclear power development in large parts of the world (critically US, Germany and Japan) solely to anti-nuclear sentiments, it definitely was a significant factor, if not the most significant factor. I wouldn't attribute the anti-nuclear sentiment to Suzuki-style environmentalists, though, so much as a wider spread opposition to nuclear proliferation and concern (misplaced in most cases) over their safety.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by jamincan

I strongly disagree with this statement. While it would be absurdly reductionist to attribute the halt of nuclear power development in large parts of the world (critically US, Germany and Japan) solely to anti-nuclear sentiments, it definitely was a significant factor, if not the most significant factor. I wouldn't attribute the anti-nuclear sentiment to Suzuki-style environmentalists, though, so much as a wider spread opposition to nuclear proliferation and concern (misplaced in most cases) over their safety.

I agree. Imagine if we hadn't essentially stopped building nuclear in the west in favour of cheap coal and gas. If we'd kept it going, we would have reasonably priced, near limitless clean energy available. We chose not to embrace that and now we have to wait until and if fusion plays out.

I'd be harsher than you towards the Suzuki types. Greenpeace and their ilk have played a huge role in accelerating the climate crisis through spreading misinformation about nuclear, and I have zero time for the anti-technology granola eaters when it comes to their opinions on solving climate change.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

This is one of the reasons why I am against a nationwide carbon tax. We live in a very diverse country and what may work in one part may not be the best choice in another. As long as the emissions goals are attained by every province who cares how they get there?

That's exactly the purpose of a carbon tax - no other tool achieves that goal as efficiently.

How else would you enforce reductions? Everything ends up being a tax in one way or another.

[jamincan]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I'd be harsher than you towards the Suzuki types. Greenpeace and their ilk have played a huge role in accelerating the climate crisis through spreading misinformation about nuclear, and I have zero time for the anti-technology granola eaters when it comes to their opinions on solving climate change.

I think that environmental opposition to nuclear power was a mistake in hindsight as the threat of greenhouse gas emissions became more prominent, though I understand how they came to the position in an era of fear over nuclear proliferation and EPA superfund sites. I just don't really think that the environmental concern really gained as much traction in the public consciousness as geopolitical and safety concerns.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by jamincan

I think that environmental opposition to nuclear power was a mistake in hindsight as the threat of greenhouse gas emissions became more prominent, though I understand how they came to the position in an era of fear over nuclear proliferation and EPA superfund sites. I just don't really think that the environmental concern really gained as much traction in the public consciousness as geopolitical and safety concerns.

Greenpeace et al didn't just stick to the environment, they chose any method to stoke fear. Such as this this after 9/11:

• Video Link

[OldDartmouthMark]

There appears to be a few people here who are knowledgeable about nuclear power. I'm not, so I have a few questions, please excuse me if they appear to be dumb ones, but I haven't kept up on the advancements in nuclear energy in a loooong time.

1) There used to be a concern about storing radioactive waste from nuclear reactors. I seem to recall that the material had a half life of something like 25,000 years, give or take, so storage facilities were built underground. To my best knowledge, man-made structures would be lucky to have a lifespan of a couple hundred years, whereas thousands of years would seem an impossibility. Then there is the possibility of damage due to seismic events. Are these potential issues no longer a concern?

2) Catastrophic failure of nuclear power plants don't happen that often, but when they do they cause pretty big problems, that have potential effects over a large swath of territory. I imagine the technology to improve safety has improved greatly over the years, but I think budgetary lethargy will never leave us and thus ageing equipment and maintenance shortcuts seem to be a forever possibility. Your thoughts?

3) We've seen many cases of abandoned oil fields when the company goes bankrupt with cleanup costs having to be passed on to the taxpayer. What happens if nuclear plants become no longer viable? Would there be a potential for we taxpayers to cover the costs of decommissioning an abandoned nuclear plant (if such a thing would ever exist)?

While I'm neither a greenie nor a pro-oil activist, I consider myself to be an ordinary average guy and still have concerns over safety and the environment that are probably not out of line with the average person out there who is not a nuclear power enthusiast. At the same time I realize that everything we do involves some degree of risk, and what that level of risk is seems to be what is mostly debated.

That's why I'm asking. I often read stuff like this, and the pro-whatever people often criticize the average citizen for not knowing enough about whatever they are hyped up about. While it seems a little unfair in some sense, it's the norm in today's world with the way social media interactions go. So don't shoot me, I'm really just curious if the old fears (and perhaps misconceptions) have any basis in fact, or if they can be easily dispelled with actual facts, and not some modern version of the 1950s wide-eyed 'everything is great' whitewash.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Solar/wind batter combination does not currently exist at any sort of scale and until it does neither can deliver stable power to the grid.

Very much debatable. Giant batteries are savaging the gas peaker plant business as we speak. It's so crazy that in one case, a peaker gas plant is being torn down 20 years early to be replaced with a grid battery. Bloomberg NEF is saying that they are seeing signs that renewables + batteries are starting to replace nuclear. Keep in mind that unlike amateurs who jump to the strawman of 100% replacement, utilities can actual model how much baseload they need, what can be replaced cheaply and reliably. And they are saying current technology is enough for 80-85%.

Is it possible to go 100% solar, wind and batteries right now? Probably not without substantial overbuilding as Rethink X modelled. But that's not the choice most places face. There's often existing hydro and nuclear in the mix.

There's also interconnections. It's unbelievable to me that Ontario still doesn't have substantial interties with Quebec. Ditto Alberta with BC. And Saskatchewan with Manitoba. We're a country with abundant hydro. We don't need nearly the amount of batteries as others.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

There appears to be a few people here who are knowledgeable about nuclear power. I'm not, so I have a few questions, please excuse me if they appear to be dumb ones, but I haven't kept up on the advancements in nuclear energy in a loooong time.

1) There used to be a concern about storing radioactive waste from nuclear reactors. I seem to recall that the material had a half life of something like 25,000 years, give or take, so storage facilities were built underground. To my best knowledge, man-made structures would be lucky to have a lifespan of a couple hundred years, whereas thousands of years would seem an impossibility. Then there is the possibility of damage due to seismic events. Are these potential issues no longer a concern?

2) Catastrophic failure of nuclear power plants don't happen that often, but when they do they cause pretty big problems, that have potential effects over a large swath of territory. I imagine the technology to improve safety has improved greatly over the years, but I think budgetary lethargy will never leave us and thus ageing equipment and maintenance shortcuts seem to be a forever possibility. Your thoughts?

3) We've seen many cases of abandoned oil fields when the company goes bankrupt with cleanup costs having to be passed on to the taxpayer. What happens if nuclear plants become no longer viable? Would there be a potential for we taxpayers to cover the costs of decommissioning an abandoned nuclear plant (if such a thing would ever exist)?

While I'm neither a greenie nor a pro-oil activist, I consider myself to be an ordinary average guy and still have concerns over safety and the environment that are probably not out of line with the average person out there who is not a nuclear power enthusiast. At the same time I realize that everything we do involves some degree of risk, and what that level of risk is seems to be what is mostly debated.

That's why I'm asking. I often read stuff like this, and the pro-whatever people often criticize the average citizen for not knowing enough about whatever they are hyped up about. While it seems a little unfair in some sense, it's the norm in today's world with the way social media interactions go. So don't shoot me, I'm really just curious if the old fears (and perhaps misconceptions) have any basis in fact, or if they can be easily dispelled with actual facts, and not some modern version of the 1950s wide-eyed 'everything is great' whitewash.

Long term waste storage is more of a political problem than a technical one. There are risks, but are small compared to catastrophic climate change.

There has only been one catastrophic failure of a nuclear power plant in the 70 or so years nuclear power has been a thing, at Chernobyl. I am not an engineer, but I understand such failures are not possible with a well-designed reactor. Even the incident that happened at Fukushima would not happen with a candu reactor, for example.

This video from the regulator goes through pretty much a zombie apocalypse scenario, and there is still limited damage to the environment.

https://youtu.be/vggzl9OngaM

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Very much debatable. Giant batteries are savaging the gas peaker plant business as we speak. It's so crazy that in one case, a peaker gas plant is being torn down 20 years early to be replaced with a grid battery.

Is it possible to go 100% solar, wind and batteries right now? Probably not without substantial overbuilding as Rethink X modelled. But that's not the choice most places face. There's often existing hydro and nuclear in the mix.

There's also interconnections. It's unbelievable to me that Ontario still doesn't have substantial interties with Quebec. Ditto Alberta with BC. We're a country with abundant hydro. We don't need nearly the amount of batteries as others.

By “savaging” I assume you mean a limited number of deployments. The largest one I can find is in Ventura county and is 100MW. Electricity demand in Ontario is expected to peak today at 22,000MW.

Maybe your aware of a nuclear-scale deployment, but I can’t find anything near that scale.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The biggest issue I see for nuclear power remains cost and timelines. Plants tie up billions of dollars for years before delivering a single Watt. Meanwhile, one could construct a solar or wind farm within months of approval and expand as necessary.

Yes this exactly. The timelines for nuclear are horrible right now, as are the size of the projects and inevitable overruns. Solar is amazingly easy by comparison, and the size can be anything from rooftop to large utility.

Nuclear absolutely has a future, but it's a distraction right now when huge gains can be made with solar and/or wind.

I'd argue hydro is in the same boat as nuclear. Too big, too complex, too long get to the emissions reductions we need now. But we should keep considering it where it makes sense long term.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

By “savaging” I assume you mean a limited number of deployments. The largest one I can find is in Ventura county and is 100MW. Electricity demand in Ontario is expected to peak today at 22,000MW.

Maybe your aware of a nuclear-scale deployment, but I can’t find anything near that scale.

I didn't say they were replacing baseload. I was referring to gas peakers. Not suggesting nuclear baseload was being replaced.

That said, looking at any replacement in a 1:1 proposal for a given site is an amateur approach. Nobody is suggesting replacing a 500 MW reactor with a 500 MW/2000 MWh battery. It's usually some combination of renewables, combined cycle natural gas, storage (batteries, pumped hydro, etc) and reserve (hydro).

Moreover, as I've repeatedly said, the idea that we need to tell utilities what type of generation to build is bizarre. The carbon tax prices the GHG. Just let them model what works and build accordingly. The only public investment I will ever advocate for, are interties, both to improve resiliency and to allow for expanded power markets and competition.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Yes this exactly. The timelines for nuclear are horrible right now, as are the size of the projects and inevitable overruns. Solar is amazingly easy by comparison, and the size can be anything from rooftop to large utility.

Nuclear absolutely has a future, but it's a distraction right now when huge gains can be made with solar and/or wind.

I'd argue hydro is in the same boat as nuclear. Too big, too complex, too long get to the emissions reductions we need now. But we should keep considering it where it makes sense long term.

These are all fair comments that I have little disagreement with, but I feel are short termist. Nuclear has been the too expensive option for decades, but the only way it's going to get cheaper is to actually commit to it. The climate problem isn't going to be solved in the next decade alone and we may find the remaining emissions harder to eliminate after we have moderately cleaned up the grid with wind and solar. We must invest in nuclear today if we want it to be cheap in 20 years time.

I'm not yet convinced the solar, wind, batteries combo is going to be sufficient to cover all the world's needs for clean electricity. We might be OK in Canada with our vast empty land and extensive hydro, but most countries don't have those advantages. I'd be happy to be proved wrong on that though.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by milomilo

These are all fair comments that I have little disagreement with, but I feel are short termist. Nuclear has been the too expensive option for decades, but the only way it's going to get cheaper is to actually commit to it. The climate problem isn't going to be solved in the next decade alone and we may find the remaining emissions harder to eliminate after we have moderately cleaned up the grid with wind and solar. We must invest in nuclear today if we want it to be cheap in 20 years time.

I'm not saying stopping investment, but just don't point to is as a solution, giving you an excuse to ignore solar and wind as not being "good enough".

I look at stuff like this:

South Carolina wasted $9B on nuclear

Originally Posted by milomilo

I'm not yet convinced the solar, wind, batteries combo is going to be sufficient to cover all the world's needs for clean electricity. We might be OK in Canada with our vast empty land and extensive hydro, but most countries don't have those advantages. I'd be happy to be proved wrong on that though.

No, probably not. But if we're seriously in a climate emergency, then we need to build as much clean energy as possible. Close down coal plants, change fossil fuel transportation to electricity, and scrape through until we get more clean baseload power. Maybe we'll have insane time-of-use charges that align with solar generation, and maybe that's worth it to stave off the worse effects of climate change.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Yes this exactly. The timelines for nuclear are horrible right now, as are the size of the projects and inevitable overruns. Solar is amazingly easy by comparison, and the size can be anything from rooftop to large utility.

Nuclear absolutely has a future, but it's a distraction right now when huge gains can be made with solar and/or wind.

I'd argue hydro is in the same boat as nuclear. Too big, too complex, too long get to the emissions reductions we need now. But we should keep considering it where it makes sense long term.

Yep. There's this weird idea that I see in online discussions that environuts are holding back nuclear. Yet, zero evidence of this in real life. At least in North America. Utilities just aren't interested. Why tie up billions in capital for years with no return when renewables and batteries let them scale as necessary?

Even worse for nuclear advocates, the absolutely insane cost overruns at Vogtle (US) and Hinkley (UK) could doom any real interest in new large nuclear pretty much permanently in the West.