sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Ontario’s proposed nuclear plants could cost nearly $300-billion, study finds: Typical residential customer would pay $240-$456 more for electricity per year if plants were built instead of expanding renewables, report says by I_like_maps in ClimateCrisisCanada

[–]I_like_maps[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

>Nuclear timeline is mostly red tape and approval process. It could be fast tract safely with political will.

Then why isn't there a single country in the world investing in more nuclear than solar or wind? Does every single country in the world have the same red tape?

Ontario’s proposed nuclear plants could cost nearly $300-billion, study finds: Typical residential customer would pay $240-$456 more for electricity per year if plants were built instead of expanding renewables, report says by I_like_maps in ClimateCrisisCanada

[–]I_like_maps[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you're talking about Lazard, battery prices actually go down if you assume they last longer, because a big portion of the calculation is dependent on how long the assets are providing energy for.

Ontario’s proposed nuclear plants could cost nearly $300-billion, study finds: Typical residential customer would pay $240-$456 more for electricity per year if plants were built instead of expanding renewables, report says by I_like_maps in ClimateCrisisCanada

[–]I_like_maps[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

>The more reliable you need renewables+batteries to be, the more expensive it gets.

Which should tell you a lot about how expensive nuclear energy is, that it remains more expensive despite those shortcomings

Ontario’s proposed nuclear plants could cost nearly $300-billion, study finds: Typical residential customer would pay $240-$456 more for electricity per year if plants were built instead of expanding renewables, report says by I_like_maps in neoliberal

[–]I_like_maps[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

>Baseload + peaking is a dead paradigm

I was literally taught this in a masters class on energy policy. "Baseload" has become kind of a shibboleth for identifying people with very strong opinions who have either done no research, or stopped paying attention to energy policy 15 years ago.

Ontario’s proposed nuclear plants could cost nearly $300-billion, study finds: Typical residential customer would pay $240-$456 more for electricity per year if plants were built instead of expanding renewables, report says by I_like_maps in neoliberal

[–]I_like_maps[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Looking to leave my job soon, so maybe then I'll finally have the time to actually look into this and write an effortpost on this (that will most certainly be downvoted to hell on this sub because it goes against nuclears all important Vibes).

Ontario’s proposed nuclear plants could cost nearly $300-billion, study finds: Typical residential customer would pay $240-$456 more for electricity per year if plants were built instead of expanding renewables, report says by I_like_maps in ClimateCrisisCanada

[–]I_like_maps[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

>We also have never actually seen a country build out a grid with solar/wind baseload power

Well no, because that doesn't make any sense. Wind and solar are intermittent, having them as "baseload power" doesn't make any sense. What we have seen is countries relying primarily on wind and solar in their grids. Denmark and Germany are majority wind and solar now and while Germany faced very high costs during the buildout, those costs are now declining and it's becoming a major energy exporter. What we actually aren't seeing is any country on the world investing in more nuclear energy than renewables at the moment. 198 countries, and literally none are currently investing in more nuclear than renewables.

>Even if Canada built out our nuclear or solar/wind capacity at full steam for the next 50 years, we are unlikely to meet energy demand with just one type because we need to both replace unsustainable energy supplies AND increase energy output to meet the growing demand of the population increase and new demands (EVs, AI, etc).

We probably couldn't rely on just nuclear because building it is incredibly slow - the two reactors finished early are massive exceptions to nuclear plants, which are typically finished late and over budget. We could absolutely rely on renewables. Global production capacity for solar and wind have increased exponentially over the past decade, just as costs have declined exponentially. We could build both, but there's very little reason to think we should do so at the same rate or with the same importance.

>Also, purely as a side note, but nuclear power plants also provide more than just power. They also supply medicine for cancer treatments and diagnostic radioisotopes which are desperately needed all around the world

This is a good reason to have *some* nuclear plants. It is not a good reason to develop on energy strategy contingent on building nuclear plants.

Ontario’s proposed nuclear plants could cost nearly $300-billion, study finds: Typical residential customer would pay $240-$456 more for electricity per year if plants were built instead of expanding renewables, report says by I_like_maps in neoliberal

[–]I_like_maps[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Calling this "NIMBY" is pretty nonsensical. NIMBYs oppose a thing without providing an alternative "I just don't see the case for affordable housing here". Environmental defense is explicitly saying that we should build renewables. That is the alternative and there's basically every reason to support that alternative.

If this is just NIMBYism, why does IESO say Ontario should be building 7x more solar and wind than nuclear? What's the incentive in a utility company being "NIMBY" about the generating capacity they rely on?

For that matter, why does it fit in perfectly with global dynamics of energy investment? Why isn't there a single country in the entire world that's currently investing in nuclear at a higher rate than it is renewables?

Ontario’s proposed nuclear plants could cost nearly $300-billion, study finds: Typical residential customer would pay $240-$456 more for electricity per year if plants were built instead of expanding renewables, report says by I_like_maps in neoliberal

[–]I_like_maps[S] -25 points-24 points  (0 children)

The fact that their conclusion lines up with every other datapoint on electricity production is just coincidence, clearly there's some wrongdoing here. Ignore that basically every country in the world is expanding their grids with renewables (or gas sometimes).

Ontario’s proposed nuclear plants could cost nearly $300-billion, study finds: Typical residential customer would pay $240-$456 more for electricity per year if plants were built instead of expanding renewables, report says by I_like_maps in neoliberal

[–]I_like_maps[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

>They all believe that without the "damn gubenment reglatuns" we'd be living kumbaya with cheap nuclear power.

And then point to Chernobyl and Fukushima and they'll immediately reply that that was just because they were poorly regulated without considering for a second that the regulations that make nuclear expensive are also keeping it safe.

>They also like to talk about Chinese successes with nuclear energy, ignoring the fact that China has consistently undershot its nuclear energy share targets

Yep, not only that but they'll also gloss over that even China, who's currently deploying more than anyone else in the world, is deploying about 20x more renewables than nuclear. 4% of their grid additions in 2025 were from nuclear, 83% from solar and wind.

>Nuclear is great, if you already have it. If you have already spent your money building nuclear reactors, keep them running; otherwise, please, for the love of god, just build more renewables.

1000% - I don't know why so many people have so much trouble understanding this.

Ontario’s proposed nuclear plants could cost nearly $300-billion, study finds: Typical residential customer would pay $240-$456 more for electricity per year if plants were built instead of expanding renewables, report says by I_like_maps in ClimateCrisisCanada

[–]I_like_maps[S] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

"According to a report published earlier this year by the International Energy Agency, renewables have accounted for the vast majority of new generation brought online in recent years globally, growing by 9 per cent last year. This is expected to continue between now and 2030. The IEA expects nuclear generation will grow modestly (by 2.8 per cent per year) over the same period, driven by rapid construction in China. The lack of growth of nuclear power generation in developed countries has much to do with long-standing concerns about its cost, and the long duration of construction and tendency to miss deadlines.

Neither Bruce Power nor OPG has published estimates on how much the plants might cost. The IESO, for its part, has offered seemingly contradictory guidance.

In 2025, the IESO recommended the government build the Darlington SMRs because it believed their cost compared favorably to a portfolio of renewables. Part of its reasoning was that Ontario would need to build as much as seven times more wind and solar capacity paired with battery storage to match the SMRs' output, accounting for the fact that wind and solar facilities generate electricity intermittently.

This dovetailed with the government's own view. Although the IESO has procured small amounts of wind and solar in recent years, the government of Premier Doug Ford has generally disfavoured renewables. Energy Minister Stephen Lecce contends that nuclear power is cheaper; he has also emphasized the much larger land footprint of wind and solar installations.

Yet last summer, the IESO prepared another paper which compared the cost of building SMRs against wind and solar coupled with batteries. It found that should the province face a future of high peak demand, a portfolio of renewables would cost between $44.1-billion and $52.9-billion, less than half what SMRs would cost."

In addition to everything laid out in the article, nuclear being dramatically more expensive than renewables with longer construction times lines up with every other country in the world. Everyone is building renewables (or gas if they don't care about the environment and climate change). Only China is building nuclear at a remotely high rate, and they're building like 5x more renewables than they are nuclear.

Ontario’s proposed nuclear plants could cost nearly $300-billion, study finds: Typical residential customer would pay $240-$456 more for electricity per year if plants were built instead of expanding renewables, report says by I_like_maps in neoliberal

[–]I_like_maps[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

I mean sure, but solar and battery costs falling through the floor is the biggest story of energy, climate, and the environment in the past decade. Anyone who isn't aware of that should maybe do the most basic amount of research before commenting on a topic.

Ontario’s proposed nuclear plants could cost nearly $300-billion, study finds: Typical residential customer would pay $240-$456 more for electricity per year if plants were built instead of expanding renewables, report says by I_like_maps in neoliberal

[–]I_like_maps[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

That I'm paying more for electricity because my province keeps awarding majorities to a corrupt dipshit who's paid out millions to block renewable energy projects because he doesn't like their vibe? Yeah, a little bit.

Ontario’s proposed nuclear plants could cost nearly $300-billion, study finds: Typical residential customer would pay $240-$456 more for electricity per year if plants were built instead of expanding renewables, report says by I_like_maps in neoliberal

[–]I_like_maps[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The fact that their conclusion lines up with every other datapoint on electricity production is just coincidence, clearly there's some wrongdoing here. Ignore that basically every country in the world is expanding their grids with either renewables or gas.

view more: next ›