Nuclear Power Makes A Come Back

[gatomontes99]

Trump just signed an EO that will increase the number of nuclear plants. This is a very big deal that should be bipartisan. So how will the left oppose more cheap, no emission power?

[herbie]

Yeah let's adopt the most expensive, longest to implement form of electrical generation and pretend like it will fix everything by tomorrow morning.

[CdnFox]

8 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

So how will the left oppose more cheap, no emission power?

 

24 minutes ago, herbie said:

Yeah let's adopt the most expensive, longest to implement form of electrical generation and pretend like it will fix everything by tomorrow morning.

LOL, well in fairness gatomontes you DID ask   

Herbie's problem is that if you ACTUALLY solve the problem of creating energy without global warming then he won't have anything to cry about as he rends his garments  

Canada is about to bring its very first SMRs online.  This is a truly next generation tech and canada is in the lead when it comes to design. We also have a lot of  the nuclear material necessary to build reactors. So this is good news for us. 

The new tech solves almost all the problems of older tech. It CANNOT have a runway meltdown (where as the old tech needed lots of safety systems to prevent it),  you have small clusters so ite easy to take one offline for repairs while the others continue to produce power, it's easy to add to the cluster if necessary over time.  It's cheaper (still expensive but no  where near as bad) and it produces almost no nuclear waste compared to older systems. 

It's clean and doesn't require a lake to cool it. It can be deployed anywhere. 

And yet... despite being almost the perfect renewable environmentally safe  power source.... the left is going to hate it.  Because the LAST thing they need is to actually SOLVE a problem. 

[User]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

Yeah let's adopt the most expensive, longest to implement form of electrical generation and pretend like it will fix everything by tomorrow morning.

Is tomorrow morning when things need to be fixed by?

 

[robosmith]

17 hours ago, CdnFox said:

LOL, well in fairness gatomontes you DID ask   

Herbie's problem is that if you ACTUALLY solve the problem of creating energy without global warming then he won't have anything to cry about as he rends his garments  

Canada is about to bring its very first SMRs online.  This is a truly next generation tech and canada is in the lead when it comes to design. We also have a lot of  the nuclear material necessary to build reactors. So this is good news for us. 

The new tech solves almost all the problems of older tech. It CANNOT have a runway meltdown (where as the old tech needed lots of safety systems to prevent it),  you have small clusters so ite easy to take one offline for repairs while the others continue to produce power, it's easy to add to the cluster if necessary over time.  It's cheaper (still expensive but no  where near as bad) and it produces almost no nuclear waste compared to older systems. 

It's clean and doesn't require a lake to cool it. It can be deployed anywhere. 

And yet... despite being almost the perfect renewable environmentally safe  power source.... the left is going to hate it.  Because the LAST thing they need is to actually SOLVE a problem. 

"The Left is going to hate" YOUR STRAWMAN, because you've made huge mistakes; and the first one is NO EVIDENCE for your CLAIMS CdnLIAR. In REALITY:

Quote

Small modular reactors (SMRs) have several disadvantages, including:

• Cost

  SMRs can be expensive, with estimates ranging from $50 million for microreactors to $3 billion for larger units. Their smaller size means they lack the economies of scale that larger reactors have, and their lower power output can lead to higher costs per unit of electricity generated. 

   
• Waste

  SMRs produce more radioactive waste per gigawatt of capacity than conventional nuclear power plants. The spent fuel from SMRs remains dangerously radioactive for thousands of years. 

   
• Safety

  SMRs have passive cooling systems that rely on natural convection and gravity, but these systems can be unreliable. For example, environmental factors like earthquakes, flooding, and wildfires could degrade the conditions in which the reactors operate, or manufacturing defects could prevent the systems from working properly. SMRs also lack the thick concrete walls of traditional nuclear power plants, which could make them more vulnerable to damage in natural disasters. 

   
• Security

  Establishing a fleet of smaller, more dispersed nuclear installations could lead to more security problems. 

   
• Development

  SMRs are still a novel technology, and there are many unknowns and challenges to overcome. For example, it's difficult to have confidence in production times, learning rates, and cost reductions when there are so few reactors currently operating. 

 

[gatomontes99]

25 minutes ago, robosmith said:

"The Left is going to hate" YOUR STRAWMAN, because you've made huge mistakes; and the first one is NO EVIDENCE for your CLAIMS CdnLIAR. In REALITY:

 

Should I tell him that Obama funded the design of these things?

https://moenergyfuture.org/news/obama-administration-announces-450-million-to-design-and-commercialize-u-s-small-modular-nuclear-reactors/

Edited May 24 by gatomontes99

[Deluge]

On 5/23/2025 at 12:05 PM, gatomontes99 said:

Trump just signed an EO that will increase the number of nuclear plants. This is a very big deal that should be bipartisan. So how will the left oppose more cheap, no emission power?

It's about time. I was hoping this would've been one of the first things he did. Right after deporting illegal aliens. 

[CdnFox]

7 hours ago, robosmith said:

"The Left is going to hate" YOUR STRAWMAN, because you've made huge mistakes; and the first one is NO EVIDENCE for your CLAIMS CdnLIAR. In REALITY:

 

What?  That mad no sense.  You're not supposed to be drinking while you're posting,

[CdnFox]

7 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Should I tell him that Obama funded the design of these things?

https://moenergyfuture.org/news/obama-administration-announces-450-million-to-design-and-commercialize-u-s-small-modular-nuclear-reactors/

I think the SMR's will produce less heat than his head if you do   We'll have to start calling him Robochernobyl 

[Aristides]

Canada's first SMR won't be online until at least 2030. Still not cheap at $7.7 billion. It will really interesting to see how it works out. 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Aristides said:

Canada's first SMR won't be online until at least 2030. Still not cheap at $7.7 billion. It will really interesting to see how it works out. 

Not just canada's first but north america's first commercial scale one. So if all goes well we will be well positioned globally to be leaders in the industry. 

Genuine clean power.  And prices for building them are bound to get even lower as the tech matures. 

[robosmith]

18 hours ago, CdnFox said:

What?  That mad no sense.  You're not supposed to be drinking while you're posting,

Seems to have made you MAD. LMAO

Did you imagine you'd posted evidence for your claims like I did that showed your claims are wrong?

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Seems to have made you MAD. LMAO

 

LOL.  well unfortunately when i read your comments "he's mad!" is what's usually in my mind  

Quote

Did you imagine you'd posted evidence for your claims like I did that showed your claims are wrong?

You've posted zero evidence.  Just your opinion.  Sorry kiddo. 

But if you want actual evidence then here: 

smr's best option for power - Google Search

Small but mighty: Unveiling the power of small modular reactors

Energy security with small modular reactors

So as we can see they're safer, cheaper, require less space, produce less waste, they look like they're the future. 

The only person who wouldn't like them is someone who secretly hates the environment but wants to pretend they care.  You?  

[eyeball]

On 5/23/2025 at 8:09 PM, CdnFox said:

And yet... despite being almost the perfect renewable environmentally safe  power source.... the left is going to hate it.  Because the LAST thing they need is to actually SOLVE a problem. 

When can I get one scaled down to the size a  household could use? How hard can it be?

[User]

23 minutes ago, eyeball said:

When can I get one scaled down to the size a  household could use? How hard can it be?

Why do you need one scaled down to a household size?

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

When can I get one scaled down to the size a  household could use? How hard can it be?

Dude the campfire bans are about to come on for the province fairly shortly....  If they can't trust you with open flame i daresay they're not going to be giving you fissionable materials.

[eyeball]

17 hours ago, User said:

Why do you need one scaled down to a household size?

Power outages due to trees falling on transmission lines. It's an ongoing PITA every winter. I have a genset wired to the house but this sounds better.

I'm guessing by the scale depicted in the diagram it might be possible to get a SMR down to the size of a hot water tank or something.

[eyeball]

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Dude the campfire bans are about to come on for the province fairly shortly....  If they can't trust you with open flame i daresay they're not going to be giving you fissionable materials.

Dang, I was hoping no one would notice that.

[Barquentine]

On 5/24/2025 at 12:09 AM, CdnFox said:

And yet... despite being almost the perfect renewable environmentally safe  power source.... the left is going to hate it.  Because the LAST thing they need is to actually SOLVE a problem.

No. Most of the left, like me, think nuclear is a good idea.

But I bet a lot of right wing politicians, their supporters and the oil industry backing them won't.

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Barquentine said:

No. Most of the left, like me, think nuclear is a good idea.

 

The vast majority speak against it, and not that this board is a perfect sample but we see it here as well. BC's ndp just recently renewed a "no nuclear power" law forbidding it in the province under any circumstances. Pretty much every left wing group is against it and at best lefties seem to 'tolerate' the idea and rarely at that. 

Quote

But I bet a lot of right wing politicians, their supporters and the oil industry backing them won't.

I'm sure you do but that's because you're dishonest. 

In fact it was front and center in PP's platform, the conservatives have always supported moving forward with that kind of tech and being world leaders in selling it. Conservatives love it  - its something we can sell, it's something that we can sell the fuel for, it's safe and efficient and it's great. Conservative gov'ts provincially have been the ones pushing this tech and adapting it, alberta and ontario have been driving it along with virtually no help from the federal liberals. 

But sure... conservatives will hate it because..... voices in your head maybe?

[gatomontes99]

7 minutes ago, Barquentine said:

No. Most of the left, like me, think nuclear is a good idea.

But I bet a lot of right wing politicians, their supporters and the oil industry backing them won't.

Not true:

Currently, 62% of Republicans, 46% of Democrats and 56% of independents favor the use of nuclear energy

[Barquentine]

34 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

it was front and center in PP's platform

Why so defensive? Did I mention PeePee? But since you brought him up, when are the Cons having their leadership race?

[herbie]

On 5/23/2025 at 8:09 PM, CdnFox said:

And yet... despite being almost the perfect renewable environmentally safe  power source.... the left is going to hate it.

You are incredibly stupid as you show once again. Nuclear fuel is not renewable it isn't 'safer' than anything else and that's been known for over 75 years. Go roll around in the dirt at Hanford or Chernobyl and tell us all about it.

It's so unsafe that's why there's decades of planning, environmental reviews and disposal policies to build one on top of the billions in expense. The only advantage to SMRs is IF they get many orders they can build the reactor vessels in volume and that they are smaller and will produce less byproduct each. Which if they build more will not equate to less spent fuel to dispose of.

Banking on nuclear instead of renewables is economically stupid, and gutting environmental standards to build them faster is suicidal, not just even stupider.

[User]

6 minutes ago, herbie said:

You are incredibly stupid as you show once again. Nuclear fuel is not renewable it isn't 'safer' than anything else and that's been known for over 75 years. Go roll around in the dirt at Hanford or Chernobyl and tell us all about it.

It's so unsafe that's why there's decades of planning, environmental reviews and disposal policies to build one on top of the billions in expense. The only advantage to SMRs is IF they get many orders they can build the reactor vessels in volume and that they are smaller and will produce less byproduct each. Which if they build more will not equate to less spent fuel to dispose of.

Banking on nuclear instead of renewables is economically stupid, and gutting environmental standards to build them faster is suicidal, not just even stupider.

And this is how we know you are not serious about climate change. 

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Barquentine said:

Why so defensive? Did I mention PeePee? But since you brought him up, when are the Cons having their leadership race?

There's nothing defensive about stating a simple fact. You said something that was untrue, I have said the truth in order to correct you

It's kind of funny that you find the act of being honest to be associated with being defensive?