Because transitioning to fully renewables takes a LOT of overbuilding, and by that point we will have taken all the lowlying fruit.
As an example, in BC, we recently completed the Site C dam, which was considered an ok, if not ideal, location for a dam. Now to meet BC’s growing energy demands, they are investigating the Site E location .
When the utility applied to the B.C. Utilities Commissions to build Site C in 1980, it said Site E “would have required major relocations, flooded considerably more farmland, resulted in extensive instability of the reservoir banks … and had a considerable effect on development in the Taylor area.”
The fact that we are digging up a highly problematic, previously rejected project shows we are running out of viable locations for clean hydro in BC. Because of this, people are already pushing for Natural Gas generation to back things up, which defeats the purpose of a clean transition.
Furthermore, switching completely to renewables and utility-scale batteries shifts the bottleneck from building reactors to digging mines & building factories. To overbuild that much infrastructure requires an astronomical amount of copper, lithium, and rare earth metals. Spinning up a single new large-scale mine from exploration to production takes 10 to 15 years due to regulatory and engineering hurdles.
Neither option is a quick fix. But if both paths require a multi-decade timeline, why not diversify into something Canada has a lot of, and is carbon neutral: nuclear.
I’m not sure why you’re bringing up hydro so much. Yes, it’s a component in storage but so are batteries and many other forms of storage.
Furthermore, switching completely to renewables and utility-scale batteries shifts the bottleneck from building reactors to digging mines & building factories.
They already exist. A new nuclear plant, by definition, does not.
To overbuild that much infrastructure requires an astronomical amount of copper, lithium, and rare earth metals. Spinning up a single new large-scale mine from exploration to production takes 10 to 15 years due to regulatory and engineering hurdles.
Sodium ion batteries are perfect for grid storage applications with no rare earth components. Panels and wind turbines are being recycled.
It’s obvious you’ve made an emotional decision that nuclear = fucking awesome, and now you’re trying and failing to justify your stance.
Im bringing up hydro so much, since that the local renewable that drives BC, where i live.
I’m confused how you say that the facilities we would have to build to support the transition already exist, when by definition they dont, anymore than the nuclear doesn’t exist. We don’t have the resource extraction or manufacturing capacity for a full renewable transition yet, we are still building it. We can, and should, continue to use our current factories, but they are incapable of meeting the scope we will need as we transition.
Sodium ion batteries are perfect for grid storage applications with no rare earth components. Panels and wind turbines are being recycled.
Strongly agree, doesn’t change the facts.
Since you have decided to debate in bad faith, It’s obvious you’ve made an emotional decision that renewables = fucking awesome, and now you’re trying and failing to justify your stance.
Renewables are amazing, but we can’t risk slowing our transition by ignoring nuclear. Getting a grid to 70% or 80% renewable is relatively straightforward. Getting it to 100% is where the difficulty spikes exponentially.
We don’t have the resource extraction or manufacturing capacity for a full renewable transition yet, we are still building it. We can, and should, continue to use our current factories, but they are incapable of meeting the scope we will need as we transition.
If you’re going to make claims like this, at least back them up with some kind of trustworthy source. Globally we already have massive supply chains for storage, panels and turbines and have had for some time.
Since you have decided to debate in bad faith, It’s obvious you’ve made an emotional decision that renewables = fucking awesome, and now you’re trying and failing to justify your stance.
I’m basing my opinions on data. Studies such as this one:
Thank you for not even trying to discuss a single point Ive brought up, even as I address yours, really highlights our differences.
I’m sorry, but once you devolved to name calling, I really stopped caring about what you said. You’ve already revealed how you don’t care about facts. I’ve been consistently upvoting your posts during this debate until you reached that point.
I hope you have a good day, and stop standing in the way of a sustainable future before it’s too late.
Most of us are working to save the planet I’m an expedited fashion, with a goal of a transition away from carbon emitting sources as soon as possible, you are not.
I’m sorry, but once you devolved to name calling, I really stopped caring about what you said.
No, I cited sources, you did not because you can’t and now you’re taking your ball home. Pretty much every interaction with a pro-nuclear fanboy ends this way because you have no argument, just feels.
I didn’t downvote any of your posts, but I’m happy to return the favor.
I’m sorry you feel this way, but it’s pretty clear my facts can’t compete with your feelings. You haven’t provided an argument; you’ve provided drive-by link dropping without actually quoting or understanding the data.
Since you dropped the Lazard LCOE+ report, you should probably read its explicit caveats: Lazard openly states that standard Levelized Cost of Energy does not include grid integration, transmission, or the exponential system costs of full-scale energy storage. When you look at their actual “Firming” metrics (adding storage to intermittent renewables), the cost advantage begins to shrink significantly.
If you decide to push a all-renewable future, please don’t try to stand in the way of those of us who want a diversified, realistic mix to curtail CO2 emissions in the short term. I have consistently agreed that the continued transition to renewables is needed, something you seem to ignore, but that persuing 100% renewable isn’t feasible in the short term.
How is it quicker when your solution involves a power source that takes 10-15 years to build and will likely go over budget and schedule?
Because transitioning to fully renewables takes a LOT of overbuilding, and by that point we will have taken all the lowlying fruit.
As an example, in BC, we recently completed the Site C dam, which was considered an ok, if not ideal, location for a dam. Now to meet BC’s growing energy demands, they are investigating the Site E location .
The fact that we are digging up a highly problematic, previously rejected project shows we are running out of viable locations for clean hydro in BC. Because of this, people are already pushing for Natural Gas generation to back things up, which defeats the purpose of a clean transition.
Furthermore, switching completely to renewables and utility-scale batteries shifts the bottleneck from building reactors to digging mines & building factories. To overbuild that much infrastructure requires an astronomical amount of copper, lithium, and rare earth metals. Spinning up a single new large-scale mine from exploration to production takes 10 to 15 years due to regulatory and engineering hurdles.
Neither option is a quick fix. But if both paths require a multi-decade timeline, why not diversify into something Canada has a lot of, and is carbon neutral: nuclear.
I’m not sure why you’re bringing up hydro so much. Yes, it’s a component in storage but so are batteries and many other forms of storage.
They already exist. A new nuclear plant, by definition, does not.
Sodium ion batteries are perfect for grid storage applications with no rare earth components. Panels and wind turbines are being recycled.
It’s obvious you’ve made an emotional decision that nuclear = fucking awesome, and now you’re trying and failing to justify your stance.
Im bringing up hydro so much, since that the local renewable that drives BC, where i live.
I’m confused how you say that the facilities we would have to build to support the transition already exist, when by definition they dont, anymore than the nuclear doesn’t exist. We don’t have the resource extraction or manufacturing capacity for a full renewable transition yet, we are still building it. We can, and should, continue to use our current factories, but they are incapable of meeting the scope we will need as we transition.
Strongly agree, doesn’t change the facts.
Since you have decided to debate in bad faith, It’s obvious you’ve made an emotional decision that renewables = fucking awesome, and now you’re trying and failing to justify your stance.
Renewables are amazing, but we can’t risk slowing our transition by ignoring nuclear. Getting a grid to 70% or 80% renewable is relatively straightforward. Getting it to 100% is where the difficulty spikes exponentially.
If you’re going to make claims like this, at least back them up with some kind of trustworthy source. Globally we already have massive supply chains for storage, panels and turbines and have had for some time.
I’m basing my opinions on data. Studies such as this one:
https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-energyplus-lcoeplus/
You are not.
Thank you for not even trying to discuss a single point Ive brought up, even as I address yours, really highlights our differences.
I’m sorry, but once you devolved to name calling, I really stopped caring about what you said. You’ve already revealed how you don’t care about facts. I’ve been consistently upvoting your posts during this debate until you reached that point.
I hope you have a good day, and stop standing in the way of a sustainable future before it’s too late.
Most of us are working to save the planet I’m an expedited fashion, with a goal of a transition away from carbon emitting sources as soon as possible, you are not.
No, I cited sources, you did not because you can’t and now you’re taking your ball home. Pretty much every interaction with a pro-nuclear fanboy ends this way because you have no argument, just feels.
I didn’t downvote any of your posts, but I’m happy to return the favor.
I’m sorry you feel this way, but it’s pretty clear my facts can’t compete with your feelings. You haven’t provided an argument; you’ve provided drive-by link dropping without actually quoting or understanding the data.
Since you dropped the Lazard LCOE+ report, you should probably read its explicit caveats: Lazard openly states that standard Levelized Cost of Energy does not include grid integration, transmission, or the exponential system costs of full-scale energy storage. When you look at their actual “Firming” metrics (adding storage to intermittent renewables), the cost advantage begins to shrink significantly.
I’ve consistently argued about the system engineering reality: the bottleneck to mine the massive amounts of copper, aluminum, and materials required to scale that storage to 100% makes the transition to renewables, without a nuclear backbone, a slower prospect, and often more expensive.
If you decide to push a all-renewable future, please don’t try to stand in the way of those of us who want a diversified, realistic mix to curtail CO2 emissions in the short term. I have consistently agreed that the continued transition to renewables is needed, something you seem to ignore, but that persuing 100% renewable isn’t feasible in the short term.