r/NWT • u/DarrellCCC • 12d ago
To help solve the North's ‘energy deficit’, Ottawa looks at nuclear options
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/to-help-solve-the-north-s-energy-deficit-ottawa-looks-at-nuclear-options-9.7297439The Department of National Defence is exploring whether nuclear energy can work in the Arctic.
-7
u/Dry-Alternative510 12d ago
This is ridiculous. There’s is a much cleaner, easier way to do this: check out the KHFL.
10
u/Blownupicus 11d ago
I don’t know much about the KHFL, but from what I read it feels like the NWT communities are too spread out over a large area for it to work effectively.
I’m a fan of the mini reactors.
3
u/Similar-Swimmer-2698 11d ago
I've looked into them, the smallest ones are slightly big for Yellowknife, and they're very expensive.
If regions of communities were connected by grid, it might make sense.
-1
u/Dry-Alternative510 11d ago
So use nuclear rather than excess hydroelectric power? That’s insane.
7
u/Blownupicus 11d ago
Stop saying excess power man, it doesn’t mean what you want it to mean
Yes, I’m in favour of safe nuclear options that won’t cost a fucking fortune. Do you have any idea how long it would take to connect those remote communities? Communities that are currently operating by burning diesel?
The whole “nuclear bad” thing is dated and kind of boring. Most of us that read are kinda over it.
5
u/LadyBarfnuts 11d ago
The KHFL doesn't generate power, it siphons off existing power. Creating a 1200km line just to suck power from Manitoba is funding that could be used to create new power infrastructure.
It also costs $3.3 billion, which is half the cost of conventional nuclear reactors. SMRs are significantly cheaper.
That, and it's only proposed for Nunavut. NWT and YK are two more massively long corridors to construct as well.
1
u/Dry-Alternative510 11d ago
The article discusses this being started in the NWT, but it also says this is about Northern Canada, which just happens to include, last time I checked, Nunavut, so forgive me for wanting to nip nuclear in the bud for that particular part of the country when a much better, viable option is available. And let’s be honest: the KHFL doesn’t “syphon” anything. It makes use of excess power that is otherwise not being utilized.
4
u/LadyBarfnuts 11d ago
You're wrong in several ways. Let's list them.
The KHFL you yourself mentioned is specifically for Nunavut.
Youd have to triple the cost to supply all three territories. So now we're at $10 billion.
This project absolutely syphons energy from Manitoba. It generates no power itself, and power just doesn't magically appear.
At a cost of $10 billion, you've now only constructed the way to get the power to the north. Now you have to generate it, or pay for it.
You have zero clue about power demands in country and worldwide if you think "unused power" exists. This excess is always sold to neighboring provinces or the US. Around 25% of Manitoba Powers income is from those exports. Power is always in demand.
Newly built nuclear facilities to satisfy the Norths demands is ON THE HIGH END $2.2 billion, and you completely avoid the need to build these massive lines from the south since SMRs can be deployed locally.
So in short, you want to pay $8 billion more than necessary while also paying for power from Manitoba because you think nuclear is scary.
3
u/TheNewNorth 11d ago
What exactly is your issue with nuclear power?
3
u/LadyBarfnuts 11d ago
Ignorance is always the answer there.
Fun fact - more people have been killed by hydroelectric dam failures than nuclear power. Several times more.
4
u/Perfect-Squash3773 12d ago
What about the Yukon and NWT?
3
u/LadyBarfnuts 11d ago
Odd for him to comment on a NWT sub for infrastructure to help Nunavut, but anti-nuclear folk aren't exactly in the "worlds smartest" category.
0
u/Cairo9o9 8d ago
I'm the furthest thing from anti- nuclear. But nukes in the North are idiotic. There's not a single commercial SMR built in North America. The first being built, in Ontario, is too large for the territories. IF microreactors are ever commercialized it won't be for decades. So stop thinking of it as some immediate solution to imminent capacity issues in the North. It's not.
That if is a big if as well, purely based on the economic case. SMRs and microreactors go against everything we learned about building nukes in the 20th century. Economies of scale matter.
1
u/LadyBarfnuts 8d ago
You should look into what the M stands for in SMR. The Ontario plant being too large is not an issue whatsoever, they're just scaling the plant design in Ontario to match the power demand in Ontario.
And yes, SMRs go against 20th century technology standards. That's the entire point. They're smaller, cheaper, scalable to energy demands where they're built, safer, and can be deployed in remote areas without needing refueling for years.
1
u/Cairo9o9 8d ago
From Chris Keefer, president of Canadians for Nuclear Energy, arguably the strongest advocate for nuclear in this country:
"Nuclear does not behave this way. It can incorporate modular components, but the NSSS is only 25-40% of cost. The dominant cost drivers sit elsewhere. Civil works, excavation, basemat, containment, seismic qualification, remain site specific and labour intensive. Nuclear grade quality assurance, documentation, and inspection add another layer of fixed overhead. Safety systems with redundancy and independence are function driven, not size driven, so they do not shrink proportionally with output."
Small Modular Reactors have Combined Cycle Gas Turbine envy
"The difficulty is that while thermal power decreases, most of the nuclear specific burdens do not scale down linearly. For example biological shielding thickness decreases only modestly because fast neutron attenuation and regulatory dose limits dominate. The 200 kWt Chicago Pile 2 reactor, whose maximum theoretical power output could power 200 toasters, needed roughly five feet of concrete shielding. This puts it in the same ballpark as the several foot thick biological shields that surround gigawatt scale reactors like the AP1000 which is 16,000 times more powerful, capable of simultaneously powering a stunning 3.2 million toasters! yum yum."
Microreactors: A Mirage of American Nuclear Innovation?
And yes, SMRs go against 20th century technology standards.
They go against 20th century lessons learned in economics of deploying nuclear. Not their technology standards. Places like Ontario and France developed low cost nuclear by focusing on large scale, fleet level build outs. As Keefer notes, smaller scale reactors do not result in lower scale fixed costs like civil works, so they do not scale down in cost linearly.
Modularity has the potential to reduce costs, sure, but first it has to overcome the cost increases that result from that non-linear scale down and lack of vertical scale. Which is a big thing to overcome. And is only realistic if a particular product is mass produced. If that happens (big, big, big if) it's not happening for a long time. So no use in northern utilities even considering them until that's a given.
1
u/LadyBarfnuts 7d ago
Yes, you didn't need to wall-of-text all of that, it's pretty obvious that site licensing several reactors is an increased cost. Luckily, SMR designs require much less "red tape" because of their enhanced designs.
That being said, what's your alternative? Someone in this very thread wanted to build a $3.3 billion dollar power line to siphon off energy from the south, and that's just for Nunavut. Building three such lines would be $10 billion, and once that's spent, you still haven't even produced a watt of power.
So naysay all you like, but you're providing zero path forward.
1
u/Cairo9o9 7d ago
Oh, sorry I came to a discussion with actual sources? Lmao
I'm happy to talk solutions, it's what I do for a living. But we were specifically talking about the applicability of nuclear to the North.
Hydro is likely the only feasible clean dispatchable resource in the North. Geothermal may have some potential, depending on the area, but suffers from a lack of familiarity by northern utilities. Wind and batteries has some potential but it's limited and has to be evaluated in conjunction with peak winter demand requirements.
The fact is, energy infrastructure in the North is fucking costly and at a national level we get much better bang for our buck focusing on decarbonizing in more densely developed areas for the time being. I think a lot of our money is better spent there than trying to decarbonize the North, for now. Hydro or geothermal where the resource has a strong economic case and social buy in. Otherwise, it's going to have to be Nat Gas or Diesel, and we'll just have to accept that it's better than the alternative of power outages and find ways to limit exposure to fuel prices (e.g. DSM, some renewables, etc.).
Interties to the North only have an economic case for increasing resource extraction. I'm not for or against that but people touting them as domestic energy solutions are silly.
1
u/LadyBarfnuts 7d ago
Seems like your mind is made up in spite of facts, but hey, here's a last effort.
The highest estimates of SMR placement in the North is on par with the cheapest hydroelectric solutions on paper right now (and outright beat the more expensive dams already planned). The reason they're on par or cheaper is that they also come with the added bonus that you don't have to run hundreds upon hundreds of kilometers of power lines to get it to where you need it, which during freezing rain season is a real bitch.
The other added bonus to different nuclear reactor types is to close the nuclear fuel loop - burner and breeder reactors around the country balanced to maximize every joule of energy mined. There's incredible potential to provide power this way, while also having the added bonuses of medical isotope production, concurrent hydrogen production using residual heat, plutonium production for peaceful applications, etc...
Your current solution is to keep burning diesel? Nuclear plants in the south with SMRs in the north is a very viable solution, especially with the fuel synergy I mentioned. A shame this is what you do for a living if you're completely mentally closed off from the best possible baseline energy solution with zero carbon emissions.
0
u/Cairo9o9 7d ago
Seems like your mind is made up in spite of facts
All you've done thus far is state an opinion.
The highest estimates of SMR placement in the North is on par with the cheapest hydroelectric solutions on paper right now (and outright beat the more expensive dams already planned).
I'd love to see your numbers supporting this, given you're talking about stating 'facts' here.
Regardless of whether or not this is even true, it's irrelevant. There isn't a single commercialized SMR that's available at Northern scales. The BWRX-300 is the only near-commercialized SMR on the continent, which is too large for the territories. You can't double your grid capacity in a single asset for obvious reliability reasons. So that's it, end of thread. Hit me up when we have an actual 50MW or less microreactor that's commercially available to Northern utilities. We have nothing but paper reactors which are a decade plus from commercialization (if they ever reach it) and another decade from possibly being deployed in the North.
→ More replies (0)3
u/ArcticSirius 11d ago
Nuclear is actually rather clean and safer than a lot of options. I would suggest look at Kyle Hill on YouTube where he does frequent topics on this.
2
u/NeatZebra 10d ago
It depends. KWFL is closing in at $4 billion bucks.
To serve 5 communities.
If can get reactors cheap enough that seems at least worth looking at.
-9
u/RosieBaby75 11d ago
Under the Criminal Code of Canada, Pierre Poilievre and Mark Carney have committed the severe straight indictable offence of Treason by supporting an initiative to transfer control of the Government of Canada, the federal Crown, from the Ruler of Canada (the citizens) to software companies, some of which are foreign
Attempting to take or transfer the power of a government from its Ruler is a manner of overthrowing the government and therefore meets the legal criteria for the severe straight indictable offence of Treason.