The Great Canadian Nuclear Debate

[@ninefox344]

At 1:10:10 Dr. Keefer is asked how many wind turbines are needed to replace a single CANDU unit. He starts out by saying, OK divide 800MW by 2MW = 400. He eventually gets around to saying this is completely wrong but the way he said it wasn't really clear. I wish he had said something like, "you might think the answer is 400 but due to capacity factors, it's actually 4 to 6 times that number with respect to energy output. In terms of reliability, no amount of turbines can replace a CANDU".

[@dankspain]

This is very site specific. Our newer offshore wind farms in Europe we will build this decade will do 50-60% capacity factor with 14-18MW turbines. That is around 74 WTGs and we can do that in a range of 50-80€/MWh.

[@theAraAra]

​@@dankspain 18 MW? Those are likely to be the world's largest wind turbines. The average new turbine will be waay smaller than that

[@ninefox344]

@@dankspain Yes the capacity factor can vary by site, turbines size etc. But the real issue is the lack of reliability. If wind and solar weren't intermittent, they'd be a slam dunk. But those costs you mentioned aren't figuring in the backup generation or energy storage needed for intermittent energy. That's why Germany's energy prices are the highest in Europe despite their huge wind/solar build out. Their fossil fuel generation fleet has not shrunk at all in the past 15 years. They essentially have two energy fleets but one works semi randomly. There can be months at a time where the wind speeds are on average too low to generate much power. One study looked at 35 years of German wind data and found a maximum 12 week stretch of low wind speeds. (DOI 10.1088/1748-9326/ac4dc8) That means if you went mostly wind/solar, you'd have to store 12 weeks of wind energy somehow. That's simply not feasible. People like to say, we only need "hours" of energy storage. But that only covers daily fluctuations, not seasonal ones.

[@davidfetter]

@@ninefox344 yep. The grid-scale storage that could hold months' worth of energy is so remote that it's not even science fiction. For one thing, losses on the way in and out of that storage would need to be MUCH lower than anything we've ever built. For another, it'd be huge and have all manner of risks of sudden release--cf. the many battery fires that the current "grid scale storage" systems are plagued with--unless it was nuclear, at which point why bother with the wind turbines in the first place?

[@iainmcdonald9764]

@@dankspain How do you get that figure of 50-60% capacity factor? The higher percentages are only available for really windy areas like the UK, Ireland and Norway. Forget it for the rest of continental Europe. German offshore wind capacity factor has been consistently 30-35% every year since the the 1980's and it's even worse for countries without only onshore capacity because onshore capacity factors are 20% or less. Can Europe tell the wind to blow harder and more consistently in the future? I don't think so.

[@MatteoMucciconi]

Thanks Chris for debunking the argument that "if a particular country phases out nuclear, then the entire world becomes safer because it is more difficult to build a nuclear bomb".

[@-LightningRod-]

yeah,...that didn't happen friend.

[@paullafreniere3393]

Dr Keefer brings a breath of fresh air to this last century debate. Yes he masters the technical issues but importantly, his humanity comes through loud and clear. I want to live in his world of shared humanity not a world of fear & Malthusian tropes.

[@FernandoWINSANTO]

google : Dr John Gofman his life

[@chapter4travels]

Dr.Edwards summary; We haven't built NPP in the last 30 years so that proves we can't build them now.

[@davidfetter]

This is the "piss on you and demand you say it's raining" technique. NPPs haven't been built in Canada in no small part because Dr. Edwards and his ilk have fought them off.

[@fissionphoenix4995]

I haven't finished listening to his opening statement and I'm frustrated that pretty much everything he says is blatantly wrong. He's presented as an expert, this is seriously the best they can do to argue against nuclear? Misinformation, misinformation, and more misinformation?

[@jwestney2859]

Dr Edwards, at what age should you retire? There are lots of people who have solutions to problems. Those people should lead our organizations.

[@-LightningRod-]

@@fissionphoenix4995 like what>

[@joearsenault2287]

Ah. Dr Edwards is touting old Malthusian tropes that we use too much energy. He also touts speculative energy, but we are in a hurry. This is total propaganda grasping at straws. Dr Keefer wins.

[@nwrked]

Edwards: (1) "Sodium cooled reactors are completely dumb because everyone knows sodium reacts with water" (2) "it's true there's not enough lithium but we can do sodium ion batteries". Very clear illustration of how much biased he is.

[@laurakeating6049]

I noted that too. 😂

[@-LightningRod-]

friend ,..Lithium is everywhere, whats missing is the prcessing, ..Canada fer instance,...has LOTS.

[@FernandoWINSANTO]

Many problems are not solved with sodium breeders, google : sodium reactor accidents

[@iancormie9916]

Wish there was a way to let (make) renewable supporters live with the consequences of their energy policies rather than having the expense foisted on the rest of us.

[@-LightningRod-]

i'm a well known foister,...

[@Ulyssestnt]

@@-LightningRod- you need to be opposed ,lest you implement truly impotent time and resources wasting measures on the rest of us.

[@-LightningRod-]

@@Ulyssestnt wasting measures?, you don't like success stories or you just don't believe what is easily verifiable and factual?

[@bronzedivision]

Gordon's lies are difficult to sit through.

[@davidfetter]

The scaremongering was also over the top. Also, the lady that claimed to be "a nuclear physicist" and couldn't tell carbon from cobalt? I call bullshit, as should Dr. Keefer have done. No, the words are not different in French, so she doesn't get that excuse either.

[@k0zzu21]

By having even high school level knowledge in chemistry, it would be obvious it cannot be carbon - 60

[@jamesheadings8956]

I don't think that the point was sufficiently made that nuclear power and nuclear weapons proliferation are FAR from equivalent. The degree of enrichment required is vastly different. The waste issue was also vastly overstated.

[@subumohapatra]

yes that's 100% true. But there is difference in perception and reality also. The truth is weapons are useless in war fighting, no leader in a healthy state of mind can use them, if he uses it he knows, he himself and his friends and relatives won't survive the retaliation. Before nukes that was not the case therefore history is full of kings and general fighting battles. Thus, Nukes are only sovereign insurance against major war and saves a lot of life. For example, India and Pakistan never fought a major war after they both developed nukes.

[@davidfetter]

The actual "waste issue" is characterizing once-used fuel as waste rather than as the incredibly valuable resource it actually is. Start calling it "waste," and dingbats like Edwards will seize on it as a concession you should never have made in the first place, and drag you into the muck of their paranoid fantasies forever.

[@pricefamily6778]

Contrary to what the anti nuclear advocate says, Germany has not been a net exporter of electricity to France in the three months prior to April 2023. France has been the world largest exporter of electricity for many years. In the summer of 2022 owing to the drought and high temperatures meaning they could not put their cooling waters in the rivers several French reactors temporarily closed. They were all back up and running by the winter (end of October) as were those closed for scheduled maintenance. In that summer France did import electricity from Germany, but in most years Germany imports more from France rather than vice versa.

[@hanshyde9108]

Absolute revision of history! Nearly half the fleet was taken out of operation due to corrosion concerns. That was before drought & the heat wave, which forced reactors that were still operating to derate (reduce production) due to lack of cooling water or threat of increasing stream temperatures above acceptable levels. That meant, nearly 2/3 of the fleet capacity was not producing electricity. It doesn't matter what historically happens with the French fleet, it matters what happened at the time. Europe was already in an energy crisis and the fleet that was promised to be there *always* was not. This has nothing to do with anti vs pro-nuclear. It is what happened.

[@basil8940]

Thank you KZbin for the ability to skip over non-question questions, especially from the poor confused woman seemingly advocating burning whale oil.

[@dankspain]

At 1:25:00 just jump to 1:30:00. There is no question, just trying to state something and failing to do so.

[@FMJellico]

France built 55 reactors in 15 years. But they also had a pretty good plan in place before doing that as well.

[@davidfetter]

Dr. Keefer, you really made a large strategic mistake in stumping for DGRs, which assert and partly construct the idea that there's such an animal as "nuclear waste." It's only waste if you waste it.

[@jamesheadings8956]

I agree. It sounded to me like a lot of hearts teaming up and beating a brain.

[@switted823]

16:13 when you consider the capacity factor of nuclear vs wind and solar, nuclear is actually faster to build.

[@-LightningRod-]

heh,...no.

[@switted823]

@@-LightningRod- heh, yes, and there's proof. France decarbonized more with nuclear energy during the messmer plan years than Germany ever did with the energiewende and their wind and solar in a place that doesn't even shine that much. I mean come one, Germany is not Nevada or New Mexico by any stretch of the imagination. Oh and if you make another response, please make it longer than a 2 word FUD piece ;)

[@laurakeating6049]

I just listened to this debate and it was maddening trying to keep up with all of the absurdities that Dr Edwards was firing out. It was like hearing all of the stereotypes all at once. I wonder if he really believes that a million people died from Chernobyl or that if we keep CANDU that citizens are going to get a freshly used fuel bundle in the mail or something. I’m actually impressed that Chris kept his head as well as he did. There were so many fallacies fired at Chris that it seemed impossible to debunk them all.

[@hank_Reardon]

So we can heat water in a grain silo that will be heated in July by solar for all winter heating in Montreal, but we can't build nuclear plants and store the waste, got it.

[@Rawdiswar]

See? Now you get it.

[@mehranramsey]

Thanks Chris for good points & arguments

[@Pchangnyc_Jedi]

good work Dr. Keefer

[@fredjacobs26]

Too much here to comment about. However, one key issue not properly discussed is the relative costs of green energy, fossil fuels and nuclear. Costs usually are given as LCOE (Levelized Cost of Energy) which uses current and projected dollar costs. These are confounded by economics and (geo)politics. It's much cheaper to make solar cells in China with coal using conscripted labor than making them in North America, for example, but the actual energy required is similar. In addition, the amount of CO2 produced is probably more than what is saved by using solar cells. A more reliable way of comparative cost analysis is to use cradle-to-grave EROI (Energy Return on Energy Invested), which mostly neutralize LCOE issues. Typically, fossil fuels return 15 times as much energy as required for their exploitation (EROI of 15), wind and solar with backup about 2-5 (depending on geography). Nuclear is about 70 or better. Some context: The Roman Empire peaked at an EROI of 2 (with lots of slave labour), the industrial revolution with coal-powered steam was achieving an EROI of about 10. We need a minimum EROI of 12 - 15 to support our Western life style. Note that among other indicators (e.g., declining birthrates), declining EROI's (as apparently Dr. Edwards appears to be advocating) have a strong correlation with the collapse of civilizations. Going green with solar and wind plus backup is therefore going in the wrong direction. Nuclear (and perhaps deep geothermal) have a promise to allow us to continue to evolve to a better planet for everyone. See: “The Unpopular Truth: about Electricity and the Future of Energy" 2022 by Lars Schernikau & William Hayden Smith, and references therein.

[@Rawdiswar]

Awesome, thanks

[@andrewmay1171]

Kudos to Chris for keeping his cool in front of that intellectually dishonest activist. I don't think I could have done the same.

[@GeneralJackRipper]

There's only one way to save the world: CLEAN GREEN NUCLEAR ENERGY

[@paulwhetstone0473]

Canadians do great debates. It’s too bad the US and other countries don’t follow suit. The first nation’s lady and the last three ladies need to learn how to ask concise questions…so annoying.

[@martkbanjoboy8853]

You are not Canadian and don't know or care what is going on in Canada.

[@paulwhetstone0473]

@@martkbanjoboy8853 I may not be Canadian but I know a good debate when I see one and I know when someone doesn’t ask a concise question.

[@shawnnoyes4620]

ANEEL Fuel would increase time between refueling for CANDU as well as decrease fuel bundles to 1/7th of current usage.

[@scottmedwid1818]

You have every right to be passionate about this issue. It is so important to regeneratively decarbonate our energy usage.

[@microburn]

Thank you Dr K. If anything this demonstrates how unserious the opposition is to nuclear power. It’s in their rhetoric and in their unserious concerns. @1:31:10 “I’m not very good at math but…” I have NIMBY problems and only 10 more years of life expectancy so nuclear is bad!

[@jimbob1427]

Anyone who quotes lazard can't be taken seriously

[@justincheng3922]

Excellent discussion. Much needed.

[@DiegoGarcia-ip7pr]

Land acknowledgement, strike one.

[@chrisruss9861]

Yep.

[@ericradys1718]

I'm now tuning into this particular video. My comment reflects on some of the many other Decouple videos I have seen. I understand that nuclear will have to be part of the future mix of sources. May I suggest that we balance your information with the data compiled from sources, such as : Helen Cauldecotte, Arnold Gunderson (Fairwinds Project), or some of the other guests that have been featured on "Nuclear Hotseat. You are out of balance and neglecting how this source is being handled. To say nuclear is "carbon free" is just absurd. Take in account: mining, milling, refining, storage after uses; and the carbon intensity of the size of these concrete projects, especially given the plants life cycle. Not to mention the amount of water needed for daily cooling... should these be on rivers that can dry up as we have seen in Italy? One of your "shorts" claimed that a recent reading at Chernobyl, read 65000 microsieverts. Your guest claimed that is equal to time spent in a Trans Atlantic flight. My search came up with 40 microsieverts for that time duration. Maybe a panel of guests from differing scientific research would be helpful for all. I look forward to future content that can lead us to real detailed facts.

[@aliendroneservices6621]

44:05 Gordon Edwards is an anti-electricity activist.

[@hanshyde9108]

BTW, these continual claims that nuclear in Ontario is responsible for the closure/phase out of coal is extremely simplistic... again back to years before you entered the discussion. 1. it was not building new CANDUs in Canada that closed Nanticoke. In fact, the fleet was built and operational for years (a couple decades???) before Nanticoke was closed. The CANDUs were not known for high-capacity factors (anywhere in the world & in Ontario also). Production peaked in 1992 more than a decade after Darlington was completed. Where did "new" generation come from to finally close Nanticoke? 1. Closure of the high energy demand heavy water plant at Bruce, once it was realized the export market for CANDUs no longer existed. 2. Improvements in operational performance of the CANDUs. 3. Refurbishments at Sir Adam Beck hydro & pumped hydro stations. 4. Other sources... wind, solar, gas, improvements to non-SAB hydro plants. There was no nuclear "miracle" that happened in Ontario and then magically, Nanticoke was closed. Let's be honest, Nanticoke could have been closed a decade earlier (maybe even before wind was deployed and Ontario rate payers were forced into higher earlier adopter costs), but it didn't because the CANDU fleet was not performing up to the expectations that were (lest I say, promised) when it was first built. Page 31 graph of Canada's nuclear generation backs the "performance" of the CANDU fleet since its origins. www.world-nuclear.org/getmedia/3418bf4a-5891-4ba1-b6c2-d83d8907264d/performance-report-2020-v1.pdf.aspx You got your nuclear refurbishments in Ontario... frankly that is great but butt the hell out of energy matters in countries you have no idea, nor the experience within the energy sectors to speak as some expert on anything other than nuclear energy itself.

[@aliendroneservices6621]

19:50 Coal-fired, and natural-gas-fired, electricity production are skyrocketing in Germany. Here is the percentage of total electricity production accounted for by coal-fired: 22Q3: 31.9 23Q3: 36.3 And natural-gas-fired: 22Q3: 8.8 23Q3: 9.2

[@davidc9152]

It's great to hear how weak the anti nuclear arguments are.

[@nuwave4328]

Fast spectrum MSRs can consume most of our high-level nuclear waste.

[@markdavis8888]

Sometimes its not A or B, but is A and B. Stop dissing each others plan and get to work on your own solution.

[@FernandoWINSANTO]

From 1 : 00 on Not showing the speaker is showing incompetence.

[@steveakers3322]

This was at times painful to watch. Science Vs Religion is not a debate anyone is going to win but thank you Dr. Keefer for remaining calm and sticking to the facts. I tried going back through this to find where the high priest of mumbling Dogma advocates for using the world's biggest nuclear reactor (geothermal power), but sorry I just couldn't put myself through his drivel twice.

[@volta2aire]

And what is the cost of making the wind and solar infrastructure with fossil fuels? Could you show us a windmill or a solar panel that can be produced using renewable energy?

[@aliendroneservices6621]

The cost is infinite if wind and solar are used to make (or attempt to make) wind and solar. It's telling that of the 1 million factories on Earth, not a single one is powered off-grid by its own solar panels.

[@Rawdiswar]

The Green Party critic was very difficult to listen to,

[@hanshyde9108]

You have no idea what you are talking about regarding Germany, they actually reclaim the land after they take out the coal. Focus on your own country. Tell us what the coal mining areas of Saskatchewan & Alberta look like now, and their open pit mines. What is the efficiency of the coal plants in Germany, versus those in Canada. Where are the nuclear reactors in these Canadian provinces? At this point, given your 4-year experience in the energy sectors, all you do is recite talking points from the nuclear bros, or... those with fossil fuel generation that have not built nuclear reactors themselves. And Dr. Edwards is correct, Germany's coal generation increased to make up for the nuclear fleet collapsing in France. Forcing Norway to drain its hydro batteries (equivalent to those in Quebec or BC or Manitoba). Before you entered this energy ecosphere, it was promised the French nuclear fleet would be there through thick or thin when it was needed, and why Germany or more importantly, France should not build any wind or solar. French NPP were promised to us as being there whenever we needed them. And in 2022/3 they were not when Europe needed them most! Why not just accept your technology of choice failed to deliver have extreme negative knock-on effects throughout Europe. This a fact, no different than Germany shut down its nuclear fleet. Deal with it!

[@adriandawson4924]

It’s all about energy density. EOOEI

[@migueldel-rey9179]

Gordon got owned haha

[@OzRails]

Ir192 is comes from Fission reactors

[@rodneytrynor7374]

If the NB power molten salt reactor runs on molten sodium can it be or has it been modified to use the thorium fuel cycle(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle)?

[@wwoods66]

There are two different reactors in prospect to be added to the Point Lepreau nuclear plant. The ARC-100 design uses molten sodium as a coolant. The Moltex design uses molten salt (chloride fuel plus fluoride coolant). I suppose thorium could be added, but probably shouldn't be, since it would add complexity to what are still experimental designs. Save that for later.

[@Dan5482]

At its present stage, nuclear is not a definitive solution. If the whole world changed its electric generation system to nuclear, the global reserves of uranium would be depleted in about 4 years.

[@TheDoctorRulesPSN]

Thst is true for the known conventional uranium reserves. The increase in uranium usage from more reactors would cause a price increase that would make seawater mining economical. There is basically an unlimited amount of uranium in the oceans. Also moving to closed fuel cycle techniques and thorium-based fuels will further increase the amount of available fuel to effectively infinite.

[@johncrompton2285]

That is why we need gen4 breeder reactors@@TheDoctorRulesPSN

[@aliendroneservices6621]

Reserves is an economic, rather than geological, concept. Thus, reserves grow to meet demand. If you're interested in resources-in-place (geological), there remain 75 trillion tonnes of uranium, which is 10 billion years' worth, replacing all other fuels.

[@rodneytrynor7374]

Thank you, Alvin Weinberg. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_M._Weinberg

[@rodneytrynor7374]

EBR3: www.ne.anl.gov/About/reactors/EBR2-NN-2004-2-2.pdf