this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2023
93 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

217 readers
12 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] troyunrau@lemmy.ca 13 points 11 months ago (4 children)

There are obviously some roadblocks. We still don't have a good waste storage facility (all efforts to find one have apparently been stalled by NIMBYism or land rights or, ironically, environmentalism). We also have NIMBYism for actual construction of the plants themselves. And the provinces most likely to benefit are Saskatchewan and Alberta, but the oil lobby is too strong there. But, hey, we can dream right.

[–] Crankpork 16 points 11 months ago (1 children)

We don’t have waste storage for the greenhouse gasses produced by fossil fuel plants either but Nuclear opponents never bring that up.

[–] I_am_10_squirrels 5 points 11 months ago

Because you can't see greenhouse gasses, makes it easier to ignore

[–] tunetardis@lemmy.ca 6 points 11 months ago

Bear in mind that there is going to be nimby opposition to pretty much any new power project. I've seen it where I live with wind farms, for example, and it unfortunately does work, leading to delays, downscaling, and outright cancellation. I guess the thing is that with nuclear or hydro, you tend to run into a few colossal battles to get the things built, whereas with wind, you're looking at hundreds of smaller clashes. Solar seems a little less contentious, but it's also the least reliable energy source, meaning you will have to look at large-scale energy storage projects which, again, will attract a nimby element.

[–] Obi@sopuli.xyz 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

NIMBY for waste storage? You'd expect Canada to be one of the countries where that's the least of the issues, what with having infinite land in the north.

[–] troyunrau@lemmy.ca 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Try convincing any remote community, native or otherwise, that you're building a nuclear waste facility. And if not near enough a community, then you're looking at having to build out an entirely new community and infrastructure to supply it.

There's been some attempts -- research storage facilities like the one in Pinawa, MB, but they've all been shut down.

[–] Obi@sopuli.xyz 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

For sure I understand it's more tricky than just going out in the woods making a big pit and calling it a day (though the image I had in my mind was pretty close to that if I'm being honest). Just feels like there's plenty of space far enough from anyone's backyard but you make a good point about having to then supply that site.

Made me question where France was putting theirs and it's in l'Aube, rural area but definitely not empty by any means. Except for the real nasty stuff that's being temporarily kept by the producers on-site until they apparently plan to bury them in a deep geological argile formation (projet cigΓ©o).

[–] Grimpen@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

On site deep geological disposal is possible using boreholes. There's a Kyle Hill video touching on it.

Above ground storage is in dry casks, is it not? Hardly that nasty. I guess if it is in pools, out might arguably be nasty.

[–] Obi@sopuli.xyz 3 points 11 months ago

What I meant is the stuff they want to geologically bury are the very radioactive parts that are 0.2% of the volume but 95%+ of the radioactivity, that's all.

[–] CanadaPlus@futurology.today 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Good old environmentalism. Never define what it is exactly, and fight yourself getting there as a result. I wonder if there's a parallel timeline where global warming, species preservation, protecting the public from toxins and being anti-science all have their own separate lobbies, that occasionally collaborate when they align.