Makes alot of sense. Canada has:<p>- one of the largest uranium reserves<p>- a well respected and safe nuclear design in CANDU<p>- experience with building and refurbishing nuclear reactors(Darlington)<p>and for Ontario itself A need for more baseload to work with the large amount of solar and wind that Ontario has added in the last 10 years.<p>Saskatchewan also now has a potential need for nuclear for industrial use now that wasn't present before from its existing population.<p>if the government can clear the red tape by using a well tested reactor design then they could certainly get some of these reactors built in that time frame.<p>15 seems...ambitions, but if we're going to spend at a federal level this is probably one of the better things to invest in.
>15 seems...ambitions, but if we're going to spend at a federal level this is probably one of the better things to invest in.<p>If they can make them cookie cutter as much as possible and not unique snowflakes like has been the pattern at least in the US, they can probably do it both on the timeline and a somewhat reasonable cost basis<p>If they build 15 individual projects instead of managing this as a single big project, yeah that is very ambitious
Always amused me that on the face of things, a CANDU looks just like a sideways RBMK. At least in terms of plumbing. There's clearly more to it than that.
15 years, to be clear.
> Ontario itself A need for more baseload to work with the large amount of solar and wind that Ontario has added in the last 10 years.<p>Chasing baseload is a fool's game. You will always have a mismatch between power needed and power produced. Power storage is necessary to move excess power produced to times of excess power need. e.g., shave the peaks to fill the valleys.<p>Any storage reduces the need for baseload and peaker plants. 4-6 hrs move daytime excess solar to fill evening needs. Overnight baseload excess can refill the batteries to cover the morning excess need before solar fully kicks in. Expanding battery capacity to 8-12 hours further reduces the need for expensive power sources such as nuclear and gas.
Your power storage is the Uranium fuel, which is a better battery than batteries. Much denser and lasts longer.<p>In a sanely designed grid you overprovision non-reliable renewables like solar and wind to provide your peak daytime usage and nuclear (or hydro if you are lucky enough) takes up the rest during the night and when wind is not blowing. Batteries to further flatten the duck curve and provide grid firming as required.<p>Then you have fallback to nuclear and load shedding programs for rare seasonal issues solving that last 1-3% that is incredibly expensive with non-dispatchable power sources. No need to build natural gas plants that sit idle 95% of the time. You overbuild solar since it's basically free from a capex standpoint and use that to charge your batteries when the sun shines.<p>This lets you maximize capital investment over your entire generating fleet while still providing relatively cheap and - most importantly - reliable power for industrial usage.<p>Of course, the choice society has made to make nuclear exceedingly expensive might make it pencil out that it's cheaper to subsidize natural gas. But I think that's naive and foolish for the long run.<p>Nuclear waste would be the other large remaining issue, but again - society chose to create that problem and not solve it. It's not technical in nature.<p>Batteries have no reasonable path forward for seasonal storage in many locations in the world. Nuclear does. Solving overnight storage is simply not interesting, as it's the easy problem to solve.<p>tldr; Build it all. Nuclear, solar, wind, batteries, and hell - even natural gas as a last resort.
I’m not Canadian so news to me that Canada has built nuclear plants around the world.<p>As in the UK we were previously asking a French-Chinese partnership to build here so not sure why Canada didn’t get chosen for that.
To my surprise Canada are actually quite ahead with the Darlington New Nuclear Project. There is a construction site [0] with work taking place. Not sure how Kairos Power are progressing in the USA. Nice job, Canada.<p>0 - <a href="https://www.neimagazine.com/news/darlington-smr-secures-financing" rel="nofollow">https://www.neimagazine.com/news/darlington-smr-secures-fina...</a>
A nuclear reactor in the Alberta Oil sands would take care of a large amount of the CO2 produced in the production of crude.
Can't wait for this to get bogged down in legislation and never get done
We are trying.
Hopefully this will kick Australia into gear.
CANDUs are cool, hope to see more in the world
Should look at the the historical record and consider the scale of cost overruns and delays that major nuclear projects have experienced. While everyone involved may have good intentions, the reality is that these projects often end up costing significantly more and taking much longer than originally projected.<p>Wind and solar could be deployed for a fraction of the proposed $100 billion investment and should be considered as part of the interim solution, while nuclear remains a long-term strategic project.<p>Rather than pursuing such an ambitious build out, a more practical approach might be to scale back the plan and focus on constructing one reactor each in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba as an initial phase.
How viable is Solar in Canada given its weather? (I am ignorant about it and only know that it's really cold and cloudy most of the time).
Alberta is one of the best locales for solar on the continent -- it's sunny most of the year -- and had an exploding renewables sector.<p>Until the far right O&G lobbyist provincial government kneecapped the sector.
A city like Calgary gets 233 days of sunny days a year. All across the prairies there is plenty of days filled with sun. British Columbia would probably not be great (like Seattle) but they could probably generate wind and hydro.
> Should look at the the historical record and consider the scale of cost overruns and delays that major nuclear projects have experienced. While everyone involved may have good intentions, the reality is that these projects often end up costing significantly more and taking much longer than originally projected.<p>Canada has also regularly refurbished their CANDU reactors, which are large multi year projects. And they do it on-time and under budget<p><a href="https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/renewed-bruce-3-back-in-service" rel="nofollow">https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/renewed-bruce-3-...</a>
I hope this happens but I won't hold my breath<p>Canada seems just absolutely inept at building infrastructure like this. Calgary's green line was supposed to be finished in 2025, and it's barely been started. I don't think they've even laid a single line of track.<p>This country is kind of a joke :/
Canada is not an infrastructure “joke.” It is a country with some world-class delivery organizations operating inside a political system that too often destroys continuity. Relative to the G7, that makes it mediocre and volatile, not uniquely incompetent. And, in nuclear specifically, probably no worse positioned than its peers, though the ten-reactor rhetoric is substantially more ambitious than the underlying commitments at this time... (not surprising - it's a politician making an announcement, which is something of a prerequisite for making a "real plan" anyways).<p>As a Canadian, I think Canada’s primary hurdle is not a lack of engineering competence, but rather political volatility. Projects like Calgary’s Green Line often suffer from shifting scopes, fragmented authority, and delayed funding. Conversely, the recent Darlington nuclear plant refurbishment finished early and under budget. This proves that Canada can successfully execute megaprojects when planning is front-loaded and standardized.<p>Another comment I'd make is that the Carney government is only just a bit more than one year old. They're writing a whole lot of new policy. Will they succeed more than past governments? Who knows. But, at least they're spending the majority of their political capital trying to build stuff.
Federal funding for the green line was announced in 2015, and IIRC they originally predicted a 2026 opening date for branches covering the north and south of the city - street running in the north central part and a bit in Seton, a short tunnel downtown, and dedicated ROW elsewhere. This was back when planners were still really into streetcars/trams. The funding mix was supposed to be $1.5 billion each from the city, province and feds.<p>The city sat on their hands for years, perfecting and re-routing the downtown part[1]. Eventually, the plan was shortened to 16 Ave N to Shepard with a long tunnel downtown. The city ordered $100s of millions of low-floor trains, incompatible with the existing ones, necessitating building a new maintenance facility. The cost at this point was $5.something billion.<p>Then, in 2020, the provincial government put a "pause" on the project. When it came back to life, costs had increased dramatically, and the city came out with a modified plan the (the $6.8 billion stub train from downtown to Lynnwood). The province then threatened to pull their part of the funding, and commissioned a new downtown segment plan that advocated for elevated downtown, and nothing north of there.<p>Today? We are building the original truncated south phase to Shepard (by 2031!), but not the downtown part. The city is still debating what's going to happen downtown, dismissing elevated. They are hearing from office building and parking lot owners who are worried about its effect on property values, but I think they are also rejecting any ideas from the province on principle. About the only positive thing I can say is that the project is tangibly under construction now, with actual bridges over roadways done or nearly complete.<p>I blame the city (both planners and elected officials) and the province in that order, but mostly the city.<p>[1] One positive thing to come from that is the routing in Inglewood/Ramsay and 26 Ave SE that avoids taking down heritage buildings and destroying a vital community corridor.
unfortunately yes. Too much bullshits jobs (to suck up funds mostly and critize every aspects of non existant projects) and not enough people to take risks and do the job.
Title is misleading, they want to <i>start building</i> not “build” (I.e. be operational).<p>Though that only moves the needles from impossible to laughable.<p>> If our goal is to double our grid and build a low-carbon economy in less than 25 years, there is no credible plan to do that without nuclear energy<p>There are plenty of credible plans, they all involve wind and solar. But as anyone watching clean energy news will know, Alberta is trying its hardest to get rid of all wind and solar development from the province.<p>As for the baseload argument, they already get >60% of the electricity from hydro and nuclear. How much more baseload do you really need? 100%?
A village near me in southern Alberta just built a huge wind farm.
That project was absolutely funded <i>before</i> Alberta slashed all funding for renewables projects [0].<p>This as well as the failed pipeline projects have made Canadian infrastructure projects very high risk from a lending perspective, becuase there's now a non-insignificant risk that a province can welch out of financing a deal purely for short term political gain.<p>This announcement is a good announcement, but it's just bluster if the entire ecosystem around liability and policy stability isn't managed.<p>[0] - <a href="https://thenarwhal.ca/alberta-renewable-energy-investment-collapse/" rel="nofollow">https://thenarwhal.ca/alberta-renewable-energy-investment-co...</a>
Doesn't nuclear make sense to increase baseline capacity where hydro isn't available?
The claim that Alberta is actively trying to get rid of all wind and solar development is internet hyperbole that ignores real capacity data. Alberta actually ranks second in Canada for clean energy growth, and its renewable output surged by over 25% year-over-year into 2026.<p>The high-profile project cancellations people point to weren't a government ban. They happened because the province changed its transmission rules. Previously, ratepayers subsidized the massive utility costs required to connect remote wind and solar farms to the central grid. The province ended this, forcing private developers to internalize their own grid connection costs. Once forced to pay for their own infrastructure, highly speculative, unfinanced projects simply became economically unviable and dropped out of the queue.<p>If a private wind or solar developer wanted to build a massive farm in a remote, rural area (like Southern Alberta) where land is cheap but high-voltage power lines do not exist, they only had to pay for the immediate wire connecting their project to the nearest local substation. Taxpayers were subsidizing those players, because it was a "load pays" system.<p>Please do not fall pray to the general trope that Alberta is a backwards hillbilly province. Subsidizing private developments with public money is not something that should be encouraged.<p>On Canada broadly, you are correct in your baseload numbers and I agree with you.<p>(Energy trader here)
I live right in the affected area and allowing more turbines against the eastern slopes of the Rockies would be tragic. Can't put a price on this viewscape.
> Subsidizing private developments with public money is not something that should be encouraged.<p>What other kind of subsidy is there?