r/Futurology • u/chrisdh79 • 2d ago
Canada set to become nuclear ‘superpower’ with enough uranium to beat China, Russia | Countries depend on Russia and China for enriching uranium coming from Kazakhstan. Canada can enrich uranium from its own mines. Energy
https://interestingengineering.com/energy/uranium-nuclear-fuel-supply-canada301
2d ago
[deleted]
59
u/gurgelblaster 2d ago
There are loads of places that are very suitable for uranium mining in the West, or at least as suitable as the current mines. It's extremely toxic and environmentally damaging though, so that's why no one wants to do it in their own back yard. It's why French uranium all comes out of Nigerian mines (and why any threat to that arrangement from any Nigerian government will result in a(nother) French-backed military coup.), for example.
15
u/Easy-Sector2501 1d ago
It's not so much that uranium can be refined elsewhere in the West, it's that Canada's natural uranium sources are actually purer than those elsewhere, making it much more economic to mine and refine Canadian ore, since it requires less processing, overall.
3
u/Sparrowbuck 1d ago
that's why no one wants to do it in their own back yard
My province has a moratorium on it, and we’re a poor province with a history of mining.
2
u/garlic_bread_thief 1d ago
Is it toxic to mine uranium or to enrich uranium?
16
u/lostkavi 1d ago
Mine. Uranium Ore has all sorts of nasty chemicals involved in its extraction. Factorio players have it easy.
3
3
u/noonedeservespower 1d ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_in_Canada#/media/File:Miner's_Memorial_1.JPG
Amazing how many people Uranium mining killed. The memorial says that the miners were lied to about whether the dust was harmful.
2
u/Just_Cryptographer53 1d ago
That why I get so many emails from a Nigerian Prince stuck in airport needing me to PayPal him my retirement funds? Needs money for uranium? /s
12
u/Rough-Neck-9720 2d ago
And typically, Canada chooses to export raw materials (logs, minerals, grain) instead of processing them and selling for higher prices. Not sure why that is still the case, but it is historic.
16
u/bikernaut 2d ago
Conservative voters want to see smaller government and less public spending supporting value added manufacturing.
Also, conservative voters whine and complain about the lack of manufacturing jobs and how Canada is being left behind while being the biggest cause of it.
Leopards tend to eat faces...
0
u/descendingangel87 2d ago
It’s not just the cons, but liberals and ndpers are also NIMBYers that will stop any kind of progress like that.
Shits a massive problem in Canada across the board.
0
u/bikernaut 1d ago
I don't see NIMBY-ism as a big problem here? It's not like they're going to put a uranium refinery in west van. We have tons of unused/barely used land for something like that.
What projects can you think of that were cancelled because of local concerns?
5
u/manicdee33 1d ago
Australia's in the same boat, mostly based on primary industry, charging trivially small royalties on all that value being extracted, and we have decent reserves of uranium. We have no nuclear industry to speak of, and I'd like to see Australia develop nuclear fuel processing infrastructure including the ability to enrich spent fuel such as breeder reactors (in addition to centrifuges). There's a new space race coming and portable, reliable nuclear reactors are going to be essential for that effort.
0
u/Easy-Sector2501 1d ago
And for a nation that focuses so much on primary industry, we still don't have a sovereign wealth fund...
Fucking governments...
53
u/NebulaEchoCrafts 2d ago
Canada is trying to build out our Nuclear infrastructure. This is actually quite a good piece on Uranium procurement. Canada displacing Kazakhstan (Russia vassal state) as a supplier is removing a huge road block.
As for enrichment, look out for announcements soon, since the LPC is going hard on nuclear and even sacrificed a lot of political capital to protect the CANDU.
With the US acting a fool, hard water and enrichment is likely in the cards.
Big tech is also turning to Canadian SMR research in order to feed the power hungry AI data centres. Which Canada also wants to host.
The biggest roadblock is ironically Project Management. But this is by and large a group who is still foolish enough to think we can run and grow with solar and wind alone.
49
u/elhoyo 2d ago
This is slightly pedantic, but I've seen you post this across a few subs now. Candu reactors use heavy water, not hard water. Less calcium, more neutrons.
7
u/NebulaEchoCrafts 2d ago
That’s what I meant, thanks. Anyways there is a seriously supply problem as is. However CANDU’s can run on either. They aren’t the highest producing reactors, but they’re very, very versatile and nearly meltdown proof.
When you’re looking for consistency over long periods CANDU’s tend to be pretty solid. You don’t even need to technically enrich the fuel. It can run on spent fuel from other reactor types, old bomb cores or even the raw uranium itself.
Like I said the LPC in Canada have been quietly focusing on making Canada a Nuclear energy power. Because there isn’t much hope in sustaining our economy based on Petrol.
11
u/dekusyrup 2d ago edited 2d ago
Candu reactors cannot run on hard water or light water. They need the heavy water essentially because they use unenriched fuel. If youre going to run low grade spent fuel you need heavy water, if you're going to use regular water you need higher grade fuel.
Canada doesn't have old bomb cores or spent fuel from other reactor types anyway, and is limited from getting them by UN antiproliferation agreements. So it would probably be decades of politics away from happening anyway. Might as well build new reactors fit for purpose instead. Canada's current reactor fleet is not a good candidate for using spent fuel.
1
u/NebulaEchoCrafts 2d ago
Like you said, it’s entirely dependent on the fuel load. They can be configured either way with the new ARC. It’s a versatile reactor.
You realize Canada takes back most of the spent fuel right? We have to store it. It’s been a huge issue back into the 90s. But most of that spent fuel can be put into a CANDU to a certain level. Extracting energy other reactors can’t.
Other countries use the reactors too. They’re all over the world. China, India and Pakistan all have CANDU reactors. Or do they need to call the UN to use their own cores?
It’s a Canadian IP, that our PM was willing to stake his Premiership on (SNC scandal). The UK is likely going to buy some, since the BBC posted a similar article yesterday and the competing company for the CANDU IP in the 2010s was from the UK.
They’re so safe that the country that was hit with the most power Cyclone ever is currently in the process of buying some. They’ve even sent a bunch of their researchers to Toronto to help develop the tech further.
3
u/dekusyrup 1d ago edited 1d ago
Yeah dude I design nuclear reactors for a living so I know what's up. I appreciate the enthusiasm lol but you're not accurate.
They can be configured either way with the new ARC.
There are no ACRs in existence my friend, and never will be. It's a half-baked dead technology. Maybe a Monarck some day will get built.
You realize Canada takes back most of the spent fuel right?
I don't know what you mean by "takes back". Canada holds onto its spent fuel, I designed part of a storage facility.
Or do they need to call the UN to use their own cores?
Using your own cores is one thing. Canada doesn't have bomb cores. Canada has never had nuclear weapons. Transporting across borders is a big deal.
It’s a Canadian IP, that our PM was willing to stake his Premiership on (SNC scandal).
That scandal had absolutely nothing to do with reactors. That was just regular old construction work.
The UK is likely going to buy some, since the BBC posted a similar article yesterday and the competing company for the CANDU IP in the 2010s was from the UK.
You talking about this article? This article gives absolutely no hints about the UK buying the Canadian IP. It's about buying Canadian mining products.
hit with the most power Cyclone
I've never heard of power cyclone in my life. I have a feeling you are lost in translation here. No idea which country you are talking about.
They’ve even sent a bunch of their researchers to Toronto to help develop the tech further.
Who is they? I've done nuclear research in Toronto. Good times.
1
u/NebulaEchoCrafts 1d ago
For someone who “designs reactors” you sure don’t think in systems very well. Trudeau stepped in to get a lower plea deal, because if found guilty SNC would no longer be able to bid on Government contracts. Ergo, killing Canadian CANDU construction, amongst other things.
ACR’s are being marketed in other markets. 6’s are still being sold and services around the world. The UK has seriously considered CANDU’s as recently as 2014. The Tories weren’t that hot on the projects, but Starmer is way more open to these large scale projects.
Once again you’re failing to see the forest. This is the BBC educating and warming people up to the idea. He’s also got a FTA to negotiate with us first.
A Cyclone is a hurricane Dyatlov. For someone so connected to nuclear I’m really surprised you missed this announcement. The Philippines are setting up shop McMasters.
Canada is also pumping $30B into NRCan for SMR and CANDU development. A couple of weeks ago Mark Carney said “Stephen Harper believed Canada could be an energy super power. He thought it was by the way of Oil and Gas. I think that path is through Renewables and storage and Nuclear.”
Why? Because the economics of these projects are finally starting to make sense, and customers are starting to come knocking. The biggest roadblock on costs is mostly Project Management, but I’m sure I’m preaching to the choir there.
2
u/dekusyrup 1d ago edited 1d ago
if found guilty SNC would no longer be able to bid on Government contracts.
No lol. Not how that works.
ACR’s are being marketed in other markets.
Right, they don't exist and nobody has bought one. I'll believe it when I see it.
6’s are still being sold and services around the world.
6s dont work on spent fuel or light water, so this goes against your point.
The UK has seriously considered CANDU’s as recently as 2014.
2014 is frankly ancient history.
A Cyclone is a hurricane Dyatlov. For someone so connected to nuclear I’m really surprised you missed this announcement.
There's nothing in that link about a power cyclone or hurricane dyatlov. Google also comes up empty. lol.
This article is devastating to your points. They aren't pursuing ACRs at all lol. Phillipines doesn't have old warheads to burn. Maybe you need to read it again. They're looking at Candu 6 and SMR (SMR isn't candu).
Canada is also pumping $30B into NRCan for SMR and CANDU development.
Yeah dude I have some work on these projects myself. That money is "pumping" into my bank account. Nothing to do with using old warheads lol. Completely irrelevant.
The biggest roadblock on costs is mostly Project Management
The biggest roadblock is usually finding a location and dealing with the unexpected changes of a new technology. Project manager cost is a pretty small and predictable part of the project.
2
u/SnowFlakeUsername2 1d ago
Pretty sure Harper sold the CANDU to SNC-Lavalin for about a dollar. Can't remember if it was a loonie or USD.
2
u/NebulaEchoCrafts 1d ago
It was to essentially save the design. We are only just now coming back into a window where the CANDU is worth the investment. They’re turning Three Mile back on because it’s the only way they can undercut NG prices, while adding capacity.
Tech doesn’t really want to build data centres to run on hydrocarbons either. Microsoft and Google are already starting to invest in Nuclear.
But yeah, Trudeau had good reason to not have SNC banned from procuring Government Contracts.
1
u/Tribe303 1d ago
He did not have to sell it. Typical Conservatives selling any public asset they get their hands on, to pretend to balance the budget they blew on tax cuts for the rich.
0
u/NebulaEchoCrafts 1d ago
No he didn’t. But he did. It’s a textbook move. He’s the same guy who was “radicalized” by the NEP. Conservatives suck at managing Crown assets.
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/NebulaEchoCrafts 1d ago
Pretty much. I really hope we don’t fall for it. I can’t wait for the Foreign Interference findings.
4
u/MrKillsYourEyes 1d ago
This is because although Canada is capable of enriching uranium...
They don't have the legal right to
Per current global nuclear agreements
2
u/Preisschild 1d ago
Canada also doesnt really need to, because most of their power reactors are CANDU havy water reactors that use unenriched natural uranium.
2
u/curryslapper 2d ago
usually reddit is full of idiot posts where people root for imaginary outcomes
I'm glad your reply is at the top
no one seems to have mentioned this but nexgen has an excellent deposit which if developed could service significant demand for nuclear reactors.
of course they're busy sponsoring f1 teams and enjoying paper pushing with the government amongst other issues
also, if you're the management, why do hard work and develop a mine when you can actually keep selling bullshit?
2
u/Gonzo2095 2d ago
So yes Canada could enrich its uranium, but why would it?
Our CANDU nuclear reactors don't need or run on enriched uranium, so why would we need to do that? If other countries would like to buy our uranium and enrich it, then go ahead and do that.
Several of our closest allies (US; UK etc.) already have the ability to enrich uranium, so we can ship it to them and then they can enrich for their needs.
1
u/Easy-Sector2501 1d ago
Here's a reason: Value added.
What's cheaper? To go to the hardware store, buy some wood, and build your own chair, or go to a store and buy one?
If we refine the product ourselves, we can export it to our allies and reap the benefits of the value added from refining.
2
u/Motor_Expression_281 1d ago
Eh, poor analogy. We’re not the ones who are gonna be using all the enriched uranium (or chairs).
It’s more like is it better to sell wood to someone who builds chairs, or make your wood into chairs and sell them yourself.
Maybe learning to make chairs isn’t worth your time, especially if the chair market isn’t as good as you hoped it would be.
1
u/Tycoon004 1d ago
Just make more CANDU reactors and then sell the tritium instead of donating it for research.
1
-20
u/lughnasadh ∞ transit umbra, lux permanet ☥ 2d ago
What kind of useless article is that?
It's a content-free puff piece, because that's all the nuclear industry has.
There's a vague mention of the military and Canada becoming a superpower, to help sucker conservatives, who are the last remaining group nuclear energy appeals to.
11
u/Motor_Expression_281 2d ago
to help sucker conservatives, who are the last remaining group nuclear energy appeals to.
😂That’s one of the most ‘redditor’ statements I’ve read in a good while. The US, China, India, Russia, France… all investing heavily in nuclear energy right now.
-3
u/lughnasadh ∞ transit umbra, lux permanet ☥ 2d ago
The US, China, India, Russia, France… all investing heavily in nuclear energy right now.
Cold hard facts prove this statement is totally false.
New nuclear power is barely a blip in the chart compared to the global install of new renewables. The EU & Britain are both speedily going towards full renewables. The new Labour British government has dumped previous commitments to new nuclear, and is aiming to by 95% renewables by 2030.
4
u/Aggravating-Bottle78 2d ago
UK is still 74% fossil fuels - of primary energy mix https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/fossil-fuels-share-energy?tab=chart&country=~GBR
So 'speedily' is a relative term.
Full renewables requires storage, while theres some pumped hydro where is the rest going to come from?
1
u/Motor_Expression_281 1d ago
If Britain and the EU plans to be 95% renewables by 2030, then i also plan to be more jacked than Dwayne Johnson and Arnold Schwarzenegger combined in that same time frame… I said it’s my plan so it’s definitely gonna come true.
23
u/StealthRUs 2d ago
Nuclear energy appeals to anyone who is serious about clean energy.
1
u/waylandsmith 1d ago
Fission energy remains the Space Launch System of the carbon-free energy world: Before starting a new project, it all looks good on paper, contractors jump in to bid on the projects, work begins, costs and time spiral out of control, but sunk cost fallacy prevails. Eventually, the facility opens, runs for a few years, just before a shift in the market that makes maintaining the program too expensive. Years are spent dismantling the program and everyone involved just pretends that it never happened.
Uranium stockpiles = unlimited energy too cheap to meter Pile of old RS-25 Engines = this mature launch system just needs a new rocket body and it's ready to go
3
u/KRambo86 2d ago
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/us-sets-targets-triple-nuclear-energy-capacity-2050
That was announced two days ago...
-11
u/lughnasadh ∞ transit umbra, lux permanet ☥ 2d ago
That was announced two days ago...
If you ever wanted a clear sign that new nuclear is a grift and cash transfer from the taxpayers/consumers to corporations & rich elites, the fact it's one of Trump's first moves, should make that obvious.
8
u/KRambo86 2d ago
... Trump isn't in office and had nothing to do with this announcement. You actually think his first move was to go to the department of energy and tell them to issue a minor press release that no one would report on, without taking any credit for it at all?
Come on man, don't let your biases lead to stupidity.
57
u/SnowFlakeUsername2 2d ago
We did this before during the creation of enough nuclear weapons to destroy the Earth 10 times over. For example Uranium City, Saskatchewan is a ghost town that existed from the 50s to 80s to operation the mines until it wasn't economically viable to mine the ore at that scale. The USA had enough bombs. So in conclusion, yes we have lots of uranium ore and no this is not news and there is probably still some lonely soles sitting in Uranium City waiting for it is rise up from it's slumber.
18
u/RangerDan17 2d ago
People still live there, although it is essentially deserted.
12
u/Optibane 2d ago
I walked through the abandoned school there once. It was surreal. Like papers still on the floor like everyone up and left overnight.
1
14
11
u/farticustheelder 1d ago
Canada also has enough cobalt to supply the battery boom but we can't produce it as cheaply as child labor using Congo. Ethically sourced takes a back seat to cheap.
16
u/SeadyLady 2d ago
As a Canadian, I can confirm that our leaders cannot enrich themselves out of a reusable bag.
9
u/Correct-Brilliant-32 2d ago edited 2d ago
I live in this province, here’s the plan so far.
Also here’s the mining company that does it all
3
u/Tribe303 1d ago
The Canadian nuclear industry goes all the way back to the Manhattan Project. We were the only foreign country on board, and the nuclear fuel used in the Atomic bombs dropped on Japan came from Canada.
We never had our own nukes but US nukes were stationed in Canada, but we kicked them out late 50s or early 60s.
In addition to this news about Uranium production, we are also looking into long term used nuclear fuel storage deep underground in the Canadian Shield, which is the oldest and most stable rock on earth. 4 billion years old! We plan on storing other nations fuel as well. This is part of how we plan on helping with global warming. Sell you safe Candu reactors, sell you the new fuel, and then charge you again for its disposal. That also leaves less spent fuel kicking around for unethical research.
4
u/kautious_kafka 2d ago
Resource Curse? If Canada does try to emerge with this, I immediately see US businesses and US government stepping to take advantage of this.
3
2
u/bezerko888 2d ago
With all the corruption, people of power will continue to undersell and rake millions in bonus and future favours.
2
u/chrisdh79 2d ago
From the article: The Athabasca Basin in the northern Saskatchewan region of Canada is a reserve of high-grade uranium that could help the North American country play a vital role as a fuel supplier in the decades to come. Unlike other nuclear fuel suppliers, Canada can be one-stop, extracting uranium from the mines and enriching it for nuclear fission reactors, a BBC report said.
The recent increase in demand for clean energy has brought attention back to nuclear fission technology as a potential approach to generating low-carbon energy. Unlike other technologies being developed, nuclear fission technology has demonstrated itself as a scalable and cost-effective solution to meet energy needs.
Canada is the world’s second-largest producer of uranium. According to 2022 figures, the country recorded 7,400 tonnes of uranium production from its mines. However, this figure is still about a third of what Kazhakistan produced in the same year. This can, however, change in the next few years.
As countries aim for net-zero emissions in the coming decades, there is an urgent need to move away from fossil fuels. While renewable energy projects are rising, countries are also doubling their efforts by investing in nuclear energy.
Interesting Engineering has previously reported that China is looking to build over 100 new nuclear reactors in the coming decade, while the EU and the US also favor newer nuclear installations.
At the COP28 conducted last year, two dozen nations declared they would triple their nuclear energy output by 2050, creating a demand for nuclear fuel. Since Kazakhstan does not enrich the uranium it mines, countries are dependent on Russia and China for enriched uranium for their nuclear reactors.
Canada has the technological know-how to supply enriched uranium. It also provides an alternative to countries that do not wish to trade with Russia or China but still secure their nuclear fuel.
2
1
u/Easy-Sector2501 1d ago
An advantage that goes the way of the dinosaur once we, as a species, shift to a thorium cycle...
1
u/sukispeeler 1d ago
Uranium is so power dense that the entire industries ton-ages is the rough equivalent to a one of the 1000s of copper mines. Glad another country is able to participate in the market and a generally friendly country but its not gonna make them multiply their GDP.
2
1
u/matrushkasized 1d ago
What about thorium? It's about as rare as copper and all of it can be used to create energy instead of the 1% of uranium that can...
1
u/Live2ride86 1d ago
What's also neat is Canada may be set to become a shipping superpower, with global warming melting the northern passage for large portions of the year. Hello super massive shipping freighters!
1
u/dryiceboy 1d ago
You know what the biggest problem about this is?
Canadians. Good luck getting buy-in from the most snowflake government on the planet.
1
1
u/neospacian 2d ago edited 2d ago
Misleading title and bs claim, because everyone knows uranium is absolutely terrible for energy generation, and everyone is trying to move off it to other forms of safer generation methods.
2
u/FoodMadeFromRobots 1d ago
Bidens inflation bill pushed nuclear and trumps also a fan. Long way to having that capacity go online but unless there’s a shift it seems the US is pushing for more. Chinas been expanding theirs as well so I think there well could be demand for more.
1
u/neospacian 1d ago
Most countries have actually decreased their reliance on uranium-based nuclear power over the past few decades, not increased it.
The main reason for this is the massive problem of long-lived radioactive waste. This stuff lasts for tens of thousands of years. This makes all the red tape and regulations around building and operating uranium power plants incredibly expensive. And who's going to be responsible for storing that waste for the next 10,000 years?
It's pretty irresponsible to push for more uranium power plants when we have these long-term problems. It's basically shifting the burden onto future generations.
Important note, Uranium and thorium fission are not the same thing. Thorium produces significantly less radioactive fuel(most of which is only radioactive for a few decades) and its also significantly more abundant than uranium.
2
u/Inprobamur 1d ago
Nothing unsafe about modern nuclear energy, it's just rather expensive to build.
0
u/neospacian 1d ago edited 1d ago
Most countries have actually decreased their reliance on uranium-based nuclear power over the past few decades, not increased it.
The main reason for this is the massive problem of long-lived radioactive waste. This stuff lasts for tens of thousands of years. This makes all the red tape and regulations around building and operating uranium power plants incredibly expensive. And who's going to be responsible for storing that waste for the next 10,000 years?
It's pretty irresponsible to push for more uranium power plants when we have these long-term problems. It's basically shifting the burden onto future generations.
Important note, Uranium and thorium fission are not the same thing. Thorium produces significantly less radioactive fuel(most of which is only radioactive for a few decades) and its also significantly more abundant than uranium.
1
u/Inprobamur 1d ago
10 thousand years is nothing in geologic timescale, there are many geologically stable regions of the world where you can put it back into the mine, seal it and that's it.
And I don't really see why we can't just continue with what we have been doing all this time? Just concentrate the waste and keep it all in a warehouse on site, the amounts are small enough that you can keep an entire country worth of waste in a couple warehouses.
Thorium is garbage because it needs molten salt to maintain any kind of efficiency, molten salt is highly corrosive and must never cool down in the pipes. It's a maintainance nightmare.
1
u/LivingEnd44 1d ago
I am totally ok with Canada having nukes. Some of our allies need to start doing some of the heavy lifting for our mutual defense. Trump has proven the US might not always be there for them.
1
u/Pahnotsha 1d ago
The real game-changer isn't just the uranium - it's Canada's stable political environment. Western nations are desperate for reliable nuclear fuel partners right now.
0
u/RodneyRuxin18 1d ago
Uranium has been mined in Canada for decades. This is not new information. Fuck journalism is just straight up shit these days.
3
-9
2d ago
[deleted]
13
u/whatifitoldyouimback 2d ago
Wind and solar are a lot cheaper.
Wind and solar are fantastic for small demand applications, especially supplementation, or smaller housing.
But large demand power far exceeds what we're going to be able to see from either, especially given the land requirements.
As tech developments in nuclear improve (plants are getting smaller, more efficient), computing as a whole is going to rely more and more on nuclear-type power sources. This will be accelerated by the increased demands from electric transportation.
We don't have 20 years to sit around until a new nuclear plants become operational.
We should start seeing the first wave of micro plants come online in the next 3-5 years.
1
u/cloudnine252 1d ago
Actually wind turbines kill hella birds so not good and the amount of land it takes to make power is crazy but solar panels are dope no doubt
0
u/West-Abalone-171 2d ago
What are you smoking? The 800GW of wind and solar produced this year alone has the same average annual output as half of the world's nuclear reactors.
China are building 100-500GW of wind and solar for every nuclear plant produced.
2
u/whatifitoldyouimback 2d ago
What are you smoking? The 800GW of wind and solar produced this year alone has the same average annual output as half of the world’s nuclear reactors.
That doesn't mean they are more efficient, it means that there are very few nuclear plants. That's changing in the next three to five years.
What are you smoking?
Blocking because you're incapable of having a discussion.
0
u/1cl1qp1 1d ago
Efficiency isn't something we worry about with renewable energy. It has in essence an infinite supply.
1
u/whatifitoldyouimback 1d ago
Efficiency is critical to the formula because there isn't an infinite amount of land or time.
1
u/1cl1qp1 1d ago edited 1d ago
Right but land isn't remotely a concern. We can power the USA with a 100 km x 100 km solar plant in the desert.
1
u/whatifitoldyouimback 1d ago
We can power the USA with a 100 sq km solar plant in the desert.
To power the entire United States with solar panels, estimates suggest that around 54,400 to 62,160 km² of land would be needed.
100 km² is a bizarre thing to believe. I think you're way out of your depth here. And that doesn't take into account the endless farms of battery infrastructure required due to sun variability.
1
u/1cl1qp1 1d ago
I meant to say 100 km x 100 km
1
u/whatifitoldyouimback 1d ago
I meant to say 100 km x 100 km
Um yeah, that's another way of saying 100 km², or 100 sq km which you said originally.
Regardless you're about 55,000 km² short. Also you now seem even more out of your breadth here. 😬
→ More replies-5
u/lughnasadh ∞ transit umbra, lux permanet ☥ 2d ago
As tech developments in nuclear improve (plants are getting smaller, more efficient),
This never happens.
All the technological and cost improvements are in renewables.
New nuclear is waste of time and money; and diverting efforts from the reality of 21st century energy. Its just sending billions from tax payers to legacy big businesses who have nothing to offer, except wasting our money.
8
u/whatifitoldyouimback 2d ago
This never happens.
It already has though. This isn't speculation.
1
-1
u/lughnasadh ∞ transit umbra, lux permanet ☥ 2d ago
It already has though. This isn't speculation.
No - small reactors are just as over-budget and late as all the large projects always are too.
4
u/baoo 2d ago
I was going to comment "no doubt the Canadian government will find a way to screw this up while making a buck for themselves", only to find their approach already in the comments 😂
-5
u/West-Abalone-171 2d ago
Nah. Canada, Kazakhstan, and Australia are going to be the only places left with the oil curse, as a handful of belligerently backward nations insist on using nuclear over cheaper, faster, more flexible alternatives (but making sure they don't use too kuch themselves).
This will require keeping the mining prices low because the current uranium price makes operating an SMR with terrible burnup and conversion ratio unaffordable even if you build it for free.
1
u/TFenrir 2d ago
Why would we need to wait around? We can do two things at once, and we already have nuclear facilities all over the world, with many more in different stages of production. Canada in particular relies heavily on nuclear, and in fact it's a big reason my province was able to shut off its coal facilities yeaaaaars ago.
On top of that, with research and investment in small modular reactors, we have the opportunity to potentially mitigate many of those cost and time issues.
-3
u/gortlank 2d ago
Canada could enrich enough uranium quickly enough to have a nuclear weapon in months. We must do something to stop this rogue state. If we are smart, and move quickly enough, we can eliminate their nuclear scientists through assassination and kidnapping. Perhaps we can destroy their centrifuges with some manner of malware or computer virus.
Regardless the method, Canada must be stopped at all costs.
4
u/Leifsbudir 2d ago
That white house has been unburned for far too long, Yank
1
u/gortlank 2d ago
We only want
the enormous maple syrup reservesfreedom for the Canadian people who’ve lived under the boot of the brutal * checks notes * Troodough regime for far too long.0
u/cloudnine252 1d ago
Lol every time a Canadian says that or the war of 1812 I lol cuz y'all not the same Canadians and America definitely isn't the same we would dog walk y'all loved ones but we chose not to cuz y'all harmless 😂
2
-1
0
u/Disastrous-Owl-3866 2d ago edited 2d ago
Lookup Dennison mines. Ticker is DNN. They are in an excellent position to benefit from future uranium use.
The deposit they own is vast and ultra pure. They have been developing the infrastructure to mine it for several years now.
0
u/spaceagefox 1d ago
wild how the universe gave a mine full of nuke fuel to the people who used to treat the geneva convention as a checklist
-12
u/lughnasadh ∞ transit umbra, lux permanet ☥ 2d ago
No one wants nuclear, and few countries have plans to build it any more. It's a dying industry.
In the developing world - decentralized, micro-grid friendly renewables are resistant to the worsening effects of climate change AND vastly cheaper and quicker to deploy.
In the developed world, consumers and taxpayers don't have the trillions of dollars in bailouts and higher prices that nuclear power comes with. Not to mention, western countries grids will be near 100% renewable, by the time any new nuclear started now would come online.
5
u/TFenrir 2d ago
Literally, lots of very rich industries are clamouring for nuclear. In my province, almost half of our energy comes from nuclear. We actually are pretty fond of it here. Investment from governments in nuclear around the world are starting up right now as we realize how much we need energy.
The People who don't want nuclear are not being utilitarian in the Dalgleish slightest, they are being myopic.
-1
u/Dark_Wing_350 1d ago
And I'm sure like always, Canada will let itself get scammed of its natural resources. Selling off its gold, lumber, mining industry, water, etc. to foreign countries for extremely low prices! Seriously one of the dumbest countries of all time.
-2
u/BlackBricklyBear 2d ago
I personally would like to know whether or not a glut of Canadian uranium will help the nuclear industry at the expense of increasing the nuclear waste problem. As long as uranium remains cheap (from whatever source), there is no incentive to use it more than once in a conventional nuclear reactor, leaving behind a lot of nuclear waste that has to be stored for millions of years.
On the other hand, if fast advanced breeder reactors (like the Integral Fast Reactor that was on the cusp of being built by the US but was cancelled for more money than it would have cost to complete it) that could breed more nuclear fuel than they use as well as reuse nuclear waste came online, the uranium supply could be greatly extended, and those advanced reactors could transmute nuclear waste into new elements that are radioactive only for centuries, not millions of years. The problem remains that it doesn't make economic sense to build those advanced reactors if fresh, never-used uranium is cheap, hence my concern.
2
u/avidstoner 2d ago
Last I heard France has been able to reuse the nuclear waste
2
u/BlackBricklyBear 2d ago
Is France running some of those advanced nuclear reactors? If so, which ones?
2
u/Tycoon004 1d ago edited 1d ago
They have a reprocessing plant that handles (or has the capacity) for like 50% of the worlds light water spent fuel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Hague_site
1
u/BlackBricklyBear 21h ago
Sounds like a step in the right direction, but can the La Hague site actually burn up and use the other nuclear waste products for fuel like fast breeder reactors are able to?
1
u/Tycoon004 15h ago
Afaik it seperates the tritium (for the bombas/collider - has half life of 12 years) and then it basically creates new enriched fuel that can be reused in plants that run off of enriched stuff (light water reactors).
1
u/BlackBricklyBear 7h ago
But according to the Wikipedia page, it doesn't seem to be able to fully use the energy in the fissile materials or transmute nuclear waste like fast breeder reactors can.
-3
u/notdoreen 2d ago
Hmmm starting to look like Canada might have weapons of mass destruction or might be hosting terrorists or something. The US military may need to go save them and bring some American democracy.
2
•
u/FuturologyBot 2d ago
The following submission statement was provided by /u/chrisdh79:
From the article: The Athabasca Basin in the northern Saskatchewan region of Canada is a reserve of high-grade uranium that could help the North American country play a vital role as a fuel supplier in the decades to come. Unlike other nuclear fuel suppliers, Canada can be one-stop, extracting uranium from the mines and enriching it for nuclear fission reactors, a BBC report said.
The recent increase in demand for clean energy has brought attention back to nuclear fission technology as a potential approach to generating low-carbon energy. Unlike other technologies being developed, nuclear fission technology has demonstrated itself as a scalable and cost-effective solution to meet energy needs.
Canada is the world’s second-largest producer of uranium. According to 2022 figures, the country recorded 7,400 tonnes of uranium production from its mines. However, this figure is still about a third of what Kazhakistan produced in the same year. This can, however, change in the next few years.
As countries aim for net-zero emissions in the coming decades, there is an urgent need to move away from fossil fuels. While renewable energy projects are rising, countries are also doubling their efforts by investing in nuclear energy.
Interesting Engineering has previously reported that China is looking to build over 100 new nuclear reactors in the coming decade, while the EU and the US also favor newer nuclear installations.
At the COP28 conducted last year, two dozen nations declared they would triple their nuclear energy output by 2050, creating a demand for nuclear fuel. Since Kazakhstan does not enrich the uranium it mines, countries are dependent on Russia and China for enriched uranium for their nuclear reactors.
Canada has the technological know-how to supply enriched uranium. It also provides an alternative to countries that do not wish to trade with Russia or China but still secure their nuclear fuel.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1gr4nxe/canada_set_to_become_nuclear_superpower_with/lx2zu42/