If Canada is going to build or buy, and use SMRs (small modular nuclear reactors), enriched uranium will be needed. The current plan to to have it supplied from the US, the UK or France. It that what you want?
Nuclear power is an unacceptable danger, and the waste stays toxic for longer than humans will be here. Not having nuclear power is what we should want.
If there is a push to enrich it in canada, I would presume canada is making nukes, as they can make the reactor fuel at the same time. Does Canada have nukes? They should, hate to say it. But those reactors are trouble waiting to happen.
Well it’s a balance between minimizing fossil emissions, and minimizing nuclear proliferation. Canada can buy fuel from the UK, France and the US as long as the alliances are maintained. If there’s a push to break these alliances, everything must be reevaluated.
Nuclear power is not the answer, and it shows how weak minded people are that they let Peter Thiel and his ilk manipulate them into supporting it here in the US.
The answer to what?
That comment belies your motive.
It isn’t a comment, it’s a question. You’re saying nuclear power “is not the answer”. Please explain.
If we’re going to build infrastructure that requires it then we need to enrich it ourselves.
Same with refining oil.
Agreed, I think it is ridiculous that we have a wealth of natural resources, and yet have to buy back finished products at inflated prices. This appears to be the right choice from both a sovereignty and environmental perspective
This is because Alberduh has boom bust cycles. When they boom they keep all the money into a few hands, and when they bust, we pump $25B a year into a tar pit. But at no point does anyone think about long term infrastructure, just pump the sludge to Texas or China and buy it back.
If Carney wants to make Canada an “energy superpower”, I would much rather he do it with nuclear than more fossil fuels, and I hope he doesn’t face opposition from environmentalists who have been irrationally scared about nuclear energy.
This is about enriching uranium for nuclear weapons, which would be the fastest way to get the US to annex Canada. I can see a PC government doing this, Pierre is just dying to be the first Governor of Canada.
What? The article doesn’t mention weapons even once. It’s entirely about energy.
I just watched Chernobyl again, I don’t feel like there’s that much irrational fear. Fukushima wasn’t that long ago. Maybe there’s something to solar, wind and batteries?
The lessons I took away from both Chernobyl and Fukushima are that human mismanagement was the cause of both of those disasters. Also that the aftermath of Fukushima was managed very well when competent (non-corporate) agencies were brought in. So please don’t take those cases as examples of typical nuclear power operation. They are the exception. Nuclear very safe when managed properly. People have to screw up really badly for it to go wrong.
I’d be happy with increased solar, wind and hydro, but those are very dependent on geography. If the choice is between fossil fuels and nuclear, I’d go with the nuclear energy option 100% of the time. Canada has been operating reactors since 1968, and we have around 15 in operation at the moment. They are safe because we are good at operating them safely.
I’d recommend watching a documentary called “Pandora’s Promise” it talks about older generations of environmentalists who were very anti-nuclear but then reconsidered their views when they realized that their stance simply lead to significantly increased fossil fuel use, which translates to far more harm for both us and the planet.
For Chernobyl, in the show at least, the main lesson is that the state hid a design flaw (yes there was human mismanagement also) – the tips of the rods have graphite on them. Not that this matters.
I’m not saying it can’t be safe. In the last 50 years we’ve had 3 disasters (3 mile island is the 3rd). Where two of them made an area uninhabitable, and one nearly poisoned a very large area.
These aren’t small oopsies, there major fuckups, this is why i’m saying these fears aren’t irrational, they are based on history.
FWIW I’d also go with nuculear over fossil, given no other choice.
There are lots of designs for completely safe nuclear plants, they are more expensive and put out less power per size but it’s completely doable.
My point isn’t that it’s safe or not, it’s that peoples fears aren’t irrational, they are based on history.
Yes we should. Then we can keep the US from invading us because of MAD.
Right…right…because the USA will just sit by quietly while we install nukes pointed right at them. Just like Israel and Iran.
Brilliant.
It’s just cause and effect. US threatens to take over Canada, so now we talk nukes because they are a cost effective defense strategy.
How else would Canada realistically defend itself from the US?
We can borrow 100 of France’s nukes, if needed. Unfortunately, MAD is about the only thing Agent Orangutan understands. Unless you think he’ll continue having a man crush on King Charles after the state visit?
Last I knew we kinda at some point would have to for certain medical and space things.
Damn right. It’s the closest thing other than solar to clean energy and we’re a huge supplier of uranium. It makes sense to build refining capability here, and build breeder reactors to support that and our energy needs.
Ontario already refines uranium for nuclear reactor use. Blind River and Port Hope.
Maybe you guys should read the article? Uranium enrichment refers to concentrating plutonium to make bombs.
Granted, I don’t know what this specific article says because I refuse to run Javascript that I don’t absolutely need to, but most nuclear reactors also need at least slightly enriched uranium. The older-gen CANDU reactors currently running in Ontario are a rare exception to that, and get around it by using heavy water (deuterium oxide) rather than normal water as a moderator. I’m not aware of any more recent reactor designs that make use of heavy water, and I expect there’s a reason for that. So new reactors mean enriched uranium.
It’s a double-edged sword that makes it very difficult to prove that any given uranium enrichment facility is military in purpose.
Canada can build a nuke now without being sanctioned. This might not hold true in the future.
Canada signed agreements under Carter to not enrich uranium.
You guys are seven years old if you think the US will allow a nuclear device near their border, do they not teach the Cuban missile crisis in school any more? Or is that grade 11 now?
I say do it on secret. Only thing better then a public nuke is a secret nuke.
The real strategy is just say you have one even if you do not. Then you can invest your money on drones as that is the most effective defence.
The only thing nuclear weapons are detouring right now is US’s warmongering from being stopped because of MAD. Same with Russia. Unless all nations have them and are willing to use them it allows those with nuclear weapons to bully those without with impunity.
In the ideal world we would would be disarming, not creating more civilian massacre devices.
I agree that would be the ideal world scenario. But the world we live in is one where middle powers have to adhere to a disarmament treaty while the dominant nations run rampant. In this world, I think self reliance is at least somewhat functional as a deterrent
It is a shame the superpowers didn’t commit to disarmament when they had an appetite for it. The thought of the civilized world ready to end itself over political squabbles is a little much.
Particularly when we have essentially doomsday cultists running the US.
I don’t think the superpowers ever had an appetite for disarmament. The 1968 non-proliferation treaty was simply to stop MORE nations from acquiring nuclear weapons (in a fairly powerless way). It has always been a “rules for thee, but not for me” concept.
Russia and the US are patting themselves on the back to limiting themselves to 1500 weapons on the latest START treaty, and there’s really quite little way to prove that’s even true. Neither will give up the right to be the first to fire.
Even the 2021 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons fairly toothless given that only two nations gave up their weapons (South Africa and Kazakhstan - and voluntarily, not via enforcement) and others seem to be funding the weapons-possessing powers in exchange for protection and other benefits.
