It's so cheap to make promises like this because they have no idea if they'll still be in power by then.

Well, ya. The Liberals are on the way out, so they can put into place policies and such that force future spending on things people want, that will have to get cancelled do to budgetary constraints. And if the future parties do plow forward with it, you can shit can on it and rally the people that don't want it into a frenzy, and sweep all of this up under a rug somewhere by the time you get to the next election.

Welcome to Flip Flop First Past the Post Politics when you have a defacto two party system.

Doesn't it take up to 15 years to get a reactor going anyway?

Assuming they do commit to getting started right away, what's needed right now is a simple but non-condescending education campaign that is convincing for those with concerns about waste handling, whether byproducts may be used for weapons, and with assurances about the reactor's security from potential attacks.

editing to add: Also, all sources of ostensibly emissions-free energy have to address concerns about the initial mining process and minimization of the damage it causes. We have labour laws for Canada, but materials sourced from outside have high chances of exploitative practices in addition to environmental devastation.

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

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.

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.

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.

Don't need it waste storage, just need better processing, but that is something Canada could lead https://youtube.com/watch?v=IzQ3gFRj0Bc

Also crazy some Green party members (eg Ontario leader) think that nuclear is as bad as fossil fuels, especially given the above info in the video.

Oil lobby and people who don't believe in climate change that vote for wackos...

Do you have any idea how much energy is used in the form of combustibles to heat homes, and power vehicles? It's absolutely massive. Beyond this - the energy density of Petrol is something like 25-45x that of batteries - meaning for the same weight of fuel as a battery, you can go MUCH further, even factoring in the lower efficiency of an ICE engine (20-30%) vs. Electric (something like 90%). However, Electric Vehicles also have higher ware and tare on roads, tires, breaks, bridges, etc. And that means a higher TCO (Total cost of Operation) outside of the vehicle itself.

You might say "Improve Public Transport" And I'm all for it - but that requires doubling the average population density in urban centres to START to be practical. And achieving that is a decades long (like closer to half a century, if not longer) undertaking that has a huge environmental cost do to the tare down of existing buildings.

What all this means: To replace combustibles, we don't just need a tripling of Nuclear - we need to increase it by an order of magnitude (10x it for clarity), 2 orders of magnitude increase of wind (100x), and we should aim for three orders of magnitude for solar (1000x). If you do that, AND improve average home insulation value, then we can start to get somewhere reasonable.

To be clear: We can do it.

1. Solar Roof Incentives for generally sunny cities (ex. Calgary)
2. Off Shore Wind
3. Dual Use Installations - So Parking Lots with Solar Covers for instance. Bonus points for onsight energy storage to buffer generation for charging cars.
4. SMR's for remote area's (think far northern area's where diesel generators are the norm, as it reduces the need to ship fuel)

You will note that Hydro isn't listed here - and for good reason: The environmental destruction, and long term upkeep is extremely impactful on the environment.

All of this, by the way, is something like a trillion dollar investment. And what is the Canadian Governments investment plan? 4-5 billion by 2035? If the Canadian Government wants to get serious - they need to start making the entire government beaurocracy far more lean, far more mean, and take the savings and throw it into everything that reduces power use, as well as renewable generation.

And finally: Start jacking up the minimum wage, start increasing labor protections, and the entire why? So that people can afford to invest into these things for themselves on a wide scale.

Because they'd rather not do anything and just start a virtue signaling program like that shit going down in ontario with the 'recycling initiative' to distract everyone from the fact all our 'recycling programs' send their 'recycling' to singapore and other poor countries to deal with they made a bunch of trash composting programs that 'will help the farmers'. Well, I'm friends with farmers and I've done my share of farming and random compost with zero chemical control cannot be utilized by industrial farmers, especially when the average education level prevents people from following instructions properly. "We're banning black garbage bags to help the environment" = "were not going to do a damn thing but we're going to incentivize fighting between neighbours so they don't realize we're the actual enemy as we continue to sell canadians down a river to our close friends and family making weapons for every war currently going on"

What about CANDU?

Not all old designs were bad. And one has to understand that the USSR, UK, France, and the US all had a shared objective (by the way, these are the primary nations designing and creating nuclear reactors back in the 50's and 60's). And the goal? Plutonium for Nuclear Bombs. You can imagine how this changes design Parameters.

So now lets talk about the CANDU Reactor, designed in 1955 (or there abouts).

It's an oddity of the day - Designed for energy generation for civilian use, without the desire to actively produce Plutonium. Functionally speaking, complete fission of the material with the least degree of enrichment possible for efficient opperation was the design goal. And what you get is well, this.

Beyond this, because it is a Heavy Water Reactor (CANDU standing for Canada Deuterium Uranium), it's moderator is well, heavy water - which is interesting as two things: If it boils off, the neutron regulator (which is slowing down neutrons to encourage fission in the core) boils off. And Boiling water takes away a LOT of heat. Beyond this, heated water will naturally circulate so even if active pumps pushing the water through the system fail, natural circulation can occur until corrective action is taken.

Yes, there are newer designs that are probably safer. But don't just say "old designs bad" without understanding the design constraints created by the circumstances to which they were created. Look at also, all of the designs of the era. There is a reason pretty much everyone can name Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island, and Fukushima. And anyone with half a length of common sense would avoid putting a nuclear reactor on Japan - a place that has an active Valcano, is prone to tsunami's, and sits at the intersecting point of three tectonic plates... It's kind of a bad place for it. Not impossible to do safely, but when you use a reactor design that is basically set up for the production of plutonium by the very design constraints and such of the day: It's not surprising.

And then we can talk about SMR's.

My frame of reference is the latest nuclear reactor built in the US. It was six years late, $14 billion over budget, bankrupted Westinghouse, and is set to increase electric rates. The DoE had to give them a $12 billion loan just to finish construction.

I'm not scared they're gonna blow up. I'm scared they're gonna waste a ton of money that could be used for renewables. Heck, even the small modular reactors are running over cost and over time.

3 mile island wasn't that big of a deal, and the mistakes there caused a complete redesign of how control panels for nuclear plants are layed out

Can't put nuclear fuel in a car lol