“All of us would prefer a world that moved decisively toward renewables and left this nuclear fixation behind.”
I’m sorry to tell you, but your preference isn’t going to happen, regrettably physics precludes it. Renewables rely on intermittent high entropy sources (low energy density, diffuse sources, if you prefer). This has two implications: first to achieve the same average output as a nuclear plant you need to massively overbuild, overbuild in fact by between 2.5 and 3 times. That means handling massive swings in generation, from zero to three times nameplate capacity. Second, the objective is to displace fossil fuels not just from existing generation, but as primary fuels across society. Replacing oil and gas in transport, industry, agriculture, space heating and everywhere else we use it means we’ll need multiples of current generating capacity and we will be brutally exposed to supply failures. When everything is electric a power cut means more than no light and cold homes (or if you live in the south, no cooling), it means no transport, which means no food in shops. That is a rapid route to civil unrest.
Power grids must survive the 1 in 100-year event, which could easily be 10 days of what the Germans call dunkelflaute — windless, sunless weather. If your only source of generation is wind and solar, you need enough long-term storage to cover demand for the 10 day period. That is impossible to build.
Nuclear, on the other hand, is a very low entropy source; Uranium’s very high energy density makes it easy to extract large amounts of power. Nuclear generation is stunningly stable, reliable and plain boring. Exactly what power grids need. Storage is needed only for peaking.
Absolutely there is a place for renewables, but — if we are to ditch oil, gas and coal as primary energy sources — the backbone of electricity supply will be nuclear.
That means Uranium becomes the next oil; renewables can’t save us.
All is not lost though. As Dr Tim Gregory points out in his recent book (“Going nuclear”), we currently use only a fraction of the energy of Uranium. The by products of its fission, what we blithely call “nuclear waste”, are themselves sources of energy, ie fuel for different types of reactor. We knew all this back in the 1950s, but never carried through the development because Uranium, which people had thought of as rare, turned out to be more common (hence cheaper) than expected.
We don’t have to get caught in another energy trap, beholden to autocratic regimes that happen to hold sway over Uranium reserves. We need to invest in the technology for second and third stage reprocessing and the reactors that can use the alternative reaction paths the reprocessed fuels open. The west has considerable stockpiles of “waste”, ready to be reused.
On a further point, there are reactor designs, like the Canadian CANDU series, that don’t need enriched Uranium (3-5% U-235), they run just fine on the natural concentration (c. 0.7% U-235). That takes a big risk out of the fuel supply chain.
Sorry, I’ve prattled on enough. Suffice to say the geopolitics of Uranium will be interesting, but will probably be more heavily tilted to those countries that invest in nuclear technologies than those that sit on Uranium resources.
Would nuclear power plants need to be on all the time or could they be used as gas power plants that ate only used as demand spikes?
Do you know anything about using hydrogen for energy storage? I heard Germany recently invented a paste that can store hydrogen relatively easily and the can be easily returned to hydrogen to use.
Just wondering if there may be other non-nuclear solutions in the future.
Thorium reactors are part of the overall solution, as are faster breeder reactors.
Thorium itself isn’t fissile, it’s fertile. Th-232 can be converted to U-233 by neutron absorption. With a few design tweaks U-233, which is not a naturally occurring isotope, can be used as nuclear fuel in the current generation of light water reactors.
Fast breeder reactors take U-238 — the most common naturally occurring isotope of Uranium — and convert it to Plutonium-239, again by neutron capture.
Essentially, one takes Thorium, a much more common element than Uranium, and turns it into a fissile material; the other takes the 99.3% of naturally occurring Uranium and turns it into fissile material.
Plutonium is already used in low concentration in so called MOX fuel, which light water reactors can use. The French already reprocess a goodly portion of their spent fuel into MOX, getting if you like two bites of the cherry. The real breakthrough, however, will be the Gen-IV reactors running directly on Pu. These designs support closed fuel cycles where plutonium is repeatedly recycled, conserving uranium resources and reducing long-lived waste.
As for hydrogen storage, I agree. It looks to me as being one of the few viable solutions for grid scale long term storage . The problem is that to ride out a 1 in 100-year wind lull we need two things. First a way of storing energy for decades, not weeks or months; and second to reduce the amount we need to store to the minimum viable. Number two is necessary because storage only makes money when it’s cycled and by definition long term storage is rarely cycled.
Hydrogen fits the bill because it’s stable and relatively straightforward to store in salt caverns. One’s been operating at a chemical works in the UK since the 1970s. The big question is how to make its storage economically viable? How to amortise the cost of the hydrolysers needed to produce it? Fortunately, hydrogen has industrial uses and there are several major processes — all reduction reactions — in which hydrogen could substitute for carbon; making iron and cement spring to mind.
You don’t need to recharge long term storage overnight; it doesn’t matter if it takes months or even a year. That means you can run the hydrolysers principally to produce industrial hydrogen to sell, bleeding a little off into storage but selling the rest to generate cash flow. The cost of that hydrogen and the generators needed the create power when required — could be had turbines, could be fuel cells — can be paid for by a small levy on the price of electricity; network operators already pay for contingency and spread across fifty years the capital cost would be peanuts per MWh.
My proposal, therefore, would be to build sufficient nuclear to meet all or most winter base load, reserving renewables backed by short term storage for variable load. The storage is needed to firm its otherwise intermittent output, making the grid easier to balance. Nuclear provides masses of inertia and reactive power, so grid stability issues go away. Use pumped storage hydro (or more batteries) for peaking and load following, just as it’s used today.
Nuclear reactors love running flat out all the time. The fuel costs are negligible and you want to amortise their considerable capital cost over the maximum number of GWh possible. Over the summer months there will be a considerable excess of nuclear power; that’s when the hydrolysers can be run to recharge hydrogen stores. In fact you can use those same stores to deliver industrial hydrogen over the winter when power prices are higher.
To conclude, don’t think of nuclear as a replacement for gas in a largely renewables grid. Turn the concept upside down and think of properly configured renewables supporting nuclear, with cascading levels of storage filling in when renewables are absent.
Fascinating! I love learning from people with special interests.
"As Dr Tim Gregory points out in his recent book (“Going nuclear”), we currently use only a fraction of the energy of Uranium. The by products of its fission, what we blithely call “nuclear waste”, are themselves sources of energy, ie fuel for different types of reactor. We knew all this back in the 1950s, but never carried through the development because Uranium, which people had thought of as rare, turned out to be more common (hence cheaper) than expected."
Take heart; if the price of solar is cut in half one more time, and the price of storage drops by two-thirds, the last nuclear construction will follow.
I've been a big nuclear booster for 51 years; but as an engineer I have to respect the money.
The only thing keeping nuclear going even now is the storage problem, which is big.
As long as China is shipping out renewables at a cheap cost and countries have access to them, the RE century will continue. After what happened to Iran, reducing your dependence on oil and natural gas is in every country’s interest.
PM Dr. Carney doesn’t strike me as very interested in increasing Canadian renewable production.
No. Saving thr country comes first. Can ukraine think climate change before taking out the shadow fleet. No. Can they never not do anything about it? No. Patience is needed or else you end up with a wronf set of priorities.
Even so, Ukraine did add about 1000 MW of solar to the grid in 2025. So all is not lost and even under these conditions progress is slowly but steadily being achieved.
I think it’s not a big focus as about 60% of Canadian power comes from hydro already. Also market forces should add new power generation mostly through renewable sources as they are currently the most cost effective.
Interprovincial energy connections however are poor and need government focus to get them up to snuff. This is what Carney should focus on as energy needs to be jointly managed with the provinces working together. So Carney will need to heard the cats to get this accomplished.
Over all we are not doing too bad on the renewable energy front.
Total Power Generation Breakdown
Hydroelectric Power: 57%
Wind Power: Approximately 12%
Solar Power: Approximately 10%
Nuclear Power: 14%
Natural Gas: About 6%
Coal: Less than 1%
Biomass and Other Sources: Around 1%
So about 79% renewables. Nuclear power isn’t going anywhere, so about 6% which is nat gas (alot of these plants are newer) so not too bad. As long as we balance new generation to be nuclear or renewable we are doing ok.
“Our generation does not get that version of history.” No clean energy for our kids and grandkids.
And that is more than sad!
The numbers scientists have published regarding how close we are to losing the climate war globally have been extremely conservative, actually.
Two things exacerbating the loss of the climate war globally are the Trump Admin canceling protective environmental agencies and regulations, and global WARS.
Wars being fought all over the globe (again the Trump Administration, surprise!) are nullifying many global climate achievements simply bc war pollutes indiscriminately and widely.
My responses might seem disjointed at times bc I don’t get your posts in my feed in the correct order or at all.
I’ve been training myself to go directly to your page, and that’s ok and I just wanted to be sure you know how much I depend on you and apologize if I ever sound critical.
Thorium reactors are a type of nuclear reactor that breeds its own fuel and can be powered by nuclear waste. While they are not currently commercially used they do have exist. This could be a safer nuclear reactor than traditional ones.
So since it doesn’t create waste it could be considered clean and renewable.
A teeter totter of nuclear agency is what it sounds like. Must keep the bad guys out of reach and hope the good guys don’t turn into bad guys. I won’t be around when it gets all nuclear all the time all over the place but that seems to be an inevitable trajectory.
On another note, I see Belgium is getting credit with an assist from Macron for seizing a shadow fleet tanker. Nice!
Good news for Canada and India. The deal was expected, though nice for it to be formally announced. Now on to Australia for hopefully more deals involving aluminum and other critical minerals.
Leaders in initial processing are Kazakhstan and Canada, followed by Russia. Further enrichment must be done in countries with nuclear programs, I would guess.
Macron’s steps today increasing the French stockpile of nuclear warheads is a move in the direction of a European umbrella perhaps?
Just heard the speech. Yes. Right move. But it won't be easy. Will be covering it in detail at The Concis tmrw
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2026/03/02/france-to-increase-nuclear-warheads_6751015_7.html#
A deal not to be snuffed out…sorry, sniffed at.
Scoffed at …
all three;0)
😂😂😂 you guys!
“All of us would prefer a world that moved decisively toward renewables and left this nuclear fixation behind.”
I’m sorry to tell you, but your preference isn’t going to happen, regrettably physics precludes it. Renewables rely on intermittent high entropy sources (low energy density, diffuse sources, if you prefer). This has two implications: first to achieve the same average output as a nuclear plant you need to massively overbuild, overbuild in fact by between 2.5 and 3 times. That means handling massive swings in generation, from zero to three times nameplate capacity. Second, the objective is to displace fossil fuels not just from existing generation, but as primary fuels across society. Replacing oil and gas in transport, industry, agriculture, space heating and everywhere else we use it means we’ll need multiples of current generating capacity and we will be brutally exposed to supply failures. When everything is electric a power cut means more than no light and cold homes (or if you live in the south, no cooling), it means no transport, which means no food in shops. That is a rapid route to civil unrest.
Power grids must survive the 1 in 100-year event, which could easily be 10 days of what the Germans call dunkelflaute — windless, sunless weather. If your only source of generation is wind and solar, you need enough long-term storage to cover demand for the 10 day period. That is impossible to build.
Nuclear, on the other hand, is a very low entropy source; Uranium’s very high energy density makes it easy to extract large amounts of power. Nuclear generation is stunningly stable, reliable and plain boring. Exactly what power grids need. Storage is needed only for peaking.
Absolutely there is a place for renewables, but — if we are to ditch oil, gas and coal as primary energy sources — the backbone of electricity supply will be nuclear.
That means Uranium becomes the next oil; renewables can’t save us.
All is not lost though. As Dr Tim Gregory points out in his recent book (“Going nuclear”), we currently use only a fraction of the energy of Uranium. The by products of its fission, what we blithely call “nuclear waste”, are themselves sources of energy, ie fuel for different types of reactor. We knew all this back in the 1950s, but never carried through the development because Uranium, which people had thought of as rare, turned out to be more common (hence cheaper) than expected.
We don’t have to get caught in another energy trap, beholden to autocratic regimes that happen to hold sway over Uranium reserves. We need to invest in the technology for second and third stage reprocessing and the reactors that can use the alternative reaction paths the reprocessed fuels open. The west has considerable stockpiles of “waste”, ready to be reused.
On a further point, there are reactor designs, like the Canadian CANDU series, that don’t need enriched Uranium (3-5% U-235), they run just fine on the natural concentration (c. 0.7% U-235). That takes a big risk out of the fuel supply chain.
Sorry, I’ve prattled on enough. Suffice to say the geopolitics of Uranium will be interesting, but will probably be more heavily tilted to those countries that invest in nuclear technologies than those that sit on Uranium resources.
Are you perhaps referring to thorium reactors?
Would nuclear power plants need to be on all the time or could they be used as gas power plants that ate only used as demand spikes?
Do you know anything about using hydrogen for energy storage? I heard Germany recently invented a paste that can store hydrogen relatively easily and the can be easily returned to hydrogen to use.
Just wondering if there may be other non-nuclear solutions in the future.
Thorium reactors are part of the overall solution, as are faster breeder reactors.
Thorium itself isn’t fissile, it’s fertile. Th-232 can be converted to U-233 by neutron absorption. With a few design tweaks U-233, which is not a naturally occurring isotope, can be used as nuclear fuel in the current generation of light water reactors.
Fast breeder reactors take U-238 — the most common naturally occurring isotope of Uranium — and convert it to Plutonium-239, again by neutron capture.
Essentially, one takes Thorium, a much more common element than Uranium, and turns it into a fissile material; the other takes the 99.3% of naturally occurring Uranium and turns it into fissile material.
Plutonium is already used in low concentration in so called MOX fuel, which light water reactors can use. The French already reprocess a goodly portion of their spent fuel into MOX, getting if you like two bites of the cherry. The real breakthrough, however, will be the Gen-IV reactors running directly on Pu. These designs support closed fuel cycles where plutonium is repeatedly recycled, conserving uranium resources and reducing long-lived waste.
As for hydrogen storage, I agree. It looks to me as being one of the few viable solutions for grid scale long term storage . The problem is that to ride out a 1 in 100-year wind lull we need two things. First a way of storing energy for decades, not weeks or months; and second to reduce the amount we need to store to the minimum viable. Number two is necessary because storage only makes money when it’s cycled and by definition long term storage is rarely cycled.
Hydrogen fits the bill because it’s stable and relatively straightforward to store in salt caverns. One’s been operating at a chemical works in the UK since the 1970s. The big question is how to make its storage economically viable? How to amortise the cost of the hydrolysers needed to produce it? Fortunately, hydrogen has industrial uses and there are several major processes — all reduction reactions — in which hydrogen could substitute for carbon; making iron and cement spring to mind.
You don’t need to recharge long term storage overnight; it doesn’t matter if it takes months or even a year. That means you can run the hydrolysers principally to produce industrial hydrogen to sell, bleeding a little off into storage but selling the rest to generate cash flow. The cost of that hydrogen and the generators needed the create power when required — could be had turbines, could be fuel cells — can be paid for by a small levy on the price of electricity; network operators already pay for contingency and spread across fifty years the capital cost would be peanuts per MWh.
My proposal, therefore, would be to build sufficient nuclear to meet all or most winter base load, reserving renewables backed by short term storage for variable load. The storage is needed to firm its otherwise intermittent output, making the grid easier to balance. Nuclear provides masses of inertia and reactive power, so grid stability issues go away. Use pumped storage hydro (or more batteries) for peaking and load following, just as it’s used today.
Nuclear reactors love running flat out all the time. The fuel costs are negligible and you want to amortise their considerable capital cost over the maximum number of GWh possible. Over the summer months there will be a considerable excess of nuclear power; that’s when the hydrolysers can be run to recharge hydrogen stores. In fact you can use those same stores to deliver industrial hydrogen over the winter when power prices are higher.
To conclude, don’t think of nuclear as a replacement for gas in a largely renewables grid. Turn the concept upside down and think of properly configured renewables supporting nuclear, with cascading levels of storage filling in when renewables are absent.
Fascinating! I love learning from people with special interests.
"As Dr Tim Gregory points out in his recent book (“Going nuclear”), we currently use only a fraction of the energy of Uranium. The by products of its fission, what we blithely call “nuclear waste”, are themselves sources of energy, ie fuel for different types of reactor. We knew all this back in the 1950s, but never carried through the development because Uranium, which people had thought of as rare, turned out to be more common (hence cheaper) than expected."
Take heart; if the price of solar is cut in half one more time, and the price of storage drops by two-thirds, the last nuclear construction will follow.
I've been a big nuclear booster for 51 years; but as an engineer I have to respect the money.
The only thing keeping nuclear going even now is the storage problem, which is big.
Good news for Canada and India.
As long as China is shipping out renewables at a cheap cost and countries have access to them, the RE century will continue. After what happened to Iran, reducing your dependence on oil and natural gas is in every country’s interest.
PM Dr. Carney doesn’t strike me as very interested in increasing Canadian renewable production.
Sadly he does not have much room. I am hoping after two years. Lets see.
Given climate instability and the millions of tons of ice melting in Greenland and Antarctica every year, two years to take action is a luxury.
No. Saving thr country comes first. Can ukraine think climate change before taking out the shadow fleet. No. Can they never not do anything about it? No. Patience is needed or else you end up with a wronf set of priorities.
I agree with that.
Me also and I’m still sad for our planet.
Totally agree. We have five sociopaths that want everything and are willing to burn down our only planet to get it.
Even so, Ukraine did add about 1000 MW of solar to the grid in 2025. So all is not lost and even under these conditions progress is slowly but steadily being achieved.
Don't forget most Canadian grids are substantially hydro-based so they are already 80% renewable...
Great! Go after the remaining 20%.
Hence the nuclear investments…
Yes, I didn’t realize. Solar is cheaper and works great at that latitude.
14% is nuclear so only need to look at the 6% of which is nat gas, as which is very low emission.
I think it’s not a big focus as about 60% of Canadian power comes from hydro already. Also market forces should add new power generation mostly through renewable sources as they are currently the most cost effective.
Interprovincial energy connections however are poor and need government focus to get them up to snuff. This is what Carney should focus on as energy needs to be jointly managed with the provinces working together. So Carney will need to heard the cats to get this accomplished.
Over all we are not doing too bad on the renewable energy front.
Total Power Generation Breakdown
Hydroelectric Power: 57%
Wind Power: Approximately 12%
Solar Power: Approximately 10%
Nuclear Power: 14%
Natural Gas: About 6%
Coal: Less than 1%
Biomass and Other Sources: Around 1%
So about 79% renewables. Nuclear power isn’t going anywhere, so about 6% which is nat gas (alot of these plants are newer) so not too bad. As long as we balance new generation to be nuclear or renewable we are doing ok.
Thanks for the comment and details. Canada can limit the sales of Albertan oil sands, that may be a tougher sell to slow down.
This is not feasible. Any attempt to do this would probably cause the province to separate from Canada. As it would economically devastate Alberta.
Lack of demand is the only way that slows down.
We just need to stop burning oil. Oil has alot of other uses that don’t include burning it for fuel/power.
The CANDU reactor doesn’t need enriched uranium, seems to be a strategic choice.
Yes. True
“Our generation does not get that version of history.” No clean energy for our kids and grandkids.
And that is more than sad!
The numbers scientists have published regarding how close we are to losing the climate war globally have been extremely conservative, actually.
Two things exacerbating the loss of the climate war globally are the Trump Admin canceling protective environmental agencies and regulations, and global WARS.
Wars being fought all over the globe (again the Trump Administration, surprise!) are nullifying many global climate achievements simply bc war pollutes indiscriminately and widely.
I know. Let us give our kids a democracy. Atleast they will have the freedom to move in that direction.
But we do have good news. Mac moved today on the nuclear umbrella so we may ...we just may.... have a small chance
I do read and think about everything you write.
My responses might seem disjointed at times bc I don’t get your posts in my feed in the correct order or at all.
I’ve been training myself to go directly to your page, and that’s ok and I just wanted to be sure you know how much I depend on you and apologize if I ever sound critical.
Naa
Critical is good. What is wrong with that??
Anyone who's not having occasional panic attacks over the state of the planet is ignoring reality, aided by massive disinformation.
Yes.
40-50 years ago a billion dollar climate disaster each year made the news globally.
We have multiple billion dollar climate events annually now and it’s no biggie?
I guess when a certain nefarious country is responsible for a lion’s share of polluting the planet it’s not good business practice to announce it?
Thorium reactors are a type of nuclear reactor that breeds its own fuel and can be powered by nuclear waste. While they are not currently commercially used they do have exist. This could be a safer nuclear reactor than traditional ones.
So since it doesn’t create waste it could be considered clean and renewable.
Thx, I’ll look that up.
A teeter totter of nuclear agency is what it sounds like. Must keep the bad guys out of reach and hope the good guys don’t turn into bad guys. I won’t be around when it gets all nuclear all the time all over the place but that seems to be an inevitable trajectory.
On another note, I see Belgium is getting credit with an assist from Macron for seizing a shadow fleet tanker. Nice!
Good news for Canada and India. The deal was expected, though nice for it to be formally announced. Now on to Australia for hopefully more deals involving aluminum and other critical minerals.
Processing is almost totally done in China, so I hope this aspect gets some attention.
Leaders in initial processing are Kazakhstan and Canada, followed by Russia. Further enrichment must be done in countries with nuclear programs, I would guess.
Sorry I was talking about Australia and the critical minerals. Should have been clearer.
No worries. I am hoping for a deal between Australia and Canada on critical minerals. Hope they can get it started, at least.
And what will India be doing with all the nuclear waste? Canada has been trying to figure out solutions here for decades.
It feels like this article now needs a link to your new article about the French nuclear umbrella.