Dude, we live in a society of "fuck you, I got mine". None of this discussion matters. Eventually, we will just execute prisoners because we don't have enough money to maintain prisons.

The worst part about that is that the "justice" system doesn't care whether or not you are guilty. As long as they can pin a crime on someone, the system is happy.

What a miserable bunch of fuckers we are as a whole.

Ah, that explains it. SMRs do go through fuel even faster than full size reactors.

Time to build has two issues. If quality of work is the focus, then spending time to make SURE things like concrete aren't deficient in some way. Going with cheap materials might cause problems later. Being extra careful with quality is just a good idea. And then, you have the lazy contractor issue, where some politicians don't impose strict guidelines and rules. If the contractor claims it will be done in 2 years for XXXXX amount of money, then government should say, "if it takes 10 years, you won't get additional money just because you were goofing off. The only reason for timeline extensions should be if there are good excuses for the delays in completing the project, such as, "we had a huge storm that flooded the site, and it took six months or longer to get things cleaned up so work can continue"

If contractors couldn't get additional money because they take longer than their estimates, they might actually complete projects faster than 25 years.

Sounds very expensive, and potentially a big problem when they have a meltdown. What water source are they using for cooling?

Betting on international markets developing seems unwise. There are proliferation issues, and countries we do trust to have civilian nuclear tend to want it to buy the technology in and run it themselves, so they aren't dependent on someone else to keep it operating, and so that the huge investment goes back into their own market.

And since you mention climate change making some types of generation fail, France is shutting down nuclear plants again due to the extreme heat.

Solar and wind are fine with climate change. The sun isn't going to stop rising, the wind if anything will get stronger. It may shift around a bit, but wind turbines have a lifespan measured in decades so will simply follow it. That said, it's unlikely that currently prime locations will ever stop being good for wind.

Nuclear power is already highly uncompetitive on cost. If you look at how fast renewables are growing, and how far ahead with them some other countries are, it's pretty clear that by 2050 the market is going to be saturated with cheap and abundant energy.

Is it really fit fur purpose when it's so expensive, and takes so long to build? 2050 is a long time to wait for some expensive energy. Don't Canadian industry and domestic customers need it ASAP?

It's not an arbitrary limit either. Previously they killed a large amount of wildlife and plants by dumping hot water into the river during a heatwave. Their nuclear plants were not designed for climate change.

If they can put nuclear there, they can put other stuff there. The Chinese have solved the terrain issues too, they install wind turbines and solar panels on the sides of mountains with drones.

https://noticiasambientales.co...

Nobody wants a nuclear plant in their back yard either.

GM keep 1300 workers and bonuses for the suits decrease by 0.1%?

1300 workers being employed would amount to a rounding error on GM's quarterly reports.

A tipping point is coming and it won't be pretty.

What's the real motivation here? Are they thinking that they missed the bus on renewables and that nuclear might be an export industry one day in the distant future? Or just back handers for politicians making this decision? Surely they don't want weapons.

Because by 2050 nuclear is going to be completely irrelevant and look like an even worse economic deal than it is today.

The way it works in the UK is you have one law firm prepare your case and do all the paperwork leading up to the hearing, and then you employ a specialist barrister to attend on your behalf. The barrister often doesn't work for that company. They just read the case as prepared and argue it.

It's a bit like an actor. Typically they don't write the script, they just interpret it and make a compelling performance from it.

Correct. Breaking is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

If something breaks, it's on me. This is about companies being able to take something away that isn't broken at all, at any time they choose, without any refund.

For any other item that'd be theft and would land them in jail.