Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

cbc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 323 posts

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#51

Post by Reedx »

thawaway1837 wrote: post #15
StillBored wrote: post #3

A few years ago Toshiba was going to build a small reactor in Alaska. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galena_Nuclear_Power_Plant But it got canceled, and for the life of me I can't understand why anyone thinks its better to truck in heavy fuel oil for generators vs having a small reactor buried in the ground for 30 years. I've been saying for a few years now that green energy only advocates are basically on the side of…

Only if the “green energy” people actually had that much power... In reality there are 2 forces that have stopped nuclear. NIMBYism. And terrible economics. But the green energy people are an easy punching bag for the nuclear advocates who are simply unwilling to face up to the reality of why nuclear keeps failing to take off.

Nuclear energy languished largely because of fear, I think.

Our failure to invest in nuclear the past several decades was a huge mistake that future generations will rightfully scorn us for.

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#52

Post by Waterluvian »

dmix wrote: post #47
Akababa wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was Doug Ford the one selling the drugs?

I think it's been well established Doug used to sell weed when he was a teenager.

And (allegedly) crack in recent years.

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#53

Post by casefields »

ekianjo wrote: post #30
moltar wrote: post #22

Not sure what they are gonna research, but my understanding that the problem is not a tech one, but a NIMBY one.

Canada is pretty empty (huge area and low density of people) so wouldn't that be easy to find a place where the NIMBY problem is non-existent?

I understand it Canada but if this were the US, it wouldn’t matter how far out into nowhere in nature you try to build. The Sierra Club and similar orgs, will be in the nearest federal/state court at each step of the way.

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#54

Post by eigenspace »

Akababa wrote: post #46
eigenspace wrote: post #8

Great news. Especially with the CANDU reactors being decommissioned it’s nice to see that there’s still at least some political push to invest in nuclear, even if I think Doug Ford is a cretin. Fun fact, my father used to buy drugs in Doug Ford’s house when he was a teenager.

Was Doug Ford the one selling the drugs?

No. My dad’s understanding was that Doug was selling larger quantities to low level dealers who people would buy from. And it was known that if you came over to Dougs house you could meet these low level dealers.

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#55

Post by awalton »

andbberger wrote: post #37
marcosdumay wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Small nuclear plants are actually something that can possibly help (differently from the large ones). But I doubt anybody will get the costs down enough to make them viable, wind and solar are power horses. It's like creating a non-mainstream computer architecture at the 90's and early 00's, it won't improve fast enough to even match their speed. About emissions, coal is responsible for a huge share of emissions on e…

> But I doubt anybody will get the costs down enough to make them viable [citation needed] This was discussed recently and I really down understand the immense skepticism exhibited on HN (and in general) towards nuclear energy. Sure it's expensive now, but it's been misregulated into a pulp and all extant nuclear reactors are using decades old designs. AND you need to compare the cost of nuclear to renewables PLUS st…

> [citation needed]

You don't need a citation for a personal doubt, wtf. Maybe someone will do it. Maybe they won't. But a person is reasonably able to doubt something when there's no evidence one way or another. Nobody's done this before.

Adding emphasis to the "no evidence" part, because apparently that's not evident enough.

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#56

Post by kenneth »

dmix wrote: post #47
Akababa wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was Doug Ford the one selling the drugs?

I think it's been well established Doug used to sell weed when he was a teenager.

Isn't that the crack smoking mayor of Toronto? Selling weed is almost quaint by comparison.

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#57

Post by creato »

Spooky23 wrote: post #33
StillBored wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The costs to built the plants dominates the price. Once built the actual operation and fueling costs are best in class https://www.expressnews.com/business/eagle-ford-energy/artic... The majority of the cost to build the plants are due to the crazy uncertainty about the design/build timeline every-time one is built. Given that conceptually they aren't any more complex than your average coal plant those costs are mass…

Capital costs matter. If they didn’t, we wouldn’t have mortgages or lease cars.

This is missing the point.

The point is that your house or car would be outrageously expensive too if the engineering cost of the design was amortized over very few units.

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#58

Post by AYBABTME »

wolco wrote: post #32
WalterBright wrote: post #16

Bill Gates' foundation was ready to build a thorium reactor. Canada should investigate using that design.

Thorium would be better in situations requiring small spaces and power where the cost could be justified. Still like the idea.

As an uninformed person, I'm curious why parent might have been down voted. Is what they said wrong or misleading? The parent's post seems equal to other ones here. It's not obvious to me, and I think it would be useful if detractors would explain their disagreement when they downvote.

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#59

Post by andbberger »

awalton wrote: post #55
andbberger wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But I doubt anybody will get the costs down enough to make them viable [citation needed] This was discussed recently and I really down understand the immense skepticism exhibited on HN (and in general) towards nuclear energy. Sure it's expensive now, but it's been misregulated into a pulp and all extant nuclear reactors are using decades old designs. AND you need to compare the cost of nuclear to renewables PLUS st…

> [citation needed] You don't need a citation for a personal doubt, wtf. Maybe someone will do it. Maybe they won't. But a person is reasonably able to doubt something when there's no evidence one way or another . Nobody's done this before. Adding emphasis to the "no evidence" part, because apparently that's not evident enough.

If I personally doubt something objective I can suddenly claim whatever I want about it??

You personally may have no idea what these things might cost but the people designing them certainly do. Moreover such baseless skepticism is extremely harmful to the 'public dialogue' when we are in the midst of a climate emergency.

What does it bring to the conversation to say something baseless like that?

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#60

Post by Spooky23 »

creato wrote: post #57
Spooky23 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capital costs matter. If they didn’t, we wouldn’t have mortgages or lease cars.

This is missing the point. The point is that your house or car would be outrageously expensive too if the engineering cost of the design was amortized over very few units.

That's precisely the point. Once the direct subsidy of nuclear via the military's nuclear weapons buildout went away, new plant construction... went way.

The capital costs of any traditional power plant are massive, and fix high costs of goods sold for the life of the plant. This Canadian effort may find a way to build more smaller units, which will be great if they succeed.

Solar and wind are disruptive because the cost to add a marginal unit of generation is near zero. A marginal add of a natural gas power plant in my US state is nearly $100M and several years. Nuclear is probably 10x that.

I understand why nuclear is an appealing technology. Its magical in a way, but it doesn't make sense when engineering a power grid today. It is an awful business with high fixed costs getting disrupted by smaller, cheaper, lower friction alternatives. Again, in my state, New York, despite higher than average rates, nuclear operators like Excelon claim to be losing money operating old plants, and NY ratepayers will be providing $7-10B in subsidy over the next 10-12 years.

Post reply on HN