Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology • Hacker News Board

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#211

Post by acidburnNSA » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 5:11 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #202

acidburnNSA wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As wind/solar scales, it's likely to get more regulation. There will be fires in battery facilities. People in San Bernardino county will put a moratorium on large solar installations in the desert due to dust storms, etc. This kind of thing always happens, and with wind/solar it will be because they take up so much land and raw materials. Nuclear was once a wonder energy source (in 1958), but as it scaled it ran int…

Solar’s energy density is surprisingly high. To average 1GW of solar at 30% capacity factor = 3.4GW @ 220w/m^2 = 0.076% of San Bernardino county. Put all of the states electricity generation as solar in that one county and your at ~2% land area. Even that’s not going to have any effect on dust storms. EROI is a function of price in that you need to pay for more than just energy when building something, interest payme…

https://www.sbsun.com/2019/02/28/san-bernardino-county-board...

> And, if you’re building the cheapest energy source possible it must therefore have a high EROI.

That's only true to the degree that the energy cost of building an energy system is directly proportional to the dollar cost, which is often very not true.

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#212

Post by bluesign » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 5:25 PM UTC

strainer wrote: post #196

belorn wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current energy discussion in Swedish politics is Green vs Nuclear. No one is discussing a stop for burning fossil fuels in power plants or banning the import of coal/NG energy from neighbors. Not even a suggestion from the green party at a total stop. Instead we get a bunch of political tricks. If we export more green energy than we import coal energy then we can pretend that that the coal did not actually get re…

>If we export more green energy than we import coal energy then we can pretend that that the coal did not actually get released into the air as pollution. That exchange is plainly not carbon neutral. Exporting green energy does usually contribute to reducing fossil fuel usage at destination - that cant reasonably be denied. It sounds like you believe the figures are being officially "double counted". But I'm quite do…

I think OP means by "We plant trees and talk about carbon capture", to offset some another carbon positive activity, trees are planted, then they are turned in to fuel, which in the end makes total system carbon positive. This is the "double counted" part.

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#213

Post by Reedx » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 5:34 PM UTC

natmaka wrote: post #134

kortilla wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop comparing solar and wind to nuclear. That’s a cudgel to ignore the fact that being anti-nuclear means being pro-fossil fuels. Bringing online solar and wind does not displace nuclear because they do not provide a stable base. You highlight that storage is a challenge, but it’s the entire blocker at this point. Until storage is solved, solar/wind do nothing more than displace some peaker plants.

Nuclear power generation also implies using fossil-fuels powerplants. Even in 'all-nuke' France 7 to 11% of the powergrid is produced by fossil-fuel plants. This could be alleviated thanks to decentralized production (small units). Granted, this is theoretically true for nuclear and solar/wind alike, however civilian practical small solar/wind units do exist, nuclear units don't. Many write just as if nuclear plants…

> Even in 'all-nuke' France 7 to 11% of the powergrid is produced by fossil-fuel plants.

Yeah, they're not 100% nuclear. In any case, their results are far better than countries who eschewed nuclear.

France produces one-tenth the carbon pollution from electricity [compared to Germany].

French electricity costs are just 59% of German electricity prices. As such, according to the prevailing economic wisdom, French electricity should be far more carbon intensive than German's. And yet the opposite is the case.[1]

So it seems France made a good decision. Their electricity is both cleaner and cheaper...

1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/02/05...

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#214

Post by Retric » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 5:46 PM UTC

acidburnNSA wrote: post #211

Retric wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solar’s energy density is surprisingly high. To average 1GW of solar at 30% capacity factor = 3.4GW @ 220w/m^2 = 0.076% of San Bernardino county. Put all of the states electricity generation as solar in that one county and your at ~2% land area. Even that’s not going to have any effect on dust storms. EROI is a function of price in that you need to pay for more than just energy when building something, interest payme…

https://www.sbsun.com/2019/02/28/san-bernardino-county-board... > And, if you’re building the cheapest energy source possible it must therefore have a high EROI. That's only true to the degree that the energy cost of building an energy system is directly proportional to the dollar cost, which is often very not true.

It’s got nothing to do with dust storms: https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-san-bernardino-solar-...

This is simply pure NIMBI issue which also hits nuclear power.

“That's only true to the degree that the energy cost of building an energy system is directly proportional to the dollar cost, which is often very not true.”

This is an economic argument if X$ buys you K energy from the cheapest energy source it buys some number less than K from more expensive energy sources. Thus the least expensive energy source must have positive EROI. As solar is capital intensive interest payments representing zero energy are a significant cost, which pushes up the minimum possible EROI.

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#215

Post by kortilla » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 5:56 PM UTC

nicoburns wrote: post #199

kortilla wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop comparing solar and wind to nuclear. That’s a cudgel to ignore the fact that being anti-nuclear means being pro-fossil fuels. Bringing online solar and wind does not displace nuclear because they do not provide a stable base. You highlight that storage is a challenge, but it’s the entire blocker at this point. Until storage is solved, solar/wind do nothing more than displace some peaker plants.

> does not displace nuclear because they do not provide a stable base. If we put the money we put into building nuclear plants into energy storage, then that would likely change pretty quickly.

No it wouldn’t. It’s not a money problem, it’s a tech problem. You can pour 50 billion into storage and it won’t make a dent in the base load.

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#216

Post by cartoonfoxes » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 5:57 PM UTC

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…

> 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 don't understand it either. My best guess is that nuclear is scary, and most "green energy" advocates would prefer to believe that panacea eco-friendly alternatives exist.

I live in northern Canada. I've witnessed a plenty of FUD surrounding nuclear, and the concomitant excessive unrealistic optimism around wind and solar. Every year the power outages become a little more frequent, and every other year brings some new story of power projects cancelled due to "environmental concerns" and "lack of consultation".

So many people seem convinced that the lack of wind and solar projects is strictly due to government bungling or never-specified interference from oil-industry incumbents. Green gets used as a kind of security blanket. You can't escape the fact that you have a carbon footprint running a car and heating your home and workplace through six months of winter. Many green energy advocates are less than serious, and are just looking to feel better. They're content to believe that someone, somewhere, is doing something. Preferably without having to think too hard or entertain compromise positions.

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#217

Post by kortilla » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 6:04 PM UTC

strainer wrote: post #137

kortilla wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop comparing solar and wind to nuclear. That’s a cudgel to ignore the fact that being anti-nuclear means being pro-fossil fuels. Bringing online solar and wind does not displace nuclear because they do not provide a stable base. You highlight that storage is a challenge, but it’s the entire blocker at this point. Until storage is solved, solar/wind do nothing more than displace some peaker plants.

> That’s a cudgel to ignore the fact that being anti-nuclear means being pro-fossil fuels. I dont think so. We may have a common competitor yet also be in competition. Solar and wind have very complimentary output patterns (combining two variable sources produces a less variable source even without the modest degree of anti correlation which is present between wind and solar). Nuclears output pattern really begs to b…

You quoted and then ignored the entire reason they don’t compete. Nuclear is great for base load because it’s not very reactive as you pointed out. Solar and wind are absolutely terrible for base load (see Hawaii).

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#218

Post by londons_explore » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 6:05 PM UTC

tomatotomato37 wrote: post #205

londons_explore wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A huge number of 74 year old technologies are available for $0.75 direct from China. The fact the nuclear reactor hasn't been miniaturized to the size of a coin and included in every $15 childrens toy to power lights is in large part because of public perception and government regulation rather than real safety/health concerns - there exist plenty of typical household materials that are more dangerous than the safest…

Nuclear technology scales horribly downwards so even in a world that fully-embraced the technology you won't have pocket reactors that do anything more than maybe a power some gimmick accessory. The true power potential of nuclear only comes into affect with full steam boiler-turbine infrastructure, which are large, heavy, and maintenance-intensive beasts; a good comparison would be an early-industrial coal steam boi…

I think with investment nuclear technology could scale down - the full steam boiler design could maybe even be miniaturized via silicon micro machines type technology, but there might also be avenues for using the photoelectric effect for a more direct nuclear to electricity conversion.

Either way, I can totally imagine someone saying "punch cards and relays scale down horribly - you could never make a small computer".

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#219

Post by jabl » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 6:10 PM UTC

michaelt wrote: post #194

akvadrako wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iran has a nuclear plant and enough uranium that the bottleneck to weapons is enrichment. I’m not sure what choice of power source has to do with weapon proliferation.

AIUI, one concern with nuclear reactors is what to do with the waste. A 'breeder reactor' is a type of nuclear reactor that makes more efficient use of uranium than 'light water reactors' and with less left-over radioactive waste. Sounds great, so why do we build anything else? Well, once you've got a breeder reactor it's a very short step to making weapons-grade plutonium. Whereas with light water reactors, this isn…

No, not really. Historically, weapons grade Pu has been produced in dedicated (graphite moderated) thermal reactors, not with fast breeders.

Fast breeders create Pu, yes, but the isotopic composition is poorly suited for weapons.

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#220

Post by avar » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 6:10 PM UTC

nothrabannosir wrote: post #150

belorn wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current energy discussion in Swedish politics is Green vs Nuclear. No one is discussing a stop for burning fossil fuels in power plants or banning the import of coal/NG energy from neighbors. Not even a suggestion from the green party at a total stop. Instead we get a bunch of political tricks. If we export more green energy than we import coal energy then we can pretend that that the coal did not actually get re…

Norway sells most of their green energy and buys fossil fuel energy in return. 98% of their energy production is renewables, but only 9% of their consumption is. A solid 58% of their consumption comes from fossil fuels. Source: Norway’s department of energy. https://www.nve.no/energiforsyning/varedeklarasjon/nasjonal-... This isn’t just accounting pedantry: the countries they sell their renewables to use those, to (r…

That's how it's supposed to work. A country like Norway producing 100% green energy and having 100% coal or other non-renewables on the books is the system working as designed.

It means that countries who actually use non-renewables to power their grid effectively subsidize the Norwegian energy market and pay a fine for their own use.

It's amazing how common the misconception that this is somehow nefarious is. I encourage you to read up on some of the published material about energy certificates, certificates of origin etc.