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

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#221

Post by whycombagator » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 6:13 PM UTC

billfruit wrote: post #181

pjc50 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People underestimate how much of the opposition to nuclear plants in the past was due to the "dual use" nature of the technology, and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. In the 80s it was hard to care about the effects of climate change in a mere hundred years when global policy was to keep civilization-destroying quantities of weapons on hand that could be delivered in 45 minutes. The war between nuclear weapons a…

In 90s, if I remember correctly the Clinton administration even offered to built nuclear reactors in North Korea, if they would only bother to stop their weapons program.

Sort of, but not exactly. They already had at least one reactor[0] and what you are referring to is the Agreed Framework[1][2].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyongbyon_Nuclear_Scientific_R...

[1] https://www.history.com/news/north-korea-nuclear-deal-bill-c...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreed_Framework

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#222

Post by cycomanic » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 6:39 PM UTC

kortilla wrote: post #111

Spooky23 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Solar and wind aren’t disruptive to base-load though, which is the problem. You can build all of the solar/wind you want, but you’re just falling back to fossil fuels at night and during less windy days.

This is simply false. First, "base load" powerplants are actually the most troublesome, because they don't adjust for load and predicting base load is actually hard (except when you just use a very small fraction of overall load). Second if you have a large grid (like the US) that is connected (and modern,) you could run the whole grid of variable loads like wind. This would require investment into the grid which nobody seems to want to do. However the technology is there

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#223

Post by im_with_stupid » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 6:44 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…

I'm with you 100%. One thing that people don't realize is that nuclear technology is the only fuel technology that has nuclear regulations. If coal has a little radioactivity in it, there's no limit to what radiation can be exposed to the atmosphere in burning it. I believe the same applies to oil, gasoline, and diesel.

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#224

Post by Ididntdothis » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 6:47 PM UTC

natmaka wrote: post #142

ptaipale wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Fukushima was built to the requirements of 1970's, not those of today (which are much stronger).

The plant was active and very well-maintained, and its operator even planned to extend it (2 more reactors). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Powe...

That’s what scares me. As far as I know Japan is pretty good at running infrastructure. If even they can’t get it right what will happen if we push nuclear as solution to climate change and less well run countries get a lot of nuclear plants? It’s pretty much guaranteed that some will blow up.

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#225

Post by AnthonyMouse » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 6:49 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…

> Nuclear technology scales horribly downwards

A small steam turbine is an apparatus with about the size and complexity of a car engine. But if it has to be licensed and inspected by the NRC then you can forget about it.

And you could make a little RTG that could power a phone for a decade. Even with the terrible efficiency of thermoelectric generators it would still be much smaller than a lithium battery that could store the same number of kWh, because it's ~10% of the efficiency multiplied by much more than 10 times the power density. The main limit you hit on size is practicality -- why make a tiny, tiny, tiny one that lasts for a month when you can make an only marginally larger one that lasts for ten years?

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#226

Post by strainer » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 6:51 PM UTC

bluesign wrote: post #212

strainer wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

In the first quote yes, but who is really doing that talking and double counting? I suspect some strawpersons.

In the second quote the op is clearly complaining that schemes growing trees and burning them for fuel cant be carbon neutral, which is plainly false.

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#227

Post by nothrabannosir » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 7:01 PM UTC

avar wrote: post #220

nothrabannosir wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 enco…

The issue isn’t green energy production and resale, but double counting of credits. Multiple players claiming “green energy” (leaving out whether it’s production or consumption), while none take responsibility for the fossil fuels.

Energy is fungible, meaning they only sell the credits and use the green power internally. Now suddenly they use originally “green” power, never mind that the credits have been sold and someone else is doing the same.

Google “Norway green energy” to get a feel for what it looks like in the media.

There is no need for them to sell many of those credits, as evidenced by the fact that they don’t even transfer much of that power. Don’t forget that they lower that penalty by increasing supply. If they went off the market, other, domestic players would get more money for their own production. And Norwegians are lulled into a false sense of green compliance, thereby being less incentivised to root for reduction of fossil fuel consumption.

It’s a great example for the expression “having your cake and eating it, too.” If you ever need to explain that one :)

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#228

Post by Accujack » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 7:05 PM UTC

michaelt wrote: post #201

Accujack wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>one concern with nuclear reactors is what to do with the waste. Actually, no. The reactor designs in use generate very little waste, just spent fuel rods that have to be kept in safe storage until their radioactivity level goes down to something reasonable. That doesn't take decades, either. The big problem with nuclear waste is the waste from weapons production, and people don't differentiate just like they don't f…

I'm pretty sure I've read articles saying America doesn't currently have a permanent storage facility for nuclear waste such as spent fuel rods, and that the creation of one is politically controversial - have matters changed since I read those articles?

Not really, but bomb waste and spent fuel rods are separate subjects. The volume of fuel rods we're talking about here is small enough that for the most part the spent fuel rods are stored on-site at the plants. Not a great long term solution, especially since the plants don't have facilities designed for it. They're in above ground casks that are lined up in the open spaces around the plant.

However, long term interment isn't what's planned anyway... the fuel rods can be reprocessed into new fuel, and they aren't much of a storage concern anyway... they can actually be stuck on a truck and hauled away in their casks down the highway.

We need somewhere to store the fuel assemblies that's safe and secure (or better than putting them in casks in the open) but we're not looking for a dump site. More like a warehouse facility, where they can sit until reprocessed or dismantled.

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#229

Post by lrem » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 7:09 PM UTC

akvadrako wrote: post #153

lrem wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like defeating the selling point of those small reactors? Can it still be cost effective with such short service cycles?

I don’t think he means the plant needs to be rebuilt, just that the fuel doesn’t last as long.

Right, but the sales pitch I've seen somewhere (probably here) was pretty much "bury one in your back yard and enjoy free electricity for your community for decades" (two decades, if I remember correctly). This does not fit here, I'm just trying to reconcile.

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#230

Post by algaeontoast » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 7:13 PM UTC

cheez wrote: post #20

algaeontoast wrote: post #6

The saddest double-standard of all that’s driven by pure stupidity is the phenomenon of “environmental activists” who decry efforts to develop and deploy nuclear power. We could’ve been carbon neutral, but the green morons had to make a scene and screech “wind and solar” playing into their fictitious enemies hand (coal, natural gas etc.)

The same people who screamed about wind and solar also scream about $BYND and surprise (notice the "eating meat is bad for the environment" meme coming out recently), they are funded by similar pipelines.

And the most painful irony is this is getting down-voted by people who are likely convinced they're on the side of "helping the environment"...