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

241–250 of 323 posts

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#241

Post by erentz »

jabl wrote: post #157
erentz wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wondered about this myself. As another commenter pointed out naval plants use a more enriched uranium which IIRC allows them to run the reactors for 20+ years without needing to refuel. One other way of thinking about it though is that this is evidence we can have a program to make specialized small modular reactors fairly economically. So we shouldn’t be so skeptical about proposals we do it for civilian use.

> this is evidence we can have a program to make specialized small modular reactors fairly economically. It is? I would imagine that the advantages of nuclear power for submarines are so great that militaries would gladly pay 100 times more than would be acceptable for civilian power without blinking. (I do think SMR's are promising for civilian applications, I just don't think that nuclear submarines are a good argu…

Well I mean, one of the new submarines cost something like $2 billion. The reactor can’t be more than a 20% of the total cost. So no it’s not anything like 100 times more. It’s probably practically economically viable for civilian power as is. It just needs necessary modifications and housing for land based use. And permission to use the higher enrichment uranium. The fact you don’t need to refuel it for 20 years might be a bonus because the military can build them, lock them up, ship them to site, they produce power for 20 years, then they ship them back for refueling or decommissioning.

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#242

Post by cmonnow »

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…

Every technology has pros & cons, effects & residues.

Coal : Effect/Pros - Energy/Cheap. Residue/Cons - C02/GlobalWarming

Nuclear : Effect/Pros - Energy/Clean. Residue/Cons - RadioactiveWaste/Contamination.

Where do the nuclear byproducts go currently ? Into the earth? Rivers? Oceans?

30 years ago, we switched from paper based products to plastic, to save trees. Today, we want to switch from plastic based products to paper, to avoid pollution.

Every 'switch' will come with side-effects that the current generation is fine with, because they're not going to be ones dealing with it.

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#243

Post by cmonnow »

Accujack wrote: post #228
michaelt wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 inter…

Every technology has pros & cons, effects & residues.

Coal : Effect/Pros - Energy/Cheap. Residue/Cons - C02/GlobalWarming

Nuclear : Effect/Pros - Energy/Clean. Residue/Cons - RadioactiveWaste/Contamination.

Where do the nuclear byproducts go currently ? Into the earth? Rivers? Oceans?

30 years ago, we switched from paper based products to plastic, to save trees. Today, we want to switch from plastic based products to paper, to avoid pollution.

Every 'switch' will come with side-effects that the current generation is fine with, because they're not going to be ones dealing with it.

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#244

Post by merb »

belorn wrote: post #133
thawaway1837 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

btw. the map data is from 2014. the last 4-5 years basically changed a lot.

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#245

Post by strainer »

belorn wrote: post #234
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…

> the idea more likely comes from the kind of confused climate skeptic literature https://www.svtplay.se/video/23437510/agenda/agenda-18-nov-2... Political debate from 2 weeks ago. Green party spoke person vs moderate party leader. It beings at 35m. The moderate describe multiple times that Sweden buys dirty coal energy when the wind is now blowing, and the green party spoke person repeats the argument of being net e…

> the green party spoke person repeats the argument of being net exporter of green energy in response.

I think its a valid argument or caveat to the undesirable coal burning. That's a spoken debate, open to interpretation and misunderstanding, not evidence of carbon trading actually being gamed.

> where we plant tree and don't cut them down has a name: nature sanctuary. Sure, or let the trees seed themselves but I said cut the tree and leave the roots (they have considerable mass and hard to harvest) Then you got a partial natural habitat, carbon sink and fuel source, you've got a mix - that's an option. Plant more trees than you need - never sure how many you'll need anyhow, call it headroom. The object is to reduce net carbon emissions as fast as possible and improve habitats as much as possible, the objectives conflict a bit and can compliment a bit, ecology is complex like that.

> Counting tree planting initiatives as carbon sinks when there is no planning for what happens afterward is simply wishful thinking (quote from the study).

So get planning - because it can work, and it could be done to some extent if you want to decarbonise -according to the IPCC at least. Whatever renewable power your country is generating, if its traded and used then it is cutting carbon, either within your country or another destination - thats not imaginative accounting, its situational awareness.

You are talking like this is all a sham, like your greens are saying they don't need to do anything more about carbon reduction because they're exporting some renewable generation - I dont believe that and expect they're actually just arguing their progress so they can make more progress. Then you say it wouldn't be too hard to just ban fossil fuels tomorrow, so are you annoyed with greens holding things up then ? That sounds like a "super green" policy, do many people believe in it? Because it wont be able to happen till then. Maybe you've got low quality green politicians carrying the banner, that can sure happen.

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#246

Post by natmaka »

cm2187 wrote: post #206
natmaka wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

France could have gone 100% nuclear, french nuclear reactors can adapt their load to the demand intra-day. It is not a technical decision.

No, nuke is for base-load, it cannot be started/stopped in 10 minutes (in France, as in many countries, hydro dams are used as buffers).

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#247

Post by natmaka »

Reedx wrote: post #213
natmaka wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 elec…

It is apparently cheaper because in France, as in many countries, the nuke was and remains heavily subsided, decommission costs under evaluated, mishaps hidden...

The French public financial auditing institution (la Cour des Comptes) published in 2012 that public nuke investments are opaque, and that it costed around 228 10e9 euros, plus nowadays 3.4 10e9 euros per year for the sole maintenance. Nuke risk is what it is, and even financially it is not sound. Read there, starting folio 269: https://www.ccomptes.fr/sites/default/files/EzPublish/Rappor...

It is so expensive it cannot be hidden anymore. Electricity in France is absolutely not cheap, its price there is average in Europe. Source: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...

Germany now pays in order to solve the problem.

France isn't completely dumb and a state law (2015-992, from 2015, the "loi relative à la transition énergétique pour la croissance verte") states that the part of nuke-produced electricity must fall to less than 50% in 2025, from 72% then, and that renewables must replace it.

However those are only words, until now.

Meanwhile... Germany solves its problem.

Comparing France and Germany when it comes to industrial and technical problems is not fair, as Germany is so far ahead we don't see them anymore (and yep, I'm French, but facts are facts).

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#248

Post by natmaka »

Ididntdothis wrote: post #224
natmaka wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exactly. The official explanation after Chernobyl was in substance "the powerplant was of a dubtious design and the operators were dumb and not disciplined". Fukushima is designed by Western corps (GE), built by US and Japanese serious megacorps, and operated by Japanese knowledgeable, very disciplined and service-oriented (rather than vodka-oriented) people.

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#249

Post by pfdietz »

xorfish wrote: post #90

I think one of the most promising reactors in this area is the untegral molten salt reactor. It operates at low pressures, is passively cooled and has already mounted some regulatory hurdles.

And if you let the fuel salt cool off enough, the radioactivity in it makes fluorine gas. Yum!

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#250

Post by billfruit »

whycombagator wrote: post #221
billfruit wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

They already had one , but US did offer them to build two more LWR reactors, and even I think some work on these reactors had started before being abandoned.
Post reply on HN