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

A first for Canada: New type of nuclear plant opening by 2028

theweathernetwork.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 415 posts

Re: A first for Canada: New type of nuclear plant opening by 2028

#21

Post by s0rce »

foolfoolz wrote: post #18
Mountain_Skies wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a bit surprised that Australia has no nuclear plants while other countries along the Pacific Rim already do. Any idea why it hasn't happened? Domestic opposition or lack of need before now?

probably cause the entire continent of australia is about as big as the lower 48 states but has only a few more million people than the state of florida. the cities are far more spread out. the investment would be very high and only benefit on small area

Canada has them. Pretty much the same situation

Re: A first for Canada: New type of nuclear plant opening by 2028

#23

Post by ggm »

jp0d wrote: post #17
ggm wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should have moved on this in the sixties when it was possible. It's impossible to get traction on this ever since. Maybe the nuclear subs will provide impetus

I think in a way it's good that we didn't do that in the sixties. Nuclear reactors are a lot more advanced and safer these days. Probably never too late to get onto it.

You haven't been in the arguments about "why nuclear makes no sense now" much have you? the post-60s time to deploy skyrocketed, in lawsuits. By now, its a 20+ year fight to do anything with nuclear, even on federally owned land. in 20 years, the argument runs that either its too late, or the cost of PV/Wind has dropped to make it irrelevant.

The problem space we're in now is multi-dimensional. Purely on economic and rational engineering grounds you are right. Bring politics to the table and no, there is no clear time now or in the future where it will "work" to propose nuclear for powergen, where if we had installed the worse, 2/3 gen stuff in the 60s we'd be arguing about replacement, but with a good investment in nuclear physics engineering, and baseload supply demands which had displaced brown coal already.

Re: A first for Canada: New type of nuclear plant opening by 2028

#24

Post by arcticbull »

foolfoolz wrote: post #18
Mountain_Skies wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a bit surprised that Australia has no nuclear plants while other countries along the Pacific Rim already do. Any idea why it hasn't happened? Domestic opposition or lack of need before now?

probably cause the entire continent of australia is about as big as the lower 48 states but has only a few more million people than the state of florida. the cities are far more spread out. the investment would be very high and only benefit on small area

Australia has a few large population clusters. Most people don't live in the interior due to the sweltering heat and lack of water. They live on the east/south-east seaboard (Brisbane-Sydney-Canberra-Melbourne-Adelade, clockwise). The reactors can be colocated with the people.

Re: A first for Canada: New type of nuclear plant opening by 2028

#25

Post by natmaka »

s0rce wrote: post #21
foolfoolz wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

probably cause the entire continent of australia is about as big as the lower 48 states but has only a few more million people than the state of florida. the cities are far more spread out. the investment would be very high and only benefit on small area

Canada has them. Pretty much the same situation

Canada is a very different case: electricity sources are 2/3 renewables, mainly hydro (~60%). Nuclear: ~15%

Re: A first for Canada: New type of nuclear plant opening by 2028

#26

Post by arcticbull »

wryun wrote: post #11
jp0d wrote: post #4

This is really exciting. I wish we had nuclear power here in Australia. I know I might get downvoted for this comment. But with advancement in technology and large amount nuclear fuel (Uranium deposit) available, it's a great choice. 1. Vast swathes of uninhabited land can absorb some of the risks/fears associated with a nuclear accident. With technology like this, the risks are even lower. 2. It's lot cleaner than c…

Takes too long to build fission plants to replace coal in the short term; easy to spin up lots of wind/solar. We've also got a ridiculous amount of renewable potential. (I'm a candidate for the Fusion Party; we'd like to remove the ban on nuclear power in Australia because it would enable research)

If we'd started building reactors when we first said it'd take too long, we'd have all the reactors we need. Instead of saying it's going to take too long, let's just start :) we might surprise ourselves in a few years.

Re: A first for Canada: New type of nuclear plant opening by 2028

#27

Post by voidfunc »

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #14
jp0d wrote: post #4

This is really exciting. I wish we had nuclear power here in Australia. I know I might get downvoted for this comment. But with advancement in technology and large amount nuclear fuel (Uranium deposit) available, it's a great choice. 1. Vast swathes of uninhabited land can absorb some of the risks/fears associated with a nuclear accident. With technology like this, the risks are even lower. 2. It's lot cleaner than c…

I'm a bit surprised that Australia has no nuclear plants while other countries along the Pacific Rim already do. Any idea why it hasn't happened? Domestic opposition or lack of need before now?

Don't nuclear plants need vast amounts of water? Australia's kinda lacking that in the middle of the country.

Re: A first for Canada: New type of nuclear plant opening by 2028

#28

Post by arcticbull »

natmaka wrote: post #25
s0rce wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Canada has them. Pretty much the same situation

Canada is a very different case: electricity sources are 2/3 renewables, mainly hydro (~60%). Nuclear: ~15%

Canada is a big place. Depends on the area. Ontario, for instance, is almost 60% nuclear. [1] It has by far the lowest CO2 emissions per kWh in the country.

Remember, Ontario is 40% of Canada's population.

[1] https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/pr...

Re: A first for Canada: New type of nuclear plant opening by 2028

#29

Post by Manuel_D »

voidfunc wrote: post #27
Mountain_Skies wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a bit surprised that Australia has no nuclear plants while other countries along the Pacific Rim already do. Any idea why it hasn't happened? Domestic opposition or lack of need before now?

Don't nuclear plants need vast amounts of water? Australia's kinda lacking that in the middle of the country.

Any steam turbine plant needs a cooling system, nuclear or fossil fuel. You don't need potable water, seawater or wastewater can be used for cooling.

Re: A first for Canada: New type of nuclear plant opening by 2028

#30

Post by wumpus »

arcticbull wrote: post #26
wryun wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Takes too long to build fission plants to replace coal in the short term; easy to spin up lots of wind/solar. We've also got a ridiculous amount of renewable potential. (I'm a candidate for the Fusion Party; we'd like to remove the ban on nuclear power in Australia because it would enable research)

If we'd started building reactors when we first said it'd take too long, we'd have all the reactors we need. Instead of saying it's going to take too long, let's just start :) we might surprise ourselves in a few years.

Did you spend the same amount of money on solar/wind instead? How did that turn out?
Post reply on HN