A first for Canada: New type of nuclear plant opening by 2028 • Hacker News Board

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

#31

Post by wumpus » Tue, May 03, 2022, 3:56 AM UTC

ggm wrote: post #5

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…

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

Nuclear subs involve small reactors that are very expensive and dangerous to operate.

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

#32

Post by wumpus » Tue, May 03, 2022, 3:59 AM UTC

Manuel_D wrote: post #8

BeeBoBub wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an interesting idea for waste heat. Is the waste heat a nuclear power plant produces significant? My understanding is you want all your heat working to spin your turbine.

Yes, ideally all the energy released by the reactor would go into the turbine. But no engine is 100% efficient, and waste heat is inevitable. Waste heat is "free" energy in the sense that it would have otherwise not been harnessed for something useful.

How does this work with solar panels and wind turbines?

I know that fossil fuel plants have a lot of waste heat that enables cogeneration, but I've never heard of that with solar or wind.

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

#33

Post by wumpus » Tue, May 03, 2022, 4:04 AM UTC

jp0d wrote: post #16

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)

I'm all for renewable power and environmentally sustainable technologies. This includes Solar, Beach, Wind power and Nuclear power. Preferably Hydrogen fuel cell cars over battery powered cars (purely for less batter and less toxic material to recycle and also logistically more feasible for long distance driving). We Australians need to raise awareness about its effectiveness. The new compact fusion reactor designs f…

It's a shame that so many people are still pushing hydrogen for individual vehicles despite its total failure in the marketplace... despite significant subsidies.

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

#34

Post by throwawaylinux » Tue, May 03, 2022, 4:07 AM UTC

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 abundant uranium, dry geologically stable uninhabited space, bauxite, iron ore, and thermal and coking coal. Australia really should have developed large steel and aluminum industries powered by coal and uranium, rather than shipping all the raw materials out with no value add.

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

#35

Post by ggm » Tue, May 03, 2022, 4:08 AM UTC

wumpus wrote: post #31

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

Nuclear subs involve small reactors that are very expensive and dangerous to operate.

Impetus in the forms of 1) routine presence of nuclear reactors in Australia outside of lucas heights 2) trained people in nuclear physics and engineering 3) a probably high safety record, noting that nothing in life is guaranteed

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

#36

Post by arcticbull » Tue, May 03, 2022, 4:14 AM UTC

wumpus wrote: post #30

arcticbull wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Why would I want to cover the entire desert with solar panels instead of having one neat little tube shaped steam box?

You know three nuclear power plants (spanning 19 reactors) in Ontario provide electricity for 9 million people? How many solar panels and wind turbines would you need to put in their place?

A solar PV facility must have an installed capacity of 3,300 MW and 5,400 MW to match a 1,000-MW nuclear facility’s output, requiring between 45 and 75 square miles of land cover. That's twice the size of Manhattan. [1] Ontario has a generating capacity of 13.5GWe of nuclear energy. That would be almost 1000 square miles of solar panel - 4x the city of Toronto.

I actually don't really care that nuclear's more expensive. It's the better option.

[1] https://www.nei.org/news/2015/land-needs-for-wind-solar-dwar...

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

#37

Post by justinator » Tue, May 03, 2022, 4:23 AM UTC

Manuel_D wrote: post #29

voidfunc wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would assume any steam turbine plant needs water for the steam, and that steam is eventually lost through evaporation.

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

#38

Post by wumpus » Tue, May 03, 2022, 4:30 AM UTC

arcticbull wrote: post #36

wumpus wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Why would I want to cover the entire desert with solar panels instead of having one neat little tube shaped steam box? You know three nuclear power plants (spanning 19 reactors) in Ontario provide electricity for 9 million people? How many solar panels and wind turbines would you need to put in their place? A solar PV facility must have an installed capacity of 3,300 MW and 5,400 MW to match a 1,000-MW nuclear facili…

This appears to be a "no, we didn't spend the same amount of money on solar and wind."

Glad you don't care nuclear is more expensive! That's a winning argument.

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

#39

Post by stormbrew » Tue, May 03, 2022, 4:31 AM UTC

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%

This is a little deceptive I think. Electricity only makes up about 17% of canada's energy use, with 75% or so of our total energy demand coming from carbon sources[1]. We mostly use natural gas for heating, while in many other places in the world it's more likely electricity is gonna be used for indoor climate control (AC, heat pumps, even resistive heating).

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

#40

Post by ddeck » Tue, May 03, 2022, 4:34 AM UTC

arcticbull wrote: post #24

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

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.

This is correct. 50% of Australia's population live in Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane (40% in the first two). The below image shows just how empty the vast majority of Australia really is:

https://i.redd.it/9mw8ttqqu0b41.jpg