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

41–50 of 415 posts

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

#41

Post by arcticbull »

wumpus wrote: post #38
arcticbull wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't care if something is more expensive if it's better haha. Sometimes better things are more expensive. That's why we have subsidies. And yes, I do consider covering an area 4X the size of Toronto with solar panels to be worse than the 3 small buildings in the middle of nowhere (Bruce, Darlington, Pickering) we have now.

I'm saying spending the same amount on solar would leave us worse off.

There's a role for both, together.

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

#42

Post by DaniFong »

justinator wrote: post #37
Manuel_D wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

the water in steam plants is a closed loop, and the heat is gathered from condensers. the water is cooled via evaporation through a cooling tower

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

#43

Post by jseutter »

photochemsyn wrote: post #12

The background on Canada's plans for small modular reactors (of which this is just one of three projects) can be found here: https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Canadian-provinc... Supposedly this is promoting clean energy and fighting climate change, but the details don't always match this rhetoric. In particular they're thinking they can use nuclear power to replace piped-in natural gas to mine the Alberta…

Good points. This design seems quite similar to the pebble bed reactor idea in that it relies on the fissile material being encased in a graphite mixture (stubby cylinders instead of spheres) as well as heat transfer using helium instead of water.

The pebble bed reactors seemed to have stability issues created by graphite rubbing off of the spheres as the pebbles we loaded in the top and removed from the bottom. This newer design works around that by having the fuel in a cylinder and the fuel in the core not being changeable for its 20 year life. It seems to be one of the simplest designs yet and is likely cheaper as a result.

If it turns out to be cheap power this would have a big impact on northern communities where there is little sunlight for several months, and low-angle sunlight during the summer months. It doesn't have to beat typical solar, it just has to beat diesel that is shipped or flown in.

I'm from Alberta and I also wish they would leave the tarsands tar in the ground. I have little expectation they will, so nuclear seems like an improvement at least.

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

#44

Post by ars »

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.

That's one way to build them, but it's not the only way. They can be built not to need a lot of water, I assume there are some drawbacks.

And it's hardly "vast amounts", it's a small portion of the flow of a small river.

A coal plant also works better with a water source - there's no real difference here, you just need something to cool the steam at the end.

If coal can work in Australia so can nuclear.

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

#45

Post by adgjlsfhk1 »

justinator wrote: post #37
Manuel_D wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's this really cool invention called the bucket. It lets you recapture steam as it re-condenses.

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

#46

Post by ars »

justinator wrote: post #37
Manuel_D wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, they are typically closed cycle, where the steam is reused.

You just need to cool the steam with ambient air - water is better (more cooling) but hardly required.

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

#47

Post by wumpus »

arcticbull wrote: post #41
wumpus wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't care if something is more expensive if it's better haha. Sometimes better things are more expensive. That's why we have subsidies. And yes, I do consider covering an area 4X the size of Toronto with solar panels to be worse than the 3 small buildings in the middle of nowhere (Bruce, Darlington, Pickering) we have now. I'm saying spending the same amount on solar would leave us worse off. There's a role for bo…

You said:

> 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 :)

... and apparently you don't care that there was an alternative that would already be producing a lot of power? Because it doesn't matter how much money you think could have built reactors, the reactor-building community is screwed up.

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

#48

Post by ars »

Manuel_D wrote: post #7
ttul wrote: post #2

To the extent that nuclear power plants emit waste heat, you can use this waste heat to counteract the frigid temperatures found in the Canadian hinterland, displacing the need for natural gas and oil heating of industrial processes.

Desalination through waste heat is also viable. It's "free" energy in the sense that it would have otherwise gone unused.

Desalination does not use heat anymore, it's all membrane based.

Also, you'd need enough heat to boil water, but the waste heat, by definition, is lower than the boiling point of water (otherwise the turbine doesn't work).

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

#49

Post by ars »

robonerd wrote: post #13
SkyMarshal wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you transfer the waste heat from the nuclear plant to the industrial processes that would use it in place of oil and gas? Just co-locate them all together?

You can pipe steam for a few miles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_heating Though for industrial purposes (rather than just heating buildings) you'd probably have to be closer.

The waste heat from a power plant (any kind), is not hot enough to make steam, unless you deliberately make it less efficient.

You can make hot water though.

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

#50

Post by illirik »

wumpus wrote: post #32
Manuel_D wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A fossil fuel plant will burn fuel to produce heat. Some of this heat will be used for generation, and the remainder is waste heat. A solar panel or wind turbine, on the other hand, does not produce significant amounts of heat in operation - a PV solar panel would only get somewhat warm, a wind turbine would only achieve some friction heating - to where it is not economical to harness this relatively small amount of energy (compared to waste heat from an exothermic generation process, like nuclear fission or hydrocarbon combustion)
Post reply on HN