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

51–60 of 415 posts

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

#51

Post by arcticbull »

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.

Solar panels are super thermally inefficient generally speaking, collecting about 20% of the energy that hits the panel. They are dark, and this leaves a lot of heat available for the gathering. You can get solar systems that heat water as well, especially in rooftop solar. This also cools the panels down and makes them more efficient. Not much, but measurably. Something like this. [1]

Of course, in the winter in Canada, you have to bleed the system otherwise the water will freeze in the tubes and they'll burst.

There's no free heat from a wind turbine.

[1] https://dualsun.com/en/product/hybrid-panel-spring/

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

#52

Post by greenknight »

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)

Having direct involvement in the wind industry... most plan -> completion developments take 5-10 years. heck even one from 2013 still hasnt had ground broken.

The main reason? NIMBYs. Loads of people go out to the countryside to retire. imagine what these retires would do if their picturesque landscape is now comprised of windfarms? and they dont have anything else to do to fill up their day?

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

#53

Post by ComputerGuru »

ars wrote: post #49
robonerd wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Just a reminder that “steam” does not directly imply any specific temperature threshold as it is a function of relative pressure. Pumped into a (near) vacuum, warm water will turn to “steam.” (Cost of pulling a vacuum not considered.)

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

#54

Post by [deleted] »

wumpus wrote: post #47
arcticbull wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[deleted]

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

#55

Post by prawn »

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 also thought we should've developed a nuclear waste industry here in South Australia. There was a 'citizen's jury' on the topic a while back but obviously public opinion swayed political action to rule it out.

We have a lot of "unused" and stable land well away from population centres.

I imagine transport from afar is an issue though.

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

#56

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#57

Post by dev_tty01 »

wumpus wrote: post #47
arcticbull wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How does solar produce substantial power in northern and southern latitudes for several months of the year? How about at night? How about during long cloudy periods? Solar usually ends up with carbon based backup. It should be nuclear instead. For solar to really work, it will take massive energy storage capabilities. That is NOT ready to deploy. Until then, solar will only be a partial solution at best.

Anyone who wants carbon free power generation should be pro-solar AND pro-nuclear.

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

#58

Post by notmars »

arcticbull wrote: post #28
natmaka wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/pr... maybe?

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

#59

Post by arcticbull »

notmars wrote: post #58
arcticbull wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/pr... maybe?

Hydro is tough for a lot of reasons. It's pretty ecologically devastating, flooding large regions and turning fish into mulch. It can also produce as much climate impact as a fossil fuel plant - or more - largely due to methane and CO2 emissions from the newly flooded land. [1] I'm not 100% sure where the Quebec hydro mix actually lands due to the significant variability on a plant-by-plant basis, and I don't know if that's factored in or how it was amortized in the StatsCan link - this wholistic analysis is fairly new afaik.

I trust StatsCan though, so your point is well made.

[1] https://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2019/11/15/long-conside...

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

#60

Post by tempestn »

cjensen wrote: post #10
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.

It's a very old idea which is in use in many places [1] -- and not just for nuclear plants. Main constraint is that you really can't transport the waste heat very far. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogeneration

Although an advantage of these smaller plants is that they can be located closer to where the heat is needed.
Post reply on HN