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

Post by Cthulhu_ » Tue, May 03, 2022, 8:20 AM UTC

yodelshady wrote: post #116

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?

In my country, which is a relative success story for wind? apparently circa. $ 40 billion, for, right now... one GW. On average - and be assured I have checked this - five, which puts it in the same cost / GW as nuclear, and a capacity factor, not of sixty percent as advertised, but twenty-five. And we don't dump a megatonne or so of CO2 into the atmosphere a week running gas plants to cover nuclear variability. As a…

Post by ghostly_s » Tue, May 03, 2022, 8:23 AM UTC

clarionbell wrote: post #111

supert56 wrote: post #89

My only question about nuclear is why is it okay to bury the nuclear waste? I can understand that it might be fine to bury small amounts in specific stores but if countries slowly adopt nuclear energy at scale then over time won’t we be burying a lot of waste that, correct me if I’m wrong, has to be stored for thousands of years? I don’t understand how this can be sustainable long term. I also think it’s maybe arroga…

Think about it this way. All of the uranium used as fuel came from the ground. Now, we will be putting smaller quantity of other, also radioactive, materials into ground. Lot of places have high natural levels of radiation[0], sometimes they even make it as a spa location[1]. People were living around radiation since before they were people. And they managed. We still do. In the end the question is if we want some ra…

Post by ZeroGravitas » Tue, May 03, 2022, 8:24 AM UTC

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…

Post by yodelshady » Tue, May 03, 2022, 8:28 AM UTC

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #125

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…

Australia is the ideal place for renewables. Canada is somewhere I'd begrudgingly admit that nuclear may have a role to play in the future energy market, but it would be downright silly for Australia.

Post by arcticbull » Tue, May 03, 2022, 8:30 AM UTC

powcontech wrote: post #81

arcticbull wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Do you have a source hydro turbines “turning fish in to mulch”? I’ve been around lots of hydro projects and the main hazards for fish seemed to be either dewatering of habitat due to turbines reducing flows too quickly or I heard it is bad for them if the dam uses the spill way and makes the water all aerated