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

141–150 of 415 posts

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

#141

Post by nicoburns »

yodelshady wrote: post #127
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Begrudging" is a pretty telling phrase. I'm happy with whatever actually delivers carbon-free watt hours, which yes, in Australia should be solar. Clearly you want something else as well.

It’s not unreasonable to prefer a solution that doesn’t come with the problems of managing radioactive material where one is available.

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

#142

Post by nicoburns »

clarionbell wrote: post #128
DocTomoe wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other news, the solar cells installed on the White House by Carter apparently still provided energy ten years ago [1], and those who were not broken deliberately likely still do today. I am all for nuclear - but let's keep the discussion honest. [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carter-white-hous...

Those are not solar cells, those are water heaters. In the interest of being honest. No wonder they still work, those are literally water pipes embedded in a roof panel. No inverter, no battery, nothing. The only thing they have in common with solar cells people install today is the fact that they are powered by sun.

Worth noting that people do still install those today in addition to PV panels. PV panels seem to get 20-30 years of use, which isn’t bad at all. And I believe they usually still work after that time, just with reduced efficiency.

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

#143

Post by ben_w »

wumpus wrote: post #33
jp0d wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The hydrogen path is less energy efficient than the battery path, so it’s only useful if you have really cheap electricity.

If the batteries themselves were to remain expensive even as the electricity to charge them/electrolyse water became cheap, I can imagine a scenario where the lifetime cost difference between batteries and hydrogen tanks might be more than the cost of the energy wasted as heat by making the hydrogen. I don’t think this will happen now.

The same dynamic on a slightly smaller scale means I can also believe that hydrogen cars could be a Vimes’ Boot: low purchase cost, high running cost, so poor people have them because they can’t afford the cheaper option.

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

#144

Post by j16sdiz »

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…

It is not risk free, but it is "okay"

Most of newer reactor design produce very little waste -- the newest type of reactor produce only a few pounds of spent fuel a year per 1GW.

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

#145

Post by ClumsyPilot »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #138
yodelshady wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Begrudging" is a pretty telling phrase. I'm happy with whatever actually delivers carbon-free watt hours, which yes, in Australia should be solar. Clearly you want something else as well.

Yeah, I want a global solution to global warming, which nuclear isn't. I don't think it's necessary and would happily ban nuclear to focus on renewables if I was king of the world. But I'm not, so I have to be realistic and admit that there are niche areas where nuclear is helpful in real politics even if most of the noise around nuclear is clearly climate change denial.

"ban nuclear to focus on renewables if I was king of the world."

I have seen thos banged about a lot - where does the idea that banning nuclear would somehow improve our ability to build renewables come from? What is the basis for it?

'most of the noise around nuclear is clearly climate change denial.'

Again, why? Why do not believe that 90% of noise about nuclear is well intentioned people seeing an alternative solution?

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

#146

Post by Kliment »

ben_w wrote: post #139
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is this "nuclear variability" you speak of? I thought they were pretty constant in their output, unlike wind / solar for which gas plants are needed to compensate.

I keep hearing they need to be switched off at short notice because… I’m not sure, accidents? I’ve never actually seen a link backing this claim, and I’d be interested.

Nuclear plants need to be switched off for weeks/months at a time for the following reasons:

- refueling (regularly done, highly plannable)

- insufficient cooling water/ too warm cooling water (regular, seasonal, not very predictable short-term)

- planned maintenance (often combined with refueling)

- unplanned maintenance (accidents)

Whenever these things happen, the entire reactor is producing no power. This is why most nuclear facilities have multiple reactors, so you can rotate these tasks among them and still have some power. Unfortunately, the cooling issue is becoming more and more of a problem, and many sites that used to operate year-round now have to scale down significantly in mid-summer due to lack of cooling water.

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

#147

Post by j16sdiz »

urban_winter wrote: post #83

Does anyone understand this? "Some of the main differences that the MMR has from conventional nuclear plants is that the reactor cannot meltdown as the heat is passively released into the environment..." 300MW is a lot of energy to passively release into the environment. Does this design really fail safe? And if so, how? The Fukushima issues were caused (IIRC) by failure of the backup generators to run the cooling sy…

TRISO fuel are encapsulated in very small balls with its own containment. Those balls are hardened and won't melt in operation.

If those balls are removed from the reactor, it won't have the critical mass to maintain the reaction.

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

#148

Post by niek_pas »

ghostly_s wrote: post #123
clarionbell wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's really not that simple. Enriching the raw materials and subjecting them to fission results in a waste product with quite different characteristics than the input.

I know nothing about nuclear physics; could you elaborate? How are the input and output different?

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

#149

Post by ben_w »

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…

> Nuclear Energy Institute analysis has found

(And 2015)

Meanwhile, the Pavagada Solar Plant in India is rated at 2050 MW, with a footprint of 37 km^2, or 14 miles^2.

Though if you really want to compare like-for-like environments, I think a better comparison is the Noor Abu Dhabi, which is rated at 1177 MW with a footprint of 8 km^2, or 3 miles^2.

And of course that’s in addition to possibly of reaching a significant fraction of demand with rooftop PV, which is otherwise wasted space and which nuclear reactors can’t use.

Heck, you can put the PV onto the outside surfaces etc. of the nuclear reactor if you want. Or between the wind turbines.

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

#150

Post by thecopy »

flgb wrote: post #131
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…

Reasons why Australia doesn't and won't have nuclear: 1. Nuclear is a more expensive sources of energy than our alternatives (uranium ore is a small proportion of the cost stack, and Australia would still need to import nuclear fuel) 2. Nuclear isn't commercially viable in energy markets with very high levels of variable renewable energy where they have to be economically curtailed on an almost daily basis (our coal…

I have never understand the economics argument. Either climate change and global warming are serious issues, and then slightly more expensive electricity should not matter - or they are not serious issues and we can keep burning coal and oil.
Post reply on HN