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

151–160 of 415 posts

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

#151

Post by mjevans »

mnw21cam wrote: post #126
tempestn wrote: post #63

> SMRs are nuclear reactors that typically produce up to 300 megawatts (MW) of electricity, which is enough energy to power 300,000 homes for one year. I suppose anyone who has some knowledge re electricity knows what they're trying to say here, and for anyone who doesn't it won't make much difference, but reading a sentence like this still hurts me a little. MW (megawatts) are a measure of power, not energy. This me…

Indeed. If you're going to be heating all those houses with electricity, instead of gas, coal, or wood, then you'll likely need much more than 1kW per home. Especially when winter hits -30C.

It would be nice if much of the waste heat could be expelled in ways more similar to Iceland's geothermal solutions.

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

#152

Post by JPLeRouzic »

DrBazza wrote: post #137
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…

Nuclear power stations work best by the coast, rather than on rivers due to the water required for cooling, and as France discovered you can't dump hotter water back into a river and kill the wildlife when the country is "hot" - compared to Australia, a French "hot" day is 'only' 38-40C. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/sep/07/weatherwatch-nu... So geographically, that likely means that nuclear power stations wo…

> a French "hot" day is 'only' 38-40C.

In the place I live (Brittany/west part of France), a hot day is more like 25°C.

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

#153

Post by skywal_l »

DrBazza wrote: post #137
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…

Nuclear power stations work best by the coast, rather than on rivers due to the water required for cooling, and as France discovered you can't dump hotter water back into a river and kill the wildlife when the country is "hot" - compared to Australia, a French "hot" day is 'only' 38-40C. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/sep/07/weatherwatch-nu... So geographically, that likely means that nuclear power stations wo…

Doesn't Australia have underground water? With a cursory search I can see that the Great Artesian Basin[0] could be a good source of cooling water.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Artesian_Basin

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

#154

Post by BongoMcCat »

thecopy wrote: post #150
flgb wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think that the economic argument is that it isn't viable for a private company to start a nuclear power-plant, it would require government involvement, and lots of people don't want the government to get involved in something that they think no-government entities can handle.

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

#155

Post by DrBazza »

JPLeRouzic wrote: post #152
DrBazza wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear power stations work best by the coast, rather than on rivers due to the water required for cooling, and as France discovered you can't dump hotter water back into a river and kill the wildlife when the country is "hot" - compared to Australia, a French "hot" day is 'only' 38-40C. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/sep/07/weatherwatch-nu... So geographically, that likely means that nuclear power stations wo…

> a French "hot" day is 'only' 38-40C. In the place I live (Brittany/west part of France), a hot day is more like 25°C.

Yes. I was referring to the heatwave in 2018 where the temperatures hit 40C in a few places in (central?) France, vs. "typical" Australia where it's 45C+.

Also Australia doesn't have anything like the number of size of major rivers that France, and continental Europe has.

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

#156

Post by arcticbull »

hkt wrote: post #71
arcticbull wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Can…

Actually, wind turbines do produce heat but we generally let it dissipate. It may be that it is not really usable, but wind turbines that only produce heat are a thing historically: https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2019/02/heat-your-house-with...

I think the issue is you can’t really move heat too far physically, and turbines are located usually pretty far from houses themselves. Certainly relative to rooftop solar.

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

#157

Post by arcticbull »

ben_w wrote: post #149
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…

> 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 significan…

I have nothing against dollar but the way. I’m all for a mix of nuclear and renewables to effectively meet our energy demand. Nuclear is great for providing base load.

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

#158

Post by ed_balls »

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…

> Nuclear isn't commercially viable in energy markets with very high levels of variable renewable energy

True for cost per Watt, but there are other factors. A good replacement for burning fossil fuels is solar + batteries, which is more expensive right now. Even if batteries get cheap, you still have to protect yourself from black swan events e.g. volcano eruption which hides the sun. Also, it seems Australia would need nuclear weapons to protect its independence in the future. It's critical to have nuclear experts at home.

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

#159

Post by arcticbull »

nicoburns wrote: post #142
clarionbell wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's also some cool combo rooftop solar panels/water heaters. [1] By cooling the panels themselves they increase their efficiency by up to 15% (so an increase from ~20% to ~23% total efficiency) - while also heating water for the home.

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

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

#160

Post by arcticbull »

ncmncm wrote: post #110
tfigment wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is very high demand from 6-10 pm and lesser in morning when solar is not available or very diminished. Also solar still needs cleaning all of those panels. Solar requires rare earths and that is surprisingly toxic manufacturing/refining process. Distribution and transmission is also not as easy as just building everything in Africa and sending it elsewhere. We need a mix of systems in practice.

Solar does not, in fact, require rare earths. (And, incidentally, "rare earths" are very, very far from rare; that is just a name.) And, the cost to clean them once in a while is very low. You are reaching. The fact is that renewables are the cheapest source of power that has ever happened on this planet, and they are still getting cheaper. Storage is likewise cheap and very quickly getting much, much cheaper. By the…

You need rare earths for wind power. They broadly come from hellscapes in the far reaches of Mongolia. [1] The reason they're primarily mined in China isn't, as you point out, their not existing anywhere else - it is due to the Chinese being willing to pay the extreme environmental cost of their refining.

The second-most common type of panel, CdTe solar panels still contain cadmium, tellurium and sometimes lead - and all of them to my knowledge have huge quantities of plastic. These are rarely recycled and generally end up buried with the rest of the e-waste in poor countries. [2]

[1] https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/toxic-lake-black-sludge-re...

[2] https://www.americanexperiment.org/solar-panels-are-starting...

Post reply on HN