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

161–170 of 415 posts

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

#161

Post by pydry »

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.

If a form of carbon free energy costs 3x as much as carbon free alternatives, takes 3x as long to build and occasionally goes boom requiring an $800 billion clean up bill why build it?

The additional pumped storage needs of solar and wind are more than offset by their vastly lower cost.

If nuclear power could compete on a level playing field it'd be great but it sucks up subsidies like nothing else and puts the taxpayer is fully on the hook for dealing with all and any 800 billion dollar fukishima events.

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

#162

Post by neuronic »

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 energy is great except for time and to some degree cost [1]. Other factors like waste disposal more relevant to some countries than others and are a universally ignored problem in general - but it's not as bad as climate change so let's not even talk about this. We want to avoid climate change first and foremost after all.

The problem really is that time is of the essence now and it simply takes way too long to build a new plant. Cost isn't great at all, they will never be profitable and insurance is neck breaking, but it can be managed. If any of these issues currently do exist with renewables, they are continuously waning.

Two recent nuclear projects:

- Olkiluoto Unit 3 (EPR) in Finland. Projected cost: €3 billion / Real cost: ~€11 billion (4x) / Delay: 13 years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant)

- Flamanville Unit 3 (EPR) in France. Projected cost: €3.3 billion / Real cost: €19.1 billion (6x) / Delay: currently 10 years, no start in sight (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...)

It doesn't look much better in other countries most of the time [2], China is possibly an exception due to, let's say, different handling of safety and other topics... In any case, nuclear is quite an expensive energy source [3] on top of critical time issues in construction and commission [4].

In the time it takes to build new nuclear power (10-15 years) technology and cost of renewable energy are projected to become much more favorable and then we gain several things:

- inherent safety

- decentralization

- stable cost (less dependence on imported resources such as uranium)

[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower-idUSK...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_rea...

[3] https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-el...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_pla...

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

#163

Post by neuronic »

baud147258 wrote: post #119
ncmncm wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two words: Offshore wind.

offshore wind has even longer timescale and you still have local opposition from NIMBYs and you add local fishers and conservation activists (I remember one project off the coast of France that received opposition from the Sea Shepherd)

NIMBYs are jsut as much of a problem with nuclear because you need to run the generated electricity through power lines that may need to be constructed. Whose land are they running through?

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

#164

Post by adrianN »

arcticbull wrote: post #157
ben_w wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

No, nuclear is actually not that great for that. You need a power source that is cheap to scale up to cover discrepancies between supply and demand. If you build nuclear capacity for that you might as well just run it all the time and not build renewables. Nuclear has very small marginal costs, but huge up front capital expenses. You really don't want to run it at 10% load most of the year to cover the times where neither the sun shines not the wind blows.

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

#165

Post by adrianN »

niek_pas wrote: post #148
ghostly_s wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You can hold natural uranium in your hand for a long time before it becomes a health concern. It's toxicity (heavy metal!) is more dangerous than its radioactivity. You shouldn't try the same with spent fuel or you will lose you arm quickly.

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

#166

Post by jp0d »

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.

It's been pointed out that Hydrogen fuel cell is less energy efficient in its current form. It's true and it'll probably needs a lot more research before it's viable and is competitive against battery powered cars.

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

#167

Post by oblio »

BongoMcCat wrote: post #154
thecopy wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's silly for electricity.

Electricity will never, ever be a free market. The barriers to entry are almost insurmountable, especially capital requirements (production + distribution, especially distribution) but also the myriad safety regulations.

Might as well involve the government and gain some accountability, because with corporations, there is 0 accountability.

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

#168

Post by baud147258 »

neuronic wrote: post #163
baud147258 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

offshore wind has even longer timescale and you still have local opposition from NIMBYs and you add local fishers and conservation activists (I remember one project off the coast of France that received opposition from the Sea Shepherd)

NIMBYs are jsut as much of a problem with nuclear because you need to run the generated electricity through power lines that may need to be constructed. Whose land are they running through?

I wouldn't have though that the power lines would be the biggest issue for nuclear power in regard to NIMBYs. And even then any generation method would require installing power lines...

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

#169

Post by ClumsyPilot »

ncmncm wrote: post #114
wumpus wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hydrogen fueled cars could be substantially more energy-efficient than battery-electric cars, but it doesn't matter much, because energy is very quickly getting cheaper, so the point where it simply doesn't matter.

They cannot be even half as efficient - the process of electrolysis is only 40% efficient, then hydrogen must be compressed to insane pressure (which can require up to 20% of the enrgy contained withing) and transporting across the country. Only like 25% of energy you started with ever arrives to the fuel station

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

#170

Post by davedx »

neuronic wrote: post #163
baud147258 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

offshore wind has even longer timescale and you still have local opposition from NIMBYs and you add local fishers and conservation activists (I remember one project off the coast of France that received opposition from the Sea Shepherd)

NIMBYs are jsut as much of a problem with nuclear because you need to run the generated electricity through power lines that may need to be constructed. Whose land are they running through?

Yup this has been a huge problem in Germany. Increasing transmission capacity between north Germany where all the wind resources are and south where the industry is has been fraught with obstacles by NIMBY's who don't like the power lines.
Post reply on HN