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

181–190 of 415 posts

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

#181

Post by kevincox »

tinus_hn wrote: post #176
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…

> Vast swathes of uninhabited land can absorb some of the risks/fears associated with a nuclear accident. Such a cynical take. We have a lot of land, its fine if we turn some of it into a nuclear wasteland.

A less cynical view of this is building the first couple in uninhabited areas is a great way to prove the technology and shift public opinion without having to fight the NIMBYs.

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

#182

Post by b112 »

jseban wrote: post #69
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…

But solar has the benefit that it doesn't need to be centralised, people can cover their own roofs and have a battery to be self sufficient and now you don't even need a grid.

This depends upon location.

I'd have to fill my entire house with batteries, and cover my entire 1 acre of land with panels, to get and store enough power in the winter.

First, there's heating my house when it is -40C out.

Second, there's only 5 hours of sunlight, 4 hours of dusk, and the sun stays low in the sky.

Third, snow storms.

So I'd need enough power collected, during 5 hours of weak sun, to power my house for 19 hours, and heat it.

And that doesn't even account for days in a row of blowing, white out snowstorms sometimes.

Solar is useless in some places as core power.

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

#183

Post by adrian_b »

crashingintoyou wrote: post #174
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…

> Australia would still need to import nuclear fuel No they wouldn't. To quote https://globalroadtechnology.com/uranium-mining-australia-hi... > Australia is home to 31% of the world’s recoverable uranium. Australian uranium is exported and consists about one-quarter of its energy exports. Australia uses no nuclear power and depends on coal. The uranium mining industry is a billion dollar industry in Australian dolla…

I assume that the previous poster meant that Australia does not have a 235U-enrichment plant.

If that is true, Australia would have to export natural uranium and import back uranium enriched in 235U, unless they would choose to build a reactor with heavy-water, which can use natural uranium as a fuel.

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

#184

Post by [deleted] »

skywal_l wrote: post #153
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…

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

[deleted]

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

#185

Post by kevincox »

ncmncm wrote: post #96
sofixa wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are much more expensive than equivalent renewables, This statement reflects the quality of the comment. Renewables need significant storage to be directly comparable, cost-wise, to nuclear. There are no currently existing grid level storage solutions, same as SMRs, and both are invested in. And you're missing a huge part of the equation - we're talking about Canada, the northern cold parts. Which renewables wo…

Signicant storage is cheap and getting cheaper, much faster than wind or solar ever did. By the time we have built out enough renewables to benefit from storage, storage will be cheap enough to hardly notice.

If we end of building a few of these as planned I'm sure they will get significantly cheeper as well.

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

#186

Post by bluenose69 »

The article contains the phrase "300 megawatts (MW) of electricity, which is enough energy to power 300,000 homes for one year." Why "one year", not "one second" or any other time interval?

A generous interpretation might be that the "year" is a statement about an average taken over seasons, during which power consumption might vary. But I fear that the article instead betrays simple ignorance, as is the case in many non-technical discussions of power.

I wonder what is it about power that seems so difficult for soft-science writers to comprehend. After all, their readers are paying power bills that are expressed in kilowatt-hours.

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

#187

Post by b112 »

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.

Yeah, I want a global solution to global warming

There isn't one fix all.

For example, Australia has loads of land perfect for solar, even in the winter.

Meanwhile, much of Canada is too dark, and has too much night for solar in the winter.

Some countries have loads of tidal power, and others are land locked -- no tides!

We need loads of solutions, options, and costs to transition.

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

#188

Post by helsinkiandrew »

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 imagine solar is a much better commercial bet in Australia than nuclear - it has lots of sun and the space for panels - it already has the highest solar production per person in the world. A solar or even solar+battery investment will likely start making a profit before a nuclear project has got approval and is much less financially risky.

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

#189

Post by b112 »

nicoburns wrote: post #141
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.

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

I think you should ponder the NM in the article.
Post reply on HN