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

191–200 of 415 posts

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

#191

Post by Gatsky »

greenknight wrote: post #52
wryun wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Takes too long to build fission plants to replace coal in the short term; easy to spin up lots of wind/solar. We've also got a ridiculous amount of renewable potential. (I'm a candidate for the Fusion Party; we'd like to remove the ban on nuclear power in Australia because it would enable research)

Having direct involvement in the wind industry... most plan -> completion developments take 5-10 years. heck even one from 2013 still hasnt had ground broken. The main reason? NIMBYs. Loads of people go out to the countryside to retire. imagine what these retires would do if their picturesque landscape is now comprised of windfarms? and they dont have anything else to do to fill up their day?

Can confirm NIMBYism is excessive in Australia, despite all the space.

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

#192

Post by flgb »

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…

> “Australia […] depends on coal”

About 60% of Australia’s electricity came from coal over the last 12-months, but this proportion is rapidly declining and all the large coal plants are losing money and slated for closure.

https://opennem.org.au/energy/nem/?range=all&interval=1y

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

#193

Post by tinus_hn »

kevincox wrote: post #181
tinus_hn wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You can’t prove the technology by building a reactor and using it for a while and then saying ‘Look! This one didn’t explode’.

Every reactor ever built has been guaranteed to be safe. Yet 2 of them have experienced meltdowns. This technology is safe in a sense but not in the sense that accidents will not happen. They have happened and they will happen again.

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

#194

Post by Gatsky »

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…

Yeah but I don’t think nuclear is politically viable. It has bad connotations for your average punter, and it looks extremely expensive because all the externalities are priced in. Very unlikely our listless politicians would take on the nuclear cause. Can you imagine building a nuclear waste dump on land under native title?

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

#195

Post by kevincox »

tinus_hn wrote: post #193
kevincox wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can’t prove the technology by building a reactor and using it for a while and then saying ‘Look! This one didn’t explode’. Every reactor ever built has been guaranteed to be safe. Yet 2 of them have experienced meltdowns. This technology is safe in a sense but not in the sense that accidents will not happen. They have happened and they will happen again.

Of course that isn't how you build the technology. But it is how you build public opinion unfortunately.

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

#196

Post by oneoff786 »

flgb wrote: post #192
crashingintoyou wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> “Australia […] depends on coal” About 60% of Australia’s electricity came from coal over the last 12-months, but this proportion is rapidly declining and all the large coal plants are losing money and slated for closure. https://opennem.org.au/energy/nem/?range=all&interval=1y

The 2022 data isn’t there, right? That’s why it’s small?

Expect a big uptick in coal usage to offset Russian oil

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

#197

Post by nicoburns »

b112 wrote: post #189
nicoburns wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What does NM mean?

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

#198

Post by arcticbull »

adrianN wrote: post #164
arcticbull wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ne…

Indeed I was talking about using nuclear to provide a constant base load that you do not scale up and down. You use renewables for variable load.

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

#199

Post by someotherperson »

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #14
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'm a bit surprised that Australia has no nuclear plants while other countries along the Pacific Rim already do. Any idea why it hasn't happened? Domestic opposition or lack of need before now?

Environmental parties in Australia (The Greens and similar) were built on the idea of resisting nuclear and hydroelectric, so you have decades of lobbying against it. Eventually the coal lobbies allied with the more conservative parties as The Greens started pushing for wind/solar. This made sense for the conservative parties as Australia produces nothing of value outside of iron ore and coal.

There is no mainstream party that supports nuclear outside of the libertarian party (which gets single digit percentages at the ballots).

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

#200

Post by Gwypaas »

oneoff786 wrote: post #196
flgb wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “Australia […] depends on coal” About 60% of Australia’s electricity came from coal over the last 12-months, but this proportion is rapidly declining and all the large coal plants are losing money and slated for closure. https://opennem.org.au/energy/nem/?range=all&interval=1y

The 2022 data isn’t there, right? That’s why it’s small? Expect a big uptick in coal usage to offset Russian oil

How would you replace Russian oil with coal? Are there any oil based power plants? Those tend to be peaker plants due to the extremely high cost associated with them.
Post reply on HN