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

211–220 of 415 posts

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

#211

Post by snapcaster »

kevingadd wrote: post #207
pydry wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 taxpa…

"occasionally goes boom requiring an $800 billion clean up bill why build it?" is an absurd way to describe the small number of incidents we've had in the past - they can all be attributed to egregious chains of human errors and/or bad planning. To quote: But some 18 years before the 2011 disaster, new scientific knowledge had emerged about the likelihood of a large earthquake and resulting major tsunami of some 15.7…

But I think this is still a point against it. Its maybe not "fair" but if the regulators can't be trusted to properly maintain and protect nuclear power installations isn't that something that has to be accounted for?

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

#212

Post by onethought »

arcticbull wrote: post #160
ncmncm wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I was talking about solar panels. They are purified silicon… not rare or toxic. You purify it by melting it. The coating of boron or other substance is also not toxic. Compare it to ANY other energy source and it is less toxic in manufacture and of course is completely static in use.

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

#213

Post by HershheleGibbs »

Well, it's about time.

It seems like Canada has only been talking about nuclear power for, what, a decade or two?

I mean, how long did the U.S. wait before getting on board with nuclear energy? We were ahead of Canada on that one by at least half a century!

Just because nuclear power is more expensive and less safe than the alternatives doesn't mean I think Canada should reconsider its ambitious plan to open a new nuclear plant by 2028.

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

#214

Post by onethought »

tfigment wrote: post #74
onethought wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Country the size of Australia could actually build sizeable solar assets across multiple timezones. The "backup problem" is a storage problem that could be solved more locally to the consumption. (houses with batteries, or suburbs, or cities, or states). The "night time" generation problem is a bit BS given electricity demand drops significantly at nigh in Australia, so the storage requirement is no where near the ge…

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.

I mentioned building solar across multiple time zones so assets in Perth are still getting sun until 7-8pm in Sydney. Transmission isn’t easy? Compared to what? Building thousands of power plants globally is easier?

You could also look at panels towards the poles where the sun shines longer.

Solar panels really are an insane technology.

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

#215

Post by onethought »

paranoidrobot wrote: post #91
synicalx wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nearly all of Australia's population centres are on the coast, Alice Springs being the most notable exception with a population of around 25k. And most of Australia's population is loosely clustered on or near the east coast, which already has a somewhat interconnected power grid (emphasis on sort of).

I'm aware of the population distribution. Only WA+NT are not connected to the national grid. The problem with having a nuclear power plant on the coast where there's sufficient reliable water is that nobody wants one in their back yard. (Yes there's parts of the WA/NT/QLD/SA coastlines where population drops to bugger all, but they're generally less suitable for all sorts of reasons) Putting them inland where they're…

The water is closed loop right? Can’t you pump or even deliver the water by truck?

(Sorry if this is really ignorant)

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

#216

Post by AlgorithmicTime »

adrian_b wrote: post #183
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…

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.

No post body was provided.

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

#217

Post by flgb »

yodelshady wrote: post #206
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…

2. sounds an awful lot like "renewables are not a viable form of energy and require gas". One gas replacement - nuclear - needs no backup. The other - renewables - needs backup of a scale that exists only on paper. I've asked time and again for costed *TWh-scale* storage, the proposals are never forthcoming. Because, on first principles, they're far too high and unlikely to ever decrease. Ask actual investors - which…

I understand you are trying to make a general argument, but those dynamics are definitely not true of Australia.

Our state with the highest share of renewable energy, South Australia, has not seen gas use increase as renewables have replaced coal.

The idea that 100% of all renewable capacity has to be ‘backed up’ with firm capacity is not true in general, and certainly not true in the specific case of Australia given the solar and wind resources we have.

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

#218

Post by arcticbull »

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.

er, wow, apologies for the typo there I meant to say "I have nothing against solar, by the way."

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

#219

Post by p2detar »

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…

Yes, it's kWh what is important to consumers. For example, an average 4-person family in Germany uses between 2600-5000 kWh / year vs. about 10 kWh / year in the USA.

All in all, the greatest feature of SMRs in my opinion, is the scalability they offer. I'd have also added decentralization, but I'm far from familiar what is most optimal in terms of electricity networks.

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

#220

Post by bregma »

flgb wrote: post #135
clarionbell wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until they need replacement components for any of this. Which they will need evry couple of years. Then they will need centralized infrastructure in form of manufacturing plants, roads, rail and finally (because it is imported from China most likely) ports. Every step producing greenhouse gasses or other pollution. Self sufficiency of this sort is largely a sub-urban myth. A comfortable, optimistic one, but a myth no…

"evry couple of years" .. umm nope. Try every 10-20 years for the inverter and every 20-30 years for the panels. Roof-top solar in Australia is cheap and almost ubiquitous.

And the batteries?
Post reply on HN