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

231–240 of 415 posts

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

#231

Post by eunos »

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.

Rather strange considered Australia has this tech https://www.silex.com.au/

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

#232

Post by bregma »

justatdotin wrote: post #88
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 ugh ffs : mabo was 30 yrs ago last month

"uninhabited" just means very few white settlers. Same for Canada, north Africa, etc. Gotta break a few brown eggs to make an omelet after all.

If you ask the people who inhabit "uninhabited" areas they may have a different opinion. That's why we tell them and not ask them.

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

#233

Post by DennisP »

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.

In the US, private companies have built all our nuclear plants. And reactors like this little one in Canada will make it a lot easier.

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

#234

Post by adrianN »

arcticbull wrote: post #198
adrianN wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well either nuclear is cheaper than renewables+backup (for peak load), then you want to use 100% nuclear, or renewables+backup are cheaper, then you want to use 100% that. I don't see a scenario where you run nuclear for baseload and renewables+backup for peaks, but maybe I'm wrong.

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

#235

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

adventured wrote: post #226
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What preventing Australia from building an enrichment plant?

Nothing. The entire context is absurd to say the least. Australia is one of the most affluent countries in world history and hyper resource rich. They should have a third of their energy supply coming from nuclear. Nuclear is expensive (commonly said)? So what. Australia is hyper rich ($67k GDP per capita) and can afford to do it and can afford to subsidize it for consumers. What's a lot more expensive (risk) is havi…

For what it's worth, I'm Australian living in Australia, and I thoroughly agree with you.

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

#236

Post by emteycz »

oblio wrote: post #167
BongoMcCat wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Electricity is a free market on a huge portion of the world, including EU, which is working hard to make it even freer market.

> with corporations there is zero accountability

This is not Somalia, lol. There is rule of law here and it works fairly well. The only problem is who people vote for.

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

#237

Post by DennisP »

pydry wrote: post #161
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.

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…

Crappy reactors from the 1970s occasionally go boom. We have much better designs now, like the one in the article:

> The radioactive materials stay fully encased for their entire life and beyond. It's a very robust, strong fuel that's designed to make sure it indefinitely keeps the fuel safely inside the pellet.

> Some of the main differences that the MMR has from conventional nuclear plants is that the reactor cannot meltdown as the heat is passively released into the environment, does not need any active systems to remove heat, and requires no on-site fuel storage, handling, or processing.

This reactor would have been completely unaffected by the events at Fukushima.

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

#238

Post by DennisP »

dale_glass wrote: post #222
arcticbull wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But that ceases to make any sense the second you have renewables cheaper than nuclear. Then renewables start cutting into that base load as well, whenever they can.

That depends on how you set up your electricity market. Since these markets are necessarily designed from the top down, we can set the rules however we like.

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

#239

Post by [deleted] »

b112 wrote: post #178
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…

Except the ones in the article, which don't use water for cooling.

[deleted]

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

#240

Post by [deleted] »

voidfunc wrote: post #27
Mountain_Skies wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Don't nuclear plants need vast amounts of water? Australia's kinda lacking that in the middle of the country.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN