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

291–300 of 415 posts

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

#291

Post by kingbirdy »

p2detar wrote: post #219
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.

How are Germans using two orders of magnitude more electricity than Americans?

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

#292

Post by NamTaf »

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…

Besides this, it's politically unteniable. Australia even just famously arranged to purchase US nuclear-powered subs - which require enriched fuel - without any capability to produce it or any intention of creating that capability. Their entire heavy maintenance and repower will need to and is planned to occur in the US.

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

#293

Post by hpkuarg »

mathiasgredal wrote: post #256
Kliment wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear plants need to be switched off for weeks/months at a time for the following reasons: - refueling (regularly done, highly plannable) - insufficient cooling water/ too warm cooling water (regular, seasonal, not very predictable short-term) - planned maintenance (often combined with refueling) - unplanned maintenance (accidents) Whenever these things happen, the entire reactor is producing no power. This is why…

Why don't coal and gas power plants also have cooling issues?

You can just turn them off. No combustion, no heat. I'm not an expert, but I'm given to understand nuclear reactions don't stop on a dime like that.

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

#294

Post by pjc50 »

briffle wrote: post #280
pjc50 wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The nuclear plants need to be built near water, which means they're likely to end up near habitation. Like renewables, much of the cost of nuclear is in construction - unlike renewables, this has gone up not down over the years. > Of course the coal companies won't like that. This is a fairly important reason why it's not going to happen in Australia.

the SMR reactors are designed to be created in a factory, and shipped to the site. Each one will use an identical plan for the local site construction, and should greatly reduce construction costs, and get rid of all the red tape around getting each site design approved.

That sounds great, but it's still very much in the future tense. Australia probably ought to install a lot of solar panels in the six years until that's projected to be ready. I will believe cheap nuclear when I see it.

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

#295

Post by hpkuarg »

DrBazza wrote: post #137
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 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…

> that likely means that nuclear power stations would still be close to Australian coastal cities.

There are still unending miles of coastline in Australia that aren't peppered with big cities ;-)

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

#296

Post by arcticbull »

dale_glass wrote: post #257
arcticbull wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on your goals. Cost isn't the be-all, i'd rather have three nuclear plants than a thousand square miles blotted out by panels, for instance.

Cost is extremely important, though. Energy costs propagate everywhere. Want to make some aluminium? That costs a lot of electricity. Want to serve some data? Got to power the servers with something. If your electricity cost is too much, industry will move elsewhere. If you try to subsidize it, that money will have to come out of somewhere.

Nuclear electricity is really cheap, building the plants is the expensive part. And yeah, I'm fine with reallocating the $5T in fossil fuel subsidies from 2010-2021 towards constructing said plants. [1] Then hopefully we'll also recognize some economies of scale.

[1] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-5-trillion-in-fossi...

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

#297

Post by makk »

pjc50 wrote: post #258
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…

The nuclear plants need to be built near water, which means they're likely to end up near habitation. Like renewables, much of the cost of nuclear is in construction - unlike renewables, this has gone up not down over the years. > Of course the coal companies won't like that. This is a fairly important reason why it's not going to happen in Australia.

> The nuclear plants need to be built near water, which means they're likely to end up near habitation.

Does it? Article says this new reactor is helium cooled and vents heat. No mention of water cooling.

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

#298

Post by [deleted] »

tintedfireglass wrote: post #285
tenuousemphasis wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you build your house better, you won't need very much energy at all to heat or cool it. The passive house standard used in Sweden calls for a maximum of 20 kWh/(m²yr), which translates to ~3,700 kWh per year for a 2,000 ft² home.

Here in asia we use 1.5KWh approx per year. It is a real thing

[deleted]

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

#299

Post by jatone »

pjc50 wrote: post #258
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…

The nuclear plants need to be built near water, which means they're likely to end up near habitation. Like renewables, much of the cost of nuclear is in construction - unlike renewables, this has gone up not down over the years. > Of course the coal companies won't like that. This is a fairly important reason why it's not going to happen in Australia.

> The nuclear plants need to be built near water, which means they're likely to end up near habitation.

personally I feel this is untrue. its done out of convenience; but from an engineering/infrastructure standpoint there isn't a reason we can't condense the steam that gets pumped out of the towers.

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

#300

Post by tenuousemphasis »

tintedfireglass wrote: post #285
tenuousemphasis wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you build your house better, you won't need very much energy at all to heat or cool it. The passive house standard used in Sweden calls for a maximum of 20 kWh/(m²yr), which translates to ~3,700 kWh per year for a 2,000 ft² home.

Here in asia we use 1.5KWh approx per year. It is a real thing

What do you mean? Kilowatts isn't a measure of energy. Kilowatts pet year makes no sense. Asia is a continent with many different climates.
Post reply on HN