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

311–320 of 415 posts

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

#311

Post by p2detar »

kingbirdy wrote: post #291
p2detar wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Looks like I ate the 3 zeroes.

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

#312

Post by Manuel_D »

ars wrote: post #48
Manuel_D wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Desalination through waste heat is also viable. It's "free" energy in the sense that it would have otherwise gone unused.

Desalination does not use heat anymore, it's all membrane based. Also, you'd need enough heat to boil water, but the waste heat, by definition, is lower than the boiling point of water (otherwise the turbine doesn't work).

Desalination can be done through osmosis, which is membrane based. It can also be done through evaporation, which is much less efficient. But if you have a free source of heat, that inefficiency is a non issue.

The waste heat from a steam turbine is higher than boiling. Otherwise the turbine wouldn't work. The boiler turns water into steam, which produces pressure to drive a turbine. The condenser takes the low pressure steam and condenses it back to water.

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

#313

Post by tintedfireglass »

tenuousemphasis wrote: post #300
tintedfireglass wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I meant KWH(units) its a typo And the country is India

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

#315

Post by maerF0x0 »

This could be a boon for the Tar sands in Alberta. As I understand it a very large amount of oil there is used to create heat for the purpose of releasing the oil from the tar sands and generating nuclear (ie steam) power there could create a good amount of lower temp heat for use in industry (also heating homes if such a project were undertaken). This could really help the oil sands be less carbon emitting.

I do wish it was a thorium based project though. Gordon McDowell was active in Calgary trying to spread awareness of the technology. Sadly it always feels "a decade away" ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4

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

#316

Post by DennisP »

dale_glass wrote: post #270
DennisP wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You set up the market to get the lowest possible total energy cost. If the lowest system design is to have nuclear as part of the mix instead of massive amounts of storage, then there's nothing backwards about setting up the market to support that. Right now we have a market where wind/solar don't have to pay for the externalities imposed by their intermittency. That is backwards.

Well, if you're going to account for all externalities, that sounds like a good idea, but I don't think nuclear would fare well under such a model. Fukushima cost around $200 billion to clean up. I don't think that got factored into the cost of the power it sold. Now I guess the answer here is insurance, but any insurance company that signs up for a potential payout of $200 billion is going to charge quite the premiu…

The reactor in the article would have been completely unaffected by the events at Fukushima.

In any case, my point is a different one: energy that's available on demand is more valuable than energy that is not, and we should price it as such. If we don't, we end up doing things like backing up our wind/solar with fossil...which also doesn't have its externalities priced in.

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

#317

Post by kemiller »

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…

Australia has excellent solar availability. Northern Canada does not, half the year. Smr seems like a good way to serve those who can’t use solar, but solar is so much cheaper than nuclear that it’s mostly not worth the hassle. We just have to make enough batteries.

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

#318

Post by dale_glass »

arcticbull wrote: post #296
dale_glass wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Nuclear will never win the economy of scale war with renewables.

Solar is extremely amenable to mass manufacturing. You can pump out solar panels by the millions. Then it all goes together with various metal brackets, wiring, and electronics, all of which have long been mass manufactured. They're made in many places and have uses in multiple industries, and there's plenty competition.

Wind is very amenable to mass manufacturing. Generators, gears, various nuts and bolts can all be mass made. The actual towers and windmills are definitely more specialized though.

And trailing way behind that is nuclear. You need to deal with radiation, use exotic alloys, and have a bunch of very specific tooling and instrumentation with lots of regulations and certifications. Plus lots of redundancy to make sure nothing bad happens.

And they have exactly the same "cheap electricity". A solar panel just sits there and makes power, only it comes for cheap from a factory in China and you don't need various backup systems. You can just build more solar instead, which produces more money.

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

#319

Post by DennisP »

wryun wrote: post #278
DennisP wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conventional reactors take a long time because they're very large, custom-built at the site, and we don't build many of them. That doesn't really say anything about reactors like the one in the article, which is small enough to build in a factory and transport to the site.

Even the one proposed has a six-year timeframe (what's the bet that timeframe isn't met?). Imagine trying to get an SMR reactor up in Australia within 10 years, given the legislative environment and the public opposition to it.

That's from now until the first reactor. It's not the time for each reactor after they're in production.

In the US at least, a lot of wind, solar and long-distance transmission projects have also faced long political delays. That doesn't imply anything about our technical capability to build them, and the same is true of these new nuclear designs.

And China, for one, will certainly not hesitate to build stuff like this, once they're able.

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

#320

Post by DennisP »

flgb wrote: post #277
DennisP wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

With entirely public money and underwriting.

You're claiming that the government paid to build the reactors? Do you have a source?
Post reply on HN