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

331–340 of 415 posts

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

#331

Post by paulmd »

wasmitnetzen wrote: post #267
shawnz wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't human failure and bad planning an even bigger concern for the handling of the 1000000x larger amount of coal that nuclear could replace?

No, not really. If a coal plant is designed or run badly, it might burn down, and that's it. If a nuclear plant is designed or run badly, whole countries might be unlivable for centuries. The risks are not the same.

> No, not really. If a coal plant is designed or run badly, it might burn down, and that's it.

No, coal plants have spent-fuel disposal problems due to "human error"/poor management too. This one cost over $1b to clean up and required them to scrape off the topsoil and rendered the area essentially uninhabitable, just like fukushima. TVA ended up having to buy out the inhabitants and move them elsewhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly...

And the fun part is: that shit is actually radioactive too. Coal plants put out as much radioactive waste as nuclear plants do... but they put it straight into the air, and then put a bunch more into spent-fuel pools besides.

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

#332

Post by ben_w »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #262
ben_w wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Decades, IIRC, not years. Yes, total independence is unrealistic and will be until we have von Neumann universal constructors, but we are starting to get to the point where big footprint homes could reasonably be energy-independent for normal daily use.

Depends how you sliced it. If every house had solar panels, there's going to be a rolling requirement for on going maintenance. Let's say, for argument sake, solar panels and inverts are approximately as reliable and long lasting as air conditioners, we'll still need a whole new fairly large industry. Seems doable, but we'd need to deal with recycling all the parts, still doable, but there's nothing self sufficient a…

Indeed, but that is why I said “decades”.

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

#333

Post by jatone »

pjc50 wrote: post #323
jatone wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> condense the steam That's what the water is for! Turbine systems follow the Rankine cycle, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rankine_cycle , which includes a condenser. The water circulating is a closed loop. The steam you see coming off cooling towers is the external water which has been used to condense the circulating steam. The water is a source of "coolth".

i know what the water is for i'm saying there is no need to release the steam and have to pump additional water for cooling; you can also use radiators to cool water down etc. as i said the additional water and steam stacks are a quick and easy method for cooling when a water source is nearby. there are other options that can be used when water isn't available.

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

#334

Post by ben_w »

b112 wrote: post #182
jseban wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But solar has the benefit that it doesn't need to be centralised, people can cover their own roofs and have a battery to be self sufficient and now you don't even need a grid.

This depends upon location. I'd have to fill my entire house with batteries, and cover my entire 1 acre of land with panels, to get and store enough power in the winter. First, there's heating my house when it is -40C out. Second, there's only 5 hours of sunlight, 4 hours of dusk, and the sun stays low in the sky. Third, snow storms. So I'd need enough power collected, during 5 hours of weak sun, to power my house fo…

While this is true when the homes are isolated, in many cases there are power grids, and thus in principle can get their (Arctic circle?) winter power from Mexico or Italy (I don’t know where you live).

I think the small number of exceptions are, even collectively, even long term, not problematic to fuel chemically.

What kind of insulation do you have? I keep expecting aerogel on sites like this.

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

#335

Post by marcosdumay »

tablespoon wrote: post #326
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.

>> 1. Vast swathes of uninhabited land can absorb some of the risks/fears associated with a nuclear accident > The nuclear plants need to be built near water, which means they're likely to end up near habitation. Would seawater work? Does Australia have any "vast swathes of uninhabited land" near the sea? > Like renewables, much of the cost of nuclear is in construction - unlike renewables, this has gone up not down…

Seawater is more expensive to work with, but it does work. You can almost no water too, it's just some more expenses.

The thing is that nuclear is expensive by itself, anything you increase makes it less desirable.

Anyway, AFAIK, nearly all of the uninhabited land on Australia is inside the continent. It's much easier to deploy solar and wind there than anything else.

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

#336

Post by marcosdumay »

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.

Yeah, distribution is a huge can of worms. But production (and storage, as soon as it makes economical sense) are quite easy to entry. There are many cars that are more expensive than a small sized hydro or solar plant.

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

#337

Post by ZeroGravitas »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #145
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I want a global solution to global warming, which nuclear isn't. I don't think it's necessary and would happily ban nuclear to focus on renewables if I was king of the world. But I'm not, so I have to be realistic and admit that there are niche areas where nuclear is helpful in real politics even if most of the noise around nuclear is clearly climate change denial.

"ban nuclear to focus on renewables if I was king of the world." I have seen thos banged about a lot - where does the idea that banning nuclear would somehow improve our ability to build renewables come from? What is the basis for it? 'most of the noise around nuclear is clearly climate change denial.' Again, why? Why do not believe that 90% of noise about nuclear is well intentioned people seeing an alternative solu…

Nuclear is more expensive than renewables. If we spent the same money on renewables we'd get more done. It's not overly complicated.

The vast majority of people advocating for nuclear simply cannot hold in their criticism of renewables. That's because believing lies about renewables is a basic requirement for thinking nuclear is a useful solution in a world rapidly deploying renewables.

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

#338

Post by Manuel_D »

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…

> The additional pumped storage needs of solar and wind are more than offset by their vastly lower cost.

This is seriously glossing over details. The cost of pumped hydro is highly geographically dependent. If you happen to have an alpine lake handy, then yes it can be cheap. But building pumped hydro in flat terrain is much more expensive.

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

#339

Post by ZeroGravitas »

b112 wrote: post #187
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I want a global solution to global warming, which nuclear isn't. I don't think it's necessary and would happily ban nuclear to focus on renewables if I was king of the world. But I'm not, so I have to be realistic and admit that there are niche areas where nuclear is helpful in real politics even if most of the noise around nuclear is clearly climate change denial.

Yeah, I want a global solution to global warming There isn't one fix all. For example, Australia has loads of land perfect for solar, even in the winter. Meanwhile, much of Canada is too dark, and has too much night for solar in the winter. Some countries have loads of tidal power, and others are land locked -- no tides! We need loads of solutions, options, and costs to transition.

Most of the solution is solar and wind. Everyone knows this. It's why people commenting about nuclear will go out of their way to only mention one of them in any specific comment.

It sometimes feels like the internet has one group of nuclear fans who have never heard of wind power and another group who have never heard of solar. It's tiring to deal with.

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

#340

Post by caymanjim »

robotnikman wrote: post #327
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 nuclear plants need to be built near water Not always. The Palo Verde nuclear plant in my state is in the middle of the desert far from any body of water, and also the largest in the country in terms of net generation.

For those like me who wondered how it cools: it evaporates municipal sewage.
Post reply on HN