A first for Canada: New type of nuclear plant opening by 2028 • Hacker News Board

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

#411

Post by wumpus » Sat, May 07, 2022, 12:02 AM UTC

_hypx wrote: post #374

ben_w wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hydrogen path is less energy efficient than the battery path, so it’s only useful if you have really cheap electricity. If the batteries themselves were to remain expensive even as the electricity to charge them/electrolyse water became cheap, I can imagine a scenario where the lifetime cost difference between batteries and hydrogen tanks might be more than the cost of the energy wasted as heat by making the hydr…

Renewable electricity will be nearly free. It makes the argument in favor of hydrogen nearly overwhelming.

Is this also your reddit username? If so, I can totally see why you have such a unique opinion.

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

#412

Post by ncmncm » Sat, May 07, 2022, 2:34 AM UTC

raytube wrote: post #202

davedx wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup this has been a huge problem in Germany. Increasing transmission capacity between north Germany where all the wind resources are and south where the industry is has been fraught with obstacles by NIMBY's who don't like the power lines.

At least overhead lines are honest. I find the buried infrastructure harder to level in my brain.

You dislike water delivered in pipes that do not freeze? Where do you find overhead plumbing?

And, is the wiring in your house all exposed?

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

#413

Post by raytube » Tue, May 10, 2022, 7:09 PM UTC

ncmncm wrote: post #412

raytube wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least overhead lines are honest. I find the buried infrastructure harder to level in my brain.

You dislike water delivered in pipes that do not freeze? Where do you find overhead plumbing? And, is the wiring in your house all exposed?

Yeah bad example, most wiring is visible in the house. But water pipes outside. You have a point. Weirdly cut an old buried feeder out the ground today.

The untidy assortment of cabling under the living room floor sends shivers through my spine even though that's hidden. I once was a cable guy.

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

#414

Post by modo_mario » Wed, May 11, 2022, 1:30 PM UTC

mrep wrote: post #399

modo_mario wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Good luck building enough spare nuclear to heat the entire continent by 40-90 degrees. Which non carbon heating or energy source do you suggest? The US doesn't seem to be warming up to heatpumps much and it's not like those are grand in those extreme conditions. The insulation standards there from what i've heard and compared are still quite bad (Not helped by the fact that AC and pure heating solutions common invol…

I'm not suggesting we use a non carbon heating system. We already have methane furnaces all over the country, the storage for it, and the infrastructure to pipe it around. We just need to stop pulling it out of the ground and use electric -> methane power to gas which has a 51–65% efficiency range which combined with modern day furnaces that are 90+% efficient, is not too bad.

So they are still quite inefficient even if accept your efficiency range. Then there's the high costs associated with the catalysts or membranes, etc depending on what technology you use.

We're not even using pumped storage nowhere near enough where possible and it's the vast majority of all utility scale storage but the amount of people that somehow champion power to gas as this grand thing that's anywhere close to being able to compete with it at scale is staggering.

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

#415

Post by pfdietz » Sat, May 14, 2022, 10:12 AM UTC

DennisP wrote: post #410

pfdietz wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/will-us-and-e... (although there is some question about whether this is comparing apples to apples.) South Korea's costs seem to have been related to corruption. That will work until the first accident, and as long as people aren't going to jail (as they did in S. Korea.)

Thanks. South Korea isn't the only country with decent nuclear costs. See the study I linked. US nuclear costs are related to the fact that we build reactors as occasional one-offs, throw in long political delays, and sometimes change regulations in the middle of construction. We're probably not going to change any of that, so it's good we do so well with wind and solar. But our situation is not the situation everywh…

Most of the other ones in Figure 12 there are France. But now France can't replicate what it did before (the EPR cost overruns have been frightful) so the validity of those earlier points is called into question. As I understand it, the accounting of those cost of that earlier buildout is sketchy, with military nuclear rolled in in a way that can't be untangled.