Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Canada plans 'nuclear renaissance' with up to 10 reactors built by 2040

cbc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 500 posts

Re: Canada plans 'nuclear renaissance' with up to 10 reactors built by 2040

#111

Post by foobarian »

pfisch wrote: post #78
xp84 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All forms of generation have downsides. > Canada needs new power now. Not 15-20 years from now, Building nuclear doesn't stop you from building whatever else you want. Though I assume that Canada being Canada, it'll take 15 years just to complete the requisite negotiations with every indigenous tribe and to arrive at a settlement with whatever environmental and assorted NIMBY groups are already warming up their lawsu…

Chernobyl was almost the largest disaster in all of history. I'm not saying nuclear reactors are unsafe now, but the reality is that a true disaster at a nuclear power plant literally means the end of huge amounts of land, enough to end entire countries or large parts of continents. You can't say things like that about walking or other types of transport...

Isn't that a little hyperbolic? Sure cancer rates will be elevated wherever the fallout blows but it's not going to end anything.

Re: Canada plans 'nuclear renaissance' with up to 10 reactors built by 2040

#112

Post by jtbayly »

chollida1 wrote: post #7

Makes alot of sense. Canada has: - one of the largest uranium reserves - a well respected and safe nuclear design in CANDU - experience with building and refurbishing nuclear reactors(Darlington) and for Ontario itself A need for more baseload to work with the large amount of solar and wind that Ontario has added in the last 10 years. Saskatchewan also now has a potential need for nuclear for industrial use now that…

More renewables means the need for more base load? This is the first I’ve seen anybody say that.

Re: Canada plans 'nuclear renaissance' with up to 10 reactors built by 2040

#113

Post by x______________ »

patmcc wrote: post #89
II2II wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time I see something interesting about nuclear power, comments like this pop up. Which makes me skittish. We need responsible growth. We need to acknowledge that there is no magic bullet for power generation, just managed risks. We need to acknowledge that those risks exist for all power sources, to varying degrees, and take different forms (whether it is the environmental impact or reliability of the power gri…

I was being a little flippant there - but I think we've gone way too far in the "nuclear is risky" direction, largely because of Chernobyl, which was a) a very specific disaster caused by a perfect storm of bad decisions and bad luck and b) not that deadly. In the US about as many people die every year due to coal pollution as have yet (or will ever) die because of Chernobyl. About the same number die in Europe every…

Don't forget Fukushima!

I'm all down with spamming nuclear plants but will that, in the end, give free electricity to the consumer? Lower the rates? ..or just continue to be an economic weapon against the masses?

Re: Canada plans 'nuclear renaissance' with up to 10 reactors built by 2040

#114

Post by davewasthere »

SugarReflex wrote: post #68
echelon wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not have a diverse set of energy inputs so your energy economy isn't fragile? Some black swan event could kill solar. Maybe some mega volcano explodes. It would suck to be 50+% dependent on it in that case. We should have wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, hydro, tidal, and even fossil fuels. We should have a total capacity in greater abundance than what we have today so that we can grow.

Great answer, also I imagine that in terms of space, one nuclear reactor would be equivalent to 10 square KM of solar panels (or something like that)

One thing we're not short of here in Australia is space. And sunshine.

I'm not opposed to nuclear in the mix though. It's pretty incredible. And the South Koreans have done a pretty awesome job in the UAE with their reactors it sounds like.

If you're comparing nuclear reactors with solar panels though (which is tricky), depends which metric you go for. If total annual output? Then up it by almost an order of magnitude. 100km2+ would be needed to produce the same annual output as a 1GW at 90% nuclear station.

But we've a ton of land, so it makes a lot of sense.

Re: Canada plans 'nuclear renaissance' with up to 10 reactors built by 2040

#116

Post by stackghost »

markvdb wrote: post #97
stackghost wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chernobyl's reactors were fundamentally unsafe designs from an engineering perspective, to say nothing of the perverse incentives at play because of the Soviet political system. We've learned a lot since the RBMK was designed in the 1960s.

Not convinced. The problem is with the human layer of managing large complicated projects. Nuclear could become less unsafe once humanity has found ways not to go commity horrble violence every other generation.

>Not convinced.

What, if anything, would convince you?

Re: Canada plans 'nuclear renaissance' with up to 10 reactors built by 2040

#117

Post by 486sx33 »

jtbayly wrote: post #112
chollida1 wrote: post #7

Makes alot of sense. Canada has: - one of the largest uranium reserves - a well respected and safe nuclear design in CANDU - experience with building and refurbishing nuclear reactors(Darlington) and for Ontario itself A need for more baseload to work with the large amount of solar and wind that Ontario has added in the last 10 years. Saskatchewan also now has a potential need for nuclear for industrial use now that…

More renewables means the need for more base load? This is the first I’ve seen anybody say that.

It shouldn’t be the first time, this is what natural gas peaker plants have been about for 20 years. Solar and wind can’t sync the grid, they require sync or the grid collapses. Sync (Hz) can only be provided by base load that quickly spin up or down to balance out the frequency of the grid

Re: Canada plans 'nuclear renaissance' with up to 10 reactors built by 2040

#118

Post by 486sx33 »

nancyminusone wrote: post #21
chollida1 wrote: post #7

Makes alot of sense. Canada has: - one of the largest uranium reserves - a well respected and safe nuclear design in CANDU - experience with building and refurbishing nuclear reactors(Darlington) and for Ontario itself A need for more baseload to work with the large amount of solar and wind that Ontario has added in the last 10 years. Saskatchewan also now has a potential need for nuclear for industrial use now that…

Always amused me that on the face of things, a CANDU looks just like a sideways RBMK. At least in terms of plumbing. There's clearly more to it than that.

It’s not that far off, a major benefit is insitu refueling, so that’s a major reason it looks like that.

Re: Canada plans 'nuclear renaissance' with up to 10 reactors built by 2040

#119

Post by mynegation »

jtbayly wrote: post #112
chollida1 wrote: post #7

Makes alot of sense. Canada has: - one of the largest uranium reserves - a well respected and safe nuclear design in CANDU - experience with building and refurbishing nuclear reactors(Darlington) and for Ontario itself A need for more baseload to work with the large amount of solar and wind that Ontario has added in the last 10 years. Saskatchewan also now has a potential need for nuclear for industrial use now that…

More renewables means the need for more base load? This is the first I’ve seen anybody say that.

Probably the assumption is that renewables replace a different base load like coal or gas powered plants.

Re: Canada plans 'nuclear renaissance' with up to 10 reactors built by 2040

#120

Post by kasey_junk »

chollida1 wrote: post #7

Makes alot of sense. Canada has: - one of the largest uranium reserves - a well respected and safe nuclear design in CANDU - experience with building and refurbishing nuclear reactors(Darlington) and for Ontario itself A need for more baseload to work with the large amount of solar and wind that Ontario has added in the last 10 years. Saskatchewan also now has a potential need for nuclear for industrial use now that…

Will Alberta go along?
Post reply on HN