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

141–150 of 500 posts

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

#141

Post by Jedd »

Perhaps relevant.

2005 ish - UK government release energy strategy and declares fission power plant intent.

2010 ish - UK government formally announces Hinkley Point site. It's declared the first reactor will come online 2019.

2019 - it does not.

2026 - best estimate is now 'around 2030'.

Historical cost estimates are an utter quagmire - but roughly estimated at £18 billion a decade ago, back when it was estimated to be online last year.

Current estimates - bring your own hubris - are roughly £46 billion.

This story has been beaten to death, I know - but recall, this is a country with some history of building and operating nuclear fission power plants, with convenient (2h by rail) access to a lot of expertise from France, and it's a joint-venture with China General Nuclear Power Group so presumably plenty of expertise to draw upon there.

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

#142

Post by MostlyStable »

eqvinox wrote: post #82
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.

Nuclear is the most expensive type of electrical power generation. Diversity is good, but enough of it is achievable with cheaper options.

The cost is a choice. Not inherent to the power. We could choose literally any day to make it dramatically cheaper.

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

#143

Post by [deleted] »

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...

[deleted]

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

#144

Post by newsclues »

olalonde wrote: post #110
badc0ffee wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This analysis is missing that Quebec doesn't have any nuclear plants. (Although NB has one, which counts for half?)

AtkinsRéalis (fka SNC-Lavalin) does build nuclear reactors and is headquartered in Montreal[0]. [0] https://www.atkinsrealis.com/en/markets-and-services/markets...

They bought CANDU reactor designs from the government

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

#146

Post by nickserv »

consensus1 wrote: post #130
exmadscientist wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I will never understand why so many otherwise smart people keep trying to make nuclear happen in their minds. I don't really get this either. I've come to think that it comes down to two pieces. The easy piece is that some people don't seem to realize just how good renewable power sources have gotten in the last 10-20 years. Nuclear has simply been outcompeted in so many ways. But this happened pretty quickly, so n…

I see that France has the most nuclear heavy grid and also some of the cheapest energy costs and lowest CO2 emission per unit energy in the world. When I see that matched by a solar / wind focused grid I will believe the cheap renewables hype. And even when I see that, the low energy density still has its own problems. The amount of resources needed for the panels and batteries is massive in itself. And the land area…

France has higher prices than several EU countries.

Spain in particular has low prices thanks to their solar and wind, and the Nordics thanks to hydro.

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

#147

Post by fc417fc802 »

davewasthere wrote: post #114
SugarReflex wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 magnitud…

I think you're off by an order of magnitude there. Intensity should be somewhere between 150 to 300 watts per sq meter per 24 hours. At 200 watts per sq meter that works out to 5 sq km. Estimating 50% panel efficiency that's 10 sq km.

To hit 100 sq km at 50% panel efficiency would mean averaging 20 watts per sq meter (obviously wrong). Even assuming a paltry 10% panel efficiency would only get you to 100 watts per sq meter.

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

#148

Post by pfdietz »

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.

Yeah, it's utter crap.

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

#149

Post by rangestransform »

Maybe this would’ve made economic sense 20 or 40 years ago, but nuclear is too expensive now compared with renewables. I can’t help but think this is a covert plan to bcecome an “almost nuclear” state in response to threats from the US.

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

#150

Post by pfdietz »

orthecreedence wrote: post #131
jmyeet wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Building nuclear doesn't stop you from building whatever else you want. If you build the solar and wind you don't need the nuclear. That's the point. > Also, you're predictably citing a couple of bad nuclear accidents, over like 70 years of nuclear generation. Here we go with hand-waving away all the uncomfortable counterexamples. It's hard to get exact numbers because of plant decmossioning and that some nuclear r…

> If you build the solar and wind you don't need the nuclear. Don't forget the enormous battery arrays for winter, cloudy skies, or wildfire smoke. Hope you have enough batteries. But you won't, so ok, now you need gas reactors to fill in the blanks. Isn't that what we're trying to get away from?

Ah yes, the ridiculous strawman engineering of saying batteries would be used for seasonal storage.
Post reply on HN