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

171–180 of 500 posts

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

#171

Post by PaulHoule »

fooster wrote: post #168
PaulHoule wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn’t say you cannot but I also wouldn’t say it is proven that you can.

Cannot with our current level of technology. You are not going to provide the required level of power in Canada during the winter with wind or solar with todays battery technology. I asked Claude: "If combined wind+solar output drops to ~10% of nameplate during one of these (a standard threshold), a ~77 GW fleet sized to meet average winter demand produces ~7.7 GW against a ~22 GW cold-snap peak — a 14 GW shortfall t…

One of my pet peeves is that people keep quoting numbers about solar costs oblivious to location, time of year, etc. No wonder some people are sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "neener neener neener".

Battery storage for diurnal variation in favorable locations looks feasible, battery storage for annual variation looks absurd. Maybe you can overbuild solar by a 3x factor in some places, I've gotten cost numbers from 'a little less than what an AP1000 is claimed to cost' to 2x more with back of the envelope calculations that probably aren't worth anything. Then there's Dunkelflaute.

It would help if you could find a good use for the excess energy but the capital cost of anything you don't use all the time is multiplied.

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

#172

Post by speed_spread »

_aavaa_ wrote: post #53
mig39 wrote: post #29

A nuclear reactor in the Alberta Oil sands would take care of a large amount of the CO2 produced in the production of crude.

Doesn’t help with the burning part. Or the stranded infrastructure once the demand goes away.

Demand will not go away. There'll be toxic waste to clean up for decades after.

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

#173

Post by DennisP »

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.

The problem with Chernobyl was that (1) it didn't have a containment dome, and (2) it was designed so as the temperature increased, the reaction sped up. It was fundamentally unstable.

Neither of these problems is true of more recent reactors.

We don't make bridges safe by getting humans to cooperate better and cross bridges one car at a time. We make them strong and stable so humans can drive however they like and the bridge is fine. That's how all engineering works, and it applies to nuclear reactors just like anything else.

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

#174

Post by j16sdiz »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #169
zdragnar wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For one thing, nuclear power plants produce much less waste than most people imagine. Waste can also be reprocessed into new fuel, further reducing it. In the US, we have a suitable site that has been authorized and cancelled for 20 some years now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r... The reasons it keeps being cancelled, and the waste is stored on-site at nuclear plants instead, is purely…

Most waste isn't spent fuel, it's contaminated other things. You aren't reprocessing any of that.

I thought contaminated clothing are low level waste. They are quite safe after 30-ish years, but rated to store for 100 years

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

#176

Post by rgmerk »

whh wrote: post #14

Hopefully this will kick Australia into gear.

You pay for it.

There is - arguably a case for nuclear power in cold miserable places like Canada or Northern Europe because solar - by far the cheapest form of renewable energy, and still with a substantial runway to get cheaper - produces the least amount of energy precisely when those places need it most.

Australia, being a warm, sunny place, has far less seasonal variation in solar production, and at worst bas a grid that needs roughly the same amount of energy in winter and summer peaks.

Even in a net zero scenario things like running a gas turbine on biomethane or synthesised hydrogen for that last few percent of demand will make more economic sense than building nuclear in Australia.

If someone figures how to churn out SMRs for $3.95 each, sure, that would change matters, but that remains a hypothetical possibility that Australia does not have to plan around.

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

#177

Post by rgmerk »

echelon wrote: post #54
tuna74 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Australia is really good for solar, why build nuclear?

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.

If a mega volcano explodes and blocks the sun, lack of electricity will be the least of the world’s problems.

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

#178

Post by awesome_dude »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #136
awesome_dude wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never understood how people think "less" solves the issue, it's not negligible and asking to increase the number of plants surely increases the waste. Reprocessing, isn't infinite. There's going to be waste to deal with. You've not presented any technical solutions, instead you made it political by claiming that's the only problem. Do you have an actual understanding of the problems or are you just pushing nucle…

I think it is you who hasn't bothered to do basic research before forming an opinion. I suggest at least skimming the wikipedia page on radioactive waste. [0] There's also a page documenting the various national management plans. [1] > I've never understood how people think "less" solves the issue, it's not negligible ... It just needs to be little enough that the cost of constructing long term storage space isn't co…

You're repeating the problem - You're saying that there is less waste to deal with which magically means it's safe.

You do understand that don't you?

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

#179

Post by awesome_dude »

zdragnar wrote: post #159
awesome_dude wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never understood how people think "less" solves the issue, it's not negligible and asking to increase the number of plants surely increases the waste. Reprocessing, isn't infinite. There's going to be waste to deal with. You've not presented any technical solutions, instead you made it political by claiming that's the only problem. Do you have an actual understanding of the problems or are you just pushing nucle…

I actually did produce a technical solution: stick it deep in yucca mountain and forget about it. It's safe, and there's more than enough room for the little waste that can't be turned back into fuel.

It's not.

The time frame we are talking about invalidates the "safety" because the earth's crust moves and warps, which allows water to access that sort of storage

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

#180

Post by 1over137 »

morkalork wrote: post #165
genxy wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Always wanted to go to ... Uranium City. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_City

While you're at it, add Radium Springs and Asbestos to your itinerary!

Asbestos was renamed due to the negative connotations.
Post reply on HN