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

181–190 of 500 posts

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

#181

Post by 1over137 »

jmyeet wrote: post #49
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…

I don't understand the online obsession with nuclear power in spite of all the evidence that it's simply not economical. Canada needs new power now. Not 15-20 years from now, which is how long it takes to build a new nuclear power plant. And it can be done today, incrementally with renewable sources and before anyone screams "baseload", that's what batteries are for if it really comes down to it. Nuclear power is the…

>Canada needs new power now. Not 15-20 years from now.

Those can both be true. Canada will likely need more power in 15 years too. It's called long term planning.

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

#182

Post by wmoxam »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #71

The Ontario government is terrible at creating a structure which is capable of finishing any infrastructure project on time ...(see Eglinton Crosstown) and mostly seems to work as a funnel for moving public funds through public-private-partnerships to feed contractor/consultant income for projects that grow to many multiples of their time and budget. So, yeah, it makes sense that they love nuclear now -- blank cheque…

Darlington nuclear refurbishment finished ahead of schedule and under budget

https://canada.constructconnect.com/dcn/news/projects/2026/0...

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

#183

Post by 1over137 »

jleyank wrote: post #163
jmyeet wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the online obsession with nuclear power in spite of all the evidence that it's simply not economical. Canada needs new power now. Not 15-20 years from now, which is how long it takes to build a new nuclear power plant. And it can be done today, incrementally with renewable sources and before anyone screams "baseload", that's what batteries are for if it really comes down to it. Nuclear power is the…

What if it becomes urgent to reduce CO2? There's a lot of places without hydro or geothermal power, and if you needs gobs of power for, say, making aluminum you need as much as you can get power wise.

>What if it becomes urgent to reduce CO2?

What?! It has been urgent for years.

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

#184

Post by gottorf »

fooster wrote: post #66
jmyeet wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the online obsession with nuclear power in spite of all the evidence that it's simply not economical. Canada needs new power now. Not 15-20 years from now, which is how long it takes to build a new nuclear power plant. And it can be done today, incrementally with renewable sources and before anyone screams "baseload", that's what batteries are for if it really comes down to it. Nuclear power is the…

Another other things nuclear power plants don't take 15-20 to build in sensible economies. You also cannot use wind & solar + batteries to replace nuclear power.

Pre-Fukushima, the Koreans were able to pop out a gigawatt every 5 years or so. Things dramatically slowed down afterwards, so even they are not immune to whatever it is that makes constructing nuclear powerplants slow as all hell around the world.

The Barakah plant in the UAE, built by the Koreans, took 9 years.

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

#185

Post by gottorf »

loloquwowndueo wrote: post #61
jmyeet wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the online obsession with nuclear power in spite of all the evidence that it's simply not economical. Canada needs new power now. Not 15-20 years from now, which is how long it takes to build a new nuclear power plant. And it can be done today, incrementally with renewable sources and before anyone screams "baseload", that's what batteries are for if it really comes down to it. Nuclear power is the…

You’re missing the point which is to create jobs, it’s what the Canadian government is pushing really hard for now, with all the infrastructure projects it’s launching. Something that will need people working on building for 15 years sounds about right for what government is doing now.

> You’re missing the point which is to create jobs

I sure hope that the ultimate point of a government push to build nuclear powerplants is in fact getting nuclear powerplants on the other side, not just jobs along the way. The latter seems responsible for so many ills in today's Western societies.

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

#186

Post by gnabgib »

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!

Radium Hot Springs (BC), you mean? +Dildo (NF) +Dawson Creek (BC) +Regina (SK) +Snafu (YK) +Stoner (BC) +Climax (SK) +Radville (SK) +Emo (ON) +Crotch Lake (ON) +Sober Island (NS)

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

#187

Post by gottorf »

badc0ffee wrote: post #94
HerbManic wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So France and Canada both build nuclear plants. Must be something in the french language that makes folks just want to do the cool stuff. If it is anything like all my french cookware, it will be done wonderfully.

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

Quebec's geography is so favorable for hydropower that they don't need nuclear, or any other source of electricity.

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

#188

Post by _heimdall »

Interesting to see the general opinion on nuclear swing so far from environmental and safety concerns (whether warranted or not) to pretty broad support for energy independence.

I can't help but think its a sign that those concerns were easy to hold when energy was cheap and you could actually trust your neighbors. If that's the case, again huge speculation, it sure makes the concerns feel a bit hollow now.

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

#189

Post by amanaplanacanal »

reaperducer wrote: post #75
jmyeet wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the online obsession with nuclear power in spite of all the evidence that it's simply not economical. Canada needs new power now. Not 15-20 years from now, which is how long it takes to build a new nuclear power plant. And it can be done today, incrementally with renewable sources and before anyone screams "baseload", that's what batteries are for if it really comes down to it. Nuclear power is the…

Canada needs new power now. Not 15-20 years from now Canada won't need new power 15 years from now? Did a time traveler tell you about a coming Dark Age?

I think the assumption is that anything that you can build now, you can build more of later. Unless you think there is some reason you can't?

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

#190

Post by gottorf »

Jedd wrote: post #141

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…

These day's it's a common problem in all of the Anglosphere, but it does seem especially bad in the UK; they appear to have just given up the ability to build literally anything.
Post reply on HN