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

201–210 of 500 posts

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

#201

Post by tgtweak »

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…

Nuclear also works well with grid batteries to smooth demand curves, which Ontario is targeting 2700MW of scale by 2030.

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

#202

Post by jibal »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #87
theeyescanner wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Absolutely ridiculous that I was down voted and flagged for some mild griping about the state of my province's inability to execute on infrastructure projects, but offhand jokes (I hope it's a joke) about nuking my home is completely fine? :/

Ridiculous whataboutism. What makes you think that anyone thought that it's completely fine? The comment is dead.

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

#203

Post by qlte »

zdragnar wrote: post #79
awesome_dude wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nuclear waste would be the other large remaining issue, but again - society chose to create that problem and not solve it. It's not technical in nature. Care to explain, I've never seen a genuine solution that goes beyond hand waving, bad faith arguing, and aggressiveness.

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…

Political constraints are extremely important in the real world if the goal is to actually get things done. Yucca Mountain isn't actually a viable solution because, despite the technical arguments in favor, it lacks the support to implement.

Similar problem if local communities fight new nuclear plants tooth and nail, dragging out the timelines/increasing costs. Having the "correct" argument based on objective facts doesn't really matter if people/elected officials who have veto or dilatory powers aren't buying it.

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

#204

Post by llbbdd »

garbagewoman wrote: post #139
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…

You think they shouldn’t negotiate with native tribes?

If they're not building reactors on the land allocated to native tribes, why should they?

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

#205

Post by TMWNN »

ttul wrote: post #6
bluefirebrand wrote: post #2

[flagged]

Canada is not an infrastructure “joke.” It is a country with some world-class delivery organizations operating inside a political system that too often destroys continuity. Relative to the G7, that makes it mediocre and volatile, not uniquely incompetent. And, in nuclear specifically, probably no worse positioned than its peers, though the ten-reactor rhetoric is substantially more ambitious than the underlying commi…

>Canada is not an infrastructure “joke.” It is a country with some world-class delivery organizations operating inside a political system that too often destroys continuity.

>As a Canadian, I think Canada’s primary hurdle is not a lack of engineering competence, but rather political volatility.

>Another comment I'd make is that the Carney government is only just a bit more than one year old.

I know that Liberals since early 2025 have done their best to pretend that Justin Trudeau never existed, but one would think by your words that the Carney regime succeeded one of another party, as opposed to the Liberals in 2025 forming their fourth consecutive federal government, after 2021, 2019, and 2015.

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

#206

Post by novok »

mixdup wrote: post #133
OJFord wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If they build 15 individual projects instead of managing this as a single big project, yeah that is very ambitious Surely it would increase variance of outcomes, but the expectation is the same of each and overall? Agree it would be mad though. Seems already a bit mad not to standardise internationally on a rough blueprint, or the modular thing in the news occasionally, and just churn out basically the same thing e…

Yeah I mean obviously each one would be managed on its own to an extent but one big problem we have in the US at least is that we build so few reactors that each one is bespoke. They may be based generally on certain designs but they will vary enough that operators and maintenance engineers have to train and be certified on each one, and that training and certification does not carry over to any other facility. Parts…

Could be a good way to kickstart a canadian nuclear industry that would expand into the US, exploiting the a big thing the US is bad at, coordinating infrastructure projects with multiple government groups, not making infrastructure builds incredibly overpriced and take an incredible amount of time and not being hyper litigious.

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

#207

Post by fsh »

nomel wrote: post #132
preisschild wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately its just a small boiling water reactor. More capacity is needed in most parts of the world. Lager reactors are needed.

> Larger reactors are needed. Genuine question: Why? Why not many smaller reactors? Small modular reactors seem pretty neat. Is there an efficiency loss/total cost difference with smaller reactors?

Like most industrial sites, large reactors are much more economical than small ones. This is why nobody has built SMRs since the 1950s.

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

#208

Post by Animats »

OK, so when does the first one come online? "The strategy calls for construction to start on two new large-scale reactors by 2035, for five more to be planned or under development by 2040 and for at least one reactor to be under construction outside Ontario by 2035."

That's not serious. Construction start is too far away.

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

#209

Post by TMWNN »

jleyank wrote: post #198
TMWNN wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alberta needs a pathway through a foreign country to get their oil out right now. Existing pipelines lead to the US, and the Keystone XL expansion Obama halted, Trump resumed, and Biden halted. An independent Alberta will likely join the US, and of course building a domestic-only pipeline is easier than doing so across national borders.

Alberta ships through BC now and I think they’ve gone from half to full capacity. That profit might not survive Hormuz opening and unfortunately much of it leaves Canada.

>Alberta ships through BC now

Yes, in minuscule amounts.

As of 2025, 90% of Canadian crude and 100% of natural gas goes to the US. https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/ma...>

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

#210

Post by NuclearPM »

awesome_dude wrote: post #69
phil21 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your power storage is the Uranium fuel, which is a better battery than batteries. Much denser and lasts longer. In a sanely designed grid you overprovision non-reliable renewables like solar and wind to provide your peak daytime usage and nuclear (or hydro if you are lucky enough) takes up the rest during the night and when wind is not blowing. Batteries to further flatten the duck curve and provide grid firming as r…

> Nuclear waste would be the other large remaining issue, but again - society chose to create that problem and not solve it. It's not technical in nature. Care to explain, I've never seen a genuine solution that goes beyond hand waving, bad faith arguing, and aggressiveness.

Nuclear waste isn’t an issue.
Post reply on HN