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

211–220 of 500 posts

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

#211

Post by fc417fc802 »

awesome_dude wrote: post #178
fc417fc802 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You appear to be reiterating an irrational position. I provided links to overviews of the topic; I strongly suggest at least skimming them. The quantity of unavoidable high level waste would appear to be sufficiently small that geological disposal is a cost effective solution.

The high level waste in question is not magically safe. Rather the various reprocessing and disposal methods have been extensively engineered and deliberated. At this point there is no cause to believe deep geological disposal in crystalline bedrock to be unsafe.

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

#212

Post by protocolture »

awesome_dude wrote: post #179
zdragnar wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Why dont you suggest what "safe" looks like, and we can discuss your understanding of safety. Its clear to me that the issue is your standards and not actual waste disposal.

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

#213

Post by fsh »

thfuran wrote: post #127
slicktux wrote: post #122

That’s great news ! Have they also solved the nuclear waste problem? Honest question; here in the USA we have not.

It's not really a problem. The alternative is to grind it up into fine dust, spray it into the air, and call it "clean coal".

That would poison the entire country. Nuclear waste is many many orders of magnitude more radioactive than coal per energy generated. The meme about coal emitting more radiation comes from a 1970s paper that compared radioactive emissions and found them to be on the same order of magnitude between a BWR and an unfiltered coal power plant.

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

#214

Post by coryrc »

pydry wrote: post #88
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…

>Building nuclear doesn't stop you from building whatever else you want. It kind of does though, since it demands pretty lavish subsidies to be built at all and those subsidies would give WAY more bang for the buck if used on pumped storage, batteries, solar and wind. You also have to cap liability in case of nuclear disaster. Private insurers won't touch nuclear power with a barge pole unless taxpayers are forced to…

We're not allowed to flood valleys anymore, so pumped storage is not cheap. Maybe that would change if there was a climate emergency cough

They could mass replicate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_Landing_Solar_Community and drop country-wide fossil fuel consumption about 1/3 and save money, but there's no big company pushing that.

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

#215

Post by epistasis »

Animats wrote: post #208

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.

Ok, I was kind of excited about this, until you pointed out the dates.

Of all Western developed countries, Canada is pretty much the last hope for a country with the skills to build nuclear at something that's within spitting distance of being economical.

The US and France have shat the bed royally over the past two decades, they're out of the game of construction competence. The UK stopped doing their own and outsourced to overpriced and unreasonable French reactors, that are only going forward with what be massive amounts of corruption in order to justify such expensive energy when there's cheaper batteries + offshore wind. Finland had France build them a reactor, and wisely negotiated a fixed price up front, and the construction overruns bankrupted the French company which is now really French in the sense that it bankrupted itself on Olkiluoto and had to be nationalized in the name of national security.

That leaves Canada, with their famous CANDU reactors and can-do attitudes. But 9 years of planning before construction? Perhaps that's what's actually needed, and they'll have a chance of actually constructing it in five years, but.... super super doubtful.

Canada, do not fall into the same trap as the rest of the nuclear frauds in the Western world. Five years for construction? Don't kid yourselves, even China breaks ridiculous timelines like that, and as good as you are, Canada, you're no China when it comes to massive massive construction projects. Just look at how hard it is to build in Vancouver, for example...

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

#216

Post by rhines »

llbbdd wrote: post #204
garbagewoman wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That's the thing, they will be on unceded land. As I understand it Canadian settlers signed treaties which allowed indigenous people to retain rights to the land. Canada then violated those treaties and built on land they didn't own. Today Canada is trying to respect the original treaties while also appreciating that they can't undo what's already been done.

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

#217

Post by arjie »

These are a bunch of contradictory quotes. We'll have to wait till NRCan or whatever comes up with a real plan. "Up to 10 reactors built by 2040" doesn't really match "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". Like, what is that. "planned or under development" seems like a big "or". Like how BART has 1500 lines completed or described in concepts online.

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

#218

Post by abejfehr »

gnabgib wrote: post #186
morkalork wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Elbow, Eyebrow, Heart’s Content, Heart’s Desire, and Heart’s Delight

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

#219

Post by morkalork »

abejfehr wrote: post #218
gnabgib wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Elbow, Eyebrow, Heart’s Content, Heart’s Desire, and Heart’s Delight

Misery Bay

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

#220

Post by raron »

exmadscientist wrote: post #73
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…

> 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…

Probably it depends on what part of the world you are and on what is your goal, what you want to optimize for.

In many countries there are usual systematic weather events where all renewable production goes to basically nothing for few days or even 2 weeks. You can not solve that by improving renewable sources, there isn't enough raw energy they could capture.

Storage for that long is currently impossible and even if it would be, it would be prohibitively expensive. So what you can do, build gas or coal plants. Building those, having people on call all the time, and the opportunity cost is probably many times more expensive than the building cost of renewables themselves.

And you still need to buy and store fossil fuels, you are still dependent on geopolitical issues, and you still produce a lot of CO2.

If your goal is environment protection or reducing climate change, then nuclear is probably better. If your goal is to reduce energy cost then probably renewables + short term battery storage + gas backup is the winner if you use an appropriate electricity pricing model.

Nuclear seems to be the old, known, stable thing, while renewables are the new and shiny thing that solves everything cheaply (and that sounds like it has huge catch). When you are building such critical infrastructure as the electrical grid, then staying safe and choosing the known, but expensive solution might seems to be the right choice for many people.

Post reply on HN