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

231–240 of 500 posts

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

#231

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#233

Post by qlte »

hodder wrote: post #8
_aavaa_ wrote: post #5

Title is misleading, they want to start building not “build” (I.e. be operational). Though that only moves the needles from impossible to laughable. > If our goal is to double our grid and build a low-carbon economy in less than 25 years, there is no credible plan to do that without nuclear energy There are plenty of credible plans, they all involve wind and solar. But as anyone watching clean energy news will know,…

The claim that Alberta is actively trying to get rid of all wind and solar development is internet hyperbole that ignores real capacity data. Alberta actually ranks second in Canada for clean energy growth, and its renewable output surged by over 25% year-over-year into 2026. The high-profile project cancellations people point to weren't a government ban. They happened because the province changed its transmission ru…

  > Subsidizing private developments with public money is not something that should be encouraged.
If this principle is applied to all energy sources it would hurt new nuclear development far more than new solar/wind given the huge capital requirements of a new nuclear plant.

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

#234

Post by thedrbrian »

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…

>LCOE

Is bunk. You should be using LFSCOE instead.

https://davidturver.substack.com/p/lcoe-levelised-cost-of-en...

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

#235

Post by vkou »

crote wrote: post #227
vkou wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is with the human layer of managing large complicated projects. I guess we should stop having large, complicated projects. Potable water mains, road and rail networks, the power grid, the internet, bridges, medicine, etc, are all too complicated for humans to manage. I mean, nuclear is only the safest form of energy generation that humanity has ever produced, but you're absolutely right.

What's the absolute worst that could happen when a water mains breaks? What's the absolute worst that could happen when a train derails? What's the absolute worst that could happen when a backhoe snacks on a fiber trunk? Now, what's the absolute worst that could happen when a nuclear reactor spirals out of control?

> What's the absolute worst that could happen when a water mains breaks?

People drink contaminated, unpotable water and die.

> What's the absolute worst that could happen when a train derails?

People die.

> What's the absolute worst that could happen when a backhoe snacks on a fiber trunk?

Life-critical infrastructure that depends on the communication fails in a bad way and people die.

> Now, what's the absolute worst that could happen when a nuclear reactor spirals out of control?

People die.

Nothing in life is without risk.

Nuclear reactors spiraling out of control have killed fewer people per KWH generated than any other source of energy that human beings have come up with.

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

#236

Post by dosisking »

crote wrote: post #227
vkou wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is with the human layer of managing large complicated projects. I guess we should stop having large, complicated projects. Potable water mains, road and rail networks, the power grid, the internet, bridges, medicine, etc, are all too complicated for humans to manage. I mean, nuclear is only the safest form of energy generation that humanity has ever produced, but you're absolutely right.

What's the absolute worst that could happen when a water mains breaks? What's the absolute worst that could happen when a train derails? What's the absolute worst that could happen when a backhoe snacks on a fiber trunk? Now, what's the absolute worst that could happen when a nuclear reactor spirals out of control?

Hypothetically, a train could derail, the train was carrying nuclear waste, the derailment occurred in a highly populated area, near a Virology Lab. The lab was damaged, which released a deadly form of Smallpox, which spread to every corner of the Earth, killing every single human. That would be pretty bad, but not sure if it would be the absolute worst.

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

#237

Post by Marsymars »

thisislife2 wrote: post #30
sleepyguy wrote: post #13

Should look at the the historical record and consider the scale of cost overruns and delays that major nuclear projects have experienced. While everyone involved may have good intentions, the reality is that these projects often end up costing significantly more and taking much longer than originally projected. Wind and solar could be deployed for a fraction of the proposed $100 billion investment and should be consi…

How viable is Solar in Canada given its weather? (I am ignorant about it and only know that it's really cold and cloudy most of the time).

Depends what you mean by viable. Solar is easily economically viable, but integration at grid scale is tricky when your peak summer generation is 10x your winter generation.

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

#238

Post by zdragnar »

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

The Earth's crust will take far longer to move yucca than the nuclear waste will be a problem. That's the whole reason that site was chosen. Even Yellowstone isn't set to blow on that time scale.

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

#239

Post by fsuts »

protocolture wrote: post #167
fsuts wrote: post #18

I’m not Canadian so news to me that Canada has built nuclear plants around the world. As in the UK we were previously asking a French-Chinese partnership to build here so not sure why Canada didn’t get chosen for that.

>As in the UK we were previously asking a French-Chinese partnership to build here so not sure why Canada didn’t get chosen for that. Its crazy how fast britain has fallen off nuclear, the original british nuclear rollout should have stood the UK up as a permanent nuclear energy powerhouse but France took it from them.

If not aware - uk government is backing Roll Royce to produce small reactor solutions (SMR). And Rolls is going around the world signing up sales agreements for them.

The underlying tech though is yet to be proven, so some risk won’t deliver on time/to budget/at all.

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

#240

Post by rich_sasha »

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…

It cuts both ways. Solar and wind are great but intermittent, and the storage issue seems to be treated as a solvable ergo solved problem. Add a sprinkle of "overcapacity", gas peakers and demand shaping and we can have a fully green grid.

So why didn't this happen anywhere - except perhaps two of the sunniest and windiest places in the world, Australia and California, where energy demand (AC) also matches production? Where are the seasonal battery storage facilities that places like Europe or I guess most of NA would need?

My only conclusion is that renewables are also far more expensive than the sticker price, due to the needed grid investment, batteries and frankly unsolved problems of seasonal storage.

I don't mind being wrong, but status quo seems to be, let's not build nuclear because it's too expensive, we're sort of building renewables, but CO2 emmissions, never mind levels, keep on increasing.

It doesn't seem to add up to a coherent story.

Post reply on HN