Canada plans 'nuclear renaissance' with up to 10 reactors built by 2040 • Hacker News Board

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

#251

Post by tempest_ » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 5:01 AM UTC

wmoxam wrote: post #182

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...

Yeah the last decade of Nuclear work is the ONE thing that they have been successful at wrt to project planning.

Hopefully that expertise is well placed to execute on these other projects.

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

#252

Post by consensus1 » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 5:04 AM UTC

nickserv wrote: post #146

consensus1 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see that France has the most nuclear heavy grid and also some of the cheapest energy costs and lowest CO2 emission per unit energy in the world. When I see that matched by a solar / wind focused grid I will believe the cheap renewables hype. And even when I see that, the low energy density still has its own problems. The amount of resources needed for the panels and batteries is massive in itself. And the land area…

France has higher prices than several EU countries. Spain in particular has low prices thanks to their solar and wind, and the Nordics thanks to hydro.

Spain has 3x the emissions intensity of France. The Nordics (some of them) have energy that is cheap and clean like France. That's because they have base load that doesn't emit CO2 like France.

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

#253

Post by beloch » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 5:04 AM UTC

>Unlike most other nuclear reactors, Candu reactors don't require enriched uranium. Ottawa says Western allies are turning away from Russia, one of the world's key suppliers of enriched uranium.

Even if Canada winds up relying more on CANDU reactors than SMR's, there is a case to be made for enriching domestically. There are a lot of potential customers looking for a reliable, ethical supplier. Canada has the raw minerals, political stability, and a long record of refusing to weaponize despite having the capability.

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

#254

Post by Manuel_D » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 5:13 AM UTC

rickydroll wrote: post #31

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…

> 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. Chasing baseload is a fool's game. You will always have a mismatch between power needed and power produced. Power storage is necessary to move excess power produced to times of excess power need. e.g., shave the peaks to fill the valleys. Any storage reduces the need for baseload and…

You don't need storage if you have enough non-intermittent power to satisfy peak load.

Canada uses 1,500 GWh of electricity per day. 12 hours of storage is 750 GWh of storage. Estimated for grid storage costs range from $125 to $250 per kwh for fully installed and connected systems (not just the cost of the cells alone). At $200/KWh Canada would be looking at $150 billion for 12 hours of storage.

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

#255

Post by cyberax » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 5:13 AM UTC

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?

Less waste to deal with makes it safer, simply because you need to control and manage less material.

We also know how to get rid of it entirely, leaving only material that will decay to safe levels within hundreds of years. It's prohibitively expensive right now, but may be feasible in the future once technology matures.

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

#256

Post by looofooo0 » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 5:14 AM UTC

magicalist wrote: post #247

red75prime wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The massive solar overcapacity that is required to deal with seasonal variation and the massive energy storage make this endeavor much more costly than nuclear. For example, in Denmark[1] a solar-dominated grid would cost around 565 EUR/MWh. A nuclear-dominated grid would cost around 141 EUR/MWh. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036054422... Fig. 3

> For example, in Denmark[1] a solar-dominated grid would cost around 565 EUR/MWh. A nuclear-dominated grid would cost around 141 EUR/MWh. That's not what it says. It says that would be the cost assuming the current grid and power came from only solar or only nuclear. The majority of the cost then is for overprovisioning and storage, especially to handle the lack of sun in the winter. The actual low cost power comes…

There is not enough wind capacity in most countries

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

#257

Post by protocolture » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 5:15 AM UTC

awesome_dude wrote: post #229

protocolture wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My understanding is that this material remains toxic to life for thousands, to tens of thousands of years. Safe means that it's stored such that there's no harm to the environment for that lifetime. In all "bury it" scenarios, the place where the waste is buried will be subject to change resulting in water, air, able to interact with that waste when normal tectonic and erosion processes do their thing.

I keep coming back to this to reply but I cant really figure out how to tackle it. Theres so much of a particular view of the world in each statement.

How do you think spent uranium interacts with the environment?

There's an estimated 4.5 billion tons of uranium dissolved in seawater. Naturally occurring. I honestly think we missed a trick when we outlawed dumping in the ocean, there's basically no way for human generated nuclear waste to even move the needle on ocean sources.

Lets say I take you completely at face value. Every notion of yours comes to pass. We cask it, and leave it in an underground vault. 9999 years later, a cask fails. Whats the issue? Are you using that vault as a busy thoroughfare? Its still in a big hole in the ground. Maybe theres an earthquake? And the vault shears a little. What is the radiation now doing in your mind that makes it dangerous? TBH we shouldnt leave signs warning people to stay away, we should leave a concrete recipe behind on all the signage.

There's life thriving in Pripyat just past the big concrete dome. There's a war going on there.

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

#258

Post by red75prime » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 5:16 AM UTC

magicalist wrote: post #247

red75prime wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The massive solar overcapacity that is required to deal with seasonal variation and the massive energy storage make this endeavor much more costly than nuclear. For example, in Denmark[1] a solar-dominated grid would cost around 565 EUR/MWh. A nuclear-dominated grid would cost around 141 EUR/MWh. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036054422... Fig. 3

> For example, in Denmark[1] a solar-dominated grid would cost around 565 EUR/MWh. A nuclear-dominated grid would cost around 141 EUR/MWh. That's not what it says. It says that would be the cost assuming the current grid and power came from only solar or only nuclear. The majority of the cost then is for overprovisioning and storage, especially to handle the lack of sun in the winter. The actual low cost power comes…

I chose those numbers to emphasize the system cost. Too many people go "Solar panels are cheap! Why don't we have them everywhere?" That's why.

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

#259

Post by cyberax » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 5:17 AM UTC

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…

> Nuclear power is the highest cost source of electricity in LCOE terms [1].

That's utterly incorrect. For a country like Canada (or Germany), the priciest form of energy is solar. Wind is close second.

And no, I'm not hallucinating. The key here is _guaranteed_ power during wintertime. There are no generally feasible renewable solutions for that.

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

#260

Post by stubish » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 5:23 AM UTC

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…

Household batteries work wonders for residential consumption. It is interesting what happened once subsidies for batteries was introduced in Australia. The uptake was huge (because free or cheap electricity in off peak periods). Average install size went up, covering about 24 hours of winter usage. Subsidies needed to be tweaked, to reduce the number of 50+ kWh installations. It is not unreasonable to use current technology to have 24 hours or maybe 48 in most or all residences, with an investment payback time to consumers of around 5 years. With dynamic pricing, most consumption switches to non-peak. All distributed, rather than large scale battery facilities. As long as you are prepared to import from China, manufacturing is available. What is needed is political backing to make it a good investment for consumers via subsidies, and loans to ensure people without spare cash can also benefit. And maybe the numbers work out well, with less subsidies going to fossil fuel generation.