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

261–270 of 500 posts

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

#261

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

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…

Ignoring that the last time Ontario attempted to build nuclear power the utility went into bankruptcy forcing the public to take on an absolutely enormous stranded debt.

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

#262

Post by drysine »

OJFord wrote: post #62
mixdup wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>15 seems...ambitions, but if we're going to spend at a federal level this is probably one of the better things to invest in. If they can make them cookie cutter as much as possible and not unique snowflakes like has been the pattern at least in the US, they can probably do it both on the timeline and a somewhat reasonable cost basis If they build 15 individual projects instead of managing this as a single big projec…

> 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…

>Seems already a bit mad not to standardise internationally on a rough blueprint

How do you evolve the design then?

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

#263

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

thedrbrian wrote: post #234
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…

>LCOE Is bunk. You should be using LFSCOE instead. https://davidturver.substack.com/p/lcoe-levelised-cost-of-en...

Which is a metric having one source throughout all weather, coupled with 2018 battery storage as per the study showcased in the blog.

Not sure what the relevancy is.

Here, a modern article modeling "System LCOE". In other words, the whole grid including transmission backup and everything else. It starts by giving new built nuclear power the benefit of doubt, having it cost 40% less than Flamanville 3 and 70% less than Hinkley Point C. Since no one would ever be stupid enough to greenlight a project like that again.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036054422...

It finds that for Denmark, a country with very low insolation and awful winters that renewables are 53% cheaper than the nuclear system.

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

#265

Post by awesome_dude »

cyberax wrote: post #255
awesome_dude wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> We also know how to get rid of it entirely, leaving only material that will decay to safe levels within hundreds of years

In the interests of fairness, is like a citation showing that

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

#266

Post by markvdb »

stackghost wrote: post #116
markvdb wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not convinced. The problem is with the human layer of managing large complicated projects. Nuclear could become less unsafe once humanity has found ways not to go commity horrble violence every other generation.

>Not convinced. What, if anything, would convince you?

Compact, mass produced nuclear energy projects with no nuclear proliferation risk and radioactive waste management time limited to less than one human generation's professional career span. That seems like a decent baseline to me.

Not sure if fission will ever be able to reach that. Fusion perhaps? I'd certainly like to see that researched with high priority.

In the short to medium term at the very least, I see more economic potential in simple, modular tech. Cheap generation using solar, wind and water. Matching supply and demand better through storage and interconnects.

I'd also be very interested in actual research on how to actually lower demand, in beating the Jevons paradox.

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

#267

Post by tonyedgecombe »

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…

>A need for more baseload to work with the large amount of solar and wind that Ontario has added in the last 10 years.

Once you have base load from nuclear why do you need solar and wind at all?

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

#268

Post by markvdb »

vkou wrote: post #128
markvdb wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not convinced. The problem is with the human layer of managing large complicated projects. Nuclear could become less unsafe once humanity has found ways not to go commity horrble violence every other generation.

> 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.

> 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'd rather see this simplified and improved than stopped.

> I mean, nuclear is only the safest form of energy generation that humanity has ever produced, but you're absolutely right.

Ground mounted solar is clearly superior in terms of safety.

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

#269

Post by cyberax »

awesome_dude wrote: post #265
cyberax wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> We also know how to get rid of it entirely, leaving only material that will decay to safe levels within hundreds of years In the interests of fairness, is like a citation showing that

It's called "closed [nuclear] fuel cycle". Just google it. I studied it at a university.

TLDR; if you have enough fast neutrons, you can transmute anything into safe materials. Fast neutron reactors produce enough, classic PWR reactors do not. The only commercial fast reactor right now is in Russia.

If at some point humanity decides to stop making reactors altogether, it's still possible to burn the waste with particle accelerators. It'll take hundreds of years, but waste won't be going anywhere.

And finally, if commercial fusion reactors ever happen, they can also be used as neutron sources to trivially burn up all the waste.

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

#270

Post by Symbiote »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #267
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…

>A need for more baseload to work with the large amount of solar and wind that Ontario has added in the last 10 years. Once you have base load from nuclear why do you need solar and wind at all?

It's still cheaper, and especially solar production correlates well with increased electricity usage.
Post reply on HN