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

#391

Post by _heimdall » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 2:31 PM UTC

myrmidon wrote: post #364

_heimdall wrote: post #188

Interesting to see the general opinion on nuclear swing so far from environmental and safety concerns (whether warranted or not) to pretty broad support for energy independence. I can't help but think its a sign that those concerns were easy to hold when energy was cheap and you could actually trust your neighbors. If that's the case, again huge speculation, it sure makes the concerns feel a bit hollow now.

I think its mainly just different "environmentalist" subgroups: You have the oldschool environmentalists that are more "holistically" concerned with sustainability, ecological footprint, species preservation, pollution, etc. I'd argue that this subgroup already achieved *tons* of goals over the last half century, and are nowadays playing second fiddle to the subgroup that is first and foremost concerned about climate…

Yeah that's always possible. I only remember seeing the change after Russia escalated their war a few years ago, but maybe my memory is failing me there.

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

#392

Post by myrmidon » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 2:32 PM UTC

peterfirefly wrote: post #340

danhor wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nuclear has the most bizzare cost curve of any new technology where every year it costs more than the year before; a pattern which makes effectively no sense and is really only explainable by the heavy and effective political attack that nuclear has been under in the US and EU. Or by generally exploding costs of megaprojects. Look at e.g. high-speed-rail in UK, France, Germany, ... . The first projects were the che…

A lot of those rising costs are also due to a (much) heavier regulatory environment.

And the much heavier regulatory environment exists for a bloody reason.

The US alone spent billions to clean up superfund sites on the taxpayers dime (because companies created a huge mess in pursuit of profit and unhampered by regulation in the 20th century).

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

#393

Post by cycomanic » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 2:34 PM UTC

mpweiher wrote: post #357

myrmidon wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> nuclear reactors are capable of changing power output at 3-5% of nameplate capacity per minute This is not a technical problem, but nuclear plants already struggle to compete on cost of energy when running 24/7. Every minute such a plant runs at less than nominal output, those already bad economics grow worse.

They actually do not. Struggle, that is. But yes, it absolutely makes more sense to run those plants 24/7 at 100% capacity. And we have base-load that matches this reliable generating capacity very well. The 40%-60% base load absolutely should be provided by nuclear if you don't have hydro (and even if you have hydro, some nuclear still makes sense). The remainder should almost certainly be a mix: some more reliable…

That's not how electricity markets operate. Say you have 100GW demand (number are not in any way related to reality) and your Nuclear plant has a capacity of 50 GW. However it's a sunny day and solar is producing 80 GW. That solar will be producing at a much lower price, so no one is interested in buying that extra expensive 30 GW from the Nuclear plant (I'm glancing a bit over how pricing works exactly, but it comes to the same thing).

So either you restrict the amount of solar that can be produced or you subsidize the Nuclear prices. Both solutions are increasing prices for idiological reasons. If we do that might as well invest in solutions that are on exponential trajectories, like solar and battery.

The whole baseload argument when talking about renewables is a strawman. Both intermittent (like solar and wind) and constant output (like Nuclear) are baseload technologies, despite working very differently. Both require over provisioning, on demand sources or storage. It does not make any sense to bet on a solution that despite significant subsidise over almost 70 years has failed to produce any exponential count reduction, if the other solution is on an exponential curve right now.

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

#394

Post by myrmidon » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 2:43 PM UTC

rich_sasha wrote: post #240

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…

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…

What doesnt add up? Almost all western industrialized nations are on a downward trajectory (or flat) regarding electricity use.

So there is simply little economic incentive to "greenify" electricity quickly because demand is already met by existing infrastructure.

Lots of people are completely unwilling to pay more for energy just to decrease emissions quickly (you might be surprised about peoples selfishness!).

But if you look at countries where electricity demand grows, you can clearly see renewables overtaking everything else; China had more growth in solar PV energy (GWh/y) in the last 2 years than nuclear power in 2 decades (and they're a pretty nuclear-friendly environment, too).

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

#395

Post by hodder » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 2:44 PM UTC

_aavaa_ wrote: post #124

hodder wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The Alberta government absolutely banned new solar and wind development, first a short-lived moratorium and then with regulations meant to "protect the natural beauty", restrictions mind you that absolutely do not apply to the pump jacks any company can place on your land and which you do not have the right to refuse. Or to the vast stretches of Mordor-like tailing ponds. > Subsidizing private developments with publi…

[flagged]

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

#396

Post by hodder » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 2:50 PM UTC

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #46

actionfromafar wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Subsidizing private developments with public money is not something that should be encouraged. What other kind of subsidy is there?

Preposterous take from this parent poster. The AB government routinely subsidizes oil and gas projects and has one of the lowest royalty regimes in the world. The AB government actually put a moratorium on all renewables projects and when they lifted the moratorium they put such intense regulations on renewables projects specifically that it cooled the whole sector despite it being one of the fastest growing industri…

[flagged]

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

#397

Post by loloquwowndueo » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 2:55 PM UTC

gottorf wrote: post #185

loloquwowndueo wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re missing the point which is to create jobs, it’s what the Canadian government is pushing really hard for now, with all the infrastructure projects it’s launching. Something that will need people working on building for 15 years sounds about right for what government is doing now.

> You’re missing the point which is to create jobs I sure hope that the ultimate point of a government push to build nuclear powerplants is in fact getting nuclear powerplants on the other side, not just jobs along the way. The latter seems responsible for so many ills in today's Western societies.

Nuclear plants would reduce Canada’s energetic reliance on other countries but - is there any, really? Last I checked, Quebec at least exports power to other provinces and the US.

Sure with more power generation Canada has more to sell and any country would be happy to have more energy, but it doesn’t sound like something the country _needs_ as much as, say, more housing. Or deep health care system improvements and staffing. Or … jobs.

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

#398

Post by pjc50 » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 3:13 PM UTC

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.

> should have stood the UK up as a permanent nuclear energy powerhouse

It was a crash weapons program disguised as a civilian energy program, that very nearly went badly wrong at Windscale: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire ; so much so that the site had to be renamed to Sellafield.

The rollout was hampered by the choice of two ultimately dead end technologies, Magnox and AGR. Then it ran into the industrial unrest and general lack of money of the 1970s, during which the government cancelled its space program (Black Arrow), and very nearly cancelled Concorde. The "white heat of technology" had worn off. Thatcher attempted to restart it, resulting in Sizewell B, but of course after 26 April 1986 any new nuclear was completely unthinkable and that was the end until Hinkley C. Which is still not finished.

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

#399

Post by troupo » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 3:26 PM UTC

myrmidon wrote: post #338

troupo wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Chasing baseload is a fool's game. You will always have a mismatch between power needed and power produced. That's why all modern (aka the last 40-50 years or so) nuclear reactors are capable of changing power output at 3-5% of nameplate capacity per minute: https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-12... This way you don't need to ridiculously overbuild solar and wind, and you have a better guarant…

> nuclear reactors are capable of changing power output at 3-5% of nameplate capacity per minute This is not a technical problem, but nuclear plants already struggle to compete on cost of energy when running 24/7. Every minute such a plant runs at less than nominal output, those already bad economics grow worse.

> when running 24/7.

Key word: running 24/7. Which neither solar nor wind can do.

> Every minute such a plant runs at less than nominal output, those already bad economics grow worse.

Is that why countries that boast "we have so much renewable energy now" tend to import electricity from stable sources (nuclear and hydro) the moment there's a long period of overcast skies with little to no wind?

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

#400

Post by troupo » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 3:27 PM UTC

cycomanic wrote: post #393

mpweiher wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They actually do not. Struggle, that is. But yes, it absolutely makes more sense to run those plants 24/7 at 100% capacity. And we have base-load that matches this reliable generating capacity very well. The 40%-60% base load absolutely should be provided by nuclear if you don't have hydro (and even if you have hydro, some nuclear still makes sense). The remainder should almost certainly be a mix: some more reliable…

That's not how electricity markets operate. Say you have 100GW demand (number are not in any way related to reality) and your Nuclear plant has a capacity of 50 GW. However it's a sunny day and solar is producing 80 GW. That solar will be producing at a much lower price, so no one is interested in buying that extra expensive 30 GW from the Nuclear plant (I'm glancing a bit over how pricing works exactly, but it comes…

> The whole baseload argument when talking about renewables is a strawman.

Didn't know that the requirement for electricity to always be available despite weather conditions is a strawman