Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Canada begins Small Modular Reactor strategy roadmap

world-nuclear-news.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 52 posts

Re: Canada begins Small Modular Reactor strategy roadmap

#11

Post by gambiting »

cperciva wrote: post #9
bayesian_horse wrote: post #5

At least with the current technology there are too many downsides to nuclear power. The nuclear waste issue still hasn't been solved, and nuclear accidents do happen, apparently despite all the security measures. Small reactors, maybe even mobile, can only make this worse.

Nuclear accidents happen, yes... at power plants with designs which were outlawed on safety grounds 40 years ago. If you want to prevent nuclear accidents, you should be supporting attempts to build new reactors, because that's the fastest route to getting the old ones decommissioned.

Exactly. It's an almost catch-22 situation: old reactors are unsafe, so people protest building new ones, which would make the old ones obsolete and make the whole technology safer.

Re: Canada begins Small Modular Reactor strategy roadmap

#12

Post by jfaucett »

What many people is this thread don't realize is that nuclear is by far the cleanest form of energy for the environment. It has no intermittancy problems like Wind and Solar. The process of building nuclear is extremely clean compared to building wind turbines and solar panels which devastate the environment due to the rare metals needed and production process.

Its also vastly friendlier for humans and animals. The number of deaths due to meltdowns, and accidents in nuclear palls in comparison to all those occuring due to wind turbines and solar.

If you're an environmentalist it behooves you to honestly look at the research and data that has accumulated over the past 40 years on this topic.

Re: Canada begins Small Modular Reactor strategy roadmap

#13

Post by def_true_false »

bayesian_horse wrote: post #5

At least with the current technology there are too many downsides to nuclear power. The nuclear waste issue still hasn't been solved, and nuclear accidents do happen, apparently despite all the security measures. Small reactors, maybe even mobile, can only make this worse.

AFAIK nuclear has a better track record than fossil fuels or even hydro, as far as accidents go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents

Re: Canada begins Small Modular Reactor strategy roadmap

#14

Post by lucidguppy »

jfaucett wrote: post #12

What many people is this thread don't realize is that nuclear is by far the cleanest form of energy for the environment. It has no intermittancy problems like Wind and Solar. The process of building nuclear is extremely clean compared to building wind turbines and solar panels which devastate the environment due to the rare metals needed and production process. Its also vastly friendlier for humans and animals. The n…

I find it hard to look at nuclear when much of what is limiting solar and wind is political.

So far every nuclear accident we've seen are going to be around for forever timescales.

The US could have been at the forefront of solar and wind power but it continually tries to push coal.

Re: Canada begins Small Modular Reactor strategy roadmap

#15

Post by rubber_duck »

bayesian_horse wrote: post #10
detritus wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll readily admit I'm no nuclear physicist, but even I'm not so ignorant as to smear negative broadbrush appraisals reactionarily simply because I read 'teh nukular' in an article. In fact, small format nuclear offers a decent chance at bridging the (frankly archaic in my opinion) second and third generation reactors with fourth generation and beyond. Small format allows for quicker iteration and greater distributio…

As I said, new technologies might change that assessment, but these technologies are not even on the horizon yet. The problem with nuclear waste, however, very much exists already. And there is no mention that these SMR create less nuclear waste or that they can't be turned into weapons grade material. Certainly even the fissile material in an SMR would be enough for a dirty bomb out of hell. Let alone the material y…

The ammount of effort required to steal fissile material from multiple reactors, without anyone figuring it out long enough to detonate and being caught, just to make a dirty bomb ? With what estimated impact ?

Re: Canada begins Small Modular Reactor strategy roadmap

#16

Post by jfaucett »

lucidguppy wrote: post #14
jfaucett wrote: post #12

What many people is this thread don't realize is that nuclear is by far the cleanest form of energy for the environment. It has no intermittancy problems like Wind and Solar. The process of building nuclear is extremely clean compared to building wind turbines and solar panels which devastate the environment due to the rare metals needed and production process. Its also vastly friendlier for humans and animals. The n…

I find it hard to look at nuclear when much of what is limiting solar and wind is political. So far every nuclear accident we've seen are going to be around for forever timescales. The US could have been at the forefront of solar and wind power but it continually tries to push coal.

Please note though that the "forever" timescale becomes harmless for all intents and purposes relatively quickly. So IMHO and I don't really know the cause, this conception we have of nuclear is a really uninformed one. See: https://www.quora.com/How-long-does-nuclear-fallout-last

Re: Canada begins Small Modular Reactor strategy roadmap

#17

Post by Zigurd »

gambiting wrote: post #11
cperciva wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear accidents happen, yes... at power plants with designs which were outlawed on safety grounds 40 years ago. If you want to prevent nuclear accidents, you should be supporting attempts to build new reactors, because that's the fastest route to getting the old ones decommissioned.

Exactly. It's an almost catch-22 situation: old reactors are unsafe, so people protest building new ones, which would make the old ones obsolete and make the whole technology safer.

Not really a catch-22: The chicken was supposedly declared safe before it laid those radioactive eggs. And if the designs and siting were subsequently found to be unsafe, why are those reactors re-certified as safe? The nuclear power industry has only itself to blame for costs and safety.

Re: Canada begins Small Modular Reactor strategy roadmap

#18

Post by amelius »

jfaucett wrote: post #16
lucidguppy wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it hard to look at nuclear when much of what is limiting solar and wind is political. So far every nuclear accident we've seen are going to be around for forever timescales. The US could have been at the forefront of solar and wind power but it continually tries to push coal.

Please note though that the "forever" timescale becomes harmless for all intents and purposes relatively quickly. So IMHO and I don't really know the cause, this conception we have of nuclear is a really uninformed one. See: https://www.quora.com/How-long-does-nuclear-fallout-last

See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16500964

"Today, the liveliness of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki serves as a reminder not only of the human ability to regenerate, but also of the extent to which fear and misinformation can lead to incorrect expectations. After the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, many thought that any city targeted by an atomic weapon would become a nuclear wasteland. While the immediate aftermath of the atomic bombings was horrendous and nightmarish, with innumerable casualties, the populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not allow their cities to become the sort of wasteland that some thought was inevitable. This experience of can serve as lesson in the present when much of the public and even some governments have reacted radically to the accident in Fukushima--in the midst of tragedy, there remains hope for the future."

Re: Canada begins Small Modular Reactor strategy roadmap

#19

Post by gambiting »

Zigurd wrote: post #17
gambiting wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. It's an almost catch-22 situation: old reactors are unsafe, so people protest building new ones, which would make the old ones obsolete and make the whole technology safer.

Not really a catch-22: The chicken was supposedly declared safe before it laid those radioactive eggs. And if the designs and siting were subsequently found to be unsafe, why are those reactors re-certified as safe? The nuclear power industry has only itself to blame for costs and safety.

Because the identified issues have been rectified - but the fixes add to the complexity and you are always relying on a fix to make it safe - while newer designs(pebble bed reactors) are inherently safe.
Post reply on HN