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

Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

cbc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 323 posts

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#21

Post by killjoywashere »

The topic is small modular reactors, which are defined as reactors producing less than 300 MW.

The Voyager RTGs generate "a few hundred watts" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_ge...).

The Virginia class submarines use a GE S9G, which produces 150 MWt. Power output is a mix of electric and shaft torque (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S9G_reactor)

The Los Angeles class submarines use a GE S6G, which produces 165 MWt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S6G_reactor), power output is a mix of electric and shaft torque.

The Ohio class submarine uses an S6G, rated at 220 MWt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S8G_reactor).

The Nimitz class aircraft carrier use two Westinghouse A4Ws, which produce 550 MWt each (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A4W_reactor). Power output is a mix of electric and shaft torque.

Chernobyl had 4 RBMK-1000 reactors which produced 3200 MWt each producing 1000 MWe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK)

Hinkley Point B has 2 reactors at 2 x 1494 MWt, 2 x 655 MWe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_B_Nuclear_Power_...)

Fukushima has multiple reactors, mainly four 784 MWe GE BWRs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Powe...).

So, you're looking pretty solidly at things on the scale of a fast attack submarine after shielding, turbine, management and maintenance systems, etc.

These are of course not on Wikipedia's list of SMR designs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_small_modular_reactor_...

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#23

Post by StillBored »

thawaway1837 wrote: post #15
StillBored wrote: post #3

A few years ago Toshiba was going to build a small reactor in Alaska. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galena_Nuclear_Power_Plant But it got canceled, and for the life of me I can't understand why anyone thinks its better to truck in heavy fuel oil for generators vs having a small reactor buried in the ground for 30 years. I've been saying for a few years now that green energy only advocates are basically on the side of…

Only if the “green energy” people actually had that much power... In reality there are 2 forces that have stopped nuclear. NIMBYism. And terrible economics. But the green energy people are an easy punching bag for the nuclear advocates who are simply unwilling to face up to the reality of why nuclear keeps failing to take off.

The costs to built the plants dominates the price. Once built the actual operation and fueling costs are best in class https://www.expressnews.com/business/eagle-ford-energy/artic...

The majority of the cost to build the plants are due to the crazy uncertainty about the design/build timeline every-time one is built. Given that conceptually they aren't any more complex than your average coal plant those costs are massively over inflated by a number of factors. Frankly if there was a COTS design pre-certified, then it might be possible to wipe out a huge fraction of the built cost.

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#24

Post by pvaldes »

eigenspace wrote: post #12
pvaldes wrote: post #4

A nuclear reactor designed so small that can be placed in School Gyms. The phrase says all. It seems that shootings at schools are not longer exciting enough for the three men in the photo. They could also place dynamite under the basement and a big red button in the main entrance with a "do not push" sign. Adolescents love a defy.

I can’t tell if you’re trolling or not, but I’m just going to assume you’re being sincere. Nothing about that quote suggests they want nuclear reactors in schools. They’re just trying to give a sense of size. Also, Canada has had very, very few school shootings.

The exact phrase "Some SMR designs are small enough to fit in a gymnasium" appears in www.canada.ca, a Canadian government web page that explains the project. Is not what a random journalist just said. Is the idea that the Canadian government is carefully trying to introduce.

I'm not so naive. Is obvious that the politicians had though previously about using that in public spaces.

Mixing unstable radioactive atoms (now in packages "easy to transport", ehem... steal?, none less) with unstable young humans full of hormones, videogames and relationship drama (including typically cases of bullying and romantic disasters) and doing that mix in one of the places that some young dislike the most; is one of the most stupid ideas that I had seen in my entire life. Point. IMHO those three men are a public danger for everybody.

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#25

Post by Tostino »

Ididntdothis wrote: post #17
StillBored wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A huge part of that is all the lawsuits and "regulations" designed to keep new plants from being built. Regulations pushed for by the green energy constituency... I'm all for safety but if you read some of the regulation stories we would be banning CT scanners from hospitals..

Fukushima was a good reminder that these “regulations” exist for good reason.

I highly doubt the regulations the GP is referencing would have anything to do with preventing an accident like Fukushima.

Regulations are not inherently bad, but they can be used in negative ways by those in power.

The devil is in the details, and we'll written and though out regulations are a great thing and are absolutely necessary for society to function. It's easy for the public to lose track and conflate good regulations with regulations that are poorly written, have intentional loopholes, or are mean to stifle an industry or technology by protecting the entrenched players.

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#26

Post by ekianjo »

marcosdumay wrote: post #19
StillBored wrote: post #3

A few years ago Toshiba was going to build a small reactor in Alaska. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galena_Nuclear_Power_Plant But it got canceled, and for the life of me I can't understand why anyone thinks its better to truck in heavy fuel oil for generators vs having a small reactor buried in the ground for 30 years. I've been saying for a few years now that green energy only advocates are basically on the side of…

Small nuclear plants are actually something that can possibly help (differently from the large ones). But I doubt anybody will get the costs down enough to make them viable, wind and solar are power horses. It's like creating a non-mainstream computer architecture at the 90's and early 00's, it won't improve fast enough to even match their speed. About emissions, coal is responsible for a huge share of emissions on e…

> will get the costs down enough to make them viable, wind and solar are power horses.

Except in areas where you don't have much sunlight or much wind exposure, and both of these sources of energies require huge land occupation which is not ideal either. Energy-density wise you can't really beat nuclear.

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#27

Post by akiselev »

StillBored wrote: post #23
thawaway1837 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if the “green energy” people actually had that much power... In reality there are 2 forces that have stopped nuclear. NIMBYism. And terrible economics. But the green energy people are an easy punching bag for the nuclear advocates who are simply unwilling to face up to the reality of why nuclear keeps failing to take off.

The costs to built the plants dominates the price. Once built the actual operation and fueling costs are best in class https://www.expressnews.com/business/eagle-ford-energy/artic... The majority of the cost to build the plants are due to the crazy uncertainty about the design/build timeline every-time one is built. Given that conceptually they aren't any more complex than your average coal plant those costs are mass…

>> NIMBYism

> The majority of the cost to build the plants are due to the crazy uncertainty about the design/build timeline every-time one is built. Given that conceptually they aren't any more complex than your average coal plant those costs are massively over inflated by a number of factors. Frankly if there was a COTS design pre-certified, then it might be possible to wipe out a huge fraction of the built cost.

NIMBYism is a large reason why the risks are so uncertain and the costs so high. When dozens of judges at several levels have jurisdiction to require expensive and time consuming state/federal EPA, zoning, air quality, shading, etc. reviews and plaintiffs can use delay tactics to block appeals to those rulings, you get lots of uncertainty and expense.

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#28

Post by StillBored »

marcosdumay wrote: post #19
StillBored wrote: post #3

A few years ago Toshiba was going to build a small reactor in Alaska. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galena_Nuclear_Power_Plant But it got canceled, and for the life of me I can't understand why anyone thinks its better to truck in heavy fuel oil for generators vs having a small reactor buried in the ground for 30 years. I've been saying for a few years now that green energy only advocates are basically on the side of…

Small nuclear plants are actually something that can possibly help (differently from the large ones). But I doubt anybody will get the costs down enough to make them viable, wind and solar are power horses. It's like creating a non-mainstream computer architecture at the 90's and early 00's, it won't improve fast enough to even match their speed. About emissions, coal is responsible for a huge share of emissions on e…

I think you under-estimate the amount of CO2 produced by a NG plant simply because its 2x-4x less than coal.

Put another way, adding 60% renewable to NG only 1/2's the CO2 output. At the rate of consumption growth your still increasing the total C02 footprint year over year. Plus, that solution is literally 2x-3x the CO2 footprint vs the french solution put in place 40 years ago.

Explained another way, going to renewable+NG only buys you about a decade in CO2 emission reduction. If everyone magically fit that formula today, it would be the equivalent of 2009, a far cry from where we need to be. Worse, you still have the problem that you need to convert all the automobile/planes/tractors/etc somehow. Without super cheap electricity that process is going to be much slower than it needs to be. What you need is electricity so cheap that it can compensate for the inefficiencies producing hydro-carbon sources for planes and other applications where the battery technology isn't even possible with infinite economic solutions. The _ONLY_ solution we have today is fission and a reduction in the build price forced in place by COTs and precerification.

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#29

Post by ekianjo »

Ididntdothis wrote: post #17
StillBored wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A huge part of that is all the lawsuits and "regulations" designed to keep new plants from being built. Regulations pushed for by the green energy constituency... I'm all for safety but if you read some of the regulation stories we would be banning CT scanners from hospitals..

Fukushima was a good reminder that these “regulations” exist for good reason.

> Fukushima was a good reminder that these “regulations” exist for good reason.

As if the Japanese nuclear market was deregulated? Japan is a developed country that loves bureaucracy so don't be afraid, there is plenty of regulation in every sector here.

Re: Canadian provinces band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

#30

Post by ekianjo »

moltar wrote: post #22

Not sure what they are gonna research, but my understanding that the problem is not a tech one, but a NIMBY one.

Canada is pretty empty (huge area and low density of people) so wouldn't that be easy to find a place where the NIMBY problem is non-existent?
Post reply on HN