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

31–40 of 52 posts

Re: Canada begins Small Modular Reactor strategy roadmap

#31

Post by hutzlibu »

bayesian_horse wrote: post #8
hutzlibu wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you do prefer a big reactor blowing up, instead of a small one? No I know, you fear, that this increases the number of reactors dramatically and therefore the likely hood and number of accidents.. but don't you think nuclear is a better alternative to coal etc. while we are switching to regenerative energy's? Because we still need at least backup power plants for a while, due to the non constant nature of wind and…

Yes, I actually prefer to keep the nuclear stuff in a limited number of places. That makes supervision a lot easier, and stealing nuclear material a lot harder. Much more, I prefer not adding to the nuclear waste we already don't know how to deal with. Fossil energy is preferable to nuclear, and the volatility of wind or solar energy is much less of a problem than people think. Especially with newer technologies to e…

"we already don't know how to deal with"

Yes we do. We store it, until we can use it. And even if we can never use it, which is very unlikely, in the core of the earth is already much, much more radioactive material, so adding a tiny bit to that, is not a big problem "as people think".

And as far as I know, there is a great deal of work to be done to upgrade the power grid, for 100% wind/solar. And much more needed storage capacity, than we currently have. And storing electricity is expensive, no matter how we do it. And unless there is really abundance of solar energy from the deserts for example, this is a real problem, since we still live in a money based economy, last time I checked.

And even if we have abundance of solar desert power ... that makes you also very dependent on it, and vulnerable to a attack on those lines for example, which is why I see small nuclear reactors even in that scenario helpful, for emergency backup.

Re: Canada begins Small Modular Reactor strategy roadmap

#32

Post by jiojfekjl »

amelius wrote: post #18
jfaucett wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Ok, but more than 30 years after the Chernobyl disaster, it's still not safe to live in Pripyat. Worker's are limited to spending no more than 5 consecutive hours on site.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/ukrai...

So yeah. Foreverish.

Re: Canada begins Small Modular Reactor strategy roadmap

#33

Post by eumenides1 »

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…

Again you are trying to broad brush the argument as the parent comment has already stated.

How do we get better nuclear technology? we iterate on it. SMR are an iteration to solve flaws in the previous versions. A quick wiki search indicates that they are designed to create less waste because of their higher burn-up rates. So yes, technology is on the horizon. Consider changing your assessment.

Nuclear waste? Some SMRs are also breeder reactors which convert fissionable materials into usable fuels. Consider changing your assessment.

The security issue is another board brush attempt to continue to scare people away from nuclear power. SMR inputs and output are not desired for weapons production because they are consider low-enrichment. And once fuel has been irradiated, it requires special handling for safety. So you'll probably die before you'll make your dirty bomb. Consider changing your assessment.

If you really wanted to attack SMRs, you really should say that, SMRs are "small" so they don't generate a lot of energy and have to be placed in many locations. This can multiply problems that exist. But that doesn't mean they won't have significant security, that is an (incorrect) assumption on your part. Consider changing your assessment.

Look, I don't expect to change your assessment, but I wanted to thank you for bringing me to read about SMRs. I learned a lot and had fun. I think SMRs are interesting and try to solve real problems with previous generations of nuclear energy. The addition of SMRs just add to what I believe will the best future for humanity, having a diverse and varied options of generating energy.

Re: Canada begins Small Modular Reactor strategy roadmap

#34

Post by twothamendment »

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.

There are places where solar makes sense and places where it doesn't. When I lived in Utah, entire neighborhoods were covering their roofs with solar. Now I'm a lot farther North, almost Canada. Between the clouds and short daylight hours, solar doesn't make any sense at all for at least 6 months out of the year. I've been watching the percentage of sun received over the winter. Many days you can add all the hours of the day and not come up with as much energy as a single summer hour.

To see Canada look to nuclear isn't a surprise.

Re: Canada begins Small Modular Reactor strategy roadmap

#35

Post by wiz21c »

lukeschlather wrote: post #21
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 think you need to look at the research and data that have accumulated over the past 5 years. Nuclear seemed like a great investment 5 years ago, but there have been big changes. Not only are solar/wind safer and cleaner, paired with modern battery storage they are now considerably cheaper and more effective at providing base load. And prices are still going down, while nuclear prices are if anything increasing.

>>> the research and data that have accumulated over the past 5 years.

Any pointers ?

Re: Canada begins Small Modular Reactor strategy roadmap

#36

Post by yazan94 »

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

Maybe it is uninformed, but the media certainly doesn't help in it's coverage of nuclear disasters. Speaking as someone with very little understanding of nuclear physics and energy, how it seems like nuclear power plants are amazing right up until they don't work (see Fukashima, 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl) or the fuel rods are spent. We still don't have long-term nuclear waste storage plans other than cordoning off certain areas and burying the spent fuel underground[1]. From the same article, nuclear plants have massive 'ponds' 7-12 meters deep that store highly radioactive spent fuel rods for a few years until they reduce their reactivity and heat to something more manageable before disposing of them. When decommissioning a nuclear station, what do we do with that water when in the meantime? Especially if it really is true that a nuclear plant's lifetime is on the order of 50 years[2].

Don't get me wrong, maybe nuclear is the optimal answer to Earth's energy needs. But also, maybe the tech is just not there yet, and certainly the media's fear-mongering needs to be more tempered and more informative to allow public acceptance of nuclear. Otherwise we will probably still keep getting NIMBY responses

[1] http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fue...

[2] https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.htm...

Re: Canada begins Small Modular Reactor strategy roadmap

#37

Post by aquadrop »

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…

Yes, it's ironic that greenpeace was created to battle nuclear, but if they didn't fight it, we'd probably have much more advanced nuclear tech with almost zero waste, and hence much cleaner world.

Re: Canada begins Small Modular Reactor strategy roadmap

#38

Post by Caveman_Coder »

eyrarric wrote: post #26
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.

It is only because on the insistence of Admiral Hyman G. Rickover than Pressurized water reactors (PWRs) constitute a majority of all western nuclear power plants. He rejected "crazy thermodynamic cycles that everyone else wants to build". So we got stuck with PWR inherent flaws. Check "The Rickover Effect: How One Man Made a Difference" ( http://bit.ly/2FiJQ1u )

I loved that book! Excellent recommendation. If you want a good intro to non-PWR nuclear power technologies, I'd highly recommend "SuperFuel: Thorium, the Green Energy Source for the Future" by Richard Martin.

Re: Canada begins Small Modular Reactor strategy roadmap

#40

Post by Turbots »

jiojfekjl wrote: post #32
amelius wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Ok, but more than 30 years after the Chernobyl disaster, it's still not safe to live in Pripyat. Worker's are limited to spending no more than 5 consecutive hours on site. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/ukrai... So yeah. Foreverish.

I've been to pripyat last year and was there all day. People work there for 6 months on end and indeed, going extremely close to the reactor shouldn't be done for hours on end. The area around is already quite clean
Post reply on HN