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

361–370 of 500 posts

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

#361

Post by pfdietz »

486sx33 wrote: post #117
jtbayly wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More renewables means the need for more base load? This is the first I’ve seen anybody say that.

It shouldn’t be the first time, this is what natural gas peaker plants have been about for 20 years. Solar and wind can’t sync the grid, they require sync or the grid collapses. Sync (Hz) can only be provided by base load that quickly spin up or down to balance out the frequency of the grid

> Solar and wind can’t sync the grid

Grid-forming inverters, particularly with batteries, can totally do this job.

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

#362

Post by protocolture »

awesome_dude wrote: post #321
roenxi wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I keep coming back to this to reply but I cant really figure out how to tackle it. Theres so much of a particular view of the world in each statement. The problem you're running in to is most likely that you asked someone to define a subjective measure. What you then bump into with the anti-nuclear crowd is safety has one standard for most things and then a different, inconsistent standard when "nuclear" gets menti…

I love how the pro nuclear crowd deals in misinformation to denigrate anyone that dares not agree with them. They asked for my standard - despite it being a tactic to try and throw the thread, they got their reply and then complained. You decided a pile on was appropriate with some wild theories that only live in your imagination.

>they got their reply and then complained.

I did complain, and I tried to help frame things up for you a bit.

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

#363

Post by pfdietz »

PaulHoule wrote: post #353
kelseydh wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exciting development. I really wish somebody would nail a commercially viable Thorium reactor but it seems there are real engineering complications around scaling molten salt reactors.

I was at the first Thorium energy conference and presented a timeline for reactor development based on the timeline Oak Ridge had in the 1970s. I was still surprised that the Chinese nailed it! These days I am more excited about Plutonium cycle reactors using chloride salts because they fix the problems of the FBR (occupational safety in fuel fabrication for one) and the fluoride salt reactors (having to dispose of u…

It requires chlorine isotope separation or else you make Cl-36, a beta emitter with a half-life of 300,000 years.

Moltex got around this in their concept by only using chloride salts inside the fuel tubes; the surrounding sterile molten salt was a fluoride. Being sterile, the oxidation potential of the fluoride salt could be kept low enough to be compatible with stainless steel.

(Moltex ran out of money last year, I've read, and has been selling its IP as distressed assets.)

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

#364

Post by myrmidon »

_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 change: Because those goals are far from met and much more urgent.

Those subgroups tend to have a very different outlook on nuclear energy: Nonsustainable superfund sites in the making for the first group, and highly useful emission stopgap for the second...

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

#365

Post by WhereIsTheTruth »

That's fire! pun intended, IYKYK

Jokes aside, Canada is well positioned to lead a nuclear renaissance, now that they have easy access to raw materials, easy access to cooling facilities and they can export surplus to energy hungry neighbor, it also makes it a good candidate for hosting lots of datacenters

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

#366

Post by mixdup »

drysine wrote: post #262
OJFord wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Standardizing doesn't mean you never change, but there is a middle ground between the current design is locked in stone forever vs. every plant is completely bespoke with no interchangeable parts and operationally different

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

#367

Post by mpweiher »

AngryData wrote: post #108
pfisch wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chernobyl was almost the largest disaster in all of history. I'm not saying nuclear reactors are unsafe now, but the reality is that a true disaster at a nuclear power plant literally means the end of huge amounts of land, enough to end entire countries or large parts of continents. You can't say things like that about walking or other types of transport...

To be fair Chernobyl was designed what, 15 years after the invention of nuclear technology? Even discounting all the politicial and management control problems, the engineering and scientific knowledge of nuclear reactor design was still in its infancy. Imagine if we judged the safety of automobiles on pre-Model-T cars. Or steam boilers and engines on the first 20 yearrs of their invention.

It's even worse: the problems of that reactor type were, in fact, well-known at the time.

Which is one of the reasons that reactor would never have gotten an operating license in any western country. Oh, and not having any containment.

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

#368

Post by blitzar »

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…

Winter district heating would be the icing on the cake.

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

#369

Post by tranceylc »

novok wrote: post #206
mixdup wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I mean obviously each one would be managed on its own to an extent but one big problem we have in the US at least is that we build so few reactors that each one is bespoke. They may be based generally on certain designs but they will vary enough that operators and maintenance engineers have to train and be certified on each one, and that training and certification does not carry over to any other facility. Parts…

Could be a good way to kickstart a canadian nuclear industry that would expand into the US, exploiting the a big thing the US is bad at, coordinating infrastructure projects with multiple government groups, not making infrastructure builds incredibly overpriced and take an incredible amount of time and not being hyper litigious.

Are you also Canadian? I only ask because I feel expensive and overdue infrastructure is already something we (canada) suck at

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

#370

Post by kspacewalk2 »

novok wrote: post #206
mixdup wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I mean obviously each one would be managed on its own to an extent but one big problem we have in the US at least is that we build so few reactors that each one is bespoke. They may be based generally on certain designs but they will vary enough that operators and maintenance engineers have to train and be certified on each one, and that training and certification does not carry over to any other facility. Parts…

Could be a good way to kickstart a canadian nuclear industry that would expand into the US, exploiting the a big thing the US is bad at, coordinating infrastructure projects with multiple government groups, not making infrastructure builds incredibly overpriced and take an incredible amount of time and not being hyper litigious.

Canada is not even a little bit better at the big thing, and it may be worse. Same ailment, basically. Better look to countries like Spain and Japan for inspiration on how to deliver very big projects on time and on budget.
Post reply on HN