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

431–440 of 500 posts

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

#431

Post by xethos »

ta20240528 wrote: post #388
mixdup wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing about the 737 MAX situation had anything to do with the fact that it was standardized and every plane wasn't bespoke. That is a weird thing to compare this to. You could absolutely still screw it up if you were designing each reactor from scratch every time

Huh, a lot on the 737 Max situation was due to standardisation. Boeing didn't want the time, expense, and hassle of certifying (= standardising) a new narrow-body aeroplane, so they continued to reuse the FAA type certificate (= standardised design) of the original 737 from 1966. This meant they had to keep, inter alia, the short landing gear, which in turn made the wings lower to the ground, which forced them to pos…

The fact that every 737 MAX was the samew design also means that, upon rcognizing the flaw, every one could be grounded and fixed properly. We did not have to verify 15 different designs were all vulnerable due to Boeing trying to nickel and dime their customers (by making the third sensor esssentially a paid upgrade/addon)

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

#432

Post by xethos »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #352
magicalist wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, in Denmark[1] a solar-dominated grid would cost around 565 EUR/MWh. A nuclear-dominated grid would cost around 141 EUR/MWh. That's not what it says. It says that would be the cost assuming the current grid and power came from only solar or only nuclear. The majority of the cost then is for overprovisioning and storage, especially to handle the lack of sun in the winter. The actual low cost power comes…

Battery and storage tech is improving and innovating all the time. It also has a fast build cycle. Commissioning reactors that won't come online for 10-15 years makes no sense at all, economically and practically.

> Commissioning reactors that won't come online for 10-15 years makes no sense at all, economically and practically.

Because we won't need base load in 15 years? Or because you're arguing that we'll have so many batteries, and they'll be so cheap, and they'll be so over-provisioned regarding summer/winter variance, that we won't be able to sell excess nuclear power to the states?

Personally, I wouldn't make either bet, no matter what odds you give me

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

#433

Post by xp84 »

garbagewoman wrote: post #139
xp84 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All forms of generation have downsides. > Canada needs new power now. Not 15-20 years from now, Building nuclear doesn't stop you from building whatever else you want. Though I assume that Canada being Canada, it'll take 15 years just to complete the requisite negotiations with every indigenous tribe and to arrive at a settlement with whatever environmental and assorted NIMBY groups are already warming up their lawsu…

You think they shouldn’t negotiate with native tribes?

Did the native tribes negotiate with whoever they last defeated? Or did Europeans literally invent the concept of conflict and war, and all the tribes of North America just filed into America in an orderly fashion and never battled each other?

I'm not saying every square mile of land in Canada, America, Europe has been controlled by at least two distinct tribes or nations, and been fought over at some point since the dawn of man, however I would say that most desirable land probably has. Many cultures have been partly or fully wiped out over human history. It's sad in all cases, but I'm not convinced there's any purpose served by arbitrarily elevating some of those cultures as noble and deserving of special veto power.

Note: I acknowledge that regardless of the above, Canada has formally granted them such powers anyway, so, yep, they get to live in that system they've created.

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

#434

Post by zdragnar »

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.

You accuse the "nuclear crowd" of dealing in misinformation while suggesting yucca mountain isn't a safe storage site because of plate tectonics, which is a total non-issue, or as you call it, "some wild theories that only live in your imagination."

This whole thread is wild.

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

#435

Post by xp84 »

pfdietz wrote: post #407
troupo wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the case for nuclear requires one to assume that the competing technologies stop their rapid advance. 1. No, it doesn't 2. Other tech has to actually show this rapid advance, and not be the permanent state of fiction 3. You assume that nuclear is incapable of advances > But making this bet, that renewables will suddenly come up short, that the experience curves will suddenly break their historic trends on the log-l…

> 1. No, it doesn't It does, for the reason I gave. You didn't give a reason why not. > 2. Other tech has to actually show this rapid advance, and not be the permanent state of fiction Incredibly, you seem unaware of just how rapidly the cost of solar and wind and batteries have dropped. If we project the demonstrated experience curve of PV forward another five doublings or so, PV energy will be delivered at under $0…

> nuclear hasn't been very good at delivering them quickly or economically, unlike renewables and storage.

Kind of circular reasoning / begging the question here, since in North America we essentially stopped building nuclear over 35 years ago.[1] We stopped because people were scared of nuclear, and thus a ton of regulatory roadblocks were increased, making it uneconomic. Note that the changes in regulations post-1986 were not new regulations to improve the safety of plants, rather, they were increased environmental review burdens, state-level moratoria and voter approval requirements -- populist measures designed to do exactly what they did do: kill nuclear.[2]

So, we've chosen to not build any reactors anymore, which means comparatively little advancement is happening (since who would invest in that when no one is soliciting bids for a new plant), and then we're saying "See, nuclear isn't advancing, so we shouldn't invest in it."

[1] https://insideclimatenews.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/USN...

[2] The 1990s saw much lower growth of electricity demand, too, so few new plants were needed during that decade, and by the time more capacity was needed, cheap shale gas drove the rest of the nails in the nuclear coffin. Of course, anti-nuclear activists who are also anti-carbon-emissions activists shouldn't count that as a win.

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

#436

Post by mpweiher »

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…

That is an obviously mis-designed "market" as it only prices in marginal costs. This worked when most if not all producers actually were reliable. It doesn't work when you have a high share of intermittents.

For mis-designed electricity markets, see also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000–2001_California_electrici...

It can be fixed easily by giving priority to reliable producers and only allowing intermittent producers in once the reliable producers are used up.

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

No. It is actually essential, because intermittent renewables cannot reliably supply electricity, yet we need reliable electricity supply.

Intermittents are not baseload technology, because they cannot reliably supply electricity when needed.

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

#437

Post by themaninthedark »

crote wrote: post #224
AngryData wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What's the worst accident involving a Model T, maybe a dozen dead? Early steam boilers aren't going to be much worse either. Nuclear accidents are essentially unlimited in size. Nothing else can do that kind of country-sized - let alone it being permanent . Chernobyl showed the potential impact. Fukushima showed that even several decades down the line things can still rapidly run out of control. All the knowledge and…

Steam boilers have a lot of regulation, all written in blood. Entire boats would explode killing most/all onboard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_boiler_explosions

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

#438

Post by roenxi »

myrmidon wrote: post #392
peterfirefly wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Everything that exists for a reason; the question is whether the reason is good. We've spent decades being told that climate change is going to cost us percentages of GDP to avoid, and your first counterexample is the suggestion that mitigations might be in the billions for the US over the course of a century.

One of those numbers is bigger than the other; and it favours nuclear pretty decisively. The regulations set up an environment where business as usual appears to be worse than if actual unlikely nuclear catastrophe occurred, all the air pollution in the interim and the reduced access to cheap abundant energy are real problems that have real consequences.

Whoever accepted those reasons has blood on their hands, so well might they be called "bloody reasons". The consequences have been serious and terrible even before getting in to oil-related resource wars and the like.

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

#439

Post by novok »

tranceylc wrote: post #369
novok wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Vancouver vs. the bay area is my current example, or california HSR general, or the billion dollar pedestrian tunnel in new york, and just the general level of shabby of everything compared to canada in public infra at least.

You have to realize that the dollar bill for equivalent infra in the USA is much, much higher even though it feels more expensive in canada relative to it's income

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

#440

Post by rgmerk »

stinkbeetle wrote: post #293
rgmerk wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You pay for it. There is - arguably a case for nuclear power in cold miserable places like Canada or Northern Europe because solar - by far the cheapest form of renewable energy, and still with a substantial runway to get cheaper - produces the least amount of energy precisely when those places need it most. Australia, being a warm, sunny place, has far less seasonal variation in solar production, and at worst bas a…

A biogas turbine for the last few percent of demand?? Peak electricity demand occurs when solar generation has dropped to nearly zero. It's not the last few percent, it's the last 90 something percent demand. This is the entire problem with solar (and wind, though slightly different patterns). If you're going to "they should just" it, you really need to know at least that. It's just a hard problem even in Australia.…

The evening peak is well on its way to being a solved problem in Australia.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/big-batteries-took-a-bite-out-of...

And average prices in the Australian national electricity market are going down as a result:

https://www.aemo.com.au/newsroom/media-release/renewables-li...

Post reply on HN