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

451–460 of 500 posts

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

#451

Post by Moldoteck »

stubish wrote: post #250
exmadscientist wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I will never understand why so many otherwise smart people keep trying to make nuclear happen in their minds. I don't really get this either. I've come to think that it comes down to two pieces. The easy piece is that some people don't seem to realize just how good renewable power sources have gotten in the last 10-20 years. Nuclear has simply been outcompeted in so many ways. But this happened pretty quickly, so n…

It is a political choice. Pro-nuclear propaganda in Australia is all about the long time frames, and the fossil fuels needed until they start coming online. Climate targets get to be pushed back, scrapping 2030 targets in favor of 2050 targets. It keeps coal, gas and oil money flowing for another generation. And the problem of actually building and paying for the nuclear power plants is also next generations problem,…

Canada has own supply chain and all recent refurbs were on time and budget.

Ironically, if SA contracted Korea for a npp (and if nuclear was legal there) at the same time as UAE, it'll probably be a net exporter of low carbon power by now.

Australia is expanding gas exploration even under current govt. Climate targets seem to be pushed back regardless

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

#452

Post by Moldoteck »

xp84 wrote: post #64
jmyeet wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the online obsession with nuclear power in spite of all the evidence that it's simply not economical. Canada needs new power now. Not 15-20 years from now, which is how long it takes to build a new nuclear power plant. And it can be done today, incrementally with renewable sources and before anyone screams "baseload", that's what batteries are for if it really comes down to it. Nuclear power is the…

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…

It could take much less in Canada. And recent refurbs being on time and budget are encouraging. We'll see in fact Canada's capacity to deliver sooner, but not in Canada - Romania already signed for Cernavoda expansion to a full 4 unit plant.

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

#453

Post by Moldoteck »

jmyeet wrote: post #126
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…

> Building nuclear doesn't stop you from building whatever else you want. If you build the solar and wind you don't need the nuclear. That's the point. > Also, you're predictably citing a couple of bad nuclear accidents, over like 70 years of nuclear generation. Here we go with hand-waving away all the uncomfortable counterexamples. It's hard to get exact numbers because of plant decmossioning and that some nuclear r…

You can see how you dont need nuclear with your strategy today in Germany https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/DE/live/fifteen_min...

TMI cleanup costed 1bn, so far lower than the secondary insurance amount. Fukushima cleanup will take less. Most exclusion areas were lifted (with delays but still). JP already wants to extract unmelted fuel elements to gain xp to later do it with the rest. Ukraine is less lucky - recent russian strikes destroyed part of the equipment meant to extract corium.

Germany spent so far on EEG alone double the cost of entire french fleet. You can see the results. Not just financial https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10640-025-01002-z

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

#454

Post by Moldoteck »

pfdietz wrote: post #344
troupo wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Like Germany: coal and the energy provided by the rest of the EU. So, from actual non-intermittent sources like checks notes nuclear?

No, nuclear is terrible for covering seasonality, since unless it's used with high capacity factor the cost per kWh skyrockets.

No, it's ok if you schedule maintenance during summer. And with more AC adoption you'll partially reduce this heavy swing. Nuclear at 60%cf is still economical. The problem arises if your plant takes 20y and 20bn to build

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

#455

Post by jibal »

_heimdall wrote: post #351
jibal wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article: "If our goal is to double our grid and build a low-carbon economy in less than 25 years, there is no credible plan to do that without nuclear energy and the clean, reliable baseload power it provides," Reduction in burning carbon and producing greenhouses is the number one concern of environmentalists and is a major driver of the increased acceptability of nuclear power production, especially if saf…

> Reduction in burning carbon and producing greenhouses is the number one concern of environmentalists and is a major driver of the increased acceptability of nuclear power production Right, and that's my point. The ability to make clean energy with nuclear is not a new idea, that was the argument for nuclear all along.

No, that was not your point. I refuted your claim "the general opinion on nuclear swing so far from environmental and safety concerns" -- it hasn't swung.

> The ability to make clean energy with nuclear is not a new idea, that was the argument for nuclear all along.

It was one argument at some point but hardly "the" argument "all along", nor the major argument, nor the primary motivating argument. The initial arguments were about "atoms for peace", electricity "too cheap to meter", and independence from foreign oil. Global warming wasn't even an issue until James Hanson's Congressional testimony in 1988.

I won't respond further.

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

#456

Post by Moldoteck »

markvdb wrote: post #97
stackghost wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chernobyl's reactors were fundamentally unsafe designs from an engineering perspective, to say nothing of the perverse incentives at play because of the Soviet political system. We've learned a lot since the RBMK was designed in the 1960s.

Not convinced. The problem is with the human layer of managing large complicated projects. Nuclear could become less unsafe once humanity has found ways not to go commity horrble violence every other generation.

Chernobyl was triggered by humans but the ultimate problem was it's design. And it shows - Fukushima was triggered by tsunami, but ultimate problem was again the design. But since the design was much better, the impact is much milder vs Chernobyl

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

#457

Post by Moldoteck »

markvdb wrote: post #266
stackghost wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Not convinced. What, if anything, would convince you?

Compact, mass produced nuclear energy projects with no nuclear proliferation risk and radioactive waste management time limited to less than one human generation's professional career span. That seems like a decent baseline to me. Not sure if fission will ever be able to reach that. Fusion perhaps? I'd certainly like to see that researched with high priority. In the short to medium term at the very least, I see more…

Proliferation is not much related to plants. It's cheaper to build a weapon with distributed enrichment capacity for uranium in some caves.

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

#458

Post by Moldoteck »

foobarian wrote: post #111
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...

Isn't that a little hyperbolic? Sure cancer rates will be elevated wherever the fallout blows but it's not going to end anything.

The problem is more about Chernobyl affecting global nuclear deployments imo

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

#459

Post by Moldoteck »

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).

it's one thing to have regulation that makes sense and it's another thing to have regulation that doesnt do much. UK is prime example with HPC

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

#460

Post by Moldoteck »

gottorf wrote: post #184
fooster wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another other things nuclear power plants don't take 15-20 to build in sensible economies. You also cannot use wind & solar + batteries to replace nuclear power.

Pre-Fukushima, the Koreans were able to pop out a gigawatt every 5 years or so. Things dramatically slowed down afterwards, so even they are not immune to whatever it is that makes constructing nuclear powerplants slow as all hell around the world. The Barakah plant in the UAE, built by the Koreans, took 9 years.

Barakah took about 8y/unit. But local projects are expected to take less. Part of the reason is precedent govts were willing to ditch the industry entirely like Germany
Post reply on HN