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

461–470 of 500 posts

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

#461

Post by Moldoteck »

loloquwowndueo wrote: post #61
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…

You’re missing the point which is to create jobs, it’s what the Canadian government is pushing really hard for now, with all the infrastructure projects it’s launching. Something that will need people working on building for 15 years sounds about right for what government is doing now.

you can create even more jobs with ren. But not all jobs are the same. With ren you compete with China. With nuclear - you are somewhat protected since many don't like the idea of a hualong near them

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

#462

Post by Moldoteck »

nomel wrote: post #132
preisschild wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately its just a small boiling water reactor. More capacity is needed in most parts of the world. Lager reactors are needed.

> Larger reactors are needed. Genuine question: Why? Why not many smaller reactors? Small modular reactors seem pretty neat. Is there an efficiency loss/total cost difference with smaller reactors?

because opex is cheaper. Modularity can be achieved in large units too

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

#463

Post by Moldoteck »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #310
fsh wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like most industrial sites, large reactors are much more economical than small ones. This is why nobody has built SMRs since the 1950s.

Is that actual cost or projected cost because right now large reactors look prohibitively expensive meanwhile as you say we haven't really tried building SMR's on a production line. Meanwhile Sweden is putting its money where its mouth is: https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press-releases/2026/15-06-...

It's less about money and more about timeline risks. Canada's BWRX will cost per MW by plan more than French flamanville with all delays. But unlike Flamanville it has chances to be put on the grid faster

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

#464

Post by Moldoteck »

fsuts wrote: post #18

I’m not Canadian so news to me that Canada has built nuclear plants around the world. As in the UK we were previously asking a French-Chinese partnership to build here so not sure why Canada didn’t get chosen for that.

UK's regulations are so bad that even Hitachi pulled out from building ABWR

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

#465

Post by Moldoteck »

Jedd wrote: post #141

Perhaps relevant. 2005 ish - UK government release energy strategy and declares fission power plant intent. 2010 ish - UK government formally announces Hinkley Point site. It's declared the first reactor will come online 2019. 2019 - it does not. 2026 - best estimate is now 'around 2030'. Historical cost estimates are an utter quagmire - but roughly estimated at £18 billion a decade ago, back when it was estimated to…

Also relevant - all recent Canadian refurbs were on time and budget

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

#466

Post by Moldoteck »

beloch wrote: post #253

>Unlike most other nuclear reactors, Candu reactors don't require enriched uranium. Ottawa says Western allies are turning away from Russia, one of the world's key suppliers of enriched uranium. Even if Canada winds up relying more on CANDU reactors than SMR's, there is a case to be made for enriching domestically. There are a lot of potential customers looking for a reliable, ethical supplier. Canada has the raw min…

Enrichment is already more or less done by Orano and Urenco. They could expand faster if assured that EU bans russian imports

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

#467

Post by Moldoteck »

rangestransform wrote: post #149

Maybe this would’ve made economic sense 20 or 40 years ago, but nuclear is too expensive now compared with renewables. I can’t help but think this is a covert plan to bcecome an “almost nuclear” state in response to threats from the US.

depends if you like gas/coal or not https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/DE/live/fifteen_min...

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

#468

Post by Moldoteck »

rireads wrote: post #402

Did people really forget just how much nuclear power sucks? Storage may not be a problem now but that's pushing the problem onto future generations yet again

it doesnt suck as much as fossils https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/DE/live/fifteen_min...

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

#470

Post by stinkbeetle »

rgmerk wrote: post #440
stinkbeetle wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

> 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...

You realize that doesn't address the sum of what I wrote though? That is batteries taking over from gas peaking. Fossil fuels sit somewhere north of 75% of national generation when the sun is down.

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

And electricity peaking is well suited to batteries because it is very high prices and not a long period. It's great if they can be used here to reduce prices, possibly they could be used independently of solar (though solar does make them a lot cheaper to charge).

But you presumably do understand how that is not removing fossil fuels from generation with just "solar and biogas turbines for a few % of peak", or no?

Post reply on HN