A first for Canada: New type of nuclear plant opening by 2028(theweathernetwork.com)
theweathernetwork.com
A first for Canada: New type of nuclear plant opening by 2028
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/en/news/climate/solutions/a-first-for-canada-new-type-of-nuclear-plant-opening-by-2028
392 comments
Takes too long to build fission plants to replace coal in the short term; easy to spin up lots of wind/solar. We've also got a ridiculous amount of renewable potential.
(I'm a candidate for the Fusion Party; we'd like to remove the ban on nuclear power in Australia because it would enable research)
(I'm a candidate for the Fusion Party; we'd like to remove the ban on nuclear power in Australia because it would enable research)
Having direct involvement in the wind industry... most plan -> completion developments take 5-10 years. heck even one from 2013 still hasnt had ground broken.
The main reason? NIMBYs. Loads of people go out to the countryside to retire. imagine what these retires would do if their picturesque landscape is now comprised of windfarms? and they dont have anything else to do to fill up their day?
The main reason? NIMBYs. Loads of people go out to the countryside to retire. imagine what these retires would do if their picturesque landscape is now comprised of windfarms? and they dont have anything else to do to fill up their day?
> Loads of people go out to the countryside to retire.
they imagine themselves wanting to go out to the country side to retire, but would find that living in remote places that doesn't have facilities to be poor quality life.
you want to travel to the countryside for leisure - may be even for extended vacation. But you will almost always want a "home base" in a big metropolitan area for when services are needed - such as medical or home helper etc.
they imagine themselves wanting to go out to the country side to retire, but would find that living in remote places that doesn't have facilities to be poor quality life.
you want to travel to the countryside for leisure - may be even for extended vacation. But you will almost always want a "home base" in a big metropolitan area for when services are needed - such as medical or home helper etc.
They don't just imagine themselves doing it, they actually do it, and then rail hard against wind farms.
I'm in Australia, you can listen to them on the radio (podcasts) complaining about the noise etc.
How do we find a balance between people's right to quiet enjoyment of their homes and other factors that affect the rest of society.
I'm in Australia, you can listen to them on the radio (podcasts) complaining about the noise etc.
How do we find a balance between people's right to quiet enjoyment of their homes and other factors that affect the rest of society.
Also when everyone moves to the countryside it isn't really the rural countryside anymore. It is just sprawl.
Can confirm NIMBYism is excessive in Australia, despite all the space.
Sure, I should have said _relatively_ easy. But see how much of a reaction you'd get to a fission power station (regardless of the rights and wrongs of it...).
Two words: Offshore wind.
offshore wind has even longer timescale and you still have local opposition from NIMBYs and you add local fishers and conservation activists (I remember one project off the coast of France that received opposition from the Sea Shepherd)
NIMBYs are jsut as much of a problem with nuclear because you need to run the generated electricity through power lines that may need to be constructed. Whose land are they running through?
Yup this has been a huge problem in Germany. Increasing transmission capacity between north Germany where all the wind resources are and south where the industry is has been fraught with obstacles by NIMBY's who don't like the power lines.
At least overhead lines are honest. I find the buried infrastructure harder to level in my brain.
You dislike water delivered in pipes that do not freeze? Where do you find overhead plumbing?
And, is the wiring in your house all exposed?
And, is the wiring in your house all exposed?
Yeah bad example, most wiring is visible in the house. But water pipes outside. You have a point. Weirdly cut an old buried feeder out the ground today.
The untidy assortment of cabling under the living room floor sends shivers through my spine even though that's hidden. I once was a cable guy.
The untidy assortment of cabling under the living room floor sends shivers through my spine even though that's hidden. I once was a cable guy.
I wouldn't have though that the power lines would be the biggest issue for nuclear power in regard to NIMBYs. And even then any generation method would require installing power lines...
How far though?
Here's a list of offshore windmill parks in the North Sea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_offshore_wind_farms_in.... The closest ones to my country are about 13 kilometers offshore.
Bonus numbers, the horizon 'drops off' at 5 KM distance, and modern windmills are about 300m high.
Bonus numbers, the horizon 'drops off' at 5 KM distance, and modern windmills are about 300m high.
If we'd started building reactors when we first said it'd take too long, we'd have all the reactors we need. Instead of saying it's going to take too long, let's just start :) we might surprise ourselves in a few years.
Did you spend the same amount of money on solar/wind instead? How did that turn out?
Why would I want to cover the entire desert with solar panels instead of having one neat little tube shaped steam box?
You know three nuclear power plants (spanning 19 reactors) in Ontario provide electricity for 9 million people? How many solar panels and wind turbines would you need to put in their place?
A solar PV facility must have an installed capacity of 3,300 MW and 5,400 MW to match a 1,000-MW nuclear facility’s output, requiring between 45 and 75 square miles of land cover. That's twice the size of Manhattan. [1] Ontario has a generating capacity of 13.5GWe of nuclear energy. That would be almost 1000 square miles of solar panel - 4x the city of Toronto.
I actually don't really care that nuclear's more expensive. It's the better option.
[1] https://www.nei.org/news/2015/land-needs-for-wind-solar-dwar...
You know three nuclear power plants (spanning 19 reactors) in Ontario provide electricity for 9 million people? How many solar panels and wind turbines would you need to put in their place?
A solar PV facility must have an installed capacity of 3,300 MW and 5,400 MW to match a 1,000-MW nuclear facility’s output, requiring between 45 and 75 square miles of land cover. That's twice the size of Manhattan. [1] Ontario has a generating capacity of 13.5GWe of nuclear energy. That would be almost 1000 square miles of solar panel - 4x the city of Toronto.
I actually don't really care that nuclear's more expensive. It's the better option.
[1] https://www.nei.org/news/2015/land-needs-for-wind-solar-dwar...
> Nuclear Energy Institute analysis has found
(And 2015)
Meanwhile, the Pavagada Solar Plant in India is rated at 2050 MW, with a footprint of 37 km^2, or 14 miles^2.
Though if you really want to compare like-for-like environments, I think a better comparison is the Noor Abu Dhabi, which is rated at 1177 MW with a footprint of 8 km^2, or 3 miles^2.
And of course that’s in addition to possibly of reaching a significant fraction of demand with rooftop PV, which is otherwise wasted space and which nuclear reactors can’t use.
Heck, you can put the PV onto the outside surfaces etc. of the nuclear reactor if you want. Or between the wind turbines.
(And 2015)
Meanwhile, the Pavagada Solar Plant in India is rated at 2050 MW, with a footprint of 37 km^2, or 14 miles^2.
Though if you really want to compare like-for-like environments, I think a better comparison is the Noor Abu Dhabi, which is rated at 1177 MW with a footprint of 8 km^2, or 3 miles^2.
And of course that’s in addition to possibly of reaching a significant fraction of demand with rooftop PV, which is otherwise wasted space and which nuclear reactors can’t use.
Heck, you can put the PV onto the outside surfaces etc. of the nuclear reactor if you want. Or between the wind turbines.
I have nothing against dollar but the way. I’m all for a mix of nuclear and renewables to effectively meet our energy demand. Nuclear is great for providing base load.
No, nuclear is actually not that great for that. You need a power source that is cheap to scale up to cover discrepancies between supply and demand. If you build nuclear capacity for that you might as well just run it all the time and not build renewables. Nuclear has very small marginal costs, but huge up front capital expenses. You really don't want to run it at 10% load most of the year to cover the times where neither the sun shines not the wind blows.
Indeed I was talking about using nuclear to provide a constant base load that you do not scale up and down. You use renewables for variable load.
But that ceases to make any sense the second you have renewables cheaper than nuclear. Then renewables start cutting into that base load as well, whenever they can.
Depends on your goals. Cost isn't the be-all, i'd rather have three nuclear plants than a thousand square miles blotted out by panels, for instance.
Cost is extremely important, though. Energy costs propagate everywhere. Want to make some aluminium? That costs a lot of electricity. Want to serve some data? Got to power the servers with something.
If your electricity cost is too much, industry will move elsewhere.
If you try to subsidize it, that money will have to come out of somewhere.
If your electricity cost is too much, industry will move elsewhere.
If you try to subsidize it, that money will have to come out of somewhere.
Yeah, you'd need about 1000-2000km^2 covered in solar to cover australia's electricity consumption.
Luckily that's almost exactly the roof area of detached dwellings.
Luckily that's almost exactly the roof area of detached dwellings.
That depends on how you set up your electricity market. Since these markets are necessarily designed from the top down, we can set the rules however we like.
You can also determine, by optimization, what the most cost effective energy system would look like. If you do this you will discover that nuclear may not have a place in it.
Of course you can set up a market system where nuclear is favored, but that would be a market system that would likely not be delivering the lowest overall cost solution to the optimization problem.
Of course you can set up a market system where nuclear is favored, but that would be a market system that would likely not be delivering the lowest overall cost solution to the optimization problem.
You can, but why would you set up the market backwards?
The whole idea of base load was that nuclear is very cheap, but inflexible. So you optimize, generating as much as possible with nuclear, then filling in the variable bits with more expensive to run, but more flexible generation.
Cheap renewables have completely wrecked that model though.
The whole idea of base load was that nuclear is very cheap, but inflexible. So you optimize, generating as much as possible with nuclear, then filling in the variable bits with more expensive to run, but more flexible generation.
Cheap renewables have completely wrecked that model though.
Well either nuclear is cheaper than renewables+backup (for peak load), then you want to use 100% nuclear, or renewables+backup are cheaper, then you want to use 100% that. I don't see a scenario where you run nuclear for baseload and renewables+backup for peaks, but maybe I'm wrong.
Well, if the renewables in question were hydro, I'd say you're wrong, because hydro is fantastic for scaling up and down on demand.
But since we're mostly talking about solar, that doesn't apply. What may apply is that solar will have highest output when it's sunny, whereas in a hot climate, demand will peak when it's sunny — which aren't quite the same thing, but strongly correlated.
That said, you need to be able to handle hot, cloudy days, and for that reason you may be right that you're best off going entirely with one or the other.
But since we're mostly talking about solar, that doesn't apply. What may apply is that solar will have highest output when it's sunny, whereas in a hot climate, demand will peak when it's sunny — which aren't quite the same thing, but strongly correlated.
That said, you need to be able to handle hot, cloudy days, and for that reason you may be right that you're best off going entirely with one or the other.
I’d choose both if the difference is small. Don’t want to risk geopolitical issues with either one, so mix them. How big a cost gap between them is worth the security benefit is not something I can even guess at, to the extent that I can believe I may even be wrong to suggest it can ever happen.
er, wow, apologies for the typo there I meant to say "I have nothing against solar, by the way."
The land argument against solar is economically foolish. In most places, the value off land is a tiny fraction of the cost of the solar installation. We have lots and lots of land, far more than is needed to power global industrial society with solar energy, and that land is very cheap.
If the cost of land ever did become a global constraint on solar energy, it would be because the other parts of solar had become incredibly cheap. At that point, solar would already have consigned all other energy sources to oblivion.
The value produced per hectare per year from a PV field is much greater than many other current uses of land, such as raising lifestock, growing grain, or commercial forestry. If solar is deemed impractical because of land usage, so should those other uses.
If the cost of land ever did become a global constraint on solar energy, it would be because the other parts of solar had become incredibly cheap. At that point, solar would already have consigned all other energy sources to oblivion.
The value produced per hectare per year from a PV field is much greater than many other current uses of land, such as raising lifestock, growing grain, or commercial forestry. If solar is deemed impractical because of land usage, so should those other uses.
But solar has the benefit that it doesn't need to be centralised, people can cover their own roofs and have a battery to be self sufficient and now you don't even need a grid.
This depends upon location.
I'd have to fill my entire house with batteries, and cover my entire 1 acre of land with panels, to get and store enough power in the winter.
First, there's heating my house when it is -40C out.
Second, there's only 5 hours of sunlight, 4 hours of dusk, and the sun stays low in the sky.
Third, snow storms.
So I'd need enough power collected, during 5 hours of weak sun, to power my house for 19 hours, and heat it.
And that doesn't even account for days in a row of blowing, white out snowstorms sometimes.
Solar is useless in some places as core power.
I'd have to fill my entire house with batteries, and cover my entire 1 acre of land with panels, to get and store enough power in the winter.
First, there's heating my house when it is -40C out.
Second, there's only 5 hours of sunlight, 4 hours of dusk, and the sun stays low in the sky.
Third, snow storms.
So I'd need enough power collected, during 5 hours of weak sun, to power my house for 19 hours, and heat it.
And that doesn't even account for days in a row of blowing, white out snowstorms sometimes.
Solar is useless in some places as core power.
While this is true when the homes are isolated, in many cases there are power grids, and thus in principle can get their (Arctic circle?) winter power from Mexico or Italy (I don’t know where you live).
I think the small number of exceptions are, even collectively, even long term, not problematic to fuel chemically.
What kind of insulation do you have? I keep expecting aerogel on sites like this.
I think the small number of exceptions are, even collectively, even long term, not problematic to fuel chemically.
What kind of insulation do you have? I keep expecting aerogel on sites like this.
Until they need replacement components for any of this. Which they will need evry couple of years. Then they will need centralized infrastructure in form of manufacturing plants, roads, rail and finally (because it is imported from China most likely) ports.
Every step producing greenhouse gasses or other pollution.
Self sufficiency of this sort is largely a sub-urban myth. A comfortable, optimistic one, but a myth nonetheless.
Every step producing greenhouse gasses or other pollution.
Self sufficiency of this sort is largely a sub-urban myth. A comfortable, optimistic one, but a myth nonetheless.
Decades, IIRC, not years.
Yes, total independence is unrealistic and will be until we have von Neumann universal constructors, but we are starting to get to the point where big footprint homes could reasonably be energy-independent for normal daily use.
Yes, total independence is unrealistic and will be until we have von Neumann universal constructors, but we are starting to get to the point where big footprint homes could reasonably be energy-independent for normal daily use.
Depends how you sliced it.
If every house had solar panels, there's going to be a rolling requirement for on going maintenance.
Let's say, for argument sake, solar panels and inverts are approximately as reliable and long lasting as air conditioners, we'll still need a whole new fairly large industry.
Seems doable, but we'd need to deal with recycling all the parts, still doable, but there's nothing self sufficient about any of that.
If every house had solar panels, there's going to be a rolling requirement for on going maintenance.
Let's say, for argument sake, solar panels and inverts are approximately as reliable and long lasting as air conditioners, we'll still need a whole new fairly large industry.
Seems doable, but we'd need to deal with recycling all the parts, still doable, but there's nothing self sufficient about any of that.
Indeed, but that is why I said “decades”.
I am responsible for maintaining eight 150 Ah 120v dc battery banks. The sites also have diesel generators so the batteries really only get used for the 10 seconds it take the diesel to start, maybe 4 or 5 times a year. The batteries are indoors. So far cells start to go after 5-7 years and then I have to replace the whole bank.
Even 1 decade is optimistic life from current technology batteries that I am being sold from industrial battery sales channels.
Even 1 decade is optimistic life from current technology batteries that I am being sold from industrial battery sales channels.
be careful claiming that solar PV systems last decades. Many recent builds have components that fail including the panels, junction boxes, the panel-to-panel connectors and the inverters themselves.
Solar isn't as reliable as the solar industry would have you believe. Worst part, a single component failure often takes large sections of the system offline. With domestic systems, that's the entire system.
Solar isn't as reliable as the solar industry would have you believe. Worst part, a single component failure often takes large sections of the system offline. With domestic systems, that's the entire system.
I’ve heard of issues with contactors failing in cold temperatures and dust or dirt (it is the desert, sand gets everywhere) causing fibre connections to stop working, ruin fans, cause overheating, outages, millions of dollars lost.
"evry couple of years" .. umm nope. Try every 10-20 years for the inverter and every 20-30 years for the panels. Roof-top solar in Australia is cheap and almost ubiquitous.
Every couple years is probably more accurate. Hardware fails all the time, especially at scale. Hard drives fail all the time, solar equipment isn't magically different. Once a full neighborhood has solar, someone will have a defective panel, a defective inverter, an improper install that needs to be redone, storm damage, panels that need cleaning, panels that get damaged from cleaning, or a building gets renovated/replaced/destroyed.
A 5 kW inverter at a house is different from a 500 kW inverter in the desert
And the batteries?
this is far from the truth. NREL have great reports and ongoing research into how often solar panels fail. You are correct in that it isn't every couple of years but it is not as long as 20 years. The number of solar PV panels that have been around that long, let alone survived that long is small.
In other news, the solar cells installed on the White House by Carter apparently still provided energy ten years ago [1], and those who were not broken deliberately likely still do today.
I am all for nuclear - but let's keep the discussion honest.
[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carter-white-hous...
I am all for nuclear - but let's keep the discussion honest.
[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carter-white-hous...
Those are not solar cells, those are water heaters.
In the interest of being honest.
No wonder they still work, those are literally water pipes embedded in a roof panel. No inverter, no battery, nothing. The only thing they have in common with solar cells people install today is the fact that they are powered by sun.
In the interest of being honest.
No wonder they still work, those are literally water pipes embedded in a roof panel. No inverter, no battery, nothing. The only thing they have in common with solar cells people install today is the fact that they are powered by sun.
Worth noting that people do still install those today in addition to PV panels. PV panels seem to get 20-30 years of use, which isn’t bad at all. And I believe they usually still work after that time, just with reduced efficiency.
There's also some cool combo rooftop solar panels/water heaters. [1] By cooling the panels themselves they increase their efficiency by up to 15% (so an increase from ~20% to ~23% total efficiency) - while also heating water for the home.
[1] https://dualsun.com/en/product/hybrid-panel-spring/
[1] https://dualsun.com/en/product/hybrid-panel-spring/
It is my understanding that residential solar water heating is moving to PV + heat pump water heaters.
And yet how many people do that and ditch their grid connections? The reality is having as much electricity as you can use whenever you want for 10 cents a kWh is not something solar/battery provides.
Yeah but I don’t think nuclear is politically viable. It has bad connotations for your average punter, and it looks extremely expensive because all the externalities are priced in. Very unlikely our listless politicians would take on the nuclear cause. Can you imagine building a nuclear waste dump on land under native title?
This appears to be a "no, we didn't spend the same amount of money on solar and wind."
Glad you don't care nuclear is more expensive! That's a winning argument.
Glad you don't care nuclear is more expensive! That's a winning argument.
I don't care if something is more expensive if it's better haha. Sometimes better things are more expensive. That's why we have subsidies. And yes, I do consider covering an area 4X the size of Toronto with solar panels to be worse than the 3 small buildings in the middle of nowhere (Bruce, Darlington, Pickering) we have now.
I'm saying spending the same amount on solar would leave us worse off.
There's a role for both, together.
I'm saying spending the same amount on solar would leave us worse off.
There's a role for both, together.
You said:
> If we'd started building reactors when we first said it'd take too long, we'd have all the reactors we need. Instead of saying it's going to take too long, let's just start :)
... and apparently you don't care that there was an alternative that would already be producing a lot of power? Because it doesn't matter how much money you think could have built reactors, the reactor-building community is screwed up.
> If we'd started building reactors when we first said it'd take too long, we'd have all the reactors we need. Instead of saying it's going to take too long, let's just start :)
... and apparently you don't care that there was an alternative that would already be producing a lot of power? Because it doesn't matter how much money you think could have built reactors, the reactor-building community is screwed up.
How does solar produce substantial power in northern and southern latitudes for several months of the year? How about at night? How about during long cloudy periods? Solar usually ends up with carbon based backup. It should be nuclear instead. For solar to really work, it will take massive energy storage capabilities. That is NOT ready to deploy. Until then, solar will only be a partial solution at best.
Anyone who wants carbon free power generation should be pro-solar AND pro-nuclear.
Anyone who wants carbon free power generation should be pro-solar AND pro-nuclear.
Country the size of Australia could actually build sizeable solar assets across multiple timezones. The "backup problem" is a storage problem that could be solved more locally to the consumption. (houses with batteries, or suburbs, or cities, or states). The "night time" generation problem is a bit BS given electricity demand drops significantly at nigh in Australia, so the storage requirement is no where near the generation requirement.
Just some thoughts. Australia has enough unutilised land mass to generate the global power demand a couple of times over, North Africa also does... so you could build a solution that requires no storage at all.
Just some thoughts. Australia has enough unutilised land mass to generate the global power demand a couple of times over, North Africa also does... so you could build a solution that requires no storage at all.
There is very high demand from 6-10 pm and lesser in morning when solar is not available or very diminished. Also solar still needs cleaning all of those panels. Solar requires rare earths and that is surprisingly toxic manufacturing/refining process. Distribution and transmission is also not as easy as just building everything in Africa and sending it elsewhere. We need a mix of systems in practice.
Solar does not, in fact, require rare earths. (And, incidentally, "rare earths" are very, very far from rare; that is just a name.) And, the cost to clean them once in a while is very low.
You are reaching. The fact is that renewables are the cheapest source of power that has ever happened on this planet, and they are still getting cheaper.
Storage is likewise cheap and very quickly getting much, much cheaper. By the time we actually need any, you will not notice the cost.
You are reaching. The fact is that renewables are the cheapest source of power that has ever happened on this planet, and they are still getting cheaper.
Storage is likewise cheap and very quickly getting much, much cheaper. By the time we actually need any, you will not notice the cost.
I mentioned building solar across multiple time zones so assets in Perth are still getting sun until 7-8pm in Sydney. Transmission isn’t easy? Compared to what? Building thousands of power plants globally is easier?
You could also look at panels towards the poles where the sun shines longer.
Solar panels really are an insane technology.
You could also look at panels towards the poles where the sun shines longer.
Solar panels really are an insane technology.
[deleted]
Do you consider energy storage in the cost calculation?
In my country, which is a relative success story for wind?
apparently circa. $ 40 billion, for, right now... one GW. On average - and be assured I have checked this - five, which puts it in the same cost / GW as nuclear, and a capacity factor, not of sixty percent as advertised, but twenty-five. And we don't dump a megatonne or so of CO2 into the atmosphere a week running gas plants to cover nuclear variability. As alluded to by someone else, big wind projects are starting to run into the same levels of NIMBYism as nukes, because the footprint is huge.
You want to advocate for less nuclear, that megatonne a week is something you answer for.
apparently circa. $ 40 billion, for, right now... one GW. On average - and be assured I have checked this - five, which puts it in the same cost / GW as nuclear, and a capacity factor, not of sixty percent as advertised, but twenty-five. And we don't dump a megatonne or so of CO2 into the atmosphere a week running gas plants to cover nuclear variability. As alluded to by someone else, big wind projects are starting to run into the same levels of NIMBYism as nukes, because the footprint is huge.
You want to advocate for less nuclear, that megatonne a week is something you answer for.
What is this "nuclear variability" you speak of? I thought they were pretty constant in their output, unlike wind / solar for which gas plants are needed to compensate.
I think yodelshady is saying exactly that they don't need gas plants to cover nuclear while they do for wind.
I keep hearing they need to be switched off at short notice because… I’m not sure, accidents? I’ve never actually seen a link backing this claim, and I’d be interested.
Nuclear plants need to be switched off for weeks/months at a time for the following reasons:
- refueling (regularly done, highly plannable)
- insufficient cooling water/ too warm cooling water (regular, seasonal, not very predictable short-term)
- planned maintenance (often combined with refueling)
- unplanned maintenance (accidents)
Whenever these things happen, the entire reactor is producing no power. This is why most nuclear facilities have multiple reactors, so you can rotate these tasks among them and still have some power. Unfortunately, the cooling issue is becoming more and more of a problem, and many sites that used to operate year-round now have to scale down significantly in mid-summer due to lack of cooling water.
- refueling (regularly done, highly plannable)
- insufficient cooling water/ too warm cooling water (regular, seasonal, not very predictable short-term)
- planned maintenance (often combined with refueling)
- unplanned maintenance (accidents)
Whenever these things happen, the entire reactor is producing no power. This is why most nuclear facilities have multiple reactors, so you can rotate these tasks among them and still have some power. Unfortunately, the cooling issue is becoming more and more of a problem, and many sites that used to operate year-round now have to scale down significantly in mid-summer due to lack of cooling water.
Why don't coal and gas power plants also have cooling issues?
You can just turn them off. No combustion, no heat. I'm not an expert, but I'm given to understand nuclear reactions don't stop on a dime like that.
I agree with this.
I'm all for renewable power and environmentally sustainable technologies. This includes Solar, Beach, Wind power and Nuclear power. Preferably Hydrogen fuel cell cars over battery powered cars (purely for less batter and less toxic material to recycle and also logistically more feasible for long distance driving). We Australians need to raise awareness about its effectiveness. The new compact fusion reactor designs from the UK are quite exciting. It can power entire Australia and create a lot of jobs. It's sad that we aren't doing enough in that space.
It's a shame that so many people are still pushing hydrogen for individual vehicles despite its total failure in the marketplace... despite significant subsidies.
The hydrogen path is less energy efficient than the battery path, so it’s only useful if you have really cheap electricity.
If the batteries themselves were to remain expensive even as the electricity to charge them/electrolyse water became cheap, I can imagine a scenario where the lifetime cost difference between batteries and hydrogen tanks might be more than the cost of the energy wasted as heat by making the hydrogen. I don’t think this will happen now.
The same dynamic on a slightly smaller scale means I can also believe that hydrogen cars could be a Vimes’ Boot: low purchase cost, high running cost, so poor people have them because they can’t afford the cheaper option.
If the batteries themselves were to remain expensive even as the electricity to charge them/electrolyse water became cheap, I can imagine a scenario where the lifetime cost difference between batteries and hydrogen tanks might be more than the cost of the energy wasted as heat by making the hydrogen. I don’t think this will happen now.
The same dynamic on a slightly smaller scale means I can also believe that hydrogen cars could be a Vimes’ Boot: low purchase cost, high running cost, so poor people have them because they can’t afford the cheaper option.
Hydrogen will be the future of cars. It is the only one that is sustainable. EVs are themselves the result of massive government subsidies and legal mandates. It is very likely a failed product without those market distortions as very few people can justify paying $45k for a small car and $60k for a large one.
It's been pointed out that Hydrogen fuel cell is less energy efficient in its current form. It's true and it'll probably needs a lot more research before it's viable and is competitive against battery powered cars.
Hydrogen fueled cars could be substantially more energy-efficient than battery-electric cars, but it doesn't matter much, because energy is very quickly getting cheaper, so the point where it simply doesn't matter.
They cannot be even half as efficient - the process of electrolysis is only 40% efficient, then hydrogen must be compressed to insane pressure (which can require up to 20% of the enrgy contained withing) and transporting across the country. Only like 25% of energy you started with ever arrives to the fuel station
Its actually around 70-80% efficient depending on method.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water#Efficien...
Not that this changes the picture of hydrogen powered personal vehicles. Still the only viable option for grid level seasonal storage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water#Efficien...
Not that this changes the picture of hydrogen powered personal vehicles. Still the only viable option for grid level seasonal storage.
Hydrogen is very, very far from the only viable long-term storage.
Liquified ammonia will also be popular.
But we don't need any seasonal storage at all, just as we don't have seasonal storage of oil. We only need enough storage to hold out until a shipment of LH2 or LNH3 arrives from the tropics.
Efficiency of H2 needs to fold in the cost of getting the power back out: Cf. "round-trip efficiency". But as I said, it doesn't matter very much, anymore, since generation is getting so cheap. Gasoline engines were never efficient, but few have cared much about that.
Hydrogen won't, in any case, be "transported to the fuel station". It will be made right on the spot, or just down the street. And, won't be compressed, but will be poured in and allowed to boil up to pressure.
That said, cars will be using batteries for the foreseeable future. In 20 years, H2 might get another chance, if batteries don't improve enough. Which seems unlikely.
Liquified ammonia will also be popular.
But we don't need any seasonal storage at all, just as we don't have seasonal storage of oil. We only need enough storage to hold out until a shipment of LH2 or LNH3 arrives from the tropics.
Efficiency of H2 needs to fold in the cost of getting the power back out: Cf. "round-trip efficiency". But as I said, it doesn't matter very much, anymore, since generation is getting so cheap. Gasoline engines were never efficient, but few have cared much about that.
Hydrogen won't, in any case, be "transported to the fuel station". It will be made right on the spot, or just down the street. And, won't be compressed, but will be poured in and allowed to boil up to pressure.
That said, cars will be using batteries for the foreseeable future. In 20 years, H2 might get another chance, if batteries don't improve enough. Which seems unlikely.
"It will be made right on the spot, or just down the street. And, won't be compressed, but will be poured in and allowed to boil up to pressure."
Are the efficient machines you are talking about affordable and portable enough to be locally owned?
Also you are talking about hydrogen being poured in - so that would be cryogenic cooling, right? that incurrs an energy cost as well?
Are the efficient machines you are talking about affordable and portable enough to be locally owned?
Also you are talking about hydrogen being poured in - so that would be cryogenic cooling, right? that incurrs an energy cost as well?
Yes, liquifying hydrogen also consumes energy.
But by the time we are doing that on every street corner, the whole grid will be driven from renewables, and joules will be very cheap vs. other concerns. In particular, the LH2 will be banked during peak generation time, so almost free.
But by the time we are doing that on every street corner, the whole grid will be driven from renewables, and joules will be very cheap vs. other concerns. In particular, the LH2 will be banked during peak generation time, so almost free.
There will be no compact fusion power. Money put into that is money wasted that could have been spent on something that has a chance of making a difference.
Likewise, nukes: a dollar plowed into nukes generates, many years later, much less power than a dollar of renewables that start producing immediately. You spend on coal the whole time while the nuke is being built, and the amount you have spent just on coal, by then, would have bought as much renewable generating capacity as your nuke.
Likewise, nukes: a dollar plowed into nukes generates, many years later, much less power than a dollar of renewables that start producing immediately. You spend on coal the whole time while the nuke is being built, and the amount you have spent just on coal, by then, would have bought as much renewable generating capacity as your nuke.
Conventional reactors take a long time because they're very large, custom-built at the site, and we don't build many of them. That doesn't really say anything about reactors like the one in the article, which is small enough to build in a factory and transport to the site.
Even the one proposed has a six-year timeframe (what's the bet that timeframe isn't met?). Imagine trying to get an SMR reactor up in Australia within 10 years, given the legislative environment and the public opposition to it.
That's from now until the first reactor. It's not the time for each reactor after they're in production.
In the US at least, a lot of wind, solar and long-distance transmission projects have also faced long political delays. That doesn't imply anything about our technical capability to build them, and the same is true of these new nuclear designs.
And China, for one, will certainly not hesitate to build stuff like this, once they're able.
In the US at least, a lot of wind, solar and long-distance transmission projects have also faced long political delays. That doesn't imply anything about our technical capability to build them, and the same is true of these new nuclear designs.
And China, for one, will certainly not hesitate to build stuff like this, once they're able.
You forget energy storage.
Reasons why Australia doesn't and won't have nuclear:
1. Nuclear is a more expensive sources of energy than our alternatives (uranium ore is a small proportion of the cost stack, and Australia would still need to import nuclear fuel)
2. Nuclear isn't commercially viable in energy markets with very high levels of variable renewable energy where they have to be economically curtailed on an almost daily basis (our coal plants are all closing for this reason)
1. Nuclear is a more expensive sources of energy than our alternatives (uranium ore is a small proportion of the cost stack, and Australia would still need to import nuclear fuel)
2. Nuclear isn't commercially viable in energy markets with very high levels of variable renewable energy where they have to be economically curtailed on an almost daily basis (our coal plants are all closing for this reason)
I have never understand the economics argument. Either climate change and global warming are serious issues, and then slightly more expensive electricity should not matter - or they are not serious issues and we can keep burning coal and oil.
The economics argument has to be understood in the larger political context.
Nuclear doesn't have a big support base. It's basically only supported by educated technocrats.
And those educated technocrats are already holding their nose, because they know big government projects are often late and over budget. And the designs that are intrinsically safe haven't been built before. And if there was a meltdown, the taxpayer would have to foot the bill. And nobody's going to want the plants built in their area. And a permanent waste repository has been a political football for longer than most of us have been alive.
At the same time, if you squint hard enough when you look at the figures, solar+wind+batteries look cheaper.
Squinting that way is pretty tempting if you were on the fence anyway.
Nuclear doesn't have a big support base. It's basically only supported by educated technocrats.
And those educated technocrats are already holding their nose, because they know big government projects are often late and over budget. And the designs that are intrinsically safe haven't been built before. And if there was a meltdown, the taxpayer would have to foot the bill. And nobody's going to want the plants built in their area. And a permanent waste repository has been a political football for longer than most of us have been alive.
At the same time, if you squint hard enough when you look at the figures, solar+wind+batteries look cheaper.
Squinting that way is pretty tempting if you were on the fence anyway.
Yeah, renewables have gotten a lot cheaper. They weren't viable, but now they are, and waiting is a sunk cost.
I think it's unconscionable that we chose to emit ~20 gigatons of CO2 instead of pushing nuclear from 20% of our electric supply to 100% -- we would be there today if we had just kept up the pace -- but what's done is done. We killed nuclear and waited for renewables to become viable. We paid the price. The CO2 is in the air. Now we can move forward.
I think it's unconscionable that we chose to emit ~20 gigatons of CO2 instead of pushing nuclear from 20% of our electric supply to 100% -- we would be there today if we had just kept up the pace -- but what's done is done. We killed nuclear and waited for renewables to become viable. We paid the price. The CO2 is in the air. Now we can move forward.
I think that the economic argument is that it isn't viable for a private company to start a nuclear power-plant, it would require government involvement, and lots of people don't want the government to get involved in something that they think no-government entities can handle.
You don't nee the government to get involved in the nuclear plant if you don't want them to be - you can have the government make sure that the cost of global warming is paid by the coal plant. Either climate change and global warming are serious issues, and then properly accounting for their cost would significantly disadvantage coal power - or they are not serious issues and we can keep burning coal and oil.
That's silly for electricity.
Electricity will never, ever be a free market. The barriers to entry are almost insurmountable, especially capital requirements (production + distribution, especially distribution) but also the myriad safety regulations.
Might as well involve the government and gain some accountability, because with corporations, there is 0 accountability.
Electricity will never, ever be a free market. The barriers to entry are almost insurmountable, especially capital requirements (production + distribution, especially distribution) but also the myriad safety regulations.
Might as well involve the government and gain some accountability, because with corporations, there is 0 accountability.
One of those definitional things; it'll never be a truly unregulated wild west market, but then what is?
Realistically the grid needs to be nationalised or under an arms-length wholly government owned corporation. You can't have competing grids. The grid is the market. The UK tried privatizing it (and the rail infrastructure, and the broadband infrastructure) and ended up taking electricity and rail national again.
On the back end I think the UK market works reasonably well with a light regulatory touch allowing for microgenerators. The retail side is more of a problem. You can't really expose retail customers to the spot price (that went wrong in Texas), so there has to be an intermediary, who is vulnerable to bankruptcy instead if the spot price shoots up.
Realistically the grid needs to be nationalised or under an arms-length wholly government owned corporation. You can't have competing grids. The grid is the market. The UK tried privatizing it (and the rail infrastructure, and the broadband infrastructure) and ended up taking electricity and rail national again.
On the back end I think the UK market works reasonably well with a light regulatory touch allowing for microgenerators. The retail side is more of a problem. You can't really expose retail customers to the spot price (that went wrong in Texas), so there has to be an intermediary, who is vulnerable to bankruptcy instead if the spot price shoots up.
> One of those definitional things; it'll never be a truly unregulated wild west market, but then what is?
Well, I didn't say "unregulated". You can have regulation that doesn't create huge barriers to entry.
What would be a free market today? Something with very low barriers to entry (capital, expertise, legal requirements) and with lots of competition.
For example real estate agents in some developing countries. They frequently have only a high school degree (if that), they don't really need a ton of money to get started (just some nice clothes and some time), and the legal aspects are mostly covered by notaries, anyway. In many developing countries the real estate market is not consolidated so you have a million independent real estate agents, who frequently don't even have exclusivity for the property they're selling. So you could literally have 10 agents promoting the same property.
Well, I didn't say "unregulated". You can have regulation that doesn't create huge barriers to entry.
What would be a free market today? Something with very low barriers to entry (capital, expertise, legal requirements) and with lots of competition.
For example real estate agents in some developing countries. They frequently have only a high school degree (if that), they don't really need a ton of money to get started (just some nice clothes and some time), and the legal aspects are mostly covered by notaries, anyway. In many developing countries the real estate market is not consolidated so you have a million independent real estate agents, who frequently don't even have exclusivity for the property they're selling. So you could literally have 10 agents promoting the same property.
Electricity is a free market on a huge portion of the world, including EU, which is working hard to make it even freer market.
> with corporations there is zero accountability
This is not Somalia, lol. There is rule of law here and it works fairly well. The only problem is who people vote for.
> with corporations there is zero accountability
This is not Somalia, lol. There is rule of law here and it works fairly well. The only problem is who people vote for.
Yeah, distribution is a huge can of worms. But production (and storage, as soon as it makes economical sense) are quite easy to entry. There are many cars that are more expensive than a small sized hydro or solar plant.
Note that managing lots of small generation is much harder than a few big ones that are contractually bound to behave according to certain rules. Distributed generation is extremely exciting, but it's also a big challenge.
Is EDF a "private" or "government" entity?
If a form of carbon free energy costs 3x as much as carbon free alternatives, takes 3x as long to build and occasionally goes boom requiring an $800 billion clean up bill why build it?
The additional pumped storage needs of solar and wind are more than offset by their vastly lower cost.
If nuclear power could compete on a level playing field it'd be great but it sucks up subsidies like nothing else and puts the taxpayer is fully on the hook for dealing with all and any 800 billion dollar fukishima events.
The additional pumped storage needs of solar and wind are more than offset by their vastly lower cost.
If nuclear power could compete on a level playing field it'd be great but it sucks up subsidies like nothing else and puts the taxpayer is fully on the hook for dealing with all and any 800 billion dollar fukishima events.
Crappy reactors from the 1970s occasionally go boom. We have much better designs now, like the one in the article:
> The radioactive materials stay fully encased for their entire life and beyond. It's a very robust, strong fuel that's designed to make sure it indefinitely keeps the fuel safely inside the pellet.
> Some of the main differences that the MMR has from conventional nuclear plants is that the reactor cannot meltdown as the heat is passively released into the environment, does not need any active systems to remove heat, and requires no on-site fuel storage, handling, or processing.
This reactor would have been completely unaffected by the events at Fukushima.
> The radioactive materials stay fully encased for their entire life and beyond. It's a very robust, strong fuel that's designed to make sure it indefinitely keeps the fuel safely inside the pellet.
> Some of the main differences that the MMR has from conventional nuclear plants is that the reactor cannot meltdown as the heat is passively released into the environment, does not need any active systems to remove heat, and requires no on-site fuel storage, handling, or processing.
This reactor would have been completely unaffected by the events at Fukushima.
I'll be convinced once they start shouldering the accident liability. Not before.
Crappy reactors from the 70s are the only financially viable reactors these days. Also the ones Germany is being raked across the coals for trying to shut down.
Crappy reactors from the 70s are the only financially viable reactors these days. Also the ones Germany is being raked across the coals for trying to shut down.
The remaining reactors in operation in Germany are Konvoi PWRs, neither a crappy design nor from the 70s.
"occasionally goes boom requiring an $800 billion clean up bill why build it?" is an absurd way to describe the small number of incidents we've had in the past - they can all be attributed to egregious chains of human errors and/or bad planning. To quote:
But some 18 years before the 2011 disaster, new scientific knowledge had emerged about the likelihood of a large earthquake and resulting major tsunami of some 15.7 metres at the Daiichi site. However, this had not yet led to any major action by either the plant operator, Tepco, or government regulators, notably the Nuclear & Industrial Safety Agency (NISA). Discussion was ongoing, but action minimal. The tsunami countermeasures could also have been reviewed in accordance with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) guidelines which required taking into account high tsunami levels, but NISA continued to allow the Fukushima plant to operate without sufficient countermeasures such as moving the backup generators up the hill, sealing the lower part of the buildings, and having some back-up for seawater pumps, despite clear warnings.
We already know that the Chernobyl incident was due to even more egregious human error and poor planning.
But some 18 years before the 2011 disaster, new scientific knowledge had emerged about the likelihood of a large earthquake and resulting major tsunami of some 15.7 metres at the Daiichi site. However, this had not yet led to any major action by either the plant operator, Tepco, or government regulators, notably the Nuclear & Industrial Safety Agency (NISA). Discussion was ongoing, but action minimal. The tsunami countermeasures could also have been reviewed in accordance with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) guidelines which required taking into account high tsunami levels, but NISA continued to allow the Fukushima plant to operate without sufficient countermeasures such as moving the backup generators up the hill, sealing the lower part of the buildings, and having some back-up for seawater pumps, despite clear warnings.
We already know that the Chernobyl incident was due to even more egregious human error and poor planning.
What makes you think that Australia wouldn't have egregious chains of human failure or bad planning?
Pretty much every country with civilian nuclear energy had some big scandals or incidents around them[1]. Humans just can't be trusted to build a 100% safe process.
[1] Just to name a few: Three Mile Island (US), Sellafield (UK), Brunsbüttel (DE), Saint-Laurent (FR)
Pretty much every country with civilian nuclear energy had some big scandals or incidents around them[1]. Humans just can't be trusted to build a 100% safe process.
[1] Just to name a few: Three Mile Island (US), Sellafield (UK), Brunsbüttel (DE), Saint-Laurent (FR)
It's a good argument.
Australia absolutely would have egregious chains of human failure and bad planning.
You've only got to look at the present state of this country to see that that is how we, evidently, prefer to do things.
Australia absolutely would have egregious chains of human failure and bad planning.
You've only got to look at the present state of this country to see that that is how we, evidently, prefer to do things.
Isn't human failure and bad planning an even bigger concern for the handling of the 1000000x larger amount of coal that nuclear could replace?
No, not really. If a coal plant is designed or run badly, it might burn down, and that's it. If a nuclear plant is designed or run badly, whole countries might be unlivable for centuries. The risks are not the same.
> No, not really. If a coal plant is designed or run badly, it might burn down, and that's it.
No, coal plants have spent-fuel disposal problems due to "human error"/poor management too. This one cost over $1b to clean up and required them to scrape off the topsoil and rendered the area essentially uninhabitable, just like fukushima. TVA ended up having to buy out the inhabitants and move them elsewhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly...
And the fun part is: that shit is actually radioactive too. Coal plants put out as much radioactive waste as nuclear plants do... but they put it straight into the air, and then put a bunch more into spent-fuel pools besides.
No, coal plants have spent-fuel disposal problems due to "human error"/poor management too. This one cost over $1b to clean up and required them to scrape off the topsoil and rendered the area essentially uninhabitable, just like fukushima. TVA ended up having to buy out the inhabitants and move them elsewhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly...
And the fun part is: that shit is actually radioactive too. Coal plants put out as much radioactive waste as nuclear plants do... but they put it straight into the air, and then put a bunch more into spent-fuel pools besides.
That's only if you look at the worst case of individual incidents. You also need to consider the rate of incidents (due to the hugely greater consumption of coal plants for example) and other failure modes like long-term mishandling of fuel and waste.
But I think this is still a point against it. Its maybe not "fair" but if the regulators can't be trusted to properly maintain and protect nuclear power installations isn't that something that has to be accounted for?
The fact people in government and private industry knew the risk 18 years without addressing it it probably the most damming thing about nuclear power. The public simply can’t trust the industry or regulatory bodies. Which means they must assume avoidable disasters are going to be a regular thing.
I don’t have an issue with nuclear power but IMO the industry should be forced to pay for a ~1T insurance policy to avoid bad incentives rather than the government simply taking on the associated risks.
I don’t have an issue with nuclear power but IMO the industry should be forced to pay for a ~1T insurance policy to avoid bad incentives rather than the government simply taking on the associated risks.
> IMO the industry should be forced to pay for a ~1T insurance policy to avoid bad incentives rather than the government simply taking on the associated risks.
Good idea; let's start by applying that incentive to the externalities generated by the fossil fuel industry first though, so that the playing field is fair.
Ed: spelling
Good idea; let's start by applying that incentive to the externalities generated by the fossil fuel industry first though, so that the playing field is fair.
Ed: spelling
Sure, I agree with pricing externalities for both.
Unfortunately, fossil fuel externalities cross national boarders which creates perverse incentives. Do only price in the costs to your own country or accept an economic disadvantage? Essentially countries need to start doing pollution tariffs not just taxing externalities.
Economically the correct choices are obvious, but politics is rarely so simple.
Unfortunately, fossil fuel externalities cross national boarders which creates perverse incentives. Do only price in the costs to your own country or accept an economic disadvantage? Essentially countries need to start doing pollution tariffs not just taxing externalities.
Economically the correct choices are obvious, but politics is rarely so simple.
> The additional pumped storage needs of solar and wind are more than offset by their vastly lower cost.
This is seriously glossing over details. The cost of pumped hydro is highly geographically dependent. If you happen to have an alpine lake handy, then yes it can be cheap. But building pumped hydro in flat terrain is much more expensive.
This is seriously glossing over details. The cost of pumped hydro is highly geographically dependent. If you happen to have an alpine lake handy, then yes it can be cheap. But building pumped hydro in flat terrain is much more expensive.
> Nuclear isn't commercially viable in energy markets with very high levels of variable renewable energy
True for cost per Watt, but there are other factors. A good replacement for burning fossil fuels is solar + batteries, which is more expensive right now. Even if batteries get cheap, you still have to protect yourself from black swan events e.g. volcano eruption which hides the sun. Also, it seems Australia would need nuclear weapons to protect its independence in the future. It's critical to have nuclear experts at home.
True for cost per Watt, but there are other factors. A good replacement for burning fossil fuels is solar + batteries, which is more expensive right now. Even if batteries get cheap, you still have to protect yourself from black swan events e.g. volcano eruption which hides the sun. Also, it seems Australia would need nuclear weapons to protect its independence in the future. It's critical to have nuclear experts at home.
> Australia would still need to import nuclear fuel
No they wouldn't. To quote https://globalroadtechnology.com/uranium-mining-australia-hi...
> Australia is home to 31% of the world’s recoverable uranium. Australian uranium is exported and consists about one-quarter of its energy exports. Australia uses no nuclear power and depends on coal. The uranium mining industry is a billion dollar industry in Australian dollar ... In 2019, Australia produced 7790 tonnes of uranium and was ranked the world’s third best producer behind Kazakhstan and Canada.
No they wouldn't. To quote https://globalroadtechnology.com/uranium-mining-australia-hi...
> Australia is home to 31% of the world’s recoverable uranium. Australian uranium is exported and consists about one-quarter of its energy exports. Australia uses no nuclear power and depends on coal. The uranium mining industry is a billion dollar industry in Australian dollar ... In 2019, Australia produced 7790 tonnes of uranium and was ranked the world’s third best producer behind Kazakhstan and Canada.
I assume that the previous poster meant that Australia does not have a 235U-enrichment plant.
If that is true, Australia would have to export natural uranium and import back uranium enriched in 235U, unless they would choose to build a reactor with heavy-water, which can use natural uranium as a fuel.
If that is true, Australia would have to export natural uranium and import back uranium enriched in 235U, unless they would choose to build a reactor with heavy-water, which can use natural uranium as a fuel.
What preventing Australia from building an enrichment plant?
Nothing. The entire context is absurd to say the least.
Australia is one of the most affluent countries in world history and hyper resource rich.
They should have a third of their energy supply coming from nuclear.
Nuclear is expensive (commonly said)? So what. Australia is hyper rich ($67k GDP per capita) and can afford to do it and can afford to subsidize it for consumers. What's a lot more expensive (risk) is having a weak, unreliable grid with a poor diversity of energy sources.
It's insane not to subsidize nuclear, if one believes even the calmer side of environmental warnings re climate change. It's extremely potent energy technology, we know how to build it, and we know we can keep improving on it yet.
Australia is one of the most affluent countries in world history and hyper resource rich.
They should have a third of their energy supply coming from nuclear.
Nuclear is expensive (commonly said)? So what. Australia is hyper rich ($67k GDP per capita) and can afford to do it and can afford to subsidize it for consumers. What's a lot more expensive (risk) is having a weak, unreliable grid with a poor diversity of energy sources.
It's insane not to subsidize nuclear, if one believes even the calmer side of environmental warnings re climate change. It's extremely potent energy technology, we know how to build it, and we know we can keep improving on it yet.
Besides this, it's politically unteniable. Australia even just famously arranged to purchase US nuclear-powered subs - which require enriched fuel - without any capability to produce it or any intention of creating that capability. Their entire heavy maintenance and repower will need to and is planned to occur in the US.
For what it's worth, I'm Australian living in Australia, and I thoroughly agree with you.
Rather strange considered Australia has this tech
https://www.silex.com.au/
> “Australia […] depends on coal”
About 60% of Australia’s electricity came from coal over the last 12-months, but this proportion is rapidly declining and all the large coal plants are losing money and slated for closure.
https://opennem.org.au/energy/nem/?range=all&interval=1y
About 60% of Australia’s electricity came from coal over the last 12-months, but this proportion is rapidly declining and all the large coal plants are losing money and slated for closure.
https://opennem.org.au/energy/nem/?range=all&interval=1y
> Nuclear is a more expensive sources of energy than our alternatives
Not in the very long term. Upfront it's really expensive yeah.
>(uranium ore is a small proportion of the cost stack, and Australia would still need to import nuclear fuel)
A very small portion and isn't Australia a big exporter? Might as well set up refinement capabilities.
>with very high levels of variable renewable energy where they have to be economically curtailed on an almost daily basis (our coal plants are all closing for this reason)
I went to check gov sources and it still seems to be mainly fossil fuels tho renewables are growing. What will be kept as backup for days with little production btw? Here our greens are pushing for gas.
Not in the very long term. Upfront it's really expensive yeah.
>(uranium ore is a small proportion of the cost stack, and Australia would still need to import nuclear fuel)
A very small portion and isn't Australia a big exporter? Might as well set up refinement capabilities.
>with very high levels of variable renewable energy where they have to be economically curtailed on an almost daily basis (our coal plants are all closing for this reason)
I went to check gov sources and it still seems to be mainly fossil fuels tho renewables are growing. What will be kept as backup for days with little production btw? Here our greens are pushing for gas.
> What will be kept as backup for days with little production btw?
Australia is different to Germany. We get high solar output every day, even in winter, and while we do get some wind droughts, they are less long and widespread than in Europe. We don't need to 'back up' anything close to 100% of our renewable capacity, and we don't need 'back up' for very long durations.
Australia is different to Germany. We get high solar output every day, even in winter, and while we do get some wind droughts, they are less long and widespread than in Europe. We don't need to 'back up' anything close to 100% of our renewable capacity, and we don't need 'back up' for very long durations.
> We get high solar output every day, even in winter
Doesn't electricity usage vary quite a lot throughout the day? Especially in the evening.
Doesn't electricity usage vary quite a lot throughout the day? Especially in the evening.
You can make gas with electricity [0], it does not have to come from the ground. Here in the states nuclear is now about 3x as expensive as wind/solar [1]!
And to make matters even worse, you generally want to run nuclear at 100% all the time because of the high initial costs but summer peaks can be twice winter lows which means you would need to have a ton capacity that hardly ever gets used whereas gas is by far the cheapest option for handling variable demand.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-gas
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#...
And to make matters even worse, you generally want to run nuclear at 100% all the time because of the high initial costs but summer peaks can be twice winter lows which means you would need to have a ton capacity that hardly ever gets used whereas gas is by far the cheapest option for handling variable demand.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-gas
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#...
>You can make gas with electricity [0]
And it is still extremely inefficient to my knowledge with some roadblocks towards improvement that are hard to overcome. Hydropump storage doesn't seem grand from an intuitive perspective but probably ends up doing better.
>Here in the states nuclear is now about 3x as expensive as wind/solar
Now spread that costs over a proper lifetime, calculate in the costs of storage and/or variable demand backup and the adjusted distribution infrastructure and don't ban things like fuel reuse technology to reduce waste at the behest of fossil fuel industry and it looks a lot better.
https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/image/png/2020-12/lco_b...
>but summer peaks can be twice winter lows
Is this in Arizona and the likes? I feel like America really need to get it's head out of it's ass and dis-incentivise living in deserts with water problems to boot as well as some other common sense things. The CO2 output per capita being twice that of the EU and a bunch of other countries and that after a whole lot of improvement on the US front makes it clear this is not just a developed world thing but rather that some core issues are not being looked at.
>whereas gas is by far the cheapest option for handling variable demand.
And a fossil fuel with a climate change impact much much higher than most people expect.
And it is still extremely inefficient to my knowledge with some roadblocks towards improvement that are hard to overcome. Hydropump storage doesn't seem grand from an intuitive perspective but probably ends up doing better.
>Here in the states nuclear is now about 3x as expensive as wind/solar
Now spread that costs over a proper lifetime, calculate in the costs of storage and/or variable demand backup and the adjusted distribution infrastructure and don't ban things like fuel reuse technology to reduce waste at the behest of fossil fuel industry and it looks a lot better.
https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/image/png/2020-12/lco_b...
>but summer peaks can be twice winter lows
Is this in Arizona and the likes? I feel like America really need to get it's head out of it's ass and dis-incentivise living in deserts with water problems to boot as well as some other common sense things. The CO2 output per capita being twice that of the EU and a bunch of other countries and that after a whole lot of improvement on the US front makes it clear this is not just a developed world thing but rather that some core issues are not being looked at.
>whereas gas is by far the cheapest option for handling variable demand.
And a fossil fuel with a climate change impact much much higher than most people expect.
> Now spread that costs over a proper lifetime, calculate in the costs of storage and/or variable demand backup and the adjusted distribution infrastructure and don't ban things like fuel reuse technology to reduce waste at the behest of fossil fuel industry and it looks a lot better.
The link I posted is from the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) published the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) which uses LCOE. It doesn't include hydrogen/methane storage but we are talking 3 times the cost which leaves a lot of room to come out ahead.
> Is this in Arizona and the likes? I feel like America really need to get it's head out of it's ass and dis-incentivise living in deserts with water problems to boot as well as some other common sense things. The CO2 output per capita being twice that of the EU and a bunch of other countries and that after a whole lot of improvement on the US front makes it clear this is not just a developed world thing but rather that some core issues are not being looked at.
Um, like almost everywhere? Honestly, west coast places like SF/LA are pretty unique in not having as much variable temperatures. We definitely get heat waves here in the midwest and it is definitely not a desert.
And now that I think about it, if we are truly to decarbonize that includes heating and heat waves [0] would be childs play compared to polar vortexes [1]. Good luck building enough spare nuclear to heat the entire continent by 40-90 degrees.
[0]: https://cw39.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2021/06/NATL-HI...
[1]: https://mashable.com/article/polar-vortex-2021-cold-temperat...
The link I posted is from the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) published the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) which uses LCOE. It doesn't include hydrogen/methane storage but we are talking 3 times the cost which leaves a lot of room to come out ahead.
> Is this in Arizona and the likes? I feel like America really need to get it's head out of it's ass and dis-incentivise living in deserts with water problems to boot as well as some other common sense things. The CO2 output per capita being twice that of the EU and a bunch of other countries and that after a whole lot of improvement on the US front makes it clear this is not just a developed world thing but rather that some core issues are not being looked at.
Um, like almost everywhere? Honestly, west coast places like SF/LA are pretty unique in not having as much variable temperatures. We definitely get heat waves here in the midwest and it is definitely not a desert.
And now that I think about it, if we are truly to decarbonize that includes heating and heat waves [0] would be childs play compared to polar vortexes [1]. Good luck building enough spare nuclear to heat the entire continent by 40-90 degrees.
[0]: https://cw39.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2021/06/NATL-HI...
[1]: https://mashable.com/article/polar-vortex-2021-cold-temperat...
>Good luck building enough spare nuclear to heat the entire continent by 40-90 degrees.
Which non carbon heating or energy source do you suggest? The US doesn't seem to be warming up to heatpumps much and it's not like those are grand in those extreme conditions. The insulation standards there from what i've heard and compared are still quite bad (Not helped by the fact that AC and pure heating solutions common involve lots of airflow)
Which non carbon heating or energy source do you suggest? The US doesn't seem to be warming up to heatpumps much and it's not like those are grand in those extreme conditions. The insulation standards there from what i've heard and compared are still quite bad (Not helped by the fact that AC and pure heating solutions common involve lots of airflow)
I'm not suggesting we use a non carbon heating system. We already have methane furnaces all over the country, the storage for it, and the infrastructure to pipe it around. We just need to stop pulling it out of the ground and use electric -> methane power to gas which has a 51–65% efficiency range which combined with modern day furnaces that are 90+% efficient, is not too bad.
So they are still quite inefficient even if accept your efficiency range.
Then there's the high costs associated with the catalysts or membranes, etc depending on what technology you use.
We're not even using pumped storage nowhere near enough where possible and it's the vast majority of all utility scale storage but the amount of people that somehow champion power to gas as this grand thing that's anywhere close to being able to compete with it at scale is staggering.
We're not even using pumped storage nowhere near enough where possible and it's the vast majority of all utility scale storage but the amount of people that somehow champion power to gas as this grand thing that's anywhere close to being able to compete with it at scale is staggering.
2. sounds an awful lot like "renewables are not a viable form of energy and require gas". One gas replacement - nuclear - needs no backup. The other - renewables - needs backup of a scale that exists only on paper.
I've asked time and again for costed *TWh-scale* storage, the proposals are never forthcoming. Because, on first principles, they're far too high and unlikely to ever decrease. Ask actual investors - which I have - in private, and they'll admit it.
Almost nowhere are renewables outcompeting nuclear. What is outcompeting is greenwashed gas.
I've asked time and again for costed *TWh-scale* storage, the proposals are never forthcoming. Because, on first principles, they're far too high and unlikely to ever decrease. Ask actual investors - which I have - in private, and they'll admit it.
Almost nowhere are renewables outcompeting nuclear. What is outcompeting is greenwashed gas.
I understand you are trying to make a general argument, but those dynamics are definitely not true of Australia.
Our state with the highest share of renewable energy, South Australia, has not seen gas use increase as renewables have replaced coal.
The idea that 100% of all renewable capacity has to be ‘backed up’ with firm capacity is not true in general, and certainly not true in the specific case of Australia given the solar and wind resources we have.
Our state with the highest share of renewable energy, South Australia, has not seen gas use increase as renewables have replaced coal.
The idea that 100% of all renewable capacity has to be ‘backed up’ with firm capacity is not true in general, and certainly not true in the specific case of Australia given the solar and wind resources we have.
>Our state with the highest share of renewable energy, South Australia, has not seen gas use increase as renewables have replaced coal.
But there is still plenty of coal production no? Here Nuclear which is the vast majority of our production is being phased out due to political pressure. Our Greens push gas plants to cover the lowdays for renewables. Which variable production source is kept in mind in South Australia in the scenario where coal is pushed out all togheter? Is there a hydro dam or so?
But there is still plenty of coal production no? Here Nuclear which is the vast majority of our production is being phased out due to political pressure. Our Greens push gas plants to cover the lowdays for renewables. Which variable production source is kept in mind in South Australia in the scenario where coal is pushed out all togheter? Is there a hydro dam or so?
Yes, there is "still plenty of coal production" in Australia. Some references:
Coal accounts for about 75 per cent of Australia’s electricity generation, followed by gas (16 per cent), hydro (5 per cent) and wind around (2 per cent).[1]
About 92% of electricity in Ontario is produced from zero-carbon sources: 59% from nuclear, 24% from hydroelectricity, 8% from wind, and 1% from solar.
[1] https://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/energy/overview#:~:t....
[2] https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/pr....
Coal accounts for about 75 per cent of Australia’s electricity generation, followed by gas (16 per cent), hydro (5 per cent) and wind around (2 per cent).[1]
About 92% of electricity in Ontario is produced from zero-carbon sources: 59% from nuclear, 24% from hydroelectricity, 8% from wind, and 1% from solar.
[1] https://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/energy/overview#:~:t....
[2] https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/pr....
Agreed, absolutely not true of Australia.
AFAIK Australia has the highest uranium reserves on the whole planet. Why do they need to import?
There's a place in Australia where an Indigenous people's legend is there is a sacred serpent under the earth and people are to not dig there. It was discovered that there are huge deposits of uranium in that region and just under the surface.
We shouldn't awake the dragon's tail
The nuclear plants need to be built near water, which means they're likely to end up near habitation.
Like renewables, much of the cost of nuclear is in construction - unlike renewables, this has gone up not down over the years.
> Of course the coal companies won't like that.
This is a fairly important reason why it's not going to happen in Australia.
Like renewables, much of the cost of nuclear is in construction - unlike renewables, this has gone up not down over the years.
> Of course the coal companies won't like that.
This is a fairly important reason why it's not going to happen in Australia.
Nope. These reactors can be placed anywhere. They used air cooled condensers, which is only possible whe nyou have higher temperature heat than conventional light water reactors in use today. It's 350 degrees C versus 600 degrees C. So you can stick these in the desert no problem.
> The nuclear plants need to be built near water, which means they're likely to end up near habitation.
Does it? Article says this new reactor is helium cooled and vents heat. No mention of water cooling.
Does it? Article says this new reactor is helium cooled and vents heat. No mention of water cooling.
Conventional nuke plants don't consume a ton of water for cooling. I believe (definitely not an expert) that any water used for cooling is kept in a closed loop system. The vast majority of the water consumed by a nuclear plant (or any thermal power plant) is used by being converted to steam, which is then used to spin a turbine (though some percentage of that water can also be reused by condensing it in cooling towers, as described in the article).
The system described in the article punts the "how do we use the heat this system outputs" to some other facility/plant. It could use the heat directly in a variety of industrial processes, or it could be used to boil water for a steam turbine.
The system described in the article punts the "how do we use the heat this system outputs" to some other facility/plant. It could use the heat directly in a variety of industrial processes, or it could be used to boil water for a steam turbine.
This is correct. See my comment downthread about the Rankine cycle. As well as a source of heat, for efficient electricity generation you also need a source of "coolth".
The reactor is helium cooled. Their own collateral (https://usnc.com/mmr-energy-system/ ; annoying scrolljacking) shows shipping the heat to e.g. industrial process use or electricity generation - but for generation, you'll need a standard steam turbine + condenser setup. Which consumes water for cooling the condenser.
Also from their web page:
> FCM® fuel cannot be re-processed using currently available reprocessing schemes.
They list this as a nonproliferation benefit, but it has downsides.
The reactor is helium cooled. Their own collateral (https://usnc.com/mmr-energy-system/ ; annoying scrolljacking) shows shipping the heat to e.g. industrial process use or electricity generation - but for generation, you'll need a standard steam turbine + condenser setup. Which consumes water for cooling the condenser.
Also from their web page:
> FCM® fuel cannot be re-processed using currently available reprocessing schemes.
They list this as a nonproliferation benefit, but it has downsides.
I think it's fair to say a nuclear power plant "uses" the water that it discharges its waste heat into as it flows out into a river or large body of water. If it didn't use that water, it would have to dump its heat somewhere else.
> it discharges its waste heat into as it flows out into a river or large body of water
They don't all work that way.
They don't all work that way.
> Article says this new reactor is helium cooled
So it's non-functional without a methane industry tuen. Got it.
Water or salt or sodium sounds more sustainable.
So it's non-functional without a methane industry tuen. Got it.
Water or salt or sodium sounds more sustainable.
>The nuclear plants need to be built near water
Not always. The Palo Verde nuclear plant in my state is in the middle of the desert far from any body of water, and also the largest in the country in terms of net generation.
Not always. The Palo Verde nuclear plant in my state is in the middle of the desert far from any body of water, and also the largest in the country in terms of net generation.
For those like me who wondered how it cools: it evaporates municipal sewage.
Hey that's one way of reusing water. Two birds with one stone. Somebody has to deal with that shit.
So it's still near a town/city then?
>> 1. Vast swathes of uninhabited land can absorb some of the risks/fears associated with a nuclear accident
> The nuclear plants need to be built near water, which means they're likely to end up near habitation.
Would seawater work? Does Australia have any "vast swathes of uninhabited land" near the sea?
> Like renewables, much of the cost of nuclear is in construction - unlike renewables, this has gone up not down over the years.
IIRC, a big reason why nuclear plants cost so much to construct nowadays is that most reactors designs aren't produced in quantity, like they used to be.
> The nuclear plants need to be built near water, which means they're likely to end up near habitation.
Would seawater work? Does Australia have any "vast swathes of uninhabited land" near the sea?
> Like renewables, much of the cost of nuclear is in construction - unlike renewables, this has gone up not down over the years.
IIRC, a big reason why nuclear plants cost so much to construct nowadays is that most reactors designs aren't produced in quantity, like they used to be.
Note that in some areas, environmental regulation prevents once-through water cooling because wee-small creatures that go through the plant are killed. The outflow may also be problematic.
Local (to me) example: Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant killed all the abalone in its discharge cove during its first hot run due to the increased water temperature. There were so many that before the plant the spot was known to locals as "abalone cove". You could rock pick to your heart's content and not even need a wetsuit. On the other hand, they do have rather fascinating sea life in that cove due to the higher temps there vs. the cold Pacific just a few feet away (they used to have a show-and-tell marine biology lab onsite for visitors to check out). Anyway, to relicense DCPP, the plant would likely need to switch to cooling using the signature big towers people associate with nuclear plants, which is obviously a titanic effort.
Local (to me) example: Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant killed all the abalone in its discharge cove during its first hot run due to the increased water temperature. There were so many that before the plant the spot was known to locals as "abalone cove". You could rock pick to your heart's content and not even need a wetsuit. On the other hand, they do have rather fascinating sea life in that cove due to the higher temps there vs. the cold Pacific just a few feet away (they used to have a show-and-tell marine biology lab onsite for visitors to check out). Anyway, to relicense DCPP, the plant would likely need to switch to cooling using the signature big towers people associate with nuclear plants, which is obviously a titanic effort.
Seawater is more expensive to work with, but it does work. You can almost no water too, it's just some more expenses.
The thing is that nuclear is expensive by itself, anything you increase makes it less desirable.
Anyway, AFAIK, nearly all of the uninhabited land on Australia is inside the continent. It's much easier to deploy solar and wind there than anything else.
The thing is that nuclear is expensive by itself, anything you increase makes it less desirable.
Anyway, AFAIK, nearly all of the uninhabited land on Australia is inside the continent. It's much easier to deploy solar and wind there than anything else.
> The nuclear plants need to be built near water, which means they're likely to end up near habitation.
personally I feel this is untrue. its done out of convenience; but from an engineering/infrastructure standpoint there isn't a reason we can't condense the steam that gets pumped out of the towers.
personally I feel this is untrue. its done out of convenience; but from an engineering/infrastructure standpoint there isn't a reason we can't condense the steam that gets pumped out of the towers.
> condense the steam
That's what the water is for!
Turbine systems follow the Rankine cycle, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rankine_cycle , which includes a condenser. The water circulating is a closed loop. The steam you see coming off cooling towers is the external water which has been used to condense the circulating steam.
The water is a source of "coolth".
That's what the water is for!
Turbine systems follow the Rankine cycle, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rankine_cycle , which includes a condenser. The water circulating is a closed loop. The steam you see coming off cooling towers is the external water which has been used to condense the circulating steam.
The water is a source of "coolth".
i know what the water is for i'm saying there is no need to release the steam and have to pump additional water for cooling; you can also use radiators to cool water down etc. as i said the additional water and steam stacks are a quick and easy method for cooling when a water source is nearby. there are other options that can be used when water isn't available.
the SMR reactors are designed to be created in a factory, and shipped to the site. Each one will use an identical plan for the local site construction, and should greatly reduce construction costs, and get rid of all the red tape around getting each site design approved.
That sounds great, but it's still very much in the future tense. Australia probably ought to install a lot of solar panels in the six years until that's projected to be ready. I will believe cheap nuclear when I see it.
Nuclear power stations work best by the coast, rather than on rivers due to the water required for cooling, and as France discovered you can't dump hotter water back into a river and kill the wildlife when the country is "hot" - compared to Australia, a French "hot" day is 'only' 38-40C.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/sep/07/weatherwatch-nu...
So geographically, that likely means that nuclear power stations would still be close to Australian coastal cities.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/sep/07/weatherwatch-nu...
So geographically, that likely means that nuclear power stations would still be close to Australian coastal cities.
> a French "hot" day is 'only' 38-40C.
In the place I live (Brittany/west part of France), a hot day is more like 25°C.
In the place I live (Brittany/west part of France), a hot day is more like 25°C.
Yes. I was referring to the heatwave in 2018 where the temperatures hit 40C in a few places in (central?) France, vs. "typical" Australia where it's 45C+.
Also Australia doesn't have anything like the number of size of major rivers that France, and continental Europe has.
Also Australia doesn't have anything like the number of size of major rivers that France, and continental Europe has.
Except the ones in the article, which don't use water for cooling.
Well, they use gas for the primary cooling, but my understanding is that the gas heats water -> vapor turbine -> condense water -> repeat.
It is unclear to me how do you condense much water without cooling towers.. Normally lets say 40% of the thermal energy is transformed to electricity, and the rest is lost (needs to be cooled). So basically you still need to cool a lot of water, maybe 200MW worth of heated water.
But this is a conventional issue, a gas or coal generator has similar cooling requirements.
But this is a conventional issue, a gas or coal generator has similar cooling requirements.
[deleted]
> that likely means that nuclear power stations would still be close to Australian coastal cities.
There are still unending miles of coastline in Australia that aren't peppered with big cities ;-)
There are still unending miles of coastline in Australia that aren't peppered with big cities ;-)
Doesn't Australia have underground water? With a cursory search I can see that the Great Artesian Basin[0] could be a good source of cooling water.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Artesian_Basin
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Artesian_Basin
Thus people could drink the water warm directly from the nuclear powerplant.
Water is a essential resource, and in a higher level than electricity.
Water is a essential resource, and in a higher level than electricity.
[deleted]
I'm a bit surprised that Australia has no nuclear plants while other countries along the Pacific Rim already do. Any idea why it hasn't happened? Domestic opposition or lack of need before now?
This channel should have the answer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSZgoFyuHC8
TL;DW: Coal, gas lobbies.
TL;DW: Coal, gas lobbies.
Don't nuclear plants need vast amounts of water? Australia's kinda lacking that in the middle of the country.
Any steam turbine plant needs a cooling system, nuclear or fossil fuel. You don't need potable water, seawater or wastewater can be used for cooling.
I would assume any steam turbine plant needs water for the steam, and that steam is eventually lost through evaporation.
the water in steam plants is a closed loop, and the heat is gathered from condensers. the water is cooled via evaporation through a cooling tower
No, they are typically closed cycle, where the steam is reused.
You just need to cool the steam with ambient air - water is better (more cooling) but hardly required.
You just need to cool the steam with ambient air - water is better (more cooling) but hardly required.
[deleted]
There's this really cool invention called the bucket. It lets you recapture steam as it re-condenses.
That's one way to build them, but it's not the only way. They can be built not to need a lot of water, I assume there are some drawbacks.
And it's hardly "vast amounts", it's a small portion of the flow of a small river.
A coal plant also works better with a water source - there's no real difference here, you just need something to cool the steam at the end.
If coal can work in Australia so can nuclear.
And it's hardly "vast amounts", it's a small portion of the flow of a small river.
A coal plant also works better with a water source - there's no real difference here, you just need something to cool the steam at the end.
If coal can work in Australia so can nuclear.
The middle of the country has no need for large quantities of power as almost nobody lives there - almost all Australians live on the coasts near to water.
Or, to generalize even further -- the vast majority of Australians live in or around a handful of cities along the southeast coast of the country (Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, Canberra), or one city on the west coast (Perth).
A map of the country's population density may help bring this into perspective: https://i.redd.it/9mw8ttqqu0b41.jpg
A map of the country's population density may help bring this into perspective: https://i.redd.it/9mw8ttqqu0b41.jpg
[deleted]
Almost all largely populated areas in Australia are coastal.
No you don't. At high temperatures, you can use air cooling...
Environmental parties in Australia (The Greens and similar) were built on the idea of resisting nuclear and hydroelectric, so you have decades of lobbying against it. Eventually the coal lobbies allied with the more conservative parties as The Greens started pushing for wind/solar. This made sense for the conservative parties as Australia produces nothing of value outside of iron ore and coal.
There is no mainstream party that supports nuclear outside of the libertarian party (which gets single digit percentages at the ballots).
There is no mainstream party that supports nuclear outside of the libertarian party (which gets single digit percentages at the ballots).
probably cause the entire continent of australia is about as big as the lower 48 states but has only a few more million people than the state of florida. the cities are far more spread out. the investment would be very high and only benefit on small area
Australia has a few large population clusters. Most people don't live in the interior due to the sweltering heat and lack of water. They live on the east/south-east seaboard (Brisbane-Sydney-Canberra-Melbourne-Adelade, clockwise). The reactors can be colocated with the people.
This is correct. 50% of Australia's population live in Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane (40% in the first two). The below image shows just how empty the vast majority of Australia really is:
https://i.redd.it/9mw8ttqqu0b41.jpg
https://i.redd.it/9mw8ttqqu0b41.jpg
Australia has abundant uranium, dry geologically stable uninhabited space, bauxite, iron ore, and thermal and coking coal. Australia really should have developed large steel and aluminum industries powered by coal and uranium, rather than shipping all the raw materials out with no value add.
> Australia really should have developed large steel and aluminum industries powered by coal
We did.
BHP had massive steelworks in Newcastle and Wollongong (~150KM north and south of Sydney), aside from others.
BHP found it was cheaper to do it in other countries where environmental, safety and labour laws weren't such as hassle to deal with (aka: Paying a living wage, avoid killing your workers, and limiting the impact you had on the surrounding population).
Newcastle also had a massive Aluminium smelter - but again, cheaper to do it overseas.
It's a repeating pattern.
We did.
BHP had massive steelworks in Newcastle and Wollongong (~150KM north and south of Sydney), aside from others.
BHP found it was cheaper to do it in other countries where environmental, safety and labour laws weren't such as hassle to deal with (aka: Paying a living wage, avoid killing your workers, and limiting the impact you had on the surrounding population).
Newcastle also had a massive Aluminium smelter - but again, cheaper to do it overseas.
It's a repeating pattern.
We still do.
Alcoa is the largest employer in South Australia, and operates the world's largest integrated bauxite mining and aluminium refinery.
Alcoa is the largest employer in South Australia, and operates the world's largest integrated bauxite mining and aluminium refinery.
If only we could transmit electricity over long distances.
You realise you're commenting on a post about Canada using Nuclear power, and all of the things you said about Australia also hold true for Canada?
You realise you're commenting on a post about Canada using Nuclear power, and all of the things you said about Australia also hold true for Canada?
We can transmit electricity over long distances thanks to (U)HVDC and it is more and more applied:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HVDC_projects
Canada has them. Pretty much the same situation
Canada is a very different case: electricity sources are 2/3 renewables, mainly hydro (~60%). Nuclear: ~15%
Canada is a big place. Depends on the area. Ontario, for instance, is almost 60% nuclear. [1] It has by far the lowest CO2 emissions per kWh in the country.
Remember, Ontario is 40% of Canada's population.
[1] https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/pr...
Remember, Ontario is 40% of Canada's population.
[1] https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/pr...
Do people in Ontario use way less electricity than the rest of the country?
If 40% of the people gets 60% of electricity from nuclear, I would expect the whole country to get at least 24% of electricity from nuclear.
Canada has a lot of mining industry, and presumably not in Ontario, perhaps it uses more energy than people?
And a fair bit of hugely energy intensive aluminum refining in Quebec (mostly hydro power)
Hydro is tough for a lot of reasons. It's pretty ecologically devastating, flooding large regions and turning fish into mulch. It can also produce as much climate impact as a fossil fuel plant - or more - largely due to methane and CO2 emissions from the newly flooded land. [1] I'm not 100% sure where the Quebec hydro mix actually lands due to the significant variability on a plant-by-plant basis, and I don't know if that's factored in or how it was amortized in the StatsCan link - this wholistic analysis is fairly new afaik.
I trust StatsCan though, so your point is well made.
[1] https://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2019/11/15/long-conside...
I trust StatsCan though, so your point is well made.
[1] https://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2019/11/15/long-conside...
There are rules (releasing water...) and equipment aiming at reducing harm to aquatic life, even worst cases (migratory fishes). https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/habitat-conservation...
"the rate of emissions per unit of electric generation from hydropower (excluding tropical reservoirs) is much lower than for fossil fuel technologies." Source: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1209/ML12090A850.pdf
"the rate of emissions per unit of electric generation from hydropower (excluding tropical reservoirs) is much lower than for fossil fuel technologies." Source: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1209/ML12090A850.pdf
This is the study I was referring to re: GHG impact. It depends where and most importantly how long you run the plant. [1]
I'm not really opposed to hydro, I only responded because the impact of the creation of reservoirs is likely not factored into the headline numbers.
[1] https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.est.9b05083
I'm not really opposed to hydro, I only responded because the impact of the creation of reservoirs is likely not factored into the headline numbers.
[1] https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.est.9b05083
Do you have a source hydro turbines “turning fish in to mulch”? I’ve been around lots of hydro projects and the main hazards for fish seemed to be either dewatering of habitat due to turbines reducing flows too quickly or I heard it is bad for them if the dam uses the spill way and makes the water all aerated
I was being a bit glib there, I just meant that it was bad for the fish. My understanding is the average mortality rate for fish passing through a dam is 1 in 5. [1]
[1] https://ec.europa.eu/research-and-innovation/en/horizon-maga...
[1] https://ec.europa.eu/research-and-innovation/en/horizon-maga...
As the comparison was set with Australia (as a whole nation), I considered Canada as such.
This is a little deceptive I think. Electricity only makes up about 17% of canada's energy use, with 75% or so of our total energy demand coming from carbon sources[1]. We mostly use natural gas for heating, while in many other places in the world it's more likely electricity is gonna be used for indoor climate control (AC, heat pumps, even resistive heating).
Yes, as electricity only globally provides at best about 25% of final energy all this is misleading when it comes to the 'big picture'.
Usage profiles are indeed pertinent: Australians probably don't need dissipate energy in order for heating as Canadians do, but even this perspective isn't easy to grasp: heating thanks to gridpower is a thing in some nations without really cold seasons, France being one.
However the subject here is a gridpower-producing nuclear reactor, this IMHO sets a perimeter.
Usage profiles are indeed pertinent: Australians probably don't need dissipate energy in order for heating as Canadians do, but even this perspective isn't easy to grasp: heating thanks to gridpower is a thing in some nations without really cold seasons, France being one.
However the subject here is a gridpower-producing nuclear reactor, this IMHO sets a perimeter.
Apart from the whole vastly-differing-amounts-of-water thing.
Nearly all of Australia's population centres are on the coast, Alice Springs being the most notable exception with a population of around 25k. And most of Australia's population is loosely clustered on or near the east coast, which already has a somewhat interconnected power grid (emphasis on sort of).
I'm aware of the population distribution.
Only WA+NT are not connected to the national grid.
The problem with having a nuclear power plant on the coast where there's sufficient reliable water is that nobody wants one in their back yard.
(Yes there's parts of the WA/NT/QLD/SA coastlines where population drops to bugger all, but they're generally less suitable for all sorts of reasons)
Putting them inland where they're still near major interstate grid connections runs into the water problem again.
Which is a problem Canada doesn't have.
Only WA+NT are not connected to the national grid.
The problem with having a nuclear power plant on the coast where there's sufficient reliable water is that nobody wants one in their back yard.
(Yes there's parts of the WA/NT/QLD/SA coastlines where population drops to bugger all, but they're generally less suitable for all sorts of reasons)
Putting them inland where they're still near major interstate grid connections runs into the water problem again.
Which is a problem Canada doesn't have.
The water is closed loop right? Can’t you pump or even deliver the water by truck?
(Sorry if this is really ignorant)
(Sorry if this is really ignorant)
I'm not a Nuclear Power physicist, but you can Google up images of a whole lot of them.
There's at least one common feature that you see in all of them - the giant cooling towers, often pictured emitting large white fluffy steam clouds while they're operating.
They're also all on massive permanent rivers, lakes or the ocean.
Pumping/Delivering water for that purpose is basically not feasible.
There's at least one common feature that you see in all of them - the giant cooling towers, often pictured emitting large white fluffy steam clouds while they're operating.
They're also all on massive permanent rivers, lakes or the ocean.
Pumping/Delivering water for that purpose is basically not feasible.
[deleted]
I imagine solar is a much better commercial bet in Australia than nuclear - it has lots of sun and the space for panels - it already has the highest solar production per person in the world. A solar or even solar+battery investment will likely start making a profit before a nuclear project has got approval and is much less financially risky.
Australia is the ideal place for renewables.
Canada is somewhere I'd begrudgingly admit that nuclear may have a role to play in the future energy market, but it would be downright silly for Australia.
Canada is somewhere I'd begrudgingly admit that nuclear may have a role to play in the future energy market, but it would be downright silly for Australia.
"Begrudging" is a pretty telling phrase.
I'm happy with whatever actually delivers carbon-free watt hours, which yes, in Australia should be solar.
Clearly you want something else as well.
I'm happy with whatever actually delivers carbon-free watt hours, which yes, in Australia should be solar.
Clearly you want something else as well.
Yeah, I want a global solution to global warming, which nuclear isn't. I don't think it's necessary and would happily ban nuclear to focus on renewables if I was king of the world.
But I'm not, so I have to be realistic and admit that there are niche areas where nuclear is helpful in real politics even if most of the noise around nuclear is clearly climate change denial.
But I'm not, so I have to be realistic and admit that there are niche areas where nuclear is helpful in real politics even if most of the noise around nuclear is clearly climate change denial.
"ban nuclear to focus on renewables if I was king of the world."
I have seen thos banged about a lot - where does the idea that banning nuclear would somehow improve our ability to build renewables come from? What is the basis for it?
'most of the noise around nuclear is clearly climate change denial.'
Again, why? Why do not believe that 90% of noise about nuclear is well intentioned people seeing an alternative solution?
I have seen thos banged about a lot - where does the idea that banning nuclear would somehow improve our ability to build renewables come from? What is the basis for it?
'most of the noise around nuclear is clearly climate change denial.'
Again, why? Why do not believe that 90% of noise about nuclear is well intentioned people seeing an alternative solution?
Nuclear is more expensive than renewables. If we spent the same money on renewables we'd get more done. It's not overly complicated.
The vast majority of people advocating for nuclear simply cannot hold in their criticism of renewables. That's because believing lies about renewables is a basic requirement for thinking nuclear is a useful solution in a world rapidly deploying renewables.
The vast majority of people advocating for nuclear simply cannot hold in their criticism of renewables. That's because believing lies about renewables is a basic requirement for thinking nuclear is a useful solution in a world rapidly deploying renewables.
"Nuclear is more expensive than renewables. If we spent the same money on renewables we'd get more done. It's not overly complicated."
By that logic, we could be taking money people spend on casinos and spending it on renewables - we'd get more done and that money was being wasted by definition.
Budget of a country is not like budgeting your personal expenses, and we are limited by resources other than just Money. Like production facilties, pool of talent and skilled workers, natural resources, etc. Nuclear has almost no overlap with renewables when it comes to consuming real resources - so both could be used. Meanwhile money is not real, and when the banks were in danger, trillions just magically appeared overnight.
In UK main obstacle to renewables are idiots who think they own the landscape, and that their view is more important than the future of the planet -> a local group had cash in hand to build a wind turbine, and it took them 4 years to get permission to do so!
By that logic, we could be taking money people spend on casinos and spending it on renewables - we'd get more done and that money was being wasted by definition.
Budget of a country is not like budgeting your personal expenses, and we are limited by resources other than just Money. Like production facilties, pool of talent and skilled workers, natural resources, etc. Nuclear has almost no overlap with renewables when it comes to consuming real resources - so both could be used. Meanwhile money is not real, and when the banks were in danger, trillions just magically appeared overnight.
In UK main obstacle to renewables are idiots who think they own the landscape, and that their view is more important than the future of the planet -> a local group had cash in hand to build a wind turbine, and it took them 4 years to get permission to do so!
Ignoring nuclear for a moment, wind and solar both compete and complement each other. At a certain point, in a certain area, it stops making sense to spend money on wind/solar and start spending it on solar/wind instead. Because for the same money, you get more if what you want.
You could do similar for tidal power, but since it's so much worse than wind/solar in terms of efficiency/cost you basically don't build any.
Not because it's competing for steel, but because you have better option(s) for achieving the same goal.
Now, swap nuclear for tidal power and you have the same situation.
The main problem for renewables in the UK is the same main problem for them everywhere. Fossil fuel lobbying. All the bullshit about wind turbines was generated by the same political groups funded by fossil fuel interests.
It's great that lots of people have put a lot of effort into getting past "There's no problem", "There is a problem but we can't do anything about it", "we can do something about it but it's too expensive", to get to the current "it's cheaper but the people don't like it".
Imagine how much further on we'd be if we didn't have to wade through all that BS to get here.
You could do similar for tidal power, but since it's so much worse than wind/solar in terms of efficiency/cost you basically don't build any.
Not because it's competing for steel, but because you have better option(s) for achieving the same goal.
Now, swap nuclear for tidal power and you have the same situation.
The main problem for renewables in the UK is the same main problem for them everywhere. Fossil fuel lobbying. All the bullshit about wind turbines was generated by the same political groups funded by fossil fuel interests.
It's great that lots of people have put a lot of effort into getting past "There's no problem", "There is a problem but we can't do anything about it", "we can do something about it but it's too expensive", to get to the current "it's cheaper but the people don't like it".
Imagine how much further on we'd be if we didn't have to wade through all that BS to get here.
Yeah, I want a global solution to global warming
There isn't one fix all.
For example, Australia has loads of land perfect for solar, even in the winter.
Meanwhile, much of Canada is too dark, and has too much night for solar in the winter.
Some countries have loads of tidal power, and others are land locked -- no tides!
We need loads of solutions, options, and costs to transition.
There isn't one fix all.
For example, Australia has loads of land perfect for solar, even in the winter.
Meanwhile, much of Canada is too dark, and has too much night for solar in the winter.
Some countries have loads of tidal power, and others are land locked -- no tides!
We need loads of solutions, options, and costs to transition.
Most of the solution is solar and wind. Everyone knows this. It's why people commenting about nuclear will go out of their way to only mention one of them in any specific comment.
It sometimes feels like the internet has one group of nuclear fans who have never heard of wind power and another group who have never heard of solar. It's tiring to deal with.
It sometimes feels like the internet has one group of nuclear fans who have never heard of wind power and another group who have never heard of solar. It's tiring to deal with.
Most people who want nuclear power want it for base load and the rest renewables
The other reason is that Canada has access to a lot of nuclear fuel and used to have a fairly well developed nuclear industry. That being said, Australia is also a significant producer.
I also thought we should've developed a nuclear waste industry here in South Australia. There was a 'citizen's jury' on the topic a while back but obviously public opinion swayed political action to rule it out.
We have a lot of "unused" and stable land well away from population centres.
I imagine transport from afar is an issue though.
We have a lot of "unused" and stable land well away from population centres.
I imagine transport from afar is an issue though.
Storing waste is too expensive to contemplate.
Wherever it is put the high level waste (not much in quantity but...) is deadly and a silent killer for over a hundred thousand years. This is geologically significant time period, and we can make bets, but have no guarantee of any place on Earth being stable on those time scales.
So it must be monitored.
For a hundred thousand years
That would be us making future generations pay for the cost of our current consumptions. I do not think they will think kindly of us.
Wherever it is put the high level waste (not much in quantity but...) is deadly and a silent killer for over a hundred thousand years. This is geologically significant time period, and we can make bets, but have no guarantee of any place on Earth being stable on those time scales.
So it must be monitored.
For a hundred thousand years
That would be us making future generations pay for the cost of our current consumptions. I do not think they will think kindly of us.
On time scales of centuries or millennia there are only three outcomes for humanity:
- Extinction - We don't need to care about it, because there are no descendants.
- Advancement - We will be able to handle the problem better as our technology improves.
- Stagnation/regression - We don't need to care about it. Our descendants will have to worry about dysentery, crop failures and regional warfare. Some magic rocks that kill people will end up as curios in warded laden boxes after first adventurous monk opens sarcophagus and succumbs to curse.
- Extinction - We don't need to care about it, because there are no descendants.
- Advancement - We will be able to handle the problem better as our technology improves.
- Stagnation/regression - We don't need to care about it. Our descendants will have to worry about dysentery, crop failures and regional warfare. Some magic rocks that kill people will end up as curios in warded laden boxes after first adventurous monk opens sarcophagus and succumbs to curse.
"is deadly and a silent killer for over a hundred thousand years... We no guarantee of any place on Earth being stable on those time scales."
The geological pixel - smallest possible measurable period - is 50,000 years. Nuclear waste is 2 pixels.
Everest is a 50 million years old. The chalk that makes up white cliffs of dover is 130 million years old. There are layers of bedrock over a billion years old.
So yes, we are making a bet in the sence that when I go putside I make a bet that an asteroid won't fall on my head.
The geological pixel - smallest possible measurable period - is 50,000 years. Nuclear waste is 2 pixels.
Everest is a 50 million years old. The chalk that makes up white cliffs of dover is 130 million years old. There are layers of bedrock over a billion years old.
So yes, we are making a bet in the sence that when I go putside I make a bet that an asteroid won't fall on my head.
I'm pretty sure they'd rather deal with a bit of entombed nuclear waste buried deep in the ground instead of a dead, polluted and depleted planet.
Another way of avoiding a "dead depleted planet" is to not kill and deplete the one we have
Leaving piles of toxic waste - either nuclear or some other nefarious thing you are implying - is due to greed.
Can we deal with our greed?
Leaving piles of toxic waste - either nuclear or some other nefarious thing you are implying - is due to greed.
Can we deal with our greed?
Or build fast reactors, which can use most of that waste for fuel. The long-term radioactivity comes from transuranics, which fast neutrons fission quite well.
What's left is just fission products. Encase them in glass and bury them, and they'll be back to the radioactivity of the original ore in 300 years. Most of the radioactivity will be gone in the first few decades, since the decline is exponential.
Russia has a couple fast reactors in operation right now, and various startups are attempting new designs.
What's left is just fission products. Encase them in glass and bury them, and they'll be back to the radioactivity of the original ore in 300 years. Most of the radioactivity will be gone in the first few decades, since the decline is exponential.
Russia has a couple fast reactors in operation right now, and various startups are attempting new designs.
But you already have to take care of a nuclear waste depot, nevermind the nasty chemical stuff that never degrades and has to be stored forever.
It does not really matter how big the caverns are where you store the waste so any additional nuclear material stored is basically free.
It does not really matter how big the caverns are where you store the waste so any additional nuclear material stored is basically free.
Nuclear waste eventually will be used as fuel
I don't think you will be downvoted. HN is strongly pro nuclear.
If there's one country that does not need nuclear power it's Australia. Plenty of solar there and the sun comes out every day to the extent that in that part of the world it's a very reliable and predictable source of energy. All they need to do put down some panels and watch the meter do its thing for the next few decades.
Yes nuclear is cleaner than coal. But also way more expensive than everything else even before you consider that. Note how the article carefully dodges the cost topic. That's because it probably is quite a bit of money per mwh. Nobody installs nuclear because its cheap. There's always a secondary objective; usually military. Countries like being labeled "a nuclear power". It's not about the electricity. It's a label that comes at an extreme premium. The price of the energy they sell simply does not cover the cost of the plant over the lifetime.
The cheapest options in the market are solar and wind. Not by a little bit but by a wide and growing margin. That's just at current prices; they are widely predicted to continue dropping for a long time and there is very little consensus on where it will bottom out except perhaps nowhere close to current price levels. Cheap energy storage solutions are also becoming available and also dropping in price. Solar in Canada is not good enough to rely on exclusively. But wind is fine. Lots of coastal areas; lots of empty planes. Lots of wind.
Electrical cars won't be that big of an impact. They will actually have a balancing impact on the grid because they can be both sources and sinks of energy. They can absorb oversupply and supply back to the grid during peak hours. A single EV can keep a house hold going for several days. With millions of EVs on the road, a large percentage of them will be plugged in and either charging or ready to discharge at any time. Even using just a small percentage of that capacity means you can pretty much permanently turn off a bunch of gas peaker plants. 1 million cars supplying 1 kw of power for 1 hour would amount to about 1GW of capacity and 1GWH of power delivered. The same as running 3 of these fancy new nuclear plants for 1 hour. Charge them with a few solar panels and they pretty much become net producers rather than consumers of energy too.
The us drives about 3.2 trillion miles per year apparently. A good EV might get 4-5 miles per kwh. Lets call it 3.2 miles for the sake of easy numbers. So, that's 3.2 trillion kwh. Or 3.2 billion mwh. Or 3.2 million gwh, a common metric of the output of energy producers. The US generates about 4 trillion kwh per year. So switching overnight would cause some issues but also be a completely impossible scenario because the battery production volume wto make that happen simply does not exist to make that happen. Not even close. It will take decades to construct that. But gradually phasing in storage and renewable energy sources over say decades, would be plenty of time for the less than 2x increase in energy production. It's not an energy crisis but a healthy growth scenario for any energy company worthy of the name.
That's why the investment space around renewables is so hot right now. Nuclear, not so much. Risky investments, poor ROI (if not outright negative), long lead times to plants actually coming online, politics very uncertain, high chance of budget overruns, etc.
Yes nuclear is cleaner than coal. But also way more expensive than everything else even before you consider that. Note how the article carefully dodges the cost topic. That's because it probably is quite a bit of money per mwh. Nobody installs nuclear because its cheap. There's always a secondary objective; usually military. Countries like being labeled "a nuclear power". It's not about the electricity. It's a label that comes at an extreme premium. The price of the energy they sell simply does not cover the cost of the plant over the lifetime.
The cheapest options in the market are solar and wind. Not by a little bit but by a wide and growing margin. That's just at current prices; they are widely predicted to continue dropping for a long time and there is very little consensus on where it will bottom out except perhaps nowhere close to current price levels. Cheap energy storage solutions are also becoming available and also dropping in price. Solar in Canada is not good enough to rely on exclusively. But wind is fine. Lots of coastal areas; lots of empty planes. Lots of wind.
Electrical cars won't be that big of an impact. They will actually have a balancing impact on the grid because they can be both sources and sinks of energy. They can absorb oversupply and supply back to the grid during peak hours. A single EV can keep a house hold going for several days. With millions of EVs on the road, a large percentage of them will be plugged in and either charging or ready to discharge at any time. Even using just a small percentage of that capacity means you can pretty much permanently turn off a bunch of gas peaker plants. 1 million cars supplying 1 kw of power for 1 hour would amount to about 1GW of capacity and 1GWH of power delivered. The same as running 3 of these fancy new nuclear plants for 1 hour. Charge them with a few solar panels and they pretty much become net producers rather than consumers of energy too.
The us drives about 3.2 trillion miles per year apparently. A good EV might get 4-5 miles per kwh. Lets call it 3.2 miles for the sake of easy numbers. So, that's 3.2 trillion kwh. Or 3.2 billion mwh. Or 3.2 million gwh, a common metric of the output of energy producers. The US generates about 4 trillion kwh per year. So switching overnight would cause some issues but also be a completely impossible scenario because the battery production volume wto make that happen simply does not exist to make that happen. Not even close. It will take decades to construct that. But gradually phasing in storage and renewable energy sources over say decades, would be plenty of time for the less than 2x increase in energy production. It's not an energy crisis but a healthy growth scenario for any energy company worthy of the name.
That's why the investment space around renewables is so hot right now. Nuclear, not so much. Risky investments, poor ROI (if not outright negative), long lead times to plants actually coming online, politics very uncertain, high chance of budget overruns, etc.
The vast swathes of unused land now won't necessarily be the case in the future.
Incorporating solar into housing, like roof tiles seems like a no brainer. Energy stores like reservoirs, or flywheel tech or something else could help plug gaps.
Then there is the whole question of energy needs. Zero energy housing. And micro generation could help.
In the UK our housing and agriculture sector, uses a huge amount of energy for not a lot of gain. Given a modern country and opportunity learn from others' mistakes.
Incorporating solar into housing, like roof tiles seems like a no brainer. Energy stores like reservoirs, or flywheel tech or something else could help plug gaps.
Then there is the whole question of energy needs. Zero energy housing. And micro generation could help.
In the UK our housing and agriculture sector, uses a huge amount of energy for not a lot of gain. Given a modern country and opportunity learn from others' mistakes.
Australia has excellent solar availability. Northern Canada does not, half the year. Smr seems like a good way to serve those who can’t use solar, but solar is so much cheaper than nuclear that it’s mostly not worth the hassle. We just have to make enough batteries.
You have more than enough sun. Isn't Australia going to be exporting sun energy to Singapore soon?
> Vast swathes of uninhabited land can absorb some of the risks/fears associated with a nuclear accident.
Such a cynical take. We have a lot of land, its fine if we turn some of it into a nuclear wasteland.
Such a cynical take. We have a lot of land, its fine if we turn some of it into a nuclear wasteland.
A less cynical view of this is building the first couple in uninhabited areas is a great way to prove the technology and shift public opinion without having to fight the NIMBYs.
You can’t prove the technology by building a reactor and using it for a while and then saying ‘Look! This one didn’t explode’.
Every reactor ever built has been guaranteed to be safe. Yet 2 of them have experienced meltdowns. This technology is safe in a sense but not in the sense that accidents will not happen. They have happened and they will happen again.
Every reactor ever built has been guaranteed to be safe. Yet 2 of them have experienced meltdowns. This technology is safe in a sense but not in the sense that accidents will not happen. They have happened and they will happen again.
Of course that isn't how you build the technology. But it is how you build public opinion unfortunately.
> Vast swathes of uninhabited land
ugh ffs : mabo was 30 yrs ago last month
ugh ffs : mabo was 30 yrs ago last month
Vast swaths of uninhabited land makes plenty of room for solar panels that will not threaten to poison anybody. Build out enough of them, and they can desalinate sea water to turn the whole continent green.
There have always been vast swathes of uninhabited land in Australia. 7.6 million square kilometres divided by a few hundred thousand indigenous people, even allowing for movement = a lot of empty space. And that's even truer today than it was in 1770.
Are you saying the aboriginal people inhabit the entire continent of Australia even if that land has no ability to sustain life ?
"uninhabited" just means very few white settlers. Same for Canada, north Africa, etc. Gotta break a few brown eggs to make an omelet after all.
If you ask the people who inhabit "uninhabited" areas they may have a different opinion. That's why we tell them and not ask them.
If you ask the people who inhabit "uninhabited" areas they may have a different opinion. That's why we tell them and not ask them.
We should have moved on this in the sixties when it was possible. It's impossible to get traction on this ever since.
Maybe the nuclear subs will provide impetus
Maybe the nuclear subs will provide impetus
I think in a way it's good that we didn't do that in the sixties. Nuclear reactors are a lot more advanced and safer these days. Probably never too late to get onto it.
You haven't been in the arguments about "why nuclear makes no sense now" much have you? the post-60s time to deploy skyrocketed, in lawsuits. By now, its a 20+ year fight to do anything with nuclear, even on federally owned land. in 20 years, the argument runs that either its too late, or the cost of PV/Wind has dropped to make it irrelevant.
The problem space we're in now is multi-dimensional. Purely on economic and rational engineering grounds you are right. Bring politics to the table and no, there is no clear time now or in the future where it will "work" to propose nuclear for powergen, where if we had installed the worse, 2/3 gen stuff in the 60s we'd be arguing about replacement, but with a good investment in nuclear physics engineering, and baseload supply demands which had displaced brown coal already.
The problem space we're in now is multi-dimensional. Purely on economic and rational engineering grounds you are right. Bring politics to the table and no, there is no clear time now or in the future where it will "work" to propose nuclear for powergen, where if we had installed the worse, 2/3 gen stuff in the 60s we'd be arguing about replacement, but with a good investment in nuclear physics engineering, and baseload supply demands which had displaced brown coal already.
> the cost of PV/Wind has dropped to make it irrelevant
The cost of PV and Wind (with Storage included) is already vastly lower than any commercially available Nuclear Power design.
They're also a whole lot easier to deploy and maintain, don't come with all the risks involved in current Nuclear Power designs.
The cost of PV and Wind (with Storage included) is already vastly lower than any commercially available Nuclear Power design.
They're also a whole lot easier to deploy and maintain, don't come with all the risks involved in current Nuclear Power designs.
I mostly agree with this in pragmatic sense. I'm seeking coulda woulda shoulda alternate history counterfactuals here, I argue no future nuclear proposal will make sense but in deep time, 60s, we missed the boat and could have been in a radically different place.
There is no future path where even SMR can arrive at price point and power rating to replace the overbuild of wind and solar with storage, which provides the same energy reliability. Overbuild sounds negative but it's not: you need more than nameplate power and more units widely dispersed to avoid outages from local weather. With that comes more for storage, more for H2 conversion, desalination, other uses.
Basically, we should be further along our de-carbonisation. It's all about the past.
There is no future path where even SMR can arrive at price point and power rating to replace the overbuild of wind and solar with storage, which provides the same energy reliability. Overbuild sounds negative but it's not: you need more than nameplate power and more units widely dispersed to avoid outages from local weather. With that comes more for storage, more for H2 conversion, desalination, other uses.
Basically, we should be further along our de-carbonisation. It's all about the past.
Nuclear subs involve small reactors that are very expensive and dangerous to operate.
Impetus in the forms of 1) routine presence of nuclear reactors in Australia outside of lucas heights 2) trained people in nuclear physics and engineering 3) a probably high safety record, noting that nothing in life is guaranteed
Nuclear energy is great except for time and to some degree cost [1]. Other factors like waste disposal more relevant to some countries than others and are a universally ignored problem in general - but it's not as bad as climate change so let's not even talk about this. We want to avoid climate change first and foremost after all.
The problem really is that time is of the essence now and it simply takes way too long to build a new plant. Cost isn't great at all, they will never be profitable and insurance is neck breaking, but it can be managed. If any of these issues currently do exist with renewables, they are continuously waning.
Two recent nuclear projects:
- Olkiluoto Unit 3 (EPR) in Finland. Projected cost: €3 billion / Real cost: ~€11 billion (4x) / Delay: 13 years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant)
- Flamanville Unit 3 (EPR) in France. Projected cost: €3.3 billion / Real cost: €19.1 billion (6x) / Delay: currently 10 years, no start in sight (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...)
It doesn't look much better in other countries most of the time [2], China is possibly an exception due to, let's say, different handling of safety and other topics... In any case, nuclear is quite an expensive energy source [3] on top of critical time issues in construction and commission [4].
In the time it takes to build new nuclear power (10-15 years) technology and cost of renewable energy are projected to become much more favorable and then we gain several things:
- inherent safety
- decentralization
- stable cost (less dependence on imported resources such as uranium)
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower-idUSK...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_rea...
[3] https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-el...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_pla...
The problem really is that time is of the essence now and it simply takes way too long to build a new plant. Cost isn't great at all, they will never be profitable and insurance is neck breaking, but it can be managed. If any of these issues currently do exist with renewables, they are continuously waning.
Two recent nuclear projects:
- Olkiluoto Unit 3 (EPR) in Finland. Projected cost: €3 billion / Real cost: ~€11 billion (4x) / Delay: 13 years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant)
- Flamanville Unit 3 (EPR) in France. Projected cost: €3.3 billion / Real cost: €19.1 billion (6x) / Delay: currently 10 years, no start in sight (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...)
It doesn't look much better in other countries most of the time [2], China is possibly an exception due to, let's say, different handling of safety and other topics... In any case, nuclear is quite an expensive energy source [3] on top of critical time issues in construction and commission [4].
In the time it takes to build new nuclear power (10-15 years) technology and cost of renewable energy are projected to become much more favorable and then we gain several things:
- inherent safety
- decentralization
- stable cost (less dependence on imported resources such as uranium)
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower-idUSK...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_rea...
[3] https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-el...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_pla...
> SMRs are nuclear reactors that typically produce up to 300 megawatts (MW) of electricity, which is enough energy to power 300,000 homes for one year.
I suppose anyone who has some knowledge re electricity knows what they're trying to say here, and for anyone who doesn't it won't make much difference, but reading a sentence like this still hurts me a little.
MW (megawatts) are a measure of power, not energy. This means the "per year" part is meaningless. Also for what it's worth, 300MW for 300k homes is 1kW/home, which is a pretty old rule of thumb for average household power use. I believe the current average in Canada (and the US) is considerably higher But that's also just the average; the peak is much higher. 300MW is the peak output for the plant, so the true number of homes it could power is lower regardless, absent storage.
None of that to say the prospect isn't exciting! And I suppose the source here is the weather network, so perhaps they're a bit outside their area of expertise.
I suppose anyone who has some knowledge re electricity knows what they're trying to say here, and for anyone who doesn't it won't make much difference, but reading a sentence like this still hurts me a little.
MW (megawatts) are a measure of power, not energy. This means the "per year" part is meaningless. Also for what it's worth, 300MW for 300k homes is 1kW/home, which is a pretty old rule of thumb for average household power use. I believe the current average in Canada (and the US) is considerably higher But that's also just the average; the peak is much higher. 300MW is the peak output for the plant, so the true number of homes it could power is lower regardless, absent storage.
None of that to say the prospect isn't exciting! And I suppose the source here is the weather network, so perhaps they're a bit outside their area of expertise.
Yes, it's kWh what is important to consumers. For example, an average 4-person family in Germany uses between 2600-5000 kWh / year vs. about 10 kWh / year in the USA.
All in all, the greatest feature of SMRs in my opinion, is the scalability they offer. I'd have also added decentralization, but I'm far from familiar what is most optimal in terms of electricity networks.
All in all, the greatest feature of SMRs in my opinion, is the scalability they offer. I'd have also added decentralization, but I'm far from familiar what is most optimal in terms of electricity networks.
Indeed. If you're going to be heating all those houses with electricity, instead of gas, coal, or wood, then you'll likely need much more than 1kW per home. Especially when winter hits -30C.
If you build your house better, you won't need very much energy at all to heat or cool it. The passive house standard used in Sweden calls for a maximum of 20 kWh/(m²yr), which translates to ~3,700 kWh per year for a 2,000 ft² home.
Here in asia we use 1.5KWh approx per year. It is a real thing
What do you mean? Kilowatts isn't a measure of energy. Kilowatts pet year makes no sense. Asia is a continent with many different climates.
I meant KWH(units) its a typo
And the country is India
[deleted]
It would be nice if much of the waste heat could be expelled in ways more similar to Iceland's geothermal solutions.
Russia has directed waste heat fron reactors into the district heating network, it's perfectly realistic.
Not just Russia, it was relatively common across the Soviet bloc.
The Bruce Nuclear plant in Ontario had an industrial development adjacent to it to take advantage of steam from the plant, but I don't think it ever really went anywhere and they demolished the infrastructure related to it in the early 2000s.
The background on Canada's plans for small modular reactors (of which this is just one of three projects) can be found here:
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Canadian-provinc...
Supposedly this is promoting clean energy and fighting climate change, but the details don't always match this rhetoric. In particular they're thinking they can use nuclear power to replace piped-in natural gas to mine the Alberta tar sands and make (very dirty) syncrude for export to refineries in the USA, maybe China too. Yes, that does reduce natural gas use... but you're still burning dirty tarsand oil. The better option is to just leave the tar in the ground.
Otherwise, SMRs sound kind of interesting, but there's been a lot of failed innovation in nuclear reactors in the past. Some of us might remember when safe and reliable and innovative pebble bed reactors were going to be the thing that made nuclear acceptable everywhere, and that ended up going nowhere:
https://thebulletin.org/2009/06/the-demise-of-the-pebble-bed...
> "For some, helium-cooled, graphite-moderated reactors such as the PBMR have always been the ultimate evolution of fission reactor design. The use of helium and graphite allows the reactor to burn the fuel efficiently and to operate at much higher temperatures than conventional light water reactors. It is hoped the temperatures would be high enough to allow for the reactor’s heat to be used directly for industrial processes such as hydrogen production and tar sands processing. High temperature reactors can also be designed to use thorium-based fuel as well as uranium and can be developed as fast neutron reactors that don’t need moderators."
I was enthusiastic about nuclear 20 years ago... now, not so much, since solar/wind/storage really gives more watts per dollar invested, with less side issues (security, uranium supply, waste storage). Nuclear has a niche, but it's going to remain small.
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Canadian-provinc...
Supposedly this is promoting clean energy and fighting climate change, but the details don't always match this rhetoric. In particular they're thinking they can use nuclear power to replace piped-in natural gas to mine the Alberta tar sands and make (very dirty) syncrude for export to refineries in the USA, maybe China too. Yes, that does reduce natural gas use... but you're still burning dirty tarsand oil. The better option is to just leave the tar in the ground.
Otherwise, SMRs sound kind of interesting, but there's been a lot of failed innovation in nuclear reactors in the past. Some of us might remember when safe and reliable and innovative pebble bed reactors were going to be the thing that made nuclear acceptable everywhere, and that ended up going nowhere:
https://thebulletin.org/2009/06/the-demise-of-the-pebble-bed...
> "For some, helium-cooled, graphite-moderated reactors such as the PBMR have always been the ultimate evolution of fission reactor design. The use of helium and graphite allows the reactor to burn the fuel efficiently and to operate at much higher temperatures than conventional light water reactors. It is hoped the temperatures would be high enough to allow for the reactor’s heat to be used directly for industrial processes such as hydrogen production and tar sands processing. High temperature reactors can also be designed to use thorium-based fuel as well as uranium and can be developed as fast neutron reactors that don’t need moderators."
I was enthusiastic about nuclear 20 years ago... now, not so much, since solar/wind/storage really gives more watts per dollar invested, with less side issues (security, uranium supply, waste storage). Nuclear has a niche, but it's going to remain small.
Good points. This design seems quite similar to the pebble bed reactor idea in that it relies on the fissile material being encased in a graphite mixture (stubby cylinders instead of spheres) as well as heat transfer using helium instead of water.
The pebble bed reactors seemed to have stability issues created by graphite rubbing off of the spheres as the pebbles we loaded in the top and removed from the bottom. This newer design works around that by having the fuel in a cylinder and the fuel in the core not being changeable for its 20 year life. It seems to be one of the simplest designs yet and is likely cheaper as a result.
If it turns out to be cheap power this would have a big impact on northern communities where there is little sunlight for several months, and low-angle sunlight during the summer months. It doesn't have to beat typical solar, it just has to beat diesel that is shipped or flown in.
I'm from Alberta and I also wish they would leave the tarsands tar in the ground. I have little expectation they will, so nuclear seems like an improvement at least.
The pebble bed reactors seemed to have stability issues created by graphite rubbing off of the spheres as the pebbles we loaded in the top and removed from the bottom. This newer design works around that by having the fuel in a cylinder and the fuel in the core not being changeable for its 20 year life. It seems to be one of the simplest designs yet and is likely cheaper as a result.
If it turns out to be cheap power this would have a big impact on northern communities where there is little sunlight for several months, and low-angle sunlight during the summer months. It doesn't have to beat typical solar, it just has to beat diesel that is shipped or flown in.
I'm from Alberta and I also wish they would leave the tarsands tar in the ground. I have little expectation they will, so nuclear seems like an improvement at least.
Nukes can never turn out to be cheap power. It is always, always, always heavily subsidized by taxation, thus sometimes masking true cost.
It is fortunate that extracting tar sands produces very expensive oil. As demand for oil drops, cost for oil from tar sands will be unable to match prices offered.
It is fortunate that extracting tar sands produces very expensive oil. As demand for oil drops, cost for oil from tar sands will be unable to match prices offered.
Nuclear technology has never really matured to be industry-led, and is quite obviously heavily subsidized now; surely it's not inevitably always going to be that way though. At one time, the wisdom re: solar power was that PVs were simply far too expensive to be used for large-scale power, and yet, here we are now.
Nothing about nukes can be expected to get cheaper, unlike solar and wind. Nukes are just inherently expensive, from refining fuel through massive construction, disaster insurance (always and everywhere subsidized), maintenance, to decommissioning.
Wouldn't someone have said the same thing about PVs 20 years ago, though?
Did say, and were proven wrong.
But nukes have had plenty of time to do better. Ultimately it looks more like the market in nukes (distinguished from power from nukes) is interested only in building nukes where there is abundant scope for corruption.
But nukes have had plenty of time to do better. Ultimately it looks more like the market in nukes (distinguished from power from nukes) is interested only in building nukes where there is abundant scope for corruption.
Solar/wind/storage is always a better option as long as the storage solution isn't replaced by burn fossil fuel, which like the tarsand oil detail, is the kind of detail that sadly pop up in practically all places where the solar/wind/storage solution is being promoted. The fossil fuel need to stay in the ground.
I am fairly enthusiastic about both renewables and nuclear, but I am a bit pessimistic about storage. The holy grail would be green hydrogen as storage, and that has been the political aiming for in the last 10 years. However in the mean time, everyone just got to rely on that Russian gas and oil. Solar/wind/fossil fuel is the current model and I just can't get enthusiastic about that.
I am fairly enthusiastic about both renewables and nuclear, but I am a bit pessimistic about storage. The holy grail would be green hydrogen as storage, and that has been the political aiming for in the last 10 years. However in the mean time, everyone just got to rely on that Russian gas and oil. Solar/wind/fossil fuel is the current model and I just can't get enthusiastic about that.
There are dozens of storage methods that all work, the only remaining uncertainty being which will be cheapest, or otherwise most useful. Hydrogen and ammonia synthesis will not be cheapest, but will arguably be most useful.
It is strange that people proposing storage methods frequently seem unable to reason about cost, so propose absurdly expensive realizations of their ideas. What will end up deployed will be the most sensible alternatives.
We don't need to have storage built out until after we have enough renewable generating capacity for both peak load and to charge up the storage, at the same time. Until then, money is overwhelmingly better spent on the generating capacity. Given equipment to synthesize ammonia or hydrogen, we can then continue building out generating capacity, because all the hydrogen or ammonia produced after local storage is topped up can be sold for direct revenue.
It is strange that people proposing storage methods frequently seem unable to reason about cost, so propose absurdly expensive realizations of their ideas. What will end up deployed will be the most sensible alternatives.
We don't need to have storage built out until after we have enough renewable generating capacity for both peak load and to charge up the storage, at the same time. Until then, money is overwhelmingly better spent on the generating capacity. Given equipment to synthesize ammonia or hydrogen, we can then continue building out generating capacity, because all the hydrogen or ammonia produced after local storage is topped up can be sold for direct revenue.
I have read both government studies on energy storage solutions and studies done by financial advisors to people who invest in the energy sector. The issue is always the high cost, with only specific places and situations where it is economical viable. In particular, if you can discharge the storage 365 days a year from 100% to 0%, selling at fairly high peak price, and do so for a capacity of 1-6hrs (depending on location and peak price), then it can be made profitable to operate a storage solution (depend also a bit on subsidies). Every other solution has yet to be found economical viable, and all of those other solutions are significant more expensive than nuclear.
There are some alternative use cases. If you can convert the energy directly to a substance that an industry consume, like hydrogen in steel production, then the economics start to shift a bit. Hydrogen is produce today through natural gas, and if we include the carbon tax and introduce some subsidies to those who want to use renewables, then green hydrogen can be made to price match grey hydrogen in steel manufacturing. It not perfect, and its not storage, but it does reduce the use of fossil fuels. Burning the hydrogen for power however is still several times more expensive than nuclear, and I don't think people are willing to pay that kind of money in order to avoid nuclear power.
The current way most governments seem to operate is to build out renewable generating capacity while also build out equal or greater amount of fossil fuel generating capacity. Looking at the Ukraine war, looking at the climate, and just looking at air pollution or graphs over fossil fuel usage, I am not optimistic that the current strategy are working at all. If anything it look exactly what the fossil fuel lobbying are pushing which is a future where they still hold a significant position and where the high peak price results in about as much profits as in the past but for a significant less amount of actually product.
There are some alternative use cases. If you can convert the energy directly to a substance that an industry consume, like hydrogen in steel production, then the economics start to shift a bit. Hydrogen is produce today through natural gas, and if we include the carbon tax and introduce some subsidies to those who want to use renewables, then green hydrogen can be made to price match grey hydrogen in steel manufacturing. It not perfect, and its not storage, but it does reduce the use of fossil fuels. Burning the hydrogen for power however is still several times more expensive than nuclear, and I don't think people are willing to pay that kind of money in order to avoid nuclear power.
The current way most governments seem to operate is to build out renewable generating capacity while also build out equal or greater amount of fossil fuel generating capacity. Looking at the Ukraine war, looking at the climate, and just looking at air pollution or graphs over fossil fuel usage, I am not optimistic that the current strategy are working at all. If anything it look exactly what the fossil fuel lobbying are pushing which is a future where they still hold a significant position and where the high peak price results in about as much profits as in the past but for a significant less amount of actually product.
Making a business out of selling stored energy has weird incentives. Storage is better integrated into a system along with generating and transmission capacity. A business shaving peaks has been shown to work, and to favor maintaining a few minutes' worth of battery at high wattage capacity.
Green hydrogen will be getting very cheap. It makes no sense to assume prices for everything will stay the same as the world changes around them.
Natural gas generation equipment is easily retrofitted to burn synthetic hydrogen or ammonia, along with compressed air, so such purchases are not wasted. Burning along with compressed air yields more energy than the sum what you would get just burning, and separately running compressed air through the turbine. (Compressed air storage is really cheap to build out.)
Green hydrogen will be getting very cheap. It makes no sense to assume prices for everything will stay the same as the world changes around them.
Natural gas generation equipment is easily retrofitted to burn synthetic hydrogen or ammonia, along with compressed air, so such purchases are not wasted. Burning along with compressed air yields more energy than the sum what you would get just burning, and separately running compressed air through the turbine. (Compressed air storage is really cheap to build out.)
I really don't know enough about this to know if it's a good idea or not (it sounds like it could be quite useful) but in any case I'm very glad to see Canada doing something new in technology.
Canada is turning out to be quite the country for nuclear innovation, because their regulators are much friendlier to new technology than the NRC in the US. Terrestrial Energy (a molten salt reactor company) has spoken highly of them, and Moltex (another MSR company) moved there as a result.
Oh wow, I did not know that. I had only been aware of CANDU reactors and had the impression that there wasn't much else going on in Canada.
Aside from those two, there's also Elysium, yet another MSR company, focusing on the fast spectrum. Handy links:
https://www.elysiumindustries.com/
https://www.terrestrialenergy.com/
https://www.moltexenergy.com/
Plus there's General Fusion, the craziest steampunk idea for fusion ever. It's gotten investment well into nine figures, and is building a reactor for a net power attempt around 2025.
https://generalfusion.com/
https://www.elysiumindustries.com/
https://www.terrestrialenergy.com/
https://www.moltexenergy.com/
Plus there's General Fusion, the craziest steampunk idea for fusion ever. It's gotten investment well into nine figures, and is building a reactor for a net power attempt around 2025.
https://generalfusion.com/
It would be better if Canada could do something actually useful.
> The better option is to just leave the tar in the ground.
A town not too far from where I grew up had most of it's economy based around a single factory (Hershey Chocolate in Smith's Falls, Ontario). There were lots of other stores and whatnot, but money flowed into the town via the factory paying workers' salaries, then bounced between hands from in shops, services, whatever else.
When I was in high school, that factory closed down. The inflow of money stopped. And so did the rest of the economy of the town. Hard to run a flower shop when nobody in town can afford to buy flowers, you know?
Stopping mining of tarsands entirely would be a bit like doing that to the entire province of Alberta. The money enters the province via the dirty oil they sell. We should never have gotten into this situation, no doubt, but now that we're here it's politically impossible to stop.
And being major exporters, they're also a big reason for the value of the Canadian dollar. Stop exporting all the dirty oil and the exchange rate goes to crap- now all the things we buy from the USA and China are more expensive. What political party wants to be elected on that promise?
A town not too far from where I grew up had most of it's economy based around a single factory (Hershey Chocolate in Smith's Falls, Ontario). There were lots of other stores and whatnot, but money flowed into the town via the factory paying workers' salaries, then bounced between hands from in shops, services, whatever else.
When I was in high school, that factory closed down. The inflow of money stopped. And so did the rest of the economy of the town. Hard to run a flower shop when nobody in town can afford to buy flowers, you know?
Stopping mining of tarsands entirely would be a bit like doing that to the entire province of Alberta. The money enters the province via the dirty oil they sell. We should never have gotten into this situation, no doubt, but now that we're here it's politically impossible to stop.
And being major exporters, they're also a big reason for the value of the Canadian dollar. Stop exporting all the dirty oil and the exchange rate goes to crap- now all the things we buy from the USA and China are more expensive. What political party wants to be elected on that promise?
We've known about this impending problem for decades. That no Albertan political party has been honest with Albertans about the future is disappointing. Easier to kick the can down the road.
Nuclear could be the thing that provides a route forward. Given BC's seismic issues, it's probably not a great place for nuclear power plants and there's really no more rivers to dam. Alberta should be pivoting away from oil and toward becoming a nuclear power provider to BC, the Prairies and the United States.
Nuclear could be the thing that provides a route forward. Given BC's seismic issues, it's probably not a great place for nuclear power plants and there's really no more rivers to dam. Alberta should be pivoting away from oil and toward becoming a nuclear power provider to BC, the Prairies and the United States.
Security is a bigger issue now that the world is moving away from globalism which means less trade. The major powers have less barriers to conflict including cyber warfare.
So what would happen if a disaster somehow hit one of these mini plants?
So what would happen if a disaster somehow hit one of these mini plants?
Which sort of disaster were you thinking?
These new miniplants don't require power or water, loss of either causes shutdown.
These new miniplants don't require power or water, loss of either causes shutdown.
I'm not very familiar with them; so they're immune to causing a sudden, ecological disaster?
To the extent that nuclear power plants emit waste heat, you can use this waste heat to counteract the frigid temperatures found in the Canadian hinterland, displacing the need for natural gas and oil heating of industrial processes.
This is an interesting idea for waste heat. Is the waste heat a nuclear power plant produces significant? My understanding is you want all your heat working to spin your turbine.
It's a very old idea which is in use in many places [1] -- and not just for nuclear plants. Main constraint is that you really can't transport the waste heat very far.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogeneration
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogeneration
Although an advantage of these smaller plants is that they can be located closer to where the heat is needed.
Yes, ideally all the energy released by the reactor would go into the turbine. But no engine is 100% efficient, and waste heat is inevitable. Waste heat is "free" energy in the sense that it would have otherwise not been harnessed for something useful.
Waste heat is not free to the degree that you're not cooling your cold side as efficiently. If "sending heat to homes" has the same thermal resistance as "just dissipate it", then sure.
However, I find it elegant that heat is directly used to heat homes, rather than turning it into low-entropy electricity just to turn it to heat again (which is inelegant, even with heat pumps).
However, I find it elegant that heat is directly used to heat homes, rather than turning it into low-entropy electricity just to turn it to heat again (which is inelegant, even with heat pumps).
Burning natural gas to make electricity to run a heat pump isn’t elegant- but it is more efficient.
We need a heat pump that is heat-powered…
We need a heat pump that is heat-powered…
There are old propane refrigerators which do exactly that (heat powered heat pumps).
Have you done the math to check whether it's more efficient?
Have you done the math to check whether it's more efficient?
A natural gas furnace is up to 98% efficient. A natural gas turbine is 40-60% efficient; a modern heat pump can have a COP of 3 or even 4, for 150-200% equivalent efficiency (ballpark).
How does this work with solar panels and wind turbines?
I know that fossil fuel plants have a lot of waste heat that enables cogeneration, but I've never heard of that with solar or wind.
I know that fossil fuel plants have a lot of waste heat that enables cogeneration, but I've never heard of that with solar or wind.
A fossil fuel plant will burn fuel to produce heat. Some of this heat will be used for generation, and the remainder is waste heat. A solar panel or wind turbine, on the other hand, does not produce significant amounts of heat in operation - a PV solar panel would only get somewhat warm, a wind turbine would only achieve some friction heating - to where it is not economical to harness this relatively small amount of energy (compared to waste heat from an exothermic generation process, like nuclear fission or hydrocarbon combustion)
Solar panels are super thermally inefficient generally speaking, collecting about 20% of the energy that hits the panel. They are dark, and this leaves a lot of heat available for the gathering. You can get solar systems that heat water as well, especially in rooftop solar. This also cools the panels down and makes them more efficient. Not much, but measurably. Something like this. [1]
Of course, in the winter in Canada, you have to bleed the system otherwise the water will freeze in the tubes and they'll burst.
There's no free heat from a wind turbine.
[1] https://dualsun.com/en/product/hybrid-panel-spring/
Of course, in the winter in Canada, you have to bleed the system otherwise the water will freeze in the tubes and they'll burst.
There's no free heat from a wind turbine.
[1] https://dualsun.com/en/product/hybrid-panel-spring/
Actually, wind turbines do produce heat but we generally let it dissipate. It may be that it is not really usable, but wind turbines that only produce heat are a thing historically:
https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2019/02/heat-your-house-with...
https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2019/02/heat-your-house-with...
I think the issue is you can’t really move heat too far physically, and turbines are located usually pretty far from houses themselves. Certainly relative to rooftop solar.
No argument here, I was just being a pedant really
I appreciated your comment because I hadn’t actually thought about that before!
My memory from the old Swedish nuclear debates is that the generated waste heat is about as much energy as the generated electricity.
There was talk of heating cities with the waste water, but "nucleophobia" killed that idea, as usual.
There was talk of heating cities with the waste water, but "nucleophobia" killed that idea, as usual.
Desalination through waste heat is also viable. It's "free" energy in the sense that it would have otherwise gone unused.
Desalination does not use heat anymore, it's all membrane based.
Also, you'd need enough heat to boil water, but the waste heat, by definition, is lower than the boiling point of water (otherwise the turbine doesn't work).
Also, you'd need enough heat to boil water, but the waste heat, by definition, is lower than the boiling point of water (otherwise the turbine doesn't work).
Desalination can be done through osmosis, which is membrane based. It can also be done through evaporation, which is much less efficient. But if you have a free source of heat, that inefficiency is a non issue.
The waste heat from a steam turbine is higher than boiling. Otherwise the turbine wouldn't work. The boiler turns water into steam, which produces pressure to drive a turbine. The condenser takes the low pressure steam and condenses it back to water.
The waste heat from a steam turbine is higher than boiling. Otherwise the turbine wouldn't work. The boiler turns water into steam, which produces pressure to drive a turbine. The condenser takes the low pressure steam and condenses it back to water.
That would only help near the coasts. Most of Canada's population is in southern Ontario and Quebec where there's no saltwater.
Which is great if you don't mind living a few 100m from a live nuclear plant, and you have a massive backup heat supply when the plant is closed for maintenance...
How do you transfer the waste heat from the nuclear plant to the industrial processes that would use it in place of oil and gas? Just co-locate them all together?
You can pipe steam for a few miles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_heating
Though for industrial purposes (rather than just heating buildings) you'd probably have to be closer.
Though for industrial purposes (rather than just heating buildings) you'd probably have to be closer.
The waste heat from a power plant (any kind), is not hot enough to make steam, unless you deliberately make it less efficient.
You can make hot water though.
You can make hot water though.
Just a reminder that “steam” does not directly imply any specific temperature threshold as it is a function of relative pressure. Pumped into a (near) vacuum, warm water will turn to “steam.” (Cost of pulling a vacuum not considered.)
What's to say that demand needs to be met with waste heat? Couldn't a plant tap off and sell some of the steam that would otherwise be sent to the turbines?
Yes, and that has been done in the past. It comes at the cost of lower power production, though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Nuclear_Generating_Stati...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Nuclear_Generating_Stati...
> It comes at the cost of lower power production
Lower electrical production, not lower power production.
Lower electrical production, not lower power production.
> "300 megawatts (MW) of electricity ... is enough energy to power 300,000 homes for one year."
This statement reflects the quality of the article.
There is nothing very interesting about SMRs. They are much more expensive than equivalent renewables, so they will only be built by coercion of ratepayers who would be better served by the alternative.
This statement reflects the quality of the article.
There is nothing very interesting about SMRs. They are much more expensive than equivalent renewables, so they will only be built by coercion of ratepayers who would be better served by the alternative.
> They are much more expensive than equivalent renewables,
This statement reflects the quality of the comment.
Renewables need significant storage to be directly comparable, cost-wise, to nuclear. There are no currently existing grid level storage solutions, same as SMRs, and both are invested in.
And you're missing a huge part of the equation - we're talking about Canada, the northern cold parts. Which renewables would run there ( maybe wind?) and which storage solution could be viable to withstand the cold and storms and what not?
This statement reflects the quality of the comment.
Renewables need significant storage to be directly comparable, cost-wise, to nuclear. There are no currently existing grid level storage solutions, same as SMRs, and both are invested in.
And you're missing a huge part of the equation - we're talking about Canada, the northern cold parts. Which renewables would run there ( maybe wind?) and which storage solution could be viable to withstand the cold and storms and what not?
Signicant storage is cheap and getting cheaper, much faster than wind or solar ever did. By the time we have built out enough renewables to benefit from storage, storage will be cheap enough to hardly notice.
If we end of building a few of these as planned I'm sure they will get significantly cheeper as well.
Hi, I’m curious, can you tell me about the most promising storage technology being rolled out now?
pumped hydro, depending on geography
Canada has plenty of mountains to support conventional pumped hydro.
There are a lot of interesting variations on pumped hydro that do not depend so much on geography. Undersea variations are most interesting. Wikipedia explains some of them.
Undersea compressed air is also interesting: a bag anchored to the sea bed is inflated with air. Advantage is it needs no mechanical or electrical apparatus underwater.
Similarly, a float attached to a pulley anchored to the seabed, attached to an electric winch onshore, or on the side of a wind turbine post.
There are the usual rapidly improving battery chemistries, prominently iron-air batteries, with utility-scale factories already under construction, to deliver in 2023, with plenty of time to spare.
There are a lot of interesting variations on pumped hydro that do not depend so much on geography. Undersea variations are most interesting. Wikipedia explains some of them.
Undersea compressed air is also interesting: a bag anchored to the sea bed is inflated with air. Advantage is it needs no mechanical or electrical apparatus underwater.
Similarly, a float attached to a pulley anchored to the seabed, attached to an electric winch onshore, or on the side of a wind turbine post.
There are the usual rapidly improving battery chemistries, prominently iron-air batteries, with utility-scale factories already under construction, to deliver in 2023, with plenty of time to spare.
My only question about nuclear is why is it okay to bury the nuclear waste?
I can understand that it might be fine to bury small amounts in specific stores but if countries slowly adopt nuclear energy at scale then over time won’t we be burying a lot of waste that, correct me if I’m wrong, has to be stored for thousands of years? I don’t understand how this can be sustainable long term. I also think it’s maybe arrogant of us to assume that it will always be safe to just store it and that something won’t happen that could disrupt that.
I’m no expert on this though so if someone has a great explanation I’d love to understand it.
I can understand that it might be fine to bury small amounts in specific stores but if countries slowly adopt nuclear energy at scale then over time won’t we be burying a lot of waste that, correct me if I’m wrong, has to be stored for thousands of years? I don’t understand how this can be sustainable long term. I also think it’s maybe arrogant of us to assume that it will always be safe to just store it and that something won’t happen that could disrupt that.
I’m no expert on this though so if someone has a great explanation I’d love to understand it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo...
Is a good starting point. There has been a lot of thought put into this.
Is a good starting point. There has been a lot of thought put into this.
I think it becomes palatable when compared to the alternative. Coal power puts out nuclear material into the air. I would rather see it buried in the stable locations picked so far.
Think about it this way.
All of the uranium used as fuel came from the ground. Now, we will be putting smaller quantity of other, also radioactive, materials into ground. Lot of places have high natural levels of radiation[0], sometimes they even make it as a spa location[1].
People were living around radiation since before they were people. And they managed. We still do.
In the end the question is if we want some radioactive pollution that is easy to contain in the near term, or a lot more carbon pollution that is impossible to contain in the near term.
One is destroying the planet as we speak. The other might be a problem few centuries in the future, if there is one.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation#Areas_wit...
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%A1chymov#Spa
All of the uranium used as fuel came from the ground. Now, we will be putting smaller quantity of other, also radioactive, materials into ground. Lot of places have high natural levels of radiation[0], sometimes they even make it as a spa location[1].
People were living around radiation since before they were people. And they managed. We still do.
In the end the question is if we want some radioactive pollution that is easy to contain in the near term, or a lot more carbon pollution that is impossible to contain in the near term.
One is destroying the planet as we speak. The other might be a problem few centuries in the future, if there is one.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation#Areas_wit...
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%A1chymov#Spa
It's really not that simple. Enriching the raw materials and subjecting them to fission results in a waste product with quite different characteristics than the input.
I know nothing about nuclear physics; could you elaborate? How are the input and output different?
Uranium 235 can decay by splitting into two smaller nuclei and releasing some free neutrons. Frequently those smaller nuclei are themselves radioactive. Uranium has a very long half life, on the order of billions of years, so the natural rate of decay is very low. This makes it relatively safe, since there is not too much radiation produced per second. Many of the product nuclei that can be formed have a much shorter half life. So they emit more radiation, though on the plus side they don't last as long. In nature, these smaller nuclei are still formed, but at a very low rate. In a nuclear reactor, the uranium is bombarded with a large number of neutrons, and it has a chance of splitting whenever a neutron hits it. So there's a high rate of decay, and as a result, once the fuel has been in the reactor for a while, it contains a large amount of those fission products. That's what makes the waste more dangerous: it has isotopes in it that decay faster and therefore emit more radiation per second than pure uranium.
This is a really helpful explanation. I didn't have a clue that the long half life actually results in lower levels of radiation.
You can hold natural uranium in your hand for a long time before it becomes a health concern. It's toxicity (heavy metal!) is more dangerous than its radioactivity. You shouldn't try the same with spent fuel or you will lose you arm quickly.
Thanks to everyone for your replies below, they provided me with some really useful insights and I understand that it's definitely less directly polluting than fossil fuels and that it's also part of an interim plan.
However. I still think humanity can do better.
If we put all the energy, resources and research that we are putting into nuclear into truly sustainable energy like wind, solar, wave and geothermal, which to my knowledge produce less or no byproducts, then that would be best.
It's unfortunate that the world can't take an aligned approach and build solar farms in deserts, wind farms at sea, wave energy on coastlines and then just export it all fairly to countries. I think I'm almost campaigning for energy as a global right and not for sale as a commodity.
However. I still think humanity can do better.
If we put all the energy, resources and research that we are putting into nuclear into truly sustainable energy like wind, solar, wave and geothermal, which to my knowledge produce less or no byproducts, then that would be best.
It's unfortunate that the world can't take an aligned approach and build solar farms in deserts, wind farms at sea, wave energy on coastlines and then just export it all fairly to countries. I think I'm almost campaigning for energy as a global right and not for sale as a commodity.
It is not risk free, but it is "okay"
Most of newer reactor design produce very little waste -- the newest type of reactor produce only a few pounds of spent fuel a year per 1GW.
Most of newer reactor design produce very little waste -- the newest type of reactor produce only a few pounds of spent fuel a year per 1GW.
For those curious - the Canadians have been very successful in nuclear for quite some time- the CANDU reactor is pretty... cool --
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL4FmoTG-iE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL4FmoTG-iE
Not weighing in on pros or cons of nuclear, I'm genuinely not informed enough on the subject.
Just came here to point out what appears to be a significant error in the linked text.
"...when an earthquake-triggered tsunami crashed into the nuclear plant and caused three nuclear meltdowns that leaked radioactive materials for several days."
It is my understanding that radioactive materials were leaking and being released into the oceans far longer than, "several days."
According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_disaster), "As of October 2012, radioactivity was still leaking into the ocean."
This article from World Nuclear (https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-sec...) describes unintentional leaks and planned discharges continuing for years.
Just came here to point out what appears to be a significant error in the linked text.
"...when an earthquake-triggered tsunami crashed into the nuclear plant and caused three nuclear meltdowns that leaked radioactive materials for several days."
It is my understanding that radioactive materials were leaking and being released into the oceans far longer than, "several days."
According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_disaster), "As of October 2012, radioactivity was still leaking into the ocean."
This article from World Nuclear (https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-sec...) describes unintentional leaks and planned discharges continuing for years.
There had never been a land war in a country with nuclear power until 2022. It just strikes me that safely operating a nuclear plant requires you to make predictions about the distant future that are not possible to make.
Cynical quick take on how to quickly build safe nuclear power plants:
- Power company executives live in on-site "VIP housing", and work from offices within the outer containment structure. In case of a major spill, they're issued mops, buckets, and lead underwear, and deployed as front-line clean-up workers.
- NIMBY's shiver in the dark.
- Power company executives live in on-site "VIP housing", and work from offices within the outer containment structure. In case of a major spill, they're issued mops, buckets, and lead underwear, and deployed as front-line clean-up workers.
- NIMBY's shiver in the dark.
Does anyone understand this? "Some of the main differences that the MMR has from conventional nuclear plants is that the reactor cannot meltdown as the heat is passively released into the environment..."
300MW is a lot of energy to passively release into the environment. Does this design really fail safe? And if so, how?
The Fukushima issues were caused (IIRC) by failure of the backup generators to run the cooling system after the reactors were shut down. Do these small reactors really not need any external power when in that state? And do they get into this state by default? I.e. do they shut themselves down without external power and if the control systems fail? That would seem to be a massive safety advantage if it's true.
I remember reading about UK magnox reactors where the graphite control rods were held above the core by electrically powered actuators and which were designed to fall into the core (and stop the reaction) if there was a power failure. Perhaps these reactors are similar.
300MW is a lot of energy to passively release into the environment. Does this design really fail safe? And if so, how?
The Fukushima issues were caused (IIRC) by failure of the backup generators to run the cooling system after the reactors were shut down. Do these small reactors really not need any external power when in that state? And do they get into this state by default? I.e. do they shut themselves down without external power and if the control systems fail? That would seem to be a massive safety advantage if it's true.
I remember reading about UK magnox reactors where the graphite control rods were held above the core by electrically powered actuators and which were designed to fall into the core (and stop the reaction) if there was a power failure. Perhaps these reactors are similar.
This is all somewhat complicated.
Most modern designs claim that if you just switch everything off, the reactor is safe. This is either because having no machinery around the reactor working still makes it safe, or the few critical components have tons of redundancy, and everything is designed to be “broken”.
300MW is what the reactor produces with the moderators retracted. You put them in place and the reaction stops immediately. So you don’t need to cool 300MW passively. What you do have is the residual heat, and fission products decaying away and giving more heat. I’m not sure what power output that equates to, but far, far less than 300MW, and decreasing over time too as shorter-lived fission products go away.
Some major advantages of small reactors in this context:
- the ratio of volume (r^3) to surface area (r^2) is better so it’s easier to cool
- there is simply less bad stuff in any one reactor so the tail risks are smaller
Most modern designs claim that if you just switch everything off, the reactor is safe. This is either because having no machinery around the reactor working still makes it safe, or the few critical components have tons of redundancy, and everything is designed to be “broken”.
300MW is what the reactor produces with the moderators retracted. You put them in place and the reaction stops immediately. So you don’t need to cool 300MW passively. What you do have is the residual heat, and fission products decaying away and giving more heat. I’m not sure what power output that equates to, but far, far less than 300MW, and decreasing over time too as shorter-lived fission products go away.
Some major advantages of small reactors in this context:
- the ratio of volume (r^3) to surface area (r^2) is better so it’s easier to cool
- there is simply less bad stuff in any one reactor so the tail risks are smaller
For getting an intuition on it, I would recommend the clip from HBO’s Chornobyl which ELI5’s a nuclear meltdown. [1]
If the reactor is air cooled, that can be translated as “the heat can just burn off” as there isn’t a liquid cooling system, reducing this failure mode.
As mentioned in the video, reactions are about balance. If a ‘safe’ SMR gets shut off or has its systems fail, you would want the accelerators / enablers of the reaction to disappear, and roll out the reaction.
This is unlike most fission reactors in use today which are a ‘balanced dance’ where lots of the design is focused on reducing the speed of the burn (like a constant stream of water on a fire) rather than say controlling the oxygen of a fire with limited fuel. SMRs aim be more of the “control the oxygen” type of reaction rather than “keep the fire cool” kind of reaction. (Forgive my vast oversimplification, but this is my intuition on it).
[1] https://youtu.be/TmIEI4ky-Zc
If the reactor is air cooled, that can be translated as “the heat can just burn off” as there isn’t a liquid cooling system, reducing this failure mode.
As mentioned in the video, reactions are about balance. If a ‘safe’ SMR gets shut off or has its systems fail, you would want the accelerators / enablers of the reaction to disappear, and roll out the reaction.
This is unlike most fission reactors in use today which are a ‘balanced dance’ where lots of the design is focused on reducing the speed of the burn (like a constant stream of water on a fire) rather than say controlling the oxygen of a fire with limited fuel. SMRs aim be more of the “control the oxygen” type of reaction rather than “keep the fire cool” kind of reaction. (Forgive my vast oversimplification, but this is my intuition on it).
[1] https://youtu.be/TmIEI4ky-Zc
TRISO fuel are encapsulated in very small balls with its own containment.
Those balls are hardened and won't melt in operation.
If those balls are removed from the reactor, it won't have the critical mass to maintain the reaction.
If those balls are removed from the reactor, it won't have the critical mass to maintain the reaction.
We had a TRISO fuel nuclear reactor in Germany, it had a lot of problems and was an expensive failure. Among other things the balls broke.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300 or if you can read german: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernkraftwerk_THTR-300 with a lot of details.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300 or if you can read german: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernkraftwerk_THTR-300 with a lot of details.
The balls sound a lot tougher in the new design. From your wiki link:
> spherical fuel compacts each 6 centimetres (2.4 in) in diameter with particles of uranium-235 and thorium-232 fuel embedded in a graphite matrix
And from the article on Canada's reactor:
> The fuel inside of this vessel are solid kernels made from a mix of uranium, carbon, and oxygen, with each being roughly the size of a poppy seed. These kernels, which are covered in several ceramic coatings, are then encased in a diamond-like substance
That substance is silicon carbide: https://www.ans.org/news/article-2830/a-first-triso-fuel-mad...
Also, the wiki says "a fuel pebble became lodged in a fuel feed pipe to the reactor core." In the new design, there's "no on-site fuel storage, handling, or processing." If the fuel elements are just sitting there instead of getting moved around in pipes, there's little reason for them to break.
> spherical fuel compacts each 6 centimetres (2.4 in) in diameter with particles of uranium-235 and thorium-232 fuel embedded in a graphite matrix
And from the article on Canada's reactor:
> The fuel inside of this vessel are solid kernels made from a mix of uranium, carbon, and oxygen, with each being roughly the size of a poppy seed. These kernels, which are covered in several ceramic coatings, are then encased in a diamond-like substance
That substance is silicon carbide: https://www.ans.org/news/article-2830/a-first-triso-fuel-mad...
Also, the wiki says "a fuel pebble became lodged in a fuel feed pipe to the reactor core." In the new design, there's "no on-site fuel storage, handling, or processing." If the fuel elements are just sitting there instead of getting moved around in pipes, there's little reason for them to break.
Agreed, they hopefully fixed that particular issue.
However, it is prudent to expect other problems in new technology. And nuclear reactors need a huge initial investment (they seem to be vastly over budget and time these days) and take a long time until they are available. It seems to be cheaper, safer and faster to go with renewables, doesn't it?
However, it is prudent to expect other problems in new technology. And nuclear reactors need a huge initial investment (they seem to be vastly over budget and time these days) and take a long time until they are available. It seems to be cheaper, safer and faster to go with renewables, doesn't it?
These are reactors small enough to build in factories. That's an entirely different situation from occasionally custom building huge reactors on site.
For now, we should certainly keep rolling out wind and solar as fast as we can. But whether they can run entire countries reliably through all seasons is unproven so far. They're backed up everywhere by hydro where available, otherwise fossil. It's entirely possible that mass-produced passively-safe nuclear will end up cheaper and faster than the vast amount of storage/transmission/etc we'd need for a 100% wind/solar grid.
For now, we should certainly keep rolling out wind and solar as fast as we can. But whether they can run entire countries reliably through all seasons is unproven so far. They're backed up everywhere by hydro where available, otherwise fossil. It's entirely possible that mass-produced passively-safe nuclear will end up cheaper and faster than the vast amount of storage/transmission/etc we'd need for a 100% wind/solar grid.
This could be a boon for the Tar sands in Alberta. As I understand it a very large amount of oil there is used to create heat for the purpose of releasing the oil from the tar sands and generating nuclear (ie steam) power there could create a good amount of lower temp heat for use in industry (also heating homes if such a project were undertaken). This could really help the oil sands be less carbon emitting.
I do wish it was a thorium based project though. Gordon McDowell was active in Calgary trying to spread awareness of the technology. Sadly it always feels "a decade away" ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4
I do wish it was a thorium based project though. Gordon McDowell was active in Calgary trying to spread awareness of the technology. Sadly it always feels "a decade away" ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4
The article contains the phrase "300 megawatts (MW) of electricity, which is enough energy to power 300,000 homes for one year." Why "one year", not "one second" or any other time interval?
A generous interpretation might be that the "year" is a statement about an average taken over seasons, during which power consumption might vary. But I fear that the article instead betrays simple ignorance, as is the case in many non-technical discussions of power.
I wonder what is it about power that seems so difficult for soft-science writers to comprehend. After all, their readers are paying power bills that are expressed in kilowatt-hours.
A generous interpretation might be that the "year" is a statement about an average taken over seasons, during which power consumption might vary. But I fear that the article instead betrays simple ignorance, as is the case in many non-technical discussions of power.
I wonder what is it about power that seems so difficult for soft-science writers to comprehend. After all, their readers are paying power bills that are expressed in kilowatt-hours.
Not sure if it's quite the same thing, but Argentina has been building a modular reactor for a while now. Doesn't look like it'll be ready anytime soon (probably financing problems).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAREM
https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Nucleoelectrica-cont...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAREM
https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Nucleoelectrica-cont...
"Financing problems" translates to "people finally recognized it could never earn back what they would need to put in to finish it".
No, this is just Argentina being broke as usual. It's a prototype.
Even moreso, then. If no rich country would prototype it, getting Argentina to sign on had to be corruption.
I’ll take the over on 2028, anybody want to take the under?
Worth noting is that Canada has the biggest uranium company and supplier outside of Russian influence, so any development should help that company.
TIL: there are no nuclear reactors in Australia.
2028 just in time
Well, it's about time.
It seems like Canada has only been talking about nuclear power for, what, a decade or two?
I mean, how long did the U.S. wait before getting on board with nuclear energy? We were ahead of Canada on that one by at least half a century!
Just because nuclear power is more expensive and less safe than the alternatives doesn't mean I think Canada should reconsider its ambitious plan to open a new nuclear plant by 2028.
It seems like Canada has only been talking about nuclear power for, what, a decade or two?
I mean, how long did the U.S. wait before getting on board with nuclear energy? We were ahead of Canada on that one by at least half a century!
Just because nuclear power is more expensive and less safe than the alternatives doesn't mean I think Canada should reconsider its ambitious plan to open a new nuclear plant by 2028.
Does this reactor split uranium atoms? If not, how does it generate heat?
Yes. It take TRISO fuel in pellets.
https://www.ans.org/news/article-2830/a-first-triso-fuel-mad... https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/triso-particles-most-robu...
https://www.ans.org/news/article-2830/a-first-triso-fuel-mad... https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/triso-particles-most-robu...
New type of nuclear plant in Canada? Do we need to put Jimmy Carter on standby in case something goes wrong?
1. Vast swathes of uninhabited land can absorb some of the risks/fears associated with a nuclear accident. With technology like this, the risks are even lower. 2. It's lot cleaner than coal and natural gas, which are still the primary sources of our electricity. 3. There will be a huge demand for electric cars in the near future drawing massive amount power from the grid. Nuclear power would be a lot cheaper and enable us to truely go green.
Of course the coal companies won't like that. I can't see any reason why don't have nuclear energy. Please correct me if I'm wrong.