Saskatchewan, Ontario to roll out mini-nuclear reactors(westerninvestor.com)
westerninvestor.com
Saskatchewan, Ontario to roll out mini-nuclear reactors
https://www.westerninvestor.com/british-columbia/saskatchewan-ontario-to-roll-out-mini-nuclear-reactors-5568249
400 comments
I think it's worth pointing out that nuclear is pretty well loved in Ontario. Around 2/3 of our energy is coming from it already.
https://www.ieso.ca/power-data
Nuclear is the base load, alternatives supply what they can, and hydroelectric dams and gas plants act as the variable load supply.
If we can just lose the gas plants, we'd be pretty close to zero carbon. And I think that achievable.
https://www.ieso.ca/power-data
Nuclear is the base load, alternatives supply what they can, and hydroelectric dams and gas plants act as the variable load supply.
If we can just lose the gas plants, we'd be pretty close to zero carbon. And I think that achievable.
They looked at the price tags of these reactors vs solar and wind, and chose the lowest number, fine. But I've never heard of a nuclear project coming in at under multiple times its original estimate, and taking a decade or more longer than expected. Has any new nuclear power come online anywhere since Fukushima?
Mini nuclear reactors make a lot of sense especially in the areas with a lot of electricity-hungry industry, Polish copper producer KGHM is planning to build such reactors for their own needs (they use 1 GW a year) [1].
It will make their operations cheaper, saving on transfer losses alone on their scale is significant gain.
[1] https://media.kghm.com/en/news-and-press-releases/kghm-plans...
It will make their operations cheaper, saving on transfer losses alone on their scale is significant gain.
[1] https://media.kghm.com/en/news-and-press-releases/kghm-plans...
Will they provide the tritium required to bridge the gap to fusion? Canada provides almost all the world supply, but it's from stockpiles iirc. Once fusion is up and working, it can generate its own tritium, but ITERs tritium generation experiment has been massively scaled back, so we need more from nuclear reactors.
see https://www.science.org/content/article/fusion-power-may-run... for more info.
see https://www.science.org/content/article/fusion-power-may-run... for more info.
My dad worked on these for the (even further north) northern provinces.
I forget which company, but I know one of these were sold as being tested to be safe under a direct missile hit in case of an attack! Super cool.
Edit: Territories, not provinces. All three of them.
I forget which company, but I know one of these were sold as being tested to be safe under a direct missile hit in case of an attack! Super cool.
Edit: Territories, not provinces. All three of them.
> As a comparison with other non-emission options, BC Hydro’s 1,100 Mwe Site C dam is expected to cost $16 billion.
I get that this is coming from a website whose name contains "investor". As combustible based options go, I think nuclear is the least worse, and a site-C equivalent in Sask is probably not even an option.
I find it dangerous to a) put nuclear and hydro/wind in the same "non-emission" category, especially when nuclear does emit radioactive solid waste and the occasional radioactive cloud when they go boom, b) to reduce the comparison to a price-tag, where indeed nuclear will win
I get that this is coming from a website whose name contains "investor". As combustible based options go, I think nuclear is the least worse, and a site-C equivalent in Sask is probably not even an option.
I find it dangerous to a) put nuclear and hydro/wind in the same "non-emission" category, especially when nuclear does emit radioactive solid waste and the occasional radioactive cloud when they go boom, b) to reduce the comparison to a price-tag, where indeed nuclear will win
> A 300W-solar power farm would require 1.5 million solar panels and cost approximately $300 million, provided the 1,500- to-1,800 acres of land needed was free and the sun shone steadily,
It's worse than that. Let's say you get 12 hours of steady sunshine every day.
What to do the other 12 hours? For that you'll need storage.
Therefore, you will need to double the capacity of the solar array so that during that 12 hours you can both store power and deliver power to people who need it.
But then no power store is 100% efficient, so you'll also need to add more panels for that.
But then you're never going to get 12 hours of steady power every day. You're going to have to increase storage and panels to account for that too.
It's worse than that. Let's say you get 12 hours of steady sunshine every day.
What to do the other 12 hours? For that you'll need storage.
Therefore, you will need to double the capacity of the solar array so that during that 12 hours you can both store power and deliver power to people who need it.
But then no power store is 100% efficient, so you'll also need to add more panels for that.
But then you're never going to get 12 hours of steady power every day. You're going to have to increase storage and panels to account for that too.
I'm stunned by the price difference.
1-1.5 billion for this power plant, but only 300-400 million for wind or solar.
We really have come a long way in bringing down prices for wind and solar!
We really have come a long way in bringing down prices for wind and solar!
[The economics of a nuclear reactor](https://youtu.be/cbeJIwF1pVY)
In case this hasn’t already been shared
In case this hasn’t already been shared
Good for them. The way forward is with nuclear.
Why doesn’t Saskatchewan and Northern Ontario just import most of its electricity from Manitoba?
> A 300W-solar power farm would require 1.5 million solar panels and cost approximately $300 million, provided the 1,500- to-1,800 acres of land.
I assume 300W is actually 300MW. If that's correct, solar panels are still much more convenient, also considering that power plant will require many acres of land for the building, pipes, etc. Solar panels have zero waste too. What am I missing?
I assume 300W is actually 300MW. If that's correct, solar panels are still much more convenient, also considering that power plant will require many acres of land for the building, pipes, etc. Solar panels have zero waste too. What am I missing?
What happens when after 5 or 10 years of the deployment of a dozen of these one of these shows signs of a critical part getting cracks, for example a pipe. Then all the remaining reactors will have to be shut down as well until the part is not only replaced, but the replacement has been certified.
Isn't it better to put more effort into a big one instead?
Isn't it better to put more effort into a big one instead?
https://aris.iaea.org/PDF/BWRX-300_2020.pdf
> The IC [Isolation Condenser] pool has an installed capacity that provides 7 days of reactor decay heat removal capability. The heat rejection process can be continued indefinitely by replenishing the IC pool inventory.
It would be nice if we were building reactors that could shut down without any external input. NuScale seems to be closest to production with a walk-away safe design. In other words, change "7 days" to "infinity days".
> The IC [Isolation Condenser] pool has an installed capacity that provides 7 days of reactor decay heat removal capability. The heat rejection process can be continued indefinitely by replenishing the IC pool inventory.
It would be nice if we were building reactors that could shut down without any external input. NuScale seems to be closest to production with a walk-away safe design. In other words, change "7 days" to "infinity days".
What I don't understand is why they are still not done at scale, i.e. build 10 of these in the same spot and get the economic advantage and especially keep the security and risk things isolated.
I made once an estimate that to power the whole energy( not power,current,ampere) of the world we need a surface of the sice of spain. And I took bad Sunlight into account. …. So I wonder why for most countries … why not go all in solar? Nuclear seems so much expensive and wastefull compared to solar.
I know there is the storage problem. But most energy is directly consumed or has to be stores for a short period . Heat for example. And heat is stored in water.
I know there is the storage problem. But most energy is directly consumed or has to be stores for a short period . Heat for example. And heat is stored in water.
Have been seeing tech news articles about mini nuclear reactor coming really soon now for about 22 years, so far, none have actually happened.
[deleted]
I'm always shocked by how many anti-nuclear power people are on HN. So many have bought into fearmongering and lies about safety that oil and gas companies are happy to encourage. It's a non-reweable but quite clean and incredibly safe method of power generation.
It produces far less harm to the environment than fossil fuel generation, which should be decommissioned as quickly as possible. Every time a government chooses too replace nuclear generation with fossil fuels out of choice (I'm looking at you, Germany), they're a traitor to their own people, and to all humans.
And I'll never understand "green" people who actively protest against nuclear power. Yes, renewable power is better. But most of the power generated comes from fossil fuels, that needs to stop as soon as possible, which isn't happening in the short term via only renewable power.
I highly recommend watching this video by Kurzgesagt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhAemz1v7dQ.
It produces far less harm to the environment than fossil fuel generation, which should be decommissioned as quickly as possible. Every time a government chooses too replace nuclear generation with fossil fuels out of choice (I'm looking at you, Germany), they're a traitor to their own people, and to all humans.
And I'll never understand "green" people who actively protest against nuclear power. Yes, renewable power is better. But most of the power generated comes from fossil fuels, that needs to stop as soon as possible, which isn't happening in the short term via only renewable power.
I highly recommend watching this video by Kurzgesagt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhAemz1v7dQ.
These cost estimates do not include the maintenance of the waste products of nuclear energy production.
These costs are astonishingly!
If the 10,000 year costs fell on the producers and consumers directly (this is how it should be), they would quickly have a different point of different view
These costs are astonishingly!
If the 10,000 year costs fell on the producers and consumers directly (this is how it should be), they would quickly have a different point of different view
Oh man. Canada is doing something smart in a very welcome change
so approx 5k per house... i wonder how long they last for?
So it's estimated to cost 4x the cost of wind or solar today and it's not being deployed for at least 10yrs. Sounds like a bargain.
> ... approximately 240,0000 homes.
> ...
> A 300W-solar power farm would require 1.5 million solar panels and cost approximately $300 million.
... watt??
> ...
> A 300W-solar power farm would require 1.5 million solar panels and cost approximately $300 million.
... watt??
Whatever happened to the idea of Thorium reactors? It seems like this would be the ideal use for them.
These are still too big. They will take too long and have huge cost overruns.
Tried to read the article, but just kept picturing Homer Simpson
>> Each of the 300 MWe SMRs cost between $1 billion to $1.5 billion and can provide enough electricity to power approximately 240,0000 homes.
. . . with bonus '0' and misplaced comma at no extra cost I trust?
. . . with bonus '0' and misplaced comma at no extra cost I trust?
Perhaps change the headline.. "by 2030".
The article was published on July 11, 2022, but opens with: "Saskatchewan and Ontario have each chosen GE-Hitachi as the supplier of small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs), which could be deployed in the Prairie province by the 2030s and in Ontario by 2018." Then, the article concludes with: "GEH and Ontario plan to construct up to four 300 MWe small module reactors, with the first coming online by 2028."
A separate source by The Canadian Press [0] also reflects an estimate of 2028 for Ontario: "The governments of Ontario, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Alberta have put forward a nuclear plan that they say will transition them toward cleaner energy. The provinces’ energy ministers agreed today to a joint plan for small modular reactors, with the first 300-megawatt plant to be built in Darlington, Ont., by 2028."
[0] https://financialpost.com/commodities/energy/renewables/onta...