5 ms·

Canada has them. Pretty much the same situation

• paranoidrobot 4y ago
  Apart from the whole vastly-differing-amounts-of-water thing.
  • synicalx 4y ago
    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).
    • paranoidrobot 4y ago
      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.
      • onethought 4y ago
        The water is closed loop right? Can’t you pump or even deliver the water by truck? (Sorry if this is really ignorant)
        • paranoidrobot 4y ago
          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.
          • deleted 4y ago
            [deleted]
• natmaka 4y ago
  Canada is a very different case: electricity sources are 2/3 renewables, mainly hydro (~60%). Nuclear: ~15%
  • arcticbull 4y ago
    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/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles-ontario.html https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/pr...
    • notmars 4y ago
      https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles-quebec.html https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/pr... maybe?
      • arcticbull 4y ago
        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-considered-a-clean-energy-source-hydropower-can-actually-be-bad-for-climate/ https://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2019/11/15/long-conside...
        • natmaka 4y ago
          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/improving-fish-migration-hydropower-dams 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 https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1209/ML12090A850.pdf