First U.S. Small Nuclear Reactor Design Is Approved

[konfab]

NuScale’s SMR, developed with the help of almost $300 million from the U.S. Department of Energy, has a generating capacity of 50 megawatts—substantially smaller than standard nuclear reactors, which can range to well more than 1,000 megawatts (MW). A utility could combine up to 12 SMRs at a single site, producing 600 MW of electricity—enough to power a midsize city. The NRC says it expects an application for a 60-MW version of NuScale’s SMR in 2022.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-u-s-small-nuclear-reactor-design-is-approved/

 

[Vorastra]

I love how the company says it'll be cheaper, less prone to overrun, and is safer than typical reactor designs...and then experts say the complete opposite.

Other than that, in terms of safety, why is it safer? Compartmentalisation of smaller yields?

 

[konfab]

I thought everyone would appreciate some positive news. Small reactors like this are going to be the nail that kills off fossil fuels.

 

[konfab]

I love how the company says it'll be cheaper, less prone to overrun, and is safer than typical reactor designs...and then experts say the complete opposite.

Other than that, in terms of safety, why is it safer? Compartmentalisation of smaller yields?

I think just being able to make them in a factory rather than making them on site will eliminate a lot of problems and make things like maintenance much easier. One of the reasons why France has a good nuclear program is because all their reactors share a common design, this allows them to fix design issues quickly and across all the stations.

 

[Messugga]

I thought everyone would appreciate some positive news. Small reactors like this are going to be the nail that kills off fossil fuels.

While not a fossil fuel, nuclear still isn't a renewable, so not a perfect solution.

 

[konfab]

While not a fossil fuel, nuclear still isn't a renewable, so not a perfect solution.

Perfection is the enemy of good.

There isn't infinite amount of materials to make solar panels or wind farms either, so I guess they must also not be renewable.
Nuclear power uses the most energy dense resource we have discovered.

 

[Aquila ka Hecate]

While not a fossil fuel, nuclear still isn't a renewable, so not a perfect solution.

And don't forget Plutonium Is Forever.

 

[Messugga]

Perfection is the enemy of good.

Radioactive material that remains as such for decades, is pretty far from perfection.

 

[Ponderer]

...
Small reactors like this are going to be the nail that kills off fossil fuels.

I doubt it.
The fuel for nuclear reactors is limited.
Nuclear power is not a viable/sustainable long-term solution.

 

[longboy]

They need to start researching how to utilise reaction using cold fusion. It certainly is a possibility.

Cold fusion remains elusive—but these scientists may revive the quest

The first public results from a Google-funded project reveal renewed interest in the long-sought but controversial nuclear energy source.

www.nationalgeographic.com

 

[konfab]

Radioactive material that remains as such for decades, is pretty far from perfection.

Being far from a fictional utopia is a meaningless comparison.

 

[konfab]

I doubt it.
The fuel for nuclear reactors is limited.

In the same way that pretty much everything we have is limited.
But in terms of things like peak uranium, I wouldn't bet on any predictions. They haven't even been able to predict peak oil. Heck they were giving away the stuff earlier this year.

 

[Messugga]

Being far from a fictional utopia is a meaningless comparison.

What are you on about? The fact of the matter is, nuclear doesn't tick all the boxes for a sustainable solution. It's one of the better solutions at present, but is it good enough? No.
Fusion reactors would be significantly better than nuclear, if we could crack them.

 

[Vorastra]

I think just being able to make them in a factory rather than making them on site will eliminate a lot of problems and make things like maintenance much easier. One of the reasons why France has a good nuclear program is because all their reactors share a common design, this allows them to fix design issues quickly and across all the stations.

Oh, right so it's safer in that it can be maintained and improved more easily than current typical designs. Fair enough.

While not a fossil fuel, nuclear still isn't a renewable, so not a perfect solution.

It's not really the point. We have so much fissile material, potentially based on future technological breakthrough, coupled with MOX fuel, that nuclear might as well be renewable not because it is actually renewable but that it will virtually last for millennia. Renewable doesn't really mean renewable anymore, it means whatever will last a really long time. Solar isn't renewable, technically. Raw materials are required to make the panels, that are themselves limited due to degradation and have about an ~85% recyclable recovery rate.

I think it's estimated at ~50,000 years worth of nuclear fuel if scientists and engineers can develop a workable and viable ocean sieving solution.

Never mind that if/when breeder and fusion reactors become commercially viable, then nuclear will truly become renewable in every sense of the word.

 

[konfab]

What are you on about? The fact of the matter is, nuclear doesn't tick all the boxes for a sustainable solution. It's one of the better solutions at present, but is it good enough? No.

You do know that it is physically impossible to have sustainable electricity generation, 2nd law of thermodynamics and all that nonsense. The term "sustainable" bugs me for this very reason.
You need lots of metal and other non-renewable resources to make renewable energy. Not to mention the very finite resource of land.

None of the things you have stated are a reason to not to embrace the technology. Current "renewable" energy absolutely needs fossil fuels because they are unreliable. It is why you find nice pages about renewable energy on the websites of all the oil companies.

Fusion reactors would be significantly better than nuclear, if we could crack them.

Right, but they are not ready to produce electricity. Whereas these reactors are.

As I said, perfection is the enemy of good.

 

[Ponderer]

They need to start researching how to utilise reaction using cold fusion. It certainly is a possibility.

Cold fusion remains elusive—but these scientists may revive the quest

The first public results from a Google-funded project reveal renewed interest in the long-sought but controversial nuclear energy source.

www.nationalgeographic.com

Cold fusion is a theoretical possibility, but only in theory.

 

[Messugga]

None of the things you have stated are a reason to not to embrace the technology.

At no point did I say that we shouldn't embrace the technology. On the contrary, I said that it's one of the best solutions we currently have. My point was that this shouldn't be considered a sufficient, indefinite solution to the world's energy requirements.

 

[Ponderer]

In the same way that pretty much everything we have is limited.
...

Yup.

 

[Ponderer]

You do know that it is physically impossible to have sustainable electricity generation, 2nd law of thermodynamics and all ...

Yup - exactly that.

 

[Nicodeamus]

I doubt it.
The fuel for nuclear reactors is limited.
Nuclear power is not a viable/sustainable long-term solution.

Comments like this just shows economic illiteracy and the deeply ingrained flawed Malthusian thinking.

The first law in economics is scarcity.
Every other resource is limited, but thanks to human innovation we have more resources available today and we have a higher yield, this includes fossil fuels, mining etc.

Read on the Simon Abundance index to explain this.

The Simon Abundance Index 2020

humanprogress.org