First U.S. Small Nuclear Reactor Design Is Approved

This is fantastic news!

Primarily the entire reactor system is small enough to fit in a truck and fly in a plane. That means you can have a central point of manufacture with extremely tight tolarences.

The reactors themselves are current gen - the type that uses micro pellets. Their size and pack density means that their reactivity goes down when they heat up. I.e: they dont melt themselves if they runaway

The reactor sets are small enough that it is economical to dig a hole and shove them in - no foundation problems, no earthquake issues, no flooding/tsunami problems, no tornados/storm breakages.

And when you're done with the reactor, you pick it up and put it somewhere safe. If we figure out how to treat the waste effectively we can process them reactor unit by unit

It's the future of nucular power!
 
Emjay said:
The holy grail of energy does not exist. Maybe in the future, but this tech has been put off for far too long.

I blame busy body environmentalists.
Click to expand...
Especially celebrities Like Greta who have no actual clue how anything actually works
 
Kieppie said:
If you can eliminate the polluting gases it is not bad. CO2 in itself is not harmful.
It's a bit fringe theory, but interesting non the less, where an argument is made that it would be a net positive if CO2 levels increase since the northern hemisphere has more arable land that is currently too cold to use. It also mentions the increased plant growth due to the abundance of CO2. Unfortunately good for the planet is not always so great for our unmoving societies :)
Click to expand...

I know about all these theories. I am a very keen "environmentalist". I travel a lot for my diving and there is some cause for alarm. I feel like I am part of a generation that is experiencing something that the next will not be able to. That's how fast our reefs are collapsing. There is going to be a tipping point when vast swaths of ocean health is going to decline. You cannot deny that ocean health has been steadily decreasing. To me, that's the biggest threat we are going to face. Between the ocean absorbing all of our over produced co2, and the the millions of metric tons of plastics in the oceans, this is a very real threat.

I am however quite certain that we are nearing a solution to our plastic problem. Next is to improve our CO2 to power generation ratio and then get people to embrace greening everything. I am not into massive government intervention, as they always cause more harm than good.
 
NarrowBandFtw said:
makes me weep for what could have been if PBMR research was not defunded so the trough could be filled
Click to expand...

Yeah. There is nothing worse than lost potential.

It's the same feeling I get when thinking about South Africa.
 
Ponderer said:
Don't know - estimates vary.
There is only so much of the stuff, and it's getting less with each passing day.
Click to expand...
Give an estimate that you think is reasonable. Give the worst estimate. How many years do you think we have?
 
Emjay said:
I know about all these theories. I am a very keen "environmentalist". I travel a lot for my diving and there is some cause for alarm. I feel like I am part of a generation that is experiencing something that the next will not be able to. That's how fast our reefs are collapsing. There is going to be a tipping point when vast swaths of ocean health is going to decline. You cannot deny that ocean health has been steadily decreasing. To me, that's the biggest threat we are going to face. Between the ocean absorbing all of our over produced co2, and the the millions of metric tons of plastics in the oceans, this is a very real threat.

I am however quite certain that we are nearing a solution to our plastic problem. Next is to improve our CO2 to power generation ratio and then get people to embrace greening everything. I am not into massive government intervention, as they always cause more harm than good.
Click to expand...
I don't deny the coral dying, but it is not solely the CO2 as evidence by the fact that coral existed during periods when CO2 levels were much much higher than now. You could argue that it is the delta (time change in CO2) thats causing it. There are other factors few people take into account though for example the vibrations caused by the props of large vessels or as you mentioned the plastic problem. My point was more that people simplify the causes of problems and then make decisions that won't address the root cause,

I am 100% on board with eliminating any and all pollution and this should be our first step. This unfortunately is not as flashy as the world is ending due to CO2. Also not many people will change their habits to reduce pollution. Easy example disposable nappies. You should see the strata of closed dumping sites. Almost like a twisted fossil record :D
 
Emjay said:
Yeah. There is nothing worse than lost potential.

It's the same feeling I get when thinking about South Africa.
Click to expand...
Almost did my thesis on heat pipes in PBMR back at varsity.

Molten salt reactors also look quite promising. Pity they stopped most of the research when they decided on current nuclear designs.
 
Messugga said:
While not a fossil fuel, nuclear still isn't a renewable, so not a perfect solution.
Click to expand...

Nuclear still has the least impact on the environment based on the waste which is generated.

Ponderer said:
Nuclear power is not a viable/sustainable long-term solution.
Click to expand...

I disagree. It's most definitely viable as is evident by many countries increasingly becoming reliant on it and more sustainable as technology and efficiencies improve.
 
Mr Fusion will be a thing in the next decade..... surely
 
quovadis said:
Nuclear still has the least impact on the environment based on the waste which is generated.



I disagree. It's most definitely viable as is evident by many countries increasingly becoming reliant on it and more sustainable as technology and efficiencies improve.
Click to expand...
The problem with nuclear is that it requires a large investment, which requires large loans and we all know how that goes :)
 
rietrot said:
Give an estimate that you think is reasonable. Give the worst estimate. How many years do you think we have?
Click to expand...

About a century.

Vorastra said:
Not as limited as you think. It's literally 10's of millennia worth of fuel when breeder and ocean sieving technologies become viable. Even more so if/when fusion ever becomes viable.
Click to expand...

With Thorium breeder reactors about 8,000 years.
 
Messugga said:
While not a fossil fuel, nuclear still isn't a renewable, so not a perfect solution.
Click to expand...
We don't have renewables, you've got to replace and dispose of solar panels and wind uses a lot of other resources and land. It's also not perfect as look at California they have load shedding thanks to trying to go renewables only.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X