John Frum
Tell me your problems
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2019
- Messages
- 15,233
NuScale’s small nuclear reactor is first to get US safety approval
Small size can help with economics and safety.
arstechnica.com
small nuclear reactor is first to get US safety approval
- Thread starter John Frum
- Start date
arstechnica.com
Most excellent. Heard of them recently. Didn't know they were that close:
sightlineu3o8.com
Nuke power is going to be critical for rapid, cost effective and smooth transition to renewables/low carbon options. Safest way of producing power at scale and about the same carbon footprint per MWh as PV.
Nuclear Regulators Consider New Safety Rules For Smaller Plants
For more than a half century, nuclear power has been focused on one kind of plant: a huge, complicated, expensive facility, with armed guards, located away from cities and next to a river. Now, a n…
sightlineu3o8.com
Nuke power is going to be critical for rapid, cost effective and smooth transition to renewables/low carbon options. Safest way of producing power at scale and about the same carbon footprint per MWh as PV.
nosys70
Solar Enthusiast
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Messages
- 839
even the design is flawed.
1) "The design also uses a passive cooling system, so no pumps or moving parts are required to keep the reactor operating safely. "
Great so no mechanical part that can fail.
2) " In the case of a problem, the reactor is similarly designed to manage its heat automatically. The control rods re actively held in place above the fuel rods by a motor "
Ok, so let's build the only mechanical part that can fail as the safety mechanism.....
So they even managed to put a lie into the description
" so no pumps or moving parts are required to keep the reactor operating safely ... but the safety mechanism rely on a motor...."
hilarious ......
1) "The design also uses a passive cooling system, so no pumps or moving parts are required to keep the reactor operating safely. "
Great so no mechanical part that can fail.
2) " In the case of a problem, the reactor is similarly designed to manage its heat automatically. The control rods re actively held in place above the fuel rods by a motor "
Ok, so let's build the only mechanical part that can fail as the safety mechanism.....
So they even managed to put a lie into the description
" so no pumps or moving parts are required to keep the reactor operating safely ... but the safety mechanism rely on a motor...."
hilarious ......
Last edited:
New designs are essentially explosion proof and melt-down proof. The two major nuclear disasters had essentially zero risk of explosion, and they didn't.
No nuclear reactor on the planet has ever produced more nuclear waste than it can store on site. New designs focus on "rejuvinating" spent or partially spent fuel into fissionable materials to further reduce nuclear waste.
Ampster
Renewable Energy Hobbyist
Wow. Really? Do you really not understand what that is saying? It's saying the system is designed such that IF the mechanical system fails the rods drop into the core and halt the reaction.
nosys70
Solar Enthusiast
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Messages
- 839
" the rods drop into the core and halt the reaction. "
yes , magically... like all nuclear reactor that have blown up up to now.
i do not know what you call an explosion, but when fukushima radioactive trace are reaching up to San Francisco...
or when radioactivity form Techrnobyl reach Paris 2000km far away...
yes , magically... like all nuclear reactor that have blown up up to now.
i do not know what you call an explosion, but when fukushima radioactive trace are reaching up to San Francisco...
or when radioactivity form Techrnobyl reach Paris 2000km far away...
Gravity isn't magic.
Not a single nuclear reactor has blown up. None of them ever could as they lack critical mass for a runaway fission reaction. Those are core meltdowns and release of contamination. Modern reactor designs eliminate either of these events occurring again.
Do some research on the number of lives lost annually due to coal production and burning. I'll help get you started:
Nuclear Power Prevents More Deaths Than It Causes
Climate Change: Study estimates that nuclear energy leads to substantially fewer pollution-related deaths and greenhouse gas emissions compared with fossil-fuel sources
cen.acs.org
Ampster
Renewable Energy Hobbyist
How about using those old coal mines for pumped hydro like they are doing in Germany? Allocate some of the revenue to clean up the slag piles that are killing the local rivers when they collapse.
nosys70
Solar Enthusiast
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Messages
- 839
the problem is harvesting energy in any form or method is destructive.
should you cut trees, dig earth, cover desert with solar panels, you will change the nature the way it work.
Since energy is a business, it usually care only on making money efficiently.
this does not allow to take care of the eventual consequence of the activity that will cost money soon or later.
this mind is changing slowly, but this is no sufficient.
As long as the choice is doing it right or getting more money.
we build datacenter (google, facebook) in cold countries (Sweden) because there is a lot of money to spare if you get natural cooling.
Microsoft goes even deeper by immerging container with hundreds of server directly into the see.
These containers are closed for ever, with redundancy so in case of problem you can still go.
At the end when there is too much failure, the container is supposed to be disposed.
All that to grab the last cents.
So you can imagine with this state of mind, when there will be money to spend to get the container out of sea,
There will always be a guy who will say that it is cheaper to leave it where it is.
should you cut trees, dig earth, cover desert with solar panels, you will change the nature the way it work.
Since energy is a business, it usually care only on making money efficiently.
this does not allow to take care of the eventual consequence of the activity that will cost money soon or later.
this mind is changing slowly, but this is no sufficient.
As long as the choice is doing it right or getting more money.
we build datacenter (google, facebook) in cold countries (Sweden) because there is a lot of money to spare if you get natural cooling.
Microsoft goes even deeper by immerging container with hundreds of server directly into the see.
These containers are closed for ever, with redundancy so in case of problem you can still go.
At the end when there is too much failure, the container is supposed to be disposed.
All that to grab the last cents.
So you can imagine with this state of mind, when there will be money to spend to get the container out of sea,
There will always be a guy who will say that it is cheaper to leave it where it is.
Got it. Earth is better off without us, and since we can't force a mass suicide, we should go back to living like cavemen with negligible impact on the environment. Let a bunch of people die off and then have a life expectancy in the 50s. Gotcha.
MrNatural22
?SW sunshine =⚡️⚡️lit up thru the darkness✌️
Uh Oh!! There's a very low frequency droning within the Bezos prime powered left cerebral lobe as the right hemisphere sees visions of making the concept pretty......? 
?
He may have to ask the ex for a loan. LOL
?He may have to ask the ex for a loan. LOL
Holy shit... The headline caused an immediate dismissive reaction. After reading the article, I am thinking "holy shit, this actually sounds viable"...
Then of course, I think of the unwashed ignorant masses, who will reject it simply on the basis that it deals with nuclear waste even if it is perfectly viable and safe.
I am drowning in the sorrow of my own tears.
newatlas.com
Then of course, I think of the unwashed ignorant masses, who will reject it simply on the basis that it deals with nuclear waste even if it is perfectly viable and safe.
I am drowning in the sorrow of my own tears.
Energy
Humankind's insatiable appetite for energy has put the planet in a very precarious position environmentally, but it also drives prosperity and improved living standards. New Atlas keeps you up to date with the latest breakthroughs in the energy sector, from the expanding field of renewable energy…
newatlas.com
Ampster
Renewable Energy Hobbyist
Since Tesla is the largest purchaser of batteries I wonder what they said when these guys went to them?
I bet if Elon believes it's viable, you'll see the gigafactory retrofitted. He'll want to manufacture his own and pay royalties rather than buy from NDB, and NDB would run out of money before they could supply Tesla.
Cars that recharge themselves... and while they drive...
I've never heard of Beta decay as a usable electron source, even Nuclear thermoelectric generators use a thermocouple to produce electricity from the heat. I see the biggest problem as being what you do with it when you're NOT using it... it's going to continue to produce electrons. You'll have to have some kind of storage or a built in resistor/heatsink to consume the continual power.
Cars that recharge themselves... and while they drive...
I've never heard of Beta decay as a usable electron source, even Nuclear thermoelectric generators use a thermocouple to produce electricity from the heat. I see the biggest problem as being what you do with it when you're NOT using it... it's going to continue to produce electrons. You'll have to have some kind of storage or a built in resistor/heatsink to consume the continual power.
Ampster
Renewable Energy Hobbyist
Yes, if it was viable he would have already bought the company with stock.
Similar threads
