4. There is a wide range of potential designs, that can solve several problems which are otherwise hard to address. By all means critique them, but please do so on the basis of what they are, rather than what you think they are. Prejudice has no place in science or environmentalism.
Comments
What does that actually look like?
https://sppga.ubc.ca/profile/m-v-ramana/
Small Modular and Advanced Nuclear Reactors: A Reality Check
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9374057
But people need to understand disciplined R&D processes, because most advanced projects fail:
https://archive.nytimes.com/dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/12/r2-d2-and-other-lessons-from-bell-labs/
I'm not an expert in nuclear generation, but, I am pretty much up to speed on corporate press releases, it will remain on my list of unproven uncosted, future technologies that are of no use now, like CCS & fusion (solving our problems in 20 years since 1950)
On waste, my understanding was that more waste would be produced as a result of containment (surface area to volume ratio), if the fuel can be recycled then that would be a plus, but, we have heard that one before as well...
There will always be a balance between cost, benefit and risk. However, this debate is often impossible due to the inability to access information that has not been skewed by politics and vested interest.
Combined in the grid with renewables, it kind of is a panacea though right?
Zero CO2 Electricity & hydrogen generation, nuclear waste recycling, industrial heat source…
What does a tech need to do to be considered a panacea these days? 🤷🏼♂️
Have to say after reading it(twice);
2011🧐..,I mean to say that’s a long time ago & then again it isn’t🤔And then again(again🤦🏻♂️)& in this context, it feels as though it really is🧐🤷🏻♂️
Semirelated I did a quick ‘google’* on nuclear fission & fussion - if only* 25 yrs’ ago at uni’🤓 🌱🕊️
Let google buy its own reactor. It's a capitalist solution which burdens earth and human lives.
https://www.dukeupress.edu/radiation-and-revolution
But if AMOC collapse happens, they would have been a risk worth taking?
https://knowledge.energyinst.org/new-energy-world/article?id=139322
That's the plan of the guy who wants to be our next PM. It just doesn't stack up.
Come back and discuss when any actual working system has been designed and built
Until then, SMRs have one property only, they are being used to promise a miracle future where renewables won't be needed to maintain the use of fossil fuels
There are NO merits! Only smoke & mirrors! We’ve been promised SMR for 20+ years now and they are nowhere near marked or even financially proven. It’s a distraction! That’s it. Let private companies tinkle with it. But let’s not waste a minute on them!
Fund R&D at R&D levels, but build what we have now.
Marketwise a promise of something is a progress killer! We need to ignore SMR totally and if they pan out. Great. If not. We’ve already solved the problem.
If they were here and they were cost effective, everyone would be using them.
They've literally had from the early 70s to get this sorted, but you still can't just buy one.
"The cost to build the reprocessing plant, including new safety measures, has ballooned to ¥3.1T ($20.57B), compared to the initial estimate of ¥760B. 💸
"Including expenditures for future decommissioning, the total budget has reached ¥14.7T." 💸💸
Radionuclide pollution may damage organisms or even whole populations but will not destroy the entire biosphere, as carbon dioxide pollution might.
We cannot pass through the world without touching the sides.
I found it a shame that research into thorium stopped years back, all ideas are useful. And this is still just one idea of many.
We need safe, long term energy storage more than we need to create new energy sources.
Their credentials, more money now.
It's their only interest.
Money not development.
Money not solutions.
Money not humanity.
More recently anti nuclear sentiment does often seem to be driven(at least to me)by scaremongering🤔
I ask myself why is that?
Other vested interests🧐
& so I(repeatedly)am minded to be both sceptical/question & pro good science🤓🌱🕊️
The UK can't afford to continue dismissing new tech and opposing modernisation.
Especially energy producing tech.
France built 56 reactors in 15 yrs in response to the 73 oil crisis.
The intention is to start construction of a unit in Ontario this year.
Used to live on the Canary island of La Palma, overlooking El Hierro. If you haven't before heard about it, it's worth looking into how they built a long-term sustainable, self contained, green energy provision system for the whole island.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Hierro#Energy
A real shame governments didn't go for this 20 years ago; by now, we could be switching out coal stations for these mini nukes.
The company had some significant nuclear expertise
We were bought by the Americans and the project was shelved...
but that showed promise for safely burning nuclear waste.
But lets also agree, that we should be going hell for leather to get to Net Zero using Renewables before SMRs are commercially available.
Not slowing down because SMR's might help further down the line.
Which is what Right Wing Parties and Coal & Gas lobby want.
We can decarbonise now with ACTUAL designs, no need to wait for "potential designs.
https://youtu.be/JBqVVBUdW84?feature=shared