Live data from Hacker News

Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety approval

popularmechanics.com

1–10 of 554 posts

Re: Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety approval

#5

NRC Release: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2020/20-...

Also https://apnews.com/910766c07afd96fbe2bd875e16087464

edit: and https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/09/first-modular-nuclea..., via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24345288

Re: Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety approval

#7

fyi, OSU college has a 1-megawatt research reactor. https://www.oregon.gov/energy/facilities-safety/facilities/P... https://www.corvallisadvocate.com/2012/got-nuke-state-of-the...

McMaster University in Hamilton, ON has a reactor as well:

https://nuclear.mcmaster.ca/facility/nuclear-reactor/

Re: Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety approval

#8
post #2

"Officially safe" is a hilarious term which tries to predict the possibility of an MCA or "Maximum Credible Accident." Of course, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima were also "officially safe" when they were built.

The passive safety is a big leap forward. Removing humans from that process makes it safer.

"In the event of any runaway reactor event, NuScale says, the reactor quenches itself in its pool, making it “passively safe.”"

Re: Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety approval

#9
post #2

"Officially safe" is a hilarious term which tries to predict the possibility of an MCA or "Maximum Credible Accident." Of course, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima were also "officially safe" when they were built.

What a bad faith post.

> Three Mile Island

Was handled reasonably well, resulted in safety improvements to procedures and designs for future reactors.

From https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3...

> The approximately 2 million people around TMI-2 during the accident are estimated to have received an average radiation dose of only about 1 millirem above the usual background dose. To put this into context, exposure from a chest X-ray is about 6 millirem and the area's natural radioactive background dose is about 100-125 millirem per year for the area. The accident's maximum dose to a person at the site boundary would have been less than 100 millirem above background.

Not exactly the end of the world.

> Chernobyl

Accident caused by Communists who did not care about what happened to Ukrainians, as usual for them, and experimented with something that any nuclear physicist could have told them was a terrible idea. This is like blaming vehicles and calling them unsafe after reaching over from the passenger seat and yanking the wheel to drive a truck into a crowd. The moral of the story here is to keep Communists away from anything important, which applies to farms, industrial sectors, food distribution, and really most things more complicated than a pitchfork or a torch.

> Fukushima

Was reasonably safe for its long life, but they cheaped out on the necessary wall and drainage functionality; should probably have been decomm'd and replaced before this happened.

The problem in the nuclear industry is that anti-nuclear people like you form public opinion that causes it to be difficult for it to move forward. New plants based on newer designs are orders of magnitude safer - e.g. the CANDU Canadian reactor which is more fail-safe than most, and the push towards 4th generation reactors.

Get out of the way and let the planet have a clean base load energy source, or be sitting here bitching about carbon footprints 50 years from now when it should be a solved problem already.

Re: Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety approval

#10

fyi, OSU college has a 1-megawatt research reactor. https://www.oregon.gov/energy/facilities-safety/facilities/P... https://www.corvallisadvocate.com/2012/got-nuke-state-of-the...

Reed college in Portland has a 250kW one operating since 1968.

https://reactor.reed.edu/about.html

Post reply on HN