61–70 of 554 posts
Article gave absolutely no indication of its dimensions. How "tiny" is it exactly?
Just barely too big to go on a standard tractor trailer. But small enough to be portable by a oversize load tractor trailer. Kind of like the blades for very large wind turbines in west Texas.
"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 int…
>Was reasonably safe for its long life, but they cheaped out on the necessary wall and drainage functionality
They didn't "cheap out" on the seawall at Fukushima. You may be referring to how the plant design was sited closer to the ocean but the seawall was constructed to not be overtopped by the highest tsunami possible. At the time the plant was constructed the theory was that tsunamis were generated in part by underwater landslides and the topology of the surrounding ocean was taken into account to come up with the largest possible tsunami it would have to block. The science behind tsunami formation was flawed during construction and once that theory was later improved no one ever reconsidered the implications for the seawall design.
I agree that public perception is the largest problem by far with nuclear energy but you're not helping your argument by brushing real problems under the rug like this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The reactor measures 65 feet tall x 9 feet in diameter. It sits within a containment vessel measuring 76 feet tall x 15 feet in diameter. Per: https://www.nuscalepower.com/technology/technology-overview
you forgot to mention that those 23 m high containment vessels are places in in a pool which of course have to be much bigger than that: "The reactor and containment vessel operate inside a water-filled pool that is built below grade." We'll see of this is in any way or form sustainable, especially since uranium is also a finite ressource.
I think it's disingenuous to argue the economics of nuclear without mentioning: "DOE reported that it faced an estimated $494 billion in future environmental cleanup costs — a liability that roughly tripled during the previous 20 years." https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/696956.pdf
List of sites https://www.dnfsb.gov/doe-sites
I think it's disingenuous to argue the economics of nuclear without mentioning: "DOE reported that it faced an estimated $494 billion in future environmental cleanup costs — a liability that roughly tripled during the previous 20 years." https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/696956.pdf
I think it's disingenuous to argue the economics of nuclear without mentioning: "DOE reported that it faced an estimated $494 billion in future environmental cleanup costs — a liability that roughly tripled during the previous 20 years." https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/696956.pdf
This is IMO a positive for nuclear, not a negative. You're forced to confront the cleanup as opposed to fossil fuels, where you just blow your waste out into the atmosphere and make it the commons' problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you consider the climate, about 100 times that.
Is there a paper on that? 40 trillion sounds like a lot and I’m curious how that number is generated.
To put that number in context, which is just an order of magnitude, it's $5,000 for every person on Earth, about 1.5x the current US national debt, and just under the combined market cap of NYSE+NASDAQ.
As an existential problem for humanity that doesn't currently have a solution, I think that's a decent cost estimate.
Older reactors are designed like fortresses, supposedly able to take a direct hit by a commercial jet and survive. They have armed guards, etc.
It would be interesting to see how they would try to protect these. Typical electrical substations are protected by a chain-link fence and a padlock.
I think it's disingenuous to argue the economics of nuclear without mentioning: "DOE reported that it faced an estimated $494 billion in future environmental cleanup costs — a liability that roughly tripled during the previous 20 years." https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/696956.pdf
The waste majority of those cost are not because of civilian nuclear reactor, but rather creation of nuclear weapons.
Site cleanup cost are a factor, but not a huge one considering a site can be active for 60-100 years.