Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety approval • Hacker News Board

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

#221

Post by linuxlizard » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 10:11 PM UTC

Animats wrote: post #47

Four links down: "The staff has determined that the plant design meets the applicable requirements for the design certification stage of licensing. ... The NRC staff’s issuance of this FSER does not constitute a commitment to issue the design certification" [1] The actual review document is not up yet; search for "ML20023A318". It's not that this is smaller. It's comparable to Shippingport or Vallecitos. The argument…

> If something bad happens there, it's not a major problem.

Well, unless you're in Idaho like some of us. ;-)

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

#222

Post by Krasnol » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 10:12 PM UTC

moneytide1 wrote: post #174

gambiting wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another option which is completely safe and permanent* is drilling a borehole few km down and dumping the waste there. It's not coming back no matter what. The research done into it shows that "only" 800 boreholes would be required to store literally all nuclear waste ever produced. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_borehole_disposal *to a point where it was actually brought up as a negative, because if we ever want…

There's one in Finland: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_re... They have thought thousands of years ahead and set up many different types of warning signs and symbols in case a future civilization discovers it.

And than there is Asse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine

You just don't know.

The time frame is too long. It's too long for natural causes and far too long for human civilisation. The earlier we stop producing this crap, the better.

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

#223

Post by nickik » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 10:14 PM UTC

marshray wrote: post #106

erentz wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. It appears to very explicitly is about DOE sites, national labs with waste dating back to the Manhattan project and Cold War. This figure would seem to be better described as the clean up cost for our nuclear weapons programs with maybe a small side dish of reactor research in places like INL.

The defense waste is just a fraction of the total: "The U.S. commercial power industry alone has generated more waste (nuclear fuel that is "spent" and is no longer efficient at generating power) than any other country—nearly 80,000 metric tons. This spent nuclear fuel, which can pose serious risks to humans and the environment, is enough to fill a football field about 20 meters deep. The U.S. government’s nuclear we…

> a football field about 20 meters deep

That's not actually a lot is it?

Also, all commercial reactors already pay a fee for nuclear waste disposal. There is tons and tons of money available that has been stored for 50+ years.

The problem is that the government is totally incompetent and instead of developing a solution the money accumulates and politicians are in deadlock.

Both the solution for long term storage for the US has basically been known since the 50 (not Nevada) and the way to reduce the 'waste' has also been known since the 60s. That noting is actually done is not a technical issue.

However, commercial 'waste' is actually valuable material that we can easily store for 100 of years without much trouble or cost, and its not very dangerous either. This 'waste' will actually serve as a fuel for future reactors. Even if you believe that the whole nuclear energy industry will totally collapse and go away. The fees collected would allow for the development of a waste destroying reactor.

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

#224

Post by BurningFrog » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 10:16 PM UTC

marshray wrote: post #67

RhodesianHunter wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If only a method for permanent disposal of nuclear waste actually existed.

Many such methods exist.

There are no methods that have 100% answers for every "what if 5 things go wrong at once?" question.

That's true for everything, but those questions only get asked for nuclear energy.

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

#225

Post by AnimalMuppet » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 10:20 PM UTC

RangerScience wrote: post #214

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Salt water might add to your corrosion issues. Also, physical security of nuclear reactors is a big deal. Now you need a navy to do it.

Half-kidding, and it wouldn't deal with the saltwater corrosion issues, but.... Legit use for Project Plowshare harbors?

And if you have a reactor leak, you just say it didn't matter, because Plowshare already contaminated everything.

This is insane, but it has a certain consistent logic to it...

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

#226

Post by jokit » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 10:23 PM UTC

I was wondering if Hyperion Power Generation had become NuScale, but no.. apparently a different solution.

I remember reading about Hyperions small plant that would be buried.

Glad to see the progress. I wonder how Hyperion is doing.

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

#227

Post by 7952 » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 10:24 PM UTC

EricE wrote: post #12

This is huge. Not only are micro reactors far more economical, it dramatically reduces the need to maintain a massive nationwide grid and provides flexibility to people in remote areas including greater autonomy. Efficiency should be greater without massive transmission line losses. Might start fewer fires in California too.

I doubt it will reduce the need for a grid much. The most efficient way to deploy these is probably in clusters next to an existing big substation on an EHV line. The local substations are likely to be increasingly constrained by solar and wind that have to be distributed. Nuclear has no such requirement so why bother with hundreds of sites when you just need a few bigger ones?

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

#228

Post by ansible » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 10:26 PM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #138

jhallenworld wrote: post #52

Here is the NRC website about this reactor: https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/smr/nuscale.html Here is an interesting sub-report: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2022/ML20224A525.pdf Information withheld for security reasons. One item concerns the "ultimate heat sink". What happens when the ultimate heat sink is lost? Well a design assumption is that it is not lost: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2020/ML20205L410.pdf…

Wasn't the big push (or maybe big PR push) for more research and development of Thorium reactors a few years ago because they fail closed/safely? That seems like the kind of thing you'd want for smaller reactors (which I assume means more and more geographically diverse, but don't really know).

Yes. Molten Salt Reactors (MSR), while operating very hot, are not operating under a lot of pressure. A pressurized water reactor (PWR) does, and if there is a leak or other problem, it can turn into an explosion.

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

#229

Post by meepmorp » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 10:43 PM UTC

asdfman123 wrote: post #207

phkahler wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great, and ideally gravity can be used to move it. Remember, at Fukushima power to the pumps was lost.

The article states the whole reactor will be submerged in a pool of water, making it passively safe.

Reactor cores continue to produce waste heat when shut down, and water evaporates. It’s passively safe till you run out of coolant, then it’s actively dangerous.

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

#230

Post by njarboe » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 10:46 PM UTC

dylan604 wrote: post #196

godelski wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that these DoE sites are weapon sites, such as Hanford. These are a different ball game than power plants. They use different technologies and have different kinds of waste. Sure apples and oranges are both round fruits, but aren't one to one comparisons. List of sites https://www.dnfsb.gov/doe-sites

Isn't more of Apples to Macintoshes to Honey Crisp to Granny Smith? It's all nuclear waste, but just a different variety.

Almost everything on Earth contains some potassium, uranium, or thorium and thus is radioactive. Its all nuclear waste (from many big, nuclear events in the cosmos), just different varieties