Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety approval

popularmechanics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 554 posts

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

#261

Post by runarberg »

xigency wrote: post #68
vlovich123 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a paper on that? 40 trillion sounds like a lot and I’m curious how that number is generated.

If you could solve climate change for less than that, I think it would be splendid. 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.

This rhetoric of new nuclear is gonna solve the climate crises reminds of how GMO was poised to increase our food safety and end world hunger.

It didn’t. And since I’ve learned that new technology doesn’t save us when there is an underlying social issue that is causing it. With GMO the issue is food distribution. In the climate disaster the cause is a little more complex but undeniably a few actors are making an unfair amount of money while polluting the climate for the rest of us.

I find more hope in solutions like carbon tax, international agreements, greener infrastructure, and general climate justice, then for an unproven magical technology that will be deployed on top of the existing social problems.

Never underestimate the tendency of the rich to shift the cost to others while keeping the profit. New nuclear is not going to change that.

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

#262

Post by dylan604 »

Forbo wrote: post #168
karaterobot wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is in no way to disagree with your overall point, but marine cloud brightening looks like it might be a fairly cost-effective solution to climate change. It's unproven, but not an insane gamble either, and it has little risk of second-order consequences if it doesn't work. All that at a cost of single-digit billions per year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_cloud_brightening#Costs

It seems to me to make more sense combating the problem at the source. This just seems to add more complexity to the problem. Did anyone else think of Snowpiercer when they saw this?

Not from seeing Snowpiercer, but from everytime I hear some other crazy science scheme. It's like the pharma industry creating ways of dealing with symptoms rather than the cause of the symptoms. It's the ultimate Old Lady Swallowed a Fly.

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

#263

Post by Animats »

linuxlizard wrote: post #221
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. ;-)

The whole point of having 830 square miles of reactor test station is to keep the problem on the property if something goes wrong. See the SL-1 disaster. It happened there, but nobody outside the test station was affected.

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

#264

Post by beders »

RhodesianHunter wrote: post #58
marshray wrote: post #42

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.

It's tax payers paying for outdated technology. Invest that money into renewables: end of story

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

#265

Post by _jal »

AngryData wrote: post #258
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.

It also helps to not be running a reactor based on designs from the 1950s and then decades later ignore all the known potential problems.

It does, but it makes sense to explore fail-safe designs.

Depending on a lack of incompetence in dangerous systems works until it doesn't. To the extent that these things can simply halt when incompetently managed, they should.

If anyone disagrees, I'd like to know why they think the next hundred years are going to be so much freer of political shortsightedness and corruption than the last hundred.

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

#266

Post by tombert »

beders wrote: post #264
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.

It's tax payers paying for outdated technology. Invest that money into renewables: end of story

I'm all for renewables becoming the standard, but I really doubt that nuclear as a concept is "outdated technology". There's a lot of room for improvement, and they can help a lot in the short-term for reducing the ever-growing threat of climate change.

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

#267

Post by koheripbal »

marshray wrote: post #42

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

Show me the cleanup cost plan for the Hoover dam, or literally any other major infra project.

This is a roadblock put up against nuclear power plants alone.

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

#268

Post by throwaway0a5e »

meepmorp wrote: post #229
asdfman123 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And if you size the pool right it will by cool before the pool boils off. It's simple math and engineering.

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

#269

Post by koheripbal »

draugadrotten wrote: post #57
marshray wrote: post #42

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

How much is the future environmental cleanup costs of coal and oil?

.... or even any other power plant or hydroelectric dam.

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

#270

Post by throwaway0a5e »

shortandsweet wrote: post #161
godelski wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear sites are designed to withstand a strike from a commercial airliner (747). Like you, the designers imagined many of the events you mentioned and more. A good rule of thumb is that if you, a non-expert, can think of a scenario within 10 minutes, an expert has probably already thought of this scenario. Nuclear power plants and weapons sites have always been considered targets and thus considered extra scrutiny…

You'd hope so. Reactors yes, but not spent fuel pools. Everyone misses things. I've found 3 design flaws myself in the industry. Not too big of a deal as actions can be taken to mitigate some of the flaws. The other flaws are less probable of causing an issue due to redundant and diverse systems but there's always the off chance...

>but not spent fuel pools. Everyone misses things

Everyone who remembers the post 9/11 "but what if the terrorists attack X" pandemonium knows that spent fuel pools are outside the containment building. That was one of the scenarios that got paraded around to maximize FUD.

Post reply on HN