341–350 of 554 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'd still need a heat exchanger at some point, and you want a lot of surface area and thin walls for that.
Random thought experiment -- why not just drop it in the middle of a lifeless desert, forget about heat exchangers, and just let it slowly melt its way down through the crust of the earth? Assuming it went straight down and into the mantle, it would probably not impact the ecosystem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the maneuvering ability of a coal plant? I looked at the article, but didn't see it.
Gas turbines are the ones that ramp the fastest and are used to handle dynamic peaky loads. Nuclear/coal are generally used as the baseline power because they're more efficient.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'd still need a heat exchanger at some point, and you want a lot of surface area and thin walls for that.
Random thought experiment -- why not just drop it in the middle of a lifeless desert, forget about heat exchangers, and just let it slowly melt its way down through the crust of the earth? Assuming it went straight down and into the mantle, it would probably not impact the ecosystem.
So, what's the size of one of these tings? small? how small is small? Tiny? how tiny is tiny?
A regional power company might seek permitting at 10-20 locations. If some locations didn't get a permit or if other locations proved to be uneconomical to produce power at the time of construction, they could just build at the sites they chose. Basically takes the two phase pre-construction permitting and post-construction operating permit which has been killing nuclear power and streamlines it. Because the designs are standard and modular they will be pre-approved to operate.
Article gave absolutely no indication of its dimensions. How "tiny" is it exactly?
Maybe tiny refers to the power output. The article says it makes 50 megawatts. Compare that to a nuclear plant near me which has two reactors that each generate 1280 megawatts. So it would take about 25 of these to equal the power output of a traditional nuclear reactor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'd still need a heat exchanger at some point, and you want a lot of surface area and thin walls for that.
Random thought experiment -- why not just drop it in the middle of a lifeless desert, forget about heat exchangers, and just let it slowly melt its way down through the crust of the earth? Assuming it went straight down and into the mantle, it would probably not impact the ecosystem.
So what happens when an earthquake causes a rupture of the pool barrier and all the water leaks out?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We could dump it into the ocean and not worry about it. There's so much cooling capacity and radiation shielding in the oceans alone that we'd never run out of space, so all of the current disposal strategies are way above and beyond what's needed. Containment is solved problem. It's important to note that other energy types also produce waste. For example, coal ash is incredibly toxic and hard to dispose of, and we…
> We could dump it in the ocean and not worry about it This is the things that make me cringe when I see this people saying again "This time will be different, we promise". Look mum, radioactive tornadoes coming from the ocean...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Source for that plan B? Curious what they are telling their investors, then.
"In answer to a question I posed to Nuscale at the town hall we have learned that the plan to save costs by fabricating the modules at a remote factory and shipping them to the Idaho site has been abandoned. The artful response to my question said that Nuscale engaged with approximately 40 … pressure vessel fabricators worldwide and … determined that Nuscale will use existing factories … in lieu of building its own f…
I'm guessing that official line, accurate or not, is future larger deployments may be constructed differently, and this reneging is just for the initial run.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're underplaying the danger and overplaying the value. Who exactly is investing in this "green gold"? If it's so valuable why does no one actually want it, and why is the DoE stuck with half a trillion liability?
> Who exactly is investing in this "green gold"? France[0] > If it's so valuable why does no one actually want it, I mean France does... we actually gave them the tech. The reason we stopped is more political. But more people do this than just France, but they are the biggest example since 17% of their entire grid is powered from recycled nuclear. The other reason we don't do it is that it is just cheaper to buy more…
I think it would take the deep pockets and standardization of a government-run program to truly see nuclear be done properly, but I doubt there is appetite for a similarly run program in the USA.