Finally, 1.21 gigawatts for my DeLorean.
Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety approval
371–380 of 554 posts
Re: Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety approval
#372Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no research being done on materials to safely contain molten radioactive salt, that research could be dangerous, pretty much only superpowers would have the resources to do the research.
> materials to safely contain molten radioactive salt Wouldn't a giant steel or stone vat work, in theory?
Metals melt at lower temperatures than salt.
Also think of how saltwater effects metal. That's just a bit of salt dissolved in water. Molten salt is like that, but way more concentrated, and hotter. Corrosive reactions go faster when you add heat. Molten salt is like metal's worst nightmare.
That's before you even add the radioactivity into the mix, I believe that makes this problem an order of magnitude harder than just trying to contain molten salt, which is already kinda pretty hard.
Stone, maybe, something like a specialized ceramic could work?
Re: Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety approval
#373Earlier quoted context omitted.
The event you are referring to was also a freak event. The Tohoku earthquake was the 4th largest _ever_ recorded and the largest ever recorded in Japan (by 0.2M, it is a log scale btw). The closest earthquake to that, in the region, in the previous 100 years was 0.7M lower (and the 6th largest ever recorded, in the area). The Tohoku earthquake also resulted in one of the largest tsunamis ever recorded. We should note…
There’s no free lunch but wind and solar are a hell of a lot cheaper than this.
Economically cheaper, but that isn't the only factor that we're discussing. We're also talking health and environmental.
Re: Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety approval
#374Earlier quoted context omitted.
The last ice age occurred gradually over the span of millennia. Anthropic climate change is occurring in an instant by comparison. Not to mention, humanity survived by mass migration, something that's a lot harder for integrated global economies to do. Few believe humanity is going to go extinct. But extinction of industrialized civilization is a more real concern. And the collapse of industrialized civilization will…
An instant in geological time not a literal instant. Death of modern civilization is always a risk, but not directly from climate change. The global food surplus is projected to continue even in the worst case. Energy and raw material production is similarly not a major concern. People continue to live in Dubai which demonstrate how extreme local conditions can get without forcing exodus. Further, few places are expe…
I like your optimism, people would just live in inhabitable places or relocate and would be welcome, such gentlemen. I expect WWIII.
Re: Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety approval
#375Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
France's program is effectively government run, and heavily in debt. I cannot find indication that reprocessing is profitable in the short term, but obviously it has advantages in the long term by reducing waste. That said it does not eliminate the waste issue, nor is France buying up spent waste from neighbors to cash in, nor are they dumping it in the ocean or children's playgrounds (it is still extremely harmful).…
A nuclear waste reprocessing program should be 100% government run, or at least government controlled, because part of the process involves refining the plutonium that could then be used to make nuclear weapons. This is why most countries don't reprocess their spent fuel, it's considered a nuclear weapon proliferation risk to reprocess, and the downside of accumulating spent fuel waste is considered minor in comparison to the risk. Buying spent waste from neighbors would be unexpected, because (a) waste reprocessing is more than self-sufficient, and (b) there's not much in the way of transportation infrastructure because countries are extremely cautious not to lose track of spent reactor fuel due to proliferation concerns.
The reason for not dumping it in the ocean is exactly as stated above. It's extremely valuable, in large part because of the plutonium content, and it's senseless to throw away something so valuable that the nation may eventually have a need for.
Re: Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety approval
#376Earlier 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.
That's more or less what terrapower plans to build: dig a hole fill it with nuclear stuff and let it burn for decades.
Re: Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety approval
#377Fwiw, any nuclear reactor design in history was sold as 100% safe. In reality, shit happen. Contractors use subspec material, things on the building site get overlooked and inspectors miss things or get told to look away,
But hey, I'm sure, this time, it will be different. 100%.
Re: Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety approval
#378Why is most important left out?
So, power output 50MW ...
How long does one "charge" last?
What is the price of unit and per kWh?
What is the maintenance procedure?
How long is the life?
What after expiry?
Re: Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety approval
#379Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bill Gates is funding a company called Terrapower that is planning to bring compact MSR to market in the next 10 years. They already have working prototypes but are still a few years behind NuScale.
Wasn't Terrapower trying to develop a travelling wave reactor? Or is that a MSR design as well?
Terrapower is (was?) developing multiple technologies. They got approval for their traveling wave reactor (which uses molten sodium, not molten salt, but they are easily confused for obvious reasons) last week. Not sure if they're going to keep developing other techs.
Re: Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety approval
#380Fwiw, any nuclear reactor design in history was sold as 100% safe. In reality, shit happen. Contractors use subspec material, things on the building site get overlooked and inspectors miss things or get told to look away, But hey, I'm sure, this time, it will be different. 100%.
Nuclear power is comparable in safety to solar and hydropower. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy