• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Approves First Domestic Small Commercial Reactor (1 Viewer)

PoS

Minister of Love
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
35,259
Reaction score
27,832
Location
Oceania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Approves First Domestic Small Commercial Reactor – Reason.com

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission last week approved a design application for the first domestic small commercial nuclear reactor. These types of reactors are smaller, simpler, cheaper, and feature more advanced safety systems than traditional reactor designs. It has the potential to generate enough electricity to power more than 50,000 homes.
The reactor design was submitted by NuScale Power, an Oregon company that plans to build at least a dozen small reactors by 2030 at a site in eastern Idaho.
Yes!!! :mrgreen:
 
Why would you build a dozen small reactors instead of one large one? Is that really cost effective?

The key to success is for the NRC to allow better designs.
Just scaling down a seventy year old design is not the solution.

Read up on pebble bed reactors, and thorium reactors.
That's where the innovation is going to be.
 
Why would you build a dozen small reactors instead of one large one? Is that really cost effective?

Yes, it is. The prohibitive costs of building and operating large scale reactors is one of many reasons we stopped building them. This initiative is past due.
 
Still going to be ok if they build it next door?

Nuclear energy is one of the safest, cleanest forms of power generation.
 
Nuclear energy is one of the safest, cleanest forms of power generation.

Devil’s advocate question; Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island, what about the risks?
 
Devil’s advocate question; Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island, what about the risks?

Chernobyl was because idiot Russians wanted to see what happens when you take out all the carbon rods. They had to work fairly hard at defeating the safety mechanisms to do so.

3 Mile Island wasn't anything, and because of it there were numerous rule changes to avoid something similar in the future

Fukushima was the result of a natural disaster. So I suppose we shouldn't build a nuclear power plant on top of any large faults.

There's about 440 nuclear power plants currently, and nuclear power has been in use for several decades at this point, you have 2 instances of failure (one human caused, the other from natural disaster) and one near failure. Shows pretty well how safe it is.
 
Chernobyl was because idiot Russians wanted to see what happens when you take out all the carbon rods. They had to work fairly hard at defeating the safety mechanisms to do so.

Russian idiocy + arrogant supervisors + lack of safety measures + nuclear power = big ass trouble
 
Russian idiocy + arrogant supervisors + lack of safety measures + nuclear power = big ass trouble

Yeah, generally speaking you don't want to be pissing around with nuclear power. But that doesn't mean that we cannot have safe nuclear power generation. And of course, invest in finding new forms of energy too. I think we should always be evolving our tech. Maybe one day we'll have better batteries too.
 
Yes, it is. The prohibitive costs of building and operating large scale reactors is one of many reasons we stopped building them. This initiative is past due.

So building, maintaining and staffing 12 of these reactors cost less than one large one? That is quite a claim....
 
So building, maintaining and staffing 12 of these reactors cost less than one large one? That is quite a claim....

The NuScale system is a set of smaller reactors. It allows the system to be "scaled" rather than just going for one giant reactor.

Here's a nice short intro to what the benefits are:

Nuscale planning to build first nuclear plant - YouTube

I'm still on the fence. I understand nuclear is one of our few scalable energy systems that we can use that gets us away from fossil fuels...but I also realize there's risk with nuclear. I'm glad people are working on "safer" systems and I understand that is a key to these smaller units that sit underground.
 
The NuScale system is a set of smaller reactors. It allows the system to be "scaled" rather than just going for one giant reactor.

Here's a nice short intro to what the benefits are:

Nuscale planning to build first nuclear plant - YouTube

I'm still on the fence. I understand nuclear is one of our few scalable energy systems that we can use that gets us away from fossil fuels...but I also realize there's risk with nuclear. I'm glad people are working on "safer" systems and I understand that is a key to these smaller units that sit underground.

I am all for safe nuclear power, it is an essential element of weaning us off of fossil fuels. I think what has held it back is the availability of cheap fossil energy. I do not think there will be significant investment in it until that is no longer the case and that means taxing carbon emissions.
 
It's not a claim. It's reality.

We won't be sure until they build it though. Currently it is not reality and probably won't be until we put a tax on carbon emissions. It will always be cheaper to dig free fossil energy out of the ground until we do that.
 
We won't be sure until they build it though. Currently it is not reality and probably won't be until we put a tax on carbon emissions. It will always be cheaper to dig free fossil energy out of the ground until we do that.

Not necessarily. There are inhetent advantages to small, locally generated, nonpolluting power. The Navy has done it for decades, so it's already a reality
 
Not necessarily. There are inhetent advantages to small, locally generated, nonpolluting power. The Navy has done it for decades, so it's already a reality

LOL The Navy cannot be an example of something being economically practical. :lol:
 
LOL The Navy cannot be an example of something being economically practical. :lol:

Not necessarily, but they are an example of small nuclear power generated cleanly and successfully. The technological advances since massive nuclear power plants were built - at astronomical cost, have made small plants attractive both economically going in and operationally. I'm not attempring to convince you. This has been coming for quite a while now. Perhaps you should do a little research on your own. It's right at your fingertips.
 
Devil’s advocate question; Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island, what about the risks?

What about the risks of driving to work in the morning?

Per kWh, nuclear power is literally thousands of times safer than coal power.
 
Still going to be ok if they build it next door?

I'd rather live next door to a nextgen nuke plant than live beside a wind or solar farm any day.

Fukushima was the result of a natural disaster. So I suppose we shouldn't build a nuclear power plant on top of any large faults.

There's about 440 nuclear power plants currently, and nuclear power has been in use for several decades at this point, you have 2 instances of failure (one human caused, the other from natural disaster) and one near failure. Shows pretty well how safe it is.

Fukushima also happened because they didnt build a seawall to specs.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom