Yes!!! :mrgreen: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.
Why would you build a dozen small reactors instead of one large one? Is that really cost effective?
Why would you build a dozen small reactors instead of one large one? Is that really cost effective?
Still going to be ok if they build it next door?
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?
Still going to be ok if they build it next door?
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.
A billion times better then someone building a coal-fired plant next door.
Russian idiocy + arrogant supervisors + lack of safety measures + nuclear power = big ass trouble
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.
It's not a claim. It's reality.
Still going to be ok if they build it next door?
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
LOL The Navy cannot be an example of something being economically practical. :lol:
Devil’s advocate question; Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island, what about the risks?
Still going to be ok if they build it next door?
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?