Quote:
|
We're not supposed to talk politics, so I won't comment on the economic and political thoughts that came to mind when I read that nuclear clip.
|
"a group of small, community-owned utilities in six Western states," suits me. Is it the fourth paragraph?
Quote:
|
If nuclear power (electricity generation) had its major cons eliminated, that'd be great.
|
Compare and contrast light-water Uranium and proposed Thorium reactors. The Navy has a very good record with nuclear powered ships (so far as we know
).
About Nucale:
Quote:
Comparisons
NuScale is expected to be the first SMR to market, because its cooling is similar to the systems used in conventional power plants. However, alternative cooling systems using molten metals are expected to operate at higher, more efficient temperatures once approved.[30] The company estimates a twelve-unit NuScale plant would cost $4,200 (an earlier estimate was $5,000) per kilowatt. In comparison, the Energy Information Administration in 2011 estimated costs to be $4,700 per kilowatt for conventional nuclear power, $4,600 for a carbon sequestration coal plant and $931 at a gas-fired plant or in excess of $1,800 for a gas-fired plant with carbon sequestration.[5] David Mohre, executive director of NRECA's Energy and Power Division, said SMRs like NuScale's are ideal for rural towns that need small power plants and do not have access to natural gas.
|
So the NuScale solution is similar to submarine reactor except it is a vertical 65ft tall tube that sits in a pool of water in the ground.
Interestingly to me, NuScale started in Corvallis and is headquartered in Tigard, OR, right up the road.
Thorium was tested and rejected in the 1960s because it wouldn't yield weapons-grade material. I like it because a Thorium reactor could be launched to space cold and ignited at the top of the last stage burn.