Mini nukes...

[redneck]

.

Utilities Eye Mini Nuclear Reactors as Climate Concerns Grow

https://eminetra.com/utilities-eye-m...s-grow/670105/

U.S. utilities are looking to miniature nuclear reactors, as they seek a steady energy source that can help reduce the carbon emissions linked to climate change.

While power companies have stopped building big nuclear reactors because of cost overruns and construction delays, not all utilities are giving up on nuclear power.

Well...

It’s about time...




>

.

[freebeard]

Article went behind the WSJ paywall, but they only finish the last sentence. Is that all you get if you give up personal information to the Wall Street Journal?

Originally Posted by WSJ

Despite the enticement of carbon-free power, critics say small modular reactors have the same safety and cost challenges of big nukes

Wrong twice in the subhead.

[oil pan 4]

Good because we already have all the hydroelectric we are ever going to have and the outlook is less in the future and it looks like wind, solar, batteries aren't going to cut it.
Need something reliable, that makes a hell of a lot of power to cover the baseload, nuclear power can cut it.
There's always coal, "the safer option" lol.
Coal mining accidents have killed more people than nuclear in the United States.
Nuclear h8ers are stupid ignorant people who generally can't be reasoned with.
30 years ago we knew how to build nuclear power plants, so no surprise you don't build one for a generation, now people who oversaw construction of a nuclear power plant like my gand dad are now all dead or at least retired.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

As long as there is a good way to handle the nuclear waste, and the locations are set at a relatively safe place (preferably less prone to a terrorist attack), it's not a bad idea at all.

[redneck]

.

freebeard

I purposely linked the non-wall street journal article so everyone could read it.
Don’t know why you were redirected.

It opens fine for me.


>

.

[oil pan 4]

Recycle the nuclear waste. Reduce the volume and the years it's dangerous by 95% or more.

[freebeard]

...we already have all the hydroelectric we are ever going to have and the outlook is less in the future...

It's true that the biggest dam builders on the d#mn planet are seeing the ones they built in the 19050s-70s fail. But the category includes low-head hydro and tidal power so there is potential for disruption.

[redpoint5]

science

[Autobahnschleicher]

I don't realy see how smaller nuclear reactors can be more cost effective, safe or efficient than larger ones.
The containment building has to be built to survive the same impacts, they need more people per MW of output and smaller turbines have a tendency of beeing less efficient.
Also the safety of the reactor/powerplant isn't much of an issue with most modern designs that have proper containments, core-catchers and a sane reactor designs.
The big issues are long therm storage as well as re-processing.
And smaller reactors don't realy change anything there.

However I would realy like older, less safe reactors like for example in Tihange and Doel to be shut down as they are actualy dangerous.

[freebeard]

I don't realy see how smaller nuclear reactors can be more cost effective, safe or efficient than larger ones.

That would be true for [a] scaled down light-water reactor[s].

If the smaller reactors were hand-built onsite instead of mass produced as light water reactors they would need the same containment. Molten salt reactors operate at atmospheric pressure and fail safe.

But they don't make bombs, so there is that. Why are long therms an issue?