3 ms·

Nuclear waste is not a solved problem. Reprocessing is uneconomical and does not solve the nuclear storage problem, because it creates lots of low- to mid- radi

Nuclear waste is not a solved problem. Reprocessing is uneconomical and does not solve the nuclear storage problem, because it creates lots of low- to mid- radioactive waste products. Admittedly, they are not so highly radioactive, but because of that the half-lifetime is often longer. I find it interesting, that the same people who used to critisize renewables as being uneconomical, relying on future developments in storage/better grids etc. are now the ones pushing nuclear. Nuclear is significantly more expensive, and people always talk about the problems being solved in the future through research somehow. Don't even get me started on those small modular reactors, there are so many problems about them. For example, current generation nuclear reactors allow for significant security around them due to economy of scale. If we suddenly put many small modular reactors in (or close to) cities, are we keeping the same security? We don't have economies of scale anymore to afford this.

DennisP 5y ago
There's no reason you can't put lots of SMRs at a central site. The main point is to fix the expense and construction time by churning them out in factories or shipyards.
- cycomanic 5y ago
  You think there would not be significant regulations around placing lots of SMRs on some central site? Apart from the fact that the whole business of SMRs is still just pie in the sky stuff so far, why would we do it if solar&wind is cheaper and less dangerous?
cturner 5y ago
Reprocessing is uneconomical for the sole purpose of energy generation. But is it uneconomical as part of the disposal chain? For example, if you had to send a whole lot of waste to another country, and pay their cost of reprocessing, it may be viable. With modular reactors, you could store them as an array, in a single easily-secured location. It should not be necessary for most of your skilled staff to be present - run them like datacentres.
jillesvangurp 5y ago
Yes security is a key challenge. And not only do the reactors need security. Also the nuclear waste needs to be carefully protected. Any form of explosive plus even a tiny amount of radioactive waste is basically a dirty bomb waiting to happen. So, there is simply no way that you could feasibly deploy small reactors anywhere else than basically highly secure places. Likewise for the storage. Likewise for transport of waste and reactors. That's one of the things that makes nuclear expensive. A thousand years of security cost for a few decades of not particularly cheap energy (before you consider centuries/milennia of storing the waste). Or 30000 if unlike this person seems to want we might not opt to build some more expensive nuclear plants to consume the waste of other ones that are already costing us too much per GWH.
marcosdumay 5y ago
> f we suddenly put many small modular reactors in (or close to) cities, are we keeping the same security? Security, fuel cycle management, maintenance, etc. Distributing the reactors would make every problem explode. But the industry real goal with them seems to be to keep them centralized, just instead of one large reactor, you use a lot of small ones. That brings its own share of problems, and destroys the energy density that nuclear proponents like to argue so much about (mostly because renewables don't get a lot of it). But I believe it could indeed lead to large gains in cost and safety. It just can't lead to as much gains from scale as solar can get (even compared with our current scale). It maybe can get on a similar curve as wind power (but at a highest constant).

DennisP 5y ago

There's no reason you can't put lots of SMRs at a central site. The main point is to fix the expense and construction time by churning them out in factories or shipyards.

cycomanic 5y ago
You think there would not be significant regulations around placing lots of SMRs on some central site? Apart from the fact that the whole business of SMRs is still just pie in the sky stuff so far, why would we do it if solar&wind is cheaper and less dangerous?

cturner 5y ago

Reprocessing is uneconomical for the sole purpose of energy generation. But is it uneconomical as part of the disposal chain? For example, if you had to send a whole lot of waste to another country, and pay their cost of reprocessing, it may be viable. With modular reactors, you could store them as an array, in a single easily-secured location. It should not be necessary for most of your skilled staff to be present - run them like datacentres.

jillesvangurp 5y ago

Yes security is a key challenge. And not only do the reactors need security. Also the nuclear waste needs to be carefully protected. Any form of explosive plus even a tiny amount of radioactive waste is basically a dirty bomb waiting to happen. So, there is simply no way that you could feasibly deploy small reactors anywhere else than basically highly secure places. Likewise for the storage. Likewise for transport of waste and reactors. That's one of the things that makes nuclear expensive. A thousand years of security cost for a few decades of not particularly cheap energy (before you consider centuries/milennia of storing the waste). Or 30000 if unlike this person seems to want we might not opt to build some more expensive nuclear plants to consume the waste of other ones that are already costing us too much per GWH.

marcosdumay 5y ago

> f we suddenly put many small modular reactors in (or close to) cities, are we keeping the same security? Security, fuel cycle management, maintenance, etc. Distributing the reactors would make every problem explode. But the industry real goal with them seems to be to keep them centralized, just instead of one large reactor, you use a lot of small ones. That brings its own share of problems, and destroys the energy density that nuclear proponents like to argue so much about (mostly because renewables don't get a lot of it). But I believe it could indeed lead to large gains in cost and safety. It just can't lead to as much gains from scale as solar can get (even compared with our current scale). It maybe can get on a similar curve as wind power (but at a highest constant).