3 ms·
Good points. This design seems quite similar to the pebble bed reactor idea in that it relies on the fissile material being encased in a graphite mixture (stub
by jseutter 4y ago
Good points. This design seems quite similar to the pebble bed reactor idea in that it relies on the fissile material being encased in a graphite mixture (stubby cylinders instead of spheres) as well as heat transfer using helium instead of water.
The pebble bed reactors seemed to have stability issues created by graphite rubbing off of the spheres as the pebbles we loaded in the top and removed from the bottom. This newer design works around that by having the fuel in a cylinder and the fuel in the core not being changeable for its 20 year life. It seems to be one of the simplest designs yet and is likely cheaper as a result.
If it turns out to be cheap power this would have a big impact on northern communities where there is little sunlight for several months, and low-angle sunlight during the summer months. It doesn't have to beat typical solar, it just has to beat diesel that is shipped or flown in.
I'm from Alberta and I also wish they would leave the tarsands tar in the ground. I have little expectation they will, so nuclear seems like an improvement at least.
- ncmncm 4y agoNukes can never turn out to be cheap power. It is always, always, always heavily subsidized by taxation, thus sometimes masking true cost. It is fortunate that extracting tar sands produces very expensive oil. As demand for oil drops, cost for oil from tar sands will be unable to match prices offered.
- jamincan 4y agoNuclear technology has never really matured to be industry-led, and is quite obviously heavily subsidized now; surely it's not inevitably always going to be that way though. At one time, the wisdom re: solar power was that PVs were simply far too expensive to be used for large-scale power, and yet, here we are now.
- ncmncm 4y agoNothing about nukes can be expected to get cheaper, unlike solar and wind. Nukes are just inherently expensive, from refining fuel through massive construction, disaster insurance (always and everywhere subsidized), maintenance, to decommissioning.
- jamincan 4y agoWouldn't someone have said the same thing about PVs 20 years ago, though?
- ncmncm 4y agoDid say, and were proven wrong. But nukes have had plenty of time to do better. Ultimately it looks more like the market in nukes (distinguished from power from nukes) is interested only in building nukes where there is abundant scope for corruption.