4 ms·

Ah yes, the most extreme thing one withstands is U.S. regulation.

Retric 4y ago
Nothing requires this research to to be carried out in the US specifically beyond funding being available here. It’s really the inherent difficulties which is holding back progress.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  My understanding is that you are not allowed to build a research reactor that is bigger then a university reactor but isn't a full scale energy producing reactor. My understanding is that for such a reactor you would need the full operating license just as a grid connected PWR. And since in the US its essentially impossible to get a license for anything but a PWR, that isn't rally possible. Technology independent regulatory framework is one of the main reasons Canada has so many reactor startup, even those that started in other countries. https://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/reactors/power-plants/pre-licensing-vendor-design-review/ https://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/reactors/power-plants/pre-li...
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    > Technology independent regulatory framework is one of the main reasons Canada has so many reactor startup Canada's vast tracts of land wouldn't hurt either. If a meltdown or containment breach happens, and no population centers are within 400km, that's a much better bad scenario.
    - cupofpython 4y ago
      yeah im not exactly mad about it being hard / impossible for people to set up a lab-based experimental nuclear reactor near me due to regulations
      - panick21_ 4y ago
        Those reactors will be much safer then the street in front of your house.
        Retric 4y ago
        Prove it. And thus the reason for all this regulation.
        panick21_ 4y ago
        We have prove how unsafe the streets are and yet ... In fact, nuclear reactor to be built have a higher barrier of 'prove of safety' then almost anything else. In fact, nobody in the US ever died because of civilian nuclear reactor research or at least not in the last 40+ years.
        cupofpython 4y ago
        The street is too dangerous, you are right. An experimental nuclear reactor, however, does not make the street safer. Additionally, the public is relatively unaware of how nuclear plants fail. If people at nuclear reactor research labs suddenly stop showing up to work - what happens? People kind of assume it will explode, or become a radiation hot-zone rendering the local area unusable for a hundred+ years. And considering the experimental reactors being discussed need parts replacement due to corrosion, what happens if those replacements dont happen? The dangers of human inaction seem much higher for nuclear than other things. With standard fuel sources, if people stop showing up to work then power simply stops being made - that's pretty much it. And while they are at work, the process is pretty simple and robust (compared to nuclear) with a lot of room for error. I know I've been surprised (in a good way) to learn about some of the safety mechanisms existing within nuclear reactors, but I still only sort of understand what anything means that I read - and the safety mechanisms that gave me some sense of relief is based on a lot of assumptions I had to make about the way nuclear works as a lay person. how about nuclear scientist stop saying "trust me bro" and more aggressively educate people on nuclear fail-safes? People have trouble voting for things they do not understand. And educating the public on something they are either uninterested in or incapable of understanding is an unfair burden to put on nuclear scientists, but they are the only ones qualified to do so. the ball will move a lot faster once lay people can exchange stories about nuclear safety that go beyond "we barely use nuclear, and no one has died yet, it's actually really safe because ... reasons? scientists said so?"
    - panick21_ 4y ago
      I mean you don't build reactors somewhere out of in the middle of no-where, you need a labor force and infrastructure to build them.

Nothing requires this research to to be carried out in the US specifically beyond funding being available here. It’s really the inherent difficulties which is holding back progress.

panick21_ 4y ago
My understanding is that you are not allowed to build a research reactor that is bigger then a university reactor but isn't a full scale energy producing reactor. My understanding is that for such a reactor you would need the full operating license just as a grid connected PWR. And since in the US its essentially impossible to get a license for anything but a PWR, that isn't rally possible. Technology independent regulatory framework is one of the main reasons Canada has so many reactor startup, even those that started in other countries. https://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/reactors/power-plants/pre-licensing-vendor-design-review/ https://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/reactors/power-plants/pre-li...
- ethbr0 4y ago
  > Technology independent regulatory framework is one of the main reasons Canada has so many reactor startup Canada's vast tracts of land wouldn't hurt either. If a meltdown or containment breach happens, and no population centers are within 400km, that's a much better bad scenario.
  - cupofpython 4y ago
    yeah im not exactly mad about it being hard / impossible for people to set up a lab-based experimental nuclear reactor near me due to regulations
    - panick21_ 4y ago
      Those reactors will be much safer then the street in front of your house.
      - Retric 4y ago
        Prove it. And thus the reason for all this regulation.
        panick21_ 4y ago
        We have prove how unsafe the streets are and yet ... In fact, nuclear reactor to be built have a higher barrier of 'prove of safety' then almost anything else. In fact, nobody in the US ever died because of civilian nuclear reactor research or at least not in the last 40+ years.
        cupofpython 4y ago
        The street is too dangerous, you are right. An experimental nuclear reactor, however, does not make the street safer. Additionally, the public is relatively unaware of how nuclear plants fail. If people at nuclear reactor research labs suddenly stop showing up to work - what happens? People kind of assume it will explode, or become a radiation hot-zone rendering the local area unusable for a hundred+ years. And considering the experimental reactors being discussed need parts replacement due to corrosion, what happens if those replacements dont happen? The dangers of human inaction seem much higher for nuclear than other things. With standard fuel sources, if people stop showing up to work then power simply stops being made - that's pretty much it. And while they are at work, the process is pretty simple and robust (compared to nuclear) with a lot of room for error. I know I've been surprised (in a good way) to learn about some of the safety mechanisms existing within nuclear reactors, but I still only sort of understand what anything means that I read - and the safety mechanisms that gave me some sense of relief is based on a lot of assumptions I had to make about the way nuclear works as a lay person. how about nuclear scientist stop saying "trust me bro" and more aggressively educate people on nuclear fail-safes? People have trouble voting for things they do not understand. And educating the public on something they are either uninterested in or incapable of understanding is an unfair burden to put on nuclear scientists, but they are the only ones qualified to do so. the ball will move a lot faster once lay people can exchange stories about nuclear safety that go beyond "we barely use nuclear, and no one has died yet, it's actually really safe because ... reasons? scientists said so?"
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    I mean you don't build reactors somewhere out of in the middle of no-where, you need a labor force and infrastructure to build them.