3 ms·

Your response to tiny was a 60MWe reactor, your response to inefficient was to ignore burnup and cite a 28% thermal efficiency (when new utility thermal generat

Your response to tiny was a 60MWe reactor, your response to inefficient was to ignore burnup and cite a 28% thermal efficiency (when new utility thermal generation is in the 40-60% range), your response to highly enriched was to cite a reactor of a completely different design from a different program to the one you were talking about, your response to cost was that it was 'only' $5/W more expensive than an unspecified alternative (but that's not including all the soft costs), and your response about China's program was what they said they would do in 2021 (right after failing to do what they said they'd do by 2020) rather than what they are actually doing which is building far fewer than they did in the late 2000s and early 2010s for more money per reactor, your response to plutonium production was to cite reactors built (mostly by russia) for geopolitical dominance and countries that built them for weapons programs which were later stopped or to keep short-term nuclear weapons capability (like Japan). None of it was an honest response or supported your initial proposal. None of it responded to my points Now you are claiming that calling you on your lies is a terrible sleight.

credit_guy 4y ago
> calling you on your lies Your answer would be so much better if you left out this sentence. Here's the relevant quote from the guidelines: When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." This makes for a much better experience for all involved. Now, to get back to your issues. 1. 60 MWe is not tiny. If we could churn out lots of 60 MWe reactors we'd be far. The whole point of the SMR's is to do just that. Anti-nuclear people like you claim that this is not possible, but naval reactors achieve just that 2. Efficiency. 28% efficiency of converting thermal energy in electrical one is decent. The comparison point is the efficiency of commercial nuclear reactors, not of utility thermal generation. Coal and natural gas power plants burn much hotter, because they can. PWR reactors can't get any hotter than the critical temperature of water (374 deg Celsius), and that limits the maximum theoretical efficiency that they can achieve. As for the burnup, not sure what your point is. 3. Enriched uranium: there is no law of nature that naval reactors need to use highly enriched uranium, since the French reactors don't do that. Why does it matter if the American ones use enriched uranium? 4. China. Here's the facts: China had 10 GWe nuclear capacity in 2010. It has 53 GWe now [1]. Now, you are much more well versed than me in calling names, is this the point where I should call you a liar? 5. Here's a few countries in Europe that generate a lot of power using nuclear reactors, and did not use Russian designs: Belgium, Finland, Sweeden, Switzerland, Romania (yes, despite the fact Romania was part of the Eastern block, its nuclear reactors use the Canadian design Candu). Next to these countries, we can add Canada. None of these countries have or had ambitions to build nuclear weapons. [1] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profil...
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  1. 6% of the size of a traditional reactor is tiny. This makes them uneconomic on operational costs alone because you have to do things 20 times. Which is why every nuclear program in history moved to larger ones. It still wouldn't be worth building one if capital and fuel were free. 2. Going from a breeding ratio of 0.6 and efficiency of mid 30s to 28% and 0 makes them uneconomic on fuel and waste handling costs alone. It still wouldn't be worth building one even if it were free and operated itself. 3. All of the alleged advantages of US naval reactors go away at low enrichment. New, bigger, more complex designs are involved. 4. Still attempting sleight of hand. Cumulative capacity is not rate of construction. This is another lie. The tactics used by propagandists are as informative as correcting the facts individually. This is a consistent theme and claiming that others are not allowed to call it out is just cry-bullying. If you don't want your comments being called lies then stop lying. 5. With the exception of sweden (which was a weapons program before they changed their mind) and CANDUs (which are largely actually civilian and thus not very popular outside of the need to keep a bit of tritium handy). Those countries are all dependent on foreign fuel cycles. So your counter is the existence of half a dozen or so reactors pushed by the US and France in an attempt to do the same thing Russia is doing.
  - credit_guy 4y ago
    > Cumulative capacity is not rate of construction. Not sure what you are trying to argue here. Between 2010 and today China has increased it's nuclear electricity generating capacity from 10 GW to 53 GW. The increase is impressive both in relative and absolute terms. How can you dismiss that?
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      You're still trying to frame a declining rate of increase as acceleration.

credit_guy 4y ago

> calling you on your lies Your answer would be so much better if you left out this sentence. Here's the relevant quote from the guidelines: When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." This makes for a much better experience for all involved. Now, to get back to your issues. 1. 60 MWe is not tiny. If we could churn out lots of 60 MWe reactors we'd be far. The whole point of the SMR's is to do just that. Anti-nuclear people like you claim that this is not possible, but naval reactors achieve just that 2. Efficiency. 28% efficiency of converting thermal energy in electrical one is decent. The comparison point is the efficiency of commercial nuclear reactors, not of utility thermal generation. Coal and natural gas power plants burn much hotter, because they can. PWR reactors can't get any hotter than the critical temperature of water (374 deg Celsius), and that limits the maximum theoretical efficiency that they can achieve. As for the burnup, not sure what your point is. 3. Enriched uranium: there is no law of nature that naval reactors need to use highly enriched uranium, since the French reactors don't do that. Why does it matter if the American ones use enriched uranium? 4. China. Here's the facts: China had 10 GWe nuclear capacity in 2010. It has 53 GWe now [1]. Now, you are much more well versed than me in calling names, is this the point where I should call you a liar? 5. Here's a few countries in Europe that generate a lot of power using nuclear reactors, and did not use Russian designs: Belgium, Finland, Sweeden, Switzerland, Romania (yes, despite the fact Romania was part of the Eastern block, its nuclear reactors use the Canadian design Candu). Next to these countries, we can add Canada. None of these countries have or had ambitions to build nuclear weapons. [1] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profil...

Schroedingersat 4y ago
1. 6% of the size of a traditional reactor is tiny. This makes them uneconomic on operational costs alone because you have to do things 20 times. Which is why every nuclear program in history moved to larger ones. It still wouldn't be worth building one if capital and fuel were free. 2. Going from a breeding ratio of 0.6 and efficiency of mid 30s to 28% and 0 makes them uneconomic on fuel and waste handling costs alone. It still wouldn't be worth building one even if it were free and operated itself. 3. All of the alleged advantages of US naval reactors go away at low enrichment. New, bigger, more complex designs are involved. 4. Still attempting sleight of hand. Cumulative capacity is not rate of construction. This is another lie. The tactics used by propagandists are as informative as correcting the facts individually. This is a consistent theme and claiming that others are not allowed to call it out is just cry-bullying. If you don't want your comments being called lies then stop lying. 5. With the exception of sweden (which was a weapons program before they changed their mind) and CANDUs (which are largely actually civilian and thus not very popular outside of the need to keep a bit of tritium handy). Those countries are all dependent on foreign fuel cycles. So your counter is the existence of half a dozen or so reactors pushed by the US and France in an attempt to do the same thing Russia is doing.
- credit_guy 4y ago
  > Cumulative capacity is not rate of construction. Not sure what you are trying to argue here. Between 2010 and today China has increased it's nuclear electricity generating capacity from 10 GW to 53 GW. The increase is impressive both in relative and absolute terms. How can you dismiss that?
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    You're still trying to frame a declining rate of increase as acceleration.