35 ms·
We seem to agree on where we are at in the USA, so I am not trying to argue at all, but just to clarify what I meant here: > You don't really need to have the
by consumer451 2y ago
We seem to agree on where we are at in the USA, so I am not trying to argue at all, but just to clarify what I meant here:
> You don't really need to have the onsite waste storage built before the reactor goes online.
But one would have to construct a safe and secure on-site storage facility ahead of time, is what I imagined. It's not like that's something you would add as an afterthought, is it?
- toast0 2y agoYou have to plan for it, but you're not going to have any waste until the first refueling, which is ~ 18-24 months after you start operations. (unless SMR have a drastically different fuel cycle than the big ones, I honestly don't know)
- consumer451 2y agoThe only thing that I've seen on the topic is this: > Results reveal that water-, molten salt–, and sodium-cooled SMR designs will increase the volume of nuclear waste in need of management and disposal by factors of 2 to 30. > ... In addition, SMR spent fuel will contain relatively high concentrations of fissile nuclides, which will demand novel approaches to evaluating criticality during storage and disposal. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2111833119 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2111833119
- consumer451 2y agoHa, while discussing this with you, S3 just released their video with Radiant, an SMR startup. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40711474 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40711474