3 ms·

>Non-proliferation groups including the Union of Concerned Scientists have warned against measures that ease licensing for high-tech nuclear reactors, including

>Non-proliferation groups including the Union of Concerned Scientists have warned against measures that ease licensing for high-tech nuclear reactors, including those using highly enriched uranium, arguing that safety should remain the priority. And the next generation reactors are 'passively' safe, in that a lack of coolant flow leads to shutdown of reaction unlike current reactors.

EasyMark 2y ago
Do you have any sources on SMRs that are passively safe? I haven’t seen one be declared as successful and viable yet and ready to start being produced in “numbers”.
- trynumber9 2y ago
  The reactor in the article, Natrium, is a small sodium-cooled fast reactor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-cooled_fast_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-cooled_fast_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(reactor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(reactor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_Breeder_Reactor_II#Passive_safety https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_Breeder_Reactor_I... https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2113/ML21139A048.pdf https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2113/ML21139A048.pdf
bruce511 2y ago
I'm very happy with the safety of nuclear reactors. I'm somewhat more sceptical of human nature, and the greed factor, when it comes to the proper disposal of nuclear waste. I get there are regs for that too - but our track-record for following regulations when it comes to waste disposal generally has not filled me with confidence. Costs incurred after the profit has been earned, (aka "cleaning up") are too easily avoided with a simple bankruptcy- and too easily corners are cut to just "make it go away". IMO cleaning-up costs should be paid for first, not last. Ie the govt should assume they'll be stuck with the cleaning bill, and should extract that during production.
noqc 2y ago
Safety, for non-proliferationists, does not refer to meltdown risk. Safety refers preventing the large scale enrichment of uranium.
- trynumber9 2y ago
  The new Natrium reactor - mentioned in the article as being held up for lack of permit - uses HALEU which is a compromise fuel. But that's not good enough for even a single reactor?
loeg 2y ago
> And the next generation reactors are 'passively' safe, in that a lack of coolant flow leads to shutdown of reaction unlike current reactors. That's already true of current Gen III+ reactors (dating to the 90s), e.g., AP1000 (the recent reactors at Vogtle). But it's true that many of our existing reactors are older than that.

EasyMark 2y ago

Do you have any sources on SMRs that are passively safe? I haven’t seen one be declared as successful and viable yet and ready to start being produced in “numbers”.

trynumber9 2y ago
The reactor in the article, Natrium, is a small sodium-cooled fast reactor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-cooled_fast_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-cooled_fast_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(reactor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(reactor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_Breeder_Reactor_II#Passive_safety https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_Breeder_Reactor_I... https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2113/ML21139A048.pdf https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2113/ML21139A048.pdf

bruce511 2y ago

I'm very happy with the safety of nuclear reactors. I'm somewhat more sceptical of human nature, and the greed factor, when it comes to the proper disposal of nuclear waste. I get there are regs for that too - but our track-record for following regulations when it comes to waste disposal generally has not filled me with confidence. Costs incurred after the profit has been earned, (aka "cleaning up") are too easily avoided with a simple bankruptcy- and too easily corners are cut to just "make it go away". IMO cleaning-up costs should be paid for first, not last. Ie the govt should assume they'll be stuck with the cleaning bill, and should extract that during production.

noqc 2y ago

Safety, for non-proliferationists, does not refer to meltdown risk. Safety refers preventing the large scale enrichment of uranium.

trynumber9 2y ago
The new Natrium reactor - mentioned in the article as being held up for lack of permit - uses HALEU which is a compromise fuel. But that's not good enough for even a single reactor?

loeg 2y ago

> And the next generation reactors are 'passively' safe, in that a lack of coolant flow leads to shutdown of reaction unlike current reactors. That's already true of current Gen III+ reactors (dating to the 90s), e.g., AP1000 (the recent reactors at Vogtle). But it's true that many of our existing reactors are older than that.