SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
NPR:
Nuclear power plants are so big, complicated and expensive to build that more are shutting down than opening up. An Oregon company, NuScale Power, wants to change that trend by building nuclear plants that are the opposite of existing ones: smaller, simpler and cheaper.
The company says its plant design using small modular reactors also could work well with renewable energy, such as wind and solar, by providing backup electricity when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining.
...
NuScale's design doesn't depend on pumps or generators that could fail in an emergency because it uses passive cooling. The reactors would be in a containment vessel, underground and in a huge pool of water that can absorb heat.
Presumably the biggest risk of a NuScale reactor failing is radioactive gophers?
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday May 09 2019, @12:04AM (2 children)
I wish they'd provide a general sense of how large a village/town/city/metropolis this could service. Or if they could standardize on a city size to define a unit of consumption/management for power/water/sewage/all utilities. I propose a 'SimCity' unit.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 09 2019, @12:09AM
It can support a city of 100,000 provided there are no tree-hugging anti-nukes and/or Californian wingnuts living there.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Thursday May 09 2019, @01:39AM
I agree, it's very useful to know and compare relative sizes, amounts, etc. IIRC, a typical full-sized reactor is in the 1-4 GW range, and these smaller ones are "up to 300 MW", but I think that's a total of several even smaller reactors, so maybe 20-50 MW per reactor.