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: 3, Insightful) by RandomFactor on Thursday May 09 2019, @12:15AM (4 children)
This has little to do with size and expense of nuclear plants. The death of the nuclear industry in the United States is the shame of the environmental movement.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 4, Insightful) by takyon on Thursday May 09 2019, @12:58AM
Nah, it's a mix of environmental movement, NIMBYism, regulations, shitty companies like Exelon, and decades old reactor designs.
Can big nuclear be done right? Maybe. But this is the same country that can't do high speed rail.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Informative) by bob_super on Thursday May 09 2019, @01:07AM (1 child)
Both, but mostly the former.
If gas wasn't cheaper, the US would still be building coal plants.
The economics of the giant complex nuclear plants, especially after the lessons from the major accidents, make the ROI unsustainable for short-sighted investors.
The ecologists nagging about waste and and risk, and the NIMBY factor, are a royal pain for the builders, but could be crushed under the right amount of studies, dismissiveness and propaganda, if there were enough billions in profits.
The recent cancellations were not the fact of ecologists, but economics. The biggest contribution of eco-anything was actually the low prices of solar and wind. Not exactly something shameful.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Thursday May 09 2019, @09:54AM
> unsustainable for short-sighted investors
The UK government is finding it hard to bring investors for nuclear new build as well, even with incentives like guaranteed pricing. The problem is that there is just too much risk for the private sector to stomach.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_Kingdom#Future_power_stations [wikipedia.org]
Note the last paragraph:
> However on 17 January 2019, Horizon announced that it was suspending its UK nuclear development programme
So of at least two proposed new build plants (there was talk of more) only one is going ahead. From the same article, 5 plants are due to close in the next decade.
Note also: Rolls-Royce elaborates on its [Small Modular Reactor] plans
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Rolls-Royce-elaborates-on-its-SMR-plans-1306171.html [world-nuclear-news.org]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by mrkaos on Thursday May 09 2019, @11:46AM
On the contrary it is the achievement of the oil and coal industry. First, at least in the US, the 2005 US Energy Policy Act dictates nuclear funding policy is set out in SEC. 600 onwards. In there you will find that it is heavily skewed towards funding existing utilities who propose Nuclear Power plants, apply for a permit and site them. Even if they with draw plans for building the plants they still get half a billion in regulatory assistance even if they *don't* build the reactor. Environmentalists, NIMBYS and all manner of community groups are specifically *excluded* from influencing the siting of nuclear facilities as they have very specific requirements.
That is how the oil and coal(O&C) lobby use nuclear to raid the taxpayer, which includes the environmentalists you are talking about. The real achievement of O&C was to deflect Nuclear advocates into attacking environmentalists whose main gripe was oil and coal. This dampened or neutralized the environmentalists attacks on O&C and wasted much of the nuclear advocates time whilst O&C quietly lobbied for nuclear funding laws that favored them. Feel free to examine the laws and see for yourself.
To finalize this point, these types of reactors are being funded from clauses within this Act, SEC. 625-635 IIRC.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.