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 PinkyGigglebrain on Thursday May 09 2019, @02:24AM
Its an emerging technology. 70 years ago you could have said the exact same thing about the LWTR currently deployed today. Yes, MSRs still need work and its going to be several years before a commercial unit gets going but the tech has a much better chance of hitting main stream in the near future than most other alternatives.
I was not familiar with this design, thanks for calling it out. But the tech does have some issues and there is still a danger of a meltdown if the control rods fail. The technology is in the same boat as MSRs, its a new tech and needs to be researched and developed for possible future deployment if the design is judged to be practical and safe.
100% agreement, the CO2 system is superior to current systems AND has the advantage that it would work with almost any thermal power generating method
Yes I can. I was not comparing the cause of the meltdown, only its result. While the cause was different in each case the effect was the same, the core was not covered in coolant, over heated and melted into a nasty pile of slag. This is a failing of all solid fuel reactors, even Thorium based. Hence my advocacy of molten salt reactors, they can be designed with passive safety features that would shut the reactor down if the core gets too hot and overwhelms the cooling capacity of the plant (Cherynobyl) or the cooling system loses power (Fukushima) or the cooling pumps can't force the coolant into the core due to the back pressure from the vaporized super heated coolant in the core (TMI).
(btw: 100% agree Fukushima was a "perfect storm" that caused the failure. I heard there actually was a back up generator above the water that could have powered the cooling pumps BUT the breakers to route the power to said pumps ended up under water. Still does not change the fact that the core over heated because it couldn't shut itself down without intervention.)
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."