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 PinkyGigglebrain on Thursday May 09 2019, @04:07AM (3 children)
Agree that the NIMBY is going to be a big hurdle to overcome. I would expect these small systems will first be deployed in remote areas where its a choice between a nuclear powered generator that costs a $XXX but then works for 10 years or paying $XXX*2 every year for the fuel to keep your lights on. Most people are pretty reasonable and if you take the time to explain things to them in small groups. Once they get the facts they would support its deployment.
Sadly larger groups tend to manifest the average IQ equal to 1/2 the lowest individual present.
The security risk of fissile materials ending up in the wrong hands can be mitigated by the choice of fissile fuel for the core. The Uranium fuel cycle generates Plutonium which has a high "terror factor" and will be sought after by the "wrong hands". Using Thorium you don't end up with Plutonium and even though it is possible to create a bomb using the U-233 from the Thorium fuel chain it is not considered to be practical due to the decay rate and type. Trying to build a bomb with the U-233 is considered to be a waste of time since the effort and danger involved would be better spent trying build a U-235 based device which is far easier. It was one of the reasons why the Manhattan Project went with U-235 and Plutonium devices after looking into using U-233 from Thorium.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday May 09 2019, @02:46PM (2 children)
Thorium is the way for power generation - unfortunately, the US developed a plutonium infrastructure for all the obvious reasons. As I understand it, building up the thorium infrastructure would be costly, like Gulf War II costly, and meet with opposition from those who would rather get paid to police/defend plutonium capsules instead of pay to develop the thorium infrastructure and relax somewhat about neighborhood electro-nukes.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Thursday May 09 2019, @06:58PM (1 child)
agreed.
Its expensive to build any infrastructure from scratch. However, in areas that does not already have a deeply entrenched U/Pu fuel infrastructure it would be much easy for them to build one based on Thorium.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday May 09 2019, @08:41PM
Which makes me wonder: with all the nuclear weapons proliferation controls we attempt to enforce, and all the smaller nations who want to develop nuclear capabilities for "peaceful purposes" - why hasn't a single one built a commercial thorium infrastructure yet? I mean, we know they really want the ability to switch to bombs when they want to, but... just once, why hasn't any of them tried to do what they say they're doing with thorium?
Sell thorium capsule nukes to the world, get assassinated by OPEC?
🌻🌻 [google.com]