SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Small nuclear towers several stories high and 100 meters wide are being considered as an option to replace coal as Australia's energy plans for the future are reviewed. The design is based on nuclear plants used in submarines but with the prime minister of Australia labelling the idea as being 'loopy' it may not get off the ground.
Dr Ziggy Switkowski, former chair of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, told a parliamentary inquiry hearing on August 29 in Sydney that small modular reactors could have a role in powering small towns with populations of about 100,000 to support mining sites and desalination plants.
"On paper, they look terrific," Dr Switkowski said. "They are small and they can be built subsurface. They can be gas cooled, so the demand for water cooling is reduced.
"The nuclear fuel rods are designed as a nuclear battery that needs to be replaced perhaps only every 10 years or so, and the level of radioactive by-product is low."
Dr Switkowski said the capital cost was much lower than the cost of large-scale nuclear.
"All of that, to me, is irresistibly attractive. And the technology starts with proven applications such as nuclear submarines, although obviously there are differences to that," he said.
However, Dr Switkowski said it could take five to 10 years for enough reactors to be rolled out so Australia can assess their feasibility and whether it can make them work.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 15 2019, @01:34PM (5 children)
That reactor design was for a situation where there was unlimited cooling water and released radiation easily diluted.
Time has proven (see Chernobyl and Fukshima and countless near misses) that using it for commercial power is not a good idea because (especially with humans around) stuff eventually happens, and when it does the mess is ugly.
That said, without the submarine constraint of space, there is no reason that the nuclear industry couldn't find a design that is passive, walkaway safe.
Except that they seem to choose not to.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday September 15 2019, @07:56PM (4 children)
The same seems to be true of coal, gas, and oil.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday September 16 2019, @03:29PM (3 children)
The worst possible disaster of a coal, gas or oil fueled plant is far less than that of a nuclear plant.
If not, please specify.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday September 16 2019, @05:38PM (2 children)
Have you somehow missed the whole global warming thing?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday September 16 2019, @06:21PM (1 child)
Doh! I was thinking short term.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday September 17 2019, @03:42AM
Along those lines, there's Centralia [wikipedia.org]. One town already razed and only 7 residents in Centralia itself. Their homes will be razed once they pass away. The "town" doesn't even have a ZIP code anymore.
That was fairly "slow burning" as well. The fire seems to have started in 1962 and defied efforts to put it out ever since.