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: 5, Informative) by anotherblackhat on Sunday September 15 2019, @03:56PM (4 children)
NuScale proposes a LWR, only smaller.
So it's still a high pressure steam reactor that requires active cooling to not explode.
Seaborg [seaborg.co] proposes a Compact Molten Salt Reactor (CMSR).
No pressure, no danger of a exploding, walk away safe design, and it fits in an ISO standard shipping container.
It uses uranium and a special salt.
That uranium can be U-238, which is 100 times more abundant than U-235.
And it can also reprocess existing nuclear waste.
Moltex [moltexenergy.com] proposes a Stable Salt Reactor (SSR).
No pressure, no danger of a exploding, walk away safe design.
They have a design that uses thorium, which is even more abundant than U-238
Flibe Energy [flibe-energy.com]Proposes a Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR; often pronounced lifter).
No pressure, no danger of a exploding, walk away safe design.
It uses FLiBe for the salt.
There are dozens of others - any molten salt reactor would be a better design choice.
(Score: 3, Informative) by zeigerpuppy on Sunday September 15 2019, @09:22PM (1 child)
Nice summary of some alternative reactor designs.
The probkem here though is that Australian realky doesn't need nuclear.
The nuclear fuel cycle, even with mokten salt designs involves huge materials hamdling costs for reprocessing and long term storage.
Australian is much better off pursuing large scale solar thermal for the majority of base load.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 16 2019, @12:11PM
We need nuclear. The US can't or won't defend us. We need to be able to defend ourselves.
(Score: 2) by caffeine on Monday September 16 2019, @12:52AM (1 child)
You left out the most important factor in choosing a design, how much each company donates to the Liberal Party.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday September 16 2019, @12:58AM
Clearly, not enough. Proof:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford