Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Saturday May 23 2020, @08:17PM   Printer-friendly
from the power-to-the-people dept.

The US Government Just Invested Big in Small-Scale Nuclear Power:

Amid the coronavirus lockdowns around the world, one of few positive pieces of news we've heard is that carbon emissions have dropped dramatically. The clearer skies and cleaner air have led to a renewed vigor behind calls for retiring fossil fuels and investing more heavily in renewable energy. Proponents of renewables tend to focus on solar and wind as the best green energy sources, leaving out a lingeringly controversial yet crucial player: nuclear power.

Last week, the US Department of Energy (DOE) shone a light on nuclear's potential in the most effective possible way: by dumping a bunch of money on it. The DOE launched its Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program to the tune of $230 million. That sum is broken down into $160 million for scientists currently working on nuclear reactors that could be operational in 5 to 7 years, and another $70 million for additional research and development down the road.

[...] Small modular reactors are touted as having the most potential to reduce the up-front costs of nuclear power while improving its safety. Rather than having to be custom-built onsite, small modular reactors can be manufactured in a central location and shipped to their destination in pieces.

Oregon-based NuScale Power is leading the small modular reactor charge with its 65-foot-tall by 9-foot-wide light water reactor. 100 of them could fit in the containment chamber of a large conventional reactor, and NuScale says its small reactor can produce 60 megawatts of energy per day (as compared to around 1,000 MW produced daily by conventional fission reactors)—so the size-to-production-capacity ratio is pretty solid. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute in Washington DC, NuScale will likely be the first company to receive small modular reactor design certification from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

[...] If small modular reactor and other nuclear tech moves forward—overcoming barriers from cost to bureaucracy to public opinion—we could see, in the not-too-distant future, large conventional reactors supplanted by smaller local ones. Under current safety regulations, reactors have to be at least 10 miles from the people they're providing power to. Small modular reactors could be closer to the communities or industrial zones they're powering, meaning less energy would be lost in transit and storage.

[...] Investments in nuclear power are nonetheless something of a gamble, especially now that we're beset by uncertainty on all fronts. But it's one the US government is up for making; we will, after all, be looking for ways to keep the skies smog-free and stop temperatures from rising for decades to come.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2020, @08:30PM (11 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2020, @08:30PM (#998240)

    In 5, 4, 3, 2, ...

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=1, Funny=3, Total=4
    Extra 'Funny' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by julian on Saturday May 23 2020, @10:58PM (7 children)

    by julian (6003) Subscriber Badge on Saturday May 23 2020, @10:58PM (#998293)

    I guess it depends on who you follow on Twitter. A majority of leftists (contrasted with liberals) seem to support nuclear power. We obviously want solar and wind, too. That's why leftist are contrasted also with conservatives, who are still boosterish on fossil fuels even if they also like nuclear power in principle. Nuclear power is this jewel of physics that human civilization cannot afford to ignore. It's not much of an exaggeration to say that rejecting nuclear power today would be similar to early hominids rejecting the use of fire.

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2020, @01:48AM (6 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2020, @01:48AM (#998327)

      But it was Trump's DOE that approved funding, so all the blue checks must be violently opposed.

      Personally, my biggest issue with nuclear power was the storage of the waste products. Fukushima added to that an awareness of the risk of having to locate next to large bodies of water as a heat sink.

      Small Mr. Fissions sound like a good area for further research. AFAIK the complete lack of a market for new nuke plants had stopped all research in applied atomic energy research.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by julian on Sunday May 24 2020, @02:45AM

        by julian (6003) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 24 2020, @02:45AM (#998331)

        all the blue checks

        Like I said, those are liberals and neoliberals; they hate Trump aesthetically, not substantively. If Trump did something good for nuclear energy I have to imagine it was probably by accident. He was probably trying to give a sweet contract to one of his friends, steal taxpayer money into one of his companies, or rent out more golf carts.

        The storage problem is a political problem, not a technical one. We have deep and empty salt mines. The salt flows like water, but over the course of decades. You put the casks inside these caverns and after a few years they get encased in the salt and the tunnels can be pumped full of concrete too. It might as well be on the moon at that point for all the damage it can do to us here on Earth. But no one wants that in their backyard, even if their "backyard" is thousands of miles away and not really theirs.

      • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Sulla on Sunday May 24 2020, @03:46AM (4 children)

        by Sulla (5173) on Sunday May 24 2020, @03:46AM (#998345) Journal

        Personally, my biggest issue with nuclear power was the storage of the waste products.

        This can be resolved by pulling out of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty or amending it to allow for production of plutonium. Older breeder reactors (or preferably some new Gen4 reactor with same concept) can reburn our old waste to a fraction of what it is, then reburn the plutonium it creates for even more power. I was listening to a guy on periscope who served on a nuke sub for 20 years and now works at a reactor somewhere on the east cost, him and some coworkers were wargaming how long our current supplies of waste would last us if they were used as our only power source assuming same level of usage. If we replaced all current nuke plants (or built a Gen4 next to them to burn the old waste and new waste) we would have upwards of a thousand years of power per current or decommissioned plant in the US.

        I would prefer see a grid that is 100% nuclear with short-term spool up capabilities provided by off-peak production of hydrogen or stored electricity. Off-peak power could also be used for desalinization to refill aquifers or create our own mountain springs.

        Dumping 200-500 billion into nuclear is a hell of a lot cheaper than dicking around in the middle east or competing with China for oil, lack of pollution is also a huge plus.

        --
        Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2020, @04:12PM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2020, @04:12PM (#998448)

          There just happen to be too many large players with reserves of fossil fuels that need to get exploited before the switch. Russia, USA, middle east.

          Also, switch to Uranium and you just move the world's "trouble spots" to Africa or wherever there are large deposits of Uranium. Not really great for, say, the EU to make themselves dependent on that source. Like it or not, fossil fuels are here until they really do run out in about 200 years. Live like the hog, my friend!

          • (Score: 1) by Sulla on Monday May 25 2020, @12:31AM

            by Sulla (5173) on Monday May 25 2020, @12:31AM (#998644) Journal

            To some extent. If we have 10k years of waste we can reburn at current usage levels, roughly 20%, thats like 2k years if we were to go full gen4 and cover all our power with it. Less when you take into account growth, but with that timeframe we could just mine it in space.

            --
            Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 25 2020, @12:33AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 25 2020, @12:33AM (#998645)

            USA domestic fossil fuels are relatively expensive compared to OPEC. They can be left in the ground.

          • (Score: 2) by Alphatool on Monday May 25 2020, @02:05AM

            by Alphatool (1145) on Monday May 25 2020, @02:05AM (#998687)

            The majority of known uranium deposits are in Australia, so not exactly a high risk area. There are also significant amounts of uranium in seawater. At the moment it's cheaper to mine uranium than to extract it from seawater, but the ability to extract from seawater places an upper limit on prices and also gives energy security to every country with a coastline. It's a very different situation than we're facing with fossil fuels.

  • (Score: 2) by corey on Saturday May 23 2020, @11:41PM (2 children)

    by corey (2202) on Saturday May 23 2020, @11:41PM (#998303)

    Yeah. $100m of that sum needs to be doesn't on a mass advertising/reeducation program to teach sheeple about the difference between a current generation reactor and that used in Chernobyl. Intention to show them that it's night and day in terms of safely.

    I've spoken to a nuclear engineer recently. It would be enlightening for most people.

    • (Score: 4, Touché) by maggotbrain on Sunday May 24 2020, @01:24AM (1 child)

      by maggotbrain (6063) on Sunday May 24 2020, @01:24AM (#998326)

      +1, Incoherent

      • (Score: 2) by RS3 on Sunday May 24 2020, @04:32AM

        by RS3 (6367) on Sunday May 24 2020, @04:32AM (#998351)

        Nah, it's one of those mind teasers where if you skim over it fast your brain fills in all of the missing words and it makes perfect sense.