Submitted by SunfireGaren t3_yg25p6 in worldnews
EphraimJenkins t1_iu6iw4c wrote
How about building a few more here in the US.
Da_Vader t1_iu6ntfy wrote
NIMBY effect is powerful.
Madholm t1_iu7delc wrote
Yeah, I when I heard about those small nuclear power plants that could be buried, I had hoping they might start popping up. Either they aren’t safe, or are deemed too high a security risk.
Scotty232329 t1_iu7irkv wrote
Though not buried, the first small modular reactor is being built in Ontario, which is also the home to Bruce Power
Prestigious_Plum_451 t1_iu7whbc wrote
> Either they aren’t safe, or are deemed too high a security risk.
Neither, also they don't need to be buried etc... assuming you are talking about small modular reactors, and their micro sized equivalents.
Right now they are just stuck in regulatory, and design limbo, and slowly moving forward. Why we are not seeing them out and about really just has to do with upfront costs, and regulatory issues where we have shit fine on paper, but someone needs to take the financial risk to fund initial deployments of the tech before anyone else jumps on board.
The first such in the US to be deployed to Eielson air force base in Alaska for testing, and energy production. https://www.safie.hq.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3169035/request-for-proposal-released-for-eielson-air-force-base-micro-reactor-pilot-pr/
Kind of like with space rockets... how many years was it all about govt funding of all sorts of testing, development, and deployment of tech before private enterprise could follow suit on proven ideas?
bingobangobenis t1_iu8ap10 wrote
god I really hope SMRs take off. They have the potential to really change things
Prestigious_Plum_451 t1_iu8fbfd wrote
yah, at least in remote regions if nothing else. Import ungodly amounts of refined hydrocarbons and burn wood on top vs... SMR for the next some decades to prove the same power and then some which can then be replaced as needed with another module with the other one sent back for repurposing/recycling.
bingobangobenis t1_iuao1oi wrote
also the potential to put them in ships, among other things. Imagine cargo/container ships that are greener
Prestigious_Plum_451 t1_iuaoyun wrote
> potential to put them in ships
Assorted militaries have been successfully doing that for what 60-70 years now?
snap-erection t1_iu7ndu2 wrote
It's baffling to me how that can be. Like the government gives no shit at all about what you and I think about the wars and the defense budgets and the money they give out to their friends. But the same government is utterly bullied by people who don't want nuclear power plants? For decades? No it doesn't check out at all. There has to be some strong industry reasons.
Iwasborninafactory_ t1_iu7og8l wrote
I saw a thing about building a road, and when asked about the route, they literallysaid they chose the path of least resistance, meaning they routed it through poorer areas because they would fight it less. It's a story as old as time.
Majormlgnoob t1_iu7rxfv wrote
People with money can sue
Though obviously you can build planets in poor areas, but they're expensive so
snap-erection t1_iu7tarr wrote
They can also build them in the middle of fuck nowhere. I mean where are the coal power plants? Are they on top of people's faces or are they also god knows where?
PorvaniaAmussa t1_iu7zebd wrote
Response Analytics.
Rjlv6 t1_iu6r97p wrote
They're working on it. Site prep is underway for America's first commercial small modular nuclear reactor. It's going to be in Idaho and will basically provide power to Utah. The department of energy gave them $1 Billion for the first plant. Construction begins in 2024 and should be finished by 2030 if everthing goes well. An identical plant is also going to be built in Romania aswell. If things go well it should be much cheaper as many of the components are off the shelf parts that are also used in natural gas plants. It's also already been certified by the nuclear regulatory commission which has been a big hurdle.
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/doe-approves-award-carbon-free-power-project
GameHunter1095 t1_iu7be9k wrote
Bill Gates had a few reactors in the works too with a company out of SK called TerraPower. Not sure whatever happened to that project as it was a few years ago that I read about it. I think one was supposed to be built in Wyoming.
Rjlv6 t1_iu7dm37 wrote
As I understand that's still ongoing but the Idaho one is an NRC licensed design which is a key barrier.
GameHunter1095 t1_iu7i1p7 wrote
Good info....Thanks
ZeeznobyteTheFirst t1_iu7k41d wrote
They are doing site preparations to begin construction on the first Natrium reactor next year. TerraPower also signed an agreement with PacifiCorps to build several more in Utah and Wyoming.
a404notfound t1_iu6pekh wrote
They have been in the process of building one here in ga for nearly 10 years but the epa keeps making changes during the construction that lead to needing to disassemble and reconstruct it to make certain areas up to code.
Fun_Necessary1021 t1_iu6pif5 wrote
They will once the stars align with their pocket books.
LeoGoldfox t1_iu8135n wrote
kndyone t1_iu7rko1 wrote
haha in the land of NIMBY, fat chance.
Going to vote to make sure we also dont put affordable housing next to my suburban sprawl while my kids cant afford rent BRB
Coolegespam t1_iu7j93n wrote
To expensive. Plus the changing climate makes it harder to design good (read: cheap) cooling systems.
Renewables are cheaper, even with additional energy storage costs are considered.
That said, refreshing a couple per-existing plants may not be a bad idea. We just need to realize they wont ever be profitable and subsidize them at a federal level so they can "compete" with other sources.
Magmaster12 t1_iu72ia6 wrote
We have a big issue about where to store nuclear waste, getting it transported to the Nevada dessert incredibly expensive.
fredo3579 t1_iu7d06k wrote
This is an absolute non issue.
Rumpullpus t1_iu7sb9r wrote
Well not exactly. It is an issue, but it's purely a political one. No one wants a waste site in their state.
fredo3579 t1_iu80wb5 wrote
We don't actually need (almost) any waste sites. We have the technology to transform and reuse a large amount of the "waste" as fuel in breeder reactors, or bombard it in particle accelerators to turn it into much less problematic elements. Lastly, we have been storing the waste onsite for decades already, there is no reason we couldn't do it for "eternity".
3_14159td t1_iu7gjfx wrote
The US doesn't do that... Yucca mountain, the best solution, was killed decades ago by nimbys and greedy politicians. There isn't any commercial nuclear waste being stored in NV.
porncrank t1_iu7tozw wrote
Yucca mountain was cancelled, but I toured a nuclear waste storage facility at the Nevada Atomic Test Site. It's this place:
https://www.nnss.gov/pages/programs/RWM/wastemanagement.html
I'm not sure what qualifies as "low level nuclear waste" that is stored there.
3_14159td t1_iu7uog6 wrote
As far as I've had answered, that's mostly ancillary articles from the various experiments that took place on the site. Think like Curie's radioactive notebooks and such. There's still a number of "abandoned" areas on the NNSS awaiting evaluation and cleanup.
Rjlv6 t1_iu7egmw wrote
Idk at least we're able to capture all the waste vs fossil fuels where we just release it into the atmosphere. I think there's some ok arguments for reprocessing the fuel and getting something like 70% of the uranium back. Switching to thorium also would help as it has a much shorter half life and doesn't have the same saftey/proliferation concerns. (Hasnt been done because traditional thorium fuel rods are supposadly very expensive to make) also storing it onsite kinda seems like a viable solution. As I understand it not all of the waste is fule either alot of it is just gloves and equipment used by operators that they store out of an abundance of caution
Doggydog123579 t1_iu7jqag wrote
By volume, its a few cubic feet a year per reactor. 97% of nuclear waste isn't the spent fuel, its low to mid radioactive things, like worn out components of a reactor, or clothing worn inside the reactor building.
[deleted] t1_iu7r2gv wrote
[deleted]
Commercial_Soft6833 t1_iu75cwv wrote
SpaceX and launch it into the sun.
Probably not the cheapest option, but better than storing it in the desert hoping nothing leaks.
Of course, if something were to happen during a launch.. that would be pretty fucking disastrous too lol.
Magmaster12 t1_iu75nrk wrote
This was the first question I asked when brought in my high school chemistry class a decade ago. Apparently there is too high of risk for a dirty bomb going off.
lollypatrolly t1_iu7sm28 wrote
Also doesn't make any sense in terms of economy or energy expenditure.
Xveers t1_iu7kjzo wrote
The delta-v for a solar intercept is also really high. You're better off launching on an interstellar course; that's actually cheaper
lollypatrolly t1_iu7sfym wrote
Storing it in the desert (or on site) is many orders of magnitude safer than shooting it into space. Not to mention the massive energy requirements for launching items into the sun. In fact it takes far more energy to reach the sun than it takes to escape the solar system entirely.
The simple fact here is that storage of nuclear waste is not a practical or safety issue at all, it's a political issue. If we can shut down the NIMBYS and irrational anti-nuclear activists this issue will be solved forever.
We don't need innovative solutions on handling the waste (that's already a solved issue), we need innovate solutions on getting political support for it.
porncrank t1_iu7ui5a wrote
People are way overly scared of nuclear waste. Though not as concentrated, radioactive materials exists in nature already. There are natural beaches you can sit on that will get a geiger counter going. If nuclear waste is stored reasonably it is not particularly dangerous. Especially when compared to all the other waste we dump into our air, water. I'd much rather have nuclear waste stored in my state than have the equivalent amount of coal smoke dumped into the air.
It's like how people are worried about windmills killing birds, even though glass buildings, cars, and house cats kill more and nobody ever cared about that.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments