0 points

So, are those small modular reactors in the room with us now?

permalink
report
reply
0 points
*

I’m not certain what you mean by that but if you are asking how small they would be and where they would be placed the normal recommendation would be you would want a warehouse sized facility with an Olympic sized swimming pool to submerse a standard container sized reactor. You would probably house one to three reactors per facility. You would probably want an exclusion zone of 1 mi. Minimum. Depending on the model a single reactor would be able to power roughly 50,000 to 100,000 homes. Ideally you would build one of these 20 miles from a city. Plug in the SMRs and after 15 to 20 years unplug them and replace with newer models ship them off to a long-term storage facility and eventually process them for fuel once a we have functional thorium salt reactors at scale.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*

They’re saying they don’t exist

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Correct.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

I don’t even know how to argue with that viewpoint. Are they denying that we have small modular reactors what? It’s a technology that’s been employed since the '50s. I literally have a link at the top of the post.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*

Haha yeah, those who don’t agree with me must surely be stupid.
That will show them.

I know for some reason it is never popular to argue against the pro nuclear propaganda that keeps getting posted both here and on the old site, but I just hate how it tries to make anyone seem stupid that is afraid of the myriad of problems with this technology that are still unsolved to this day.

Especially considering how nuclear energy gets dominated so hard by renewables.

permalink
report
reply
0 points

We could shut down every coal fired plant and replace the coal fired apparatus with a modern reactor and keep the current steam turbine facility in place. But tell me more about how keeping Cole burning and spewing radioactive nuclei into the atmosphere as preferable than hypothetical meltdown situations.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

And that will take just, what, 200 years? Nuclear reactors aren’t diesel engines, they take a while to build.

Also, assuming the only option besides nuclear is coal, is stupid at best, but I’d assume, you’re misleading on purpose here.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

If only we could use an assembly like process on a proven modular self contained reactor design to turn them out of a factory like clockwork. It’s almost like you don’t have to build an entire condensing tower if you already have one from a coal fired plant and it’s basically a direct engine swap. Does this gloss over a lot of complications Yes Yes it does is it a realistic solution Yes it is. You’re complaining that there isn’t an economy of scale will also stopping an economy of scale from existing…

permalink
report
parent
reply

Memes

!memes@lemmy.ml

Create post

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

Community stats

  • 12K

    Monthly active users

  • 5.7K

    Posts

  • 36K

    Comments