Small Modular Nuclear Reactors. The Verdict
Small Modular Nuclear Reactors. The Verdict
Small Modular Nuclear Reactors are yet another apparently promising ‘silver bullet’ style solution to the Net Zero challenge. All the reliable, safe, baseload power of large centralised nuclear power stations but without the huge cost overspends and crippling project delays. What’s not to like, eh? Great on paper…but do Small Modular Nuclear…
source
Reviews
0 %
Hmmmmm!! What say you about the Navy’s nuclear submarines and battle cruisers? They have nuclear reactors and work just fine. 🧐
These babes are the best
Norway is a tiny country. A long trip is still a short distance in other countries. EV's do not make it except for shipping trips.
you lost all credibility at 7:08 "more chaotic climate in the coming decades". it shows huge political bias from this channel and pushing agenda (climate panic), which undermines the entire reasoning behind this video.
Doesn’t factor in the increase in power needs and rising oil prices
By small nuclear reactors, I am thinking of ones about the size of maritime reactors – currently in large military ships and submarines. To be used for special need electric and heat production – right now with the fires raging in S California and inadequate water for fire fighting, why not a thermal desalination on the ocean to pump large volumes of water to additional well placed reservoirs to provide water for farming in normal times and water for fire fighting as needed. The design should take additional advantage of the heat generated. If the treated salt water is not potable, there will be less salt residue to discard and more heat available to sell. Presumably most of the power generated will be used to heat the water and drive the pumps moving water to the reservoirs but there should be some to sell to reduce the financial burden on the owners – hopefully not any government. California taxpayers are going to feel the additional tax pinch in any event if they want to save their fields, forests, private & public housing, and other structures.
😅
Oil remains much, much to undervalued.
Could be in the aftermath of the USA collapse, each state may be open to inpedendant energy production. On a limited grid. T rump is a total wreaking ball.
I see problem that no one is talking about it takes the same amount of fuel to produce the same amount of power all you are doing is spreading this hazard out into the city and the risks are the same just spread out into more than one location
SMR is a dream looking for public funding to keep people employed or they are out on their ears. Rather than fanciful SMR, the world would be far better off diverting investment into proven technologies that you describe towards the end. A lot of money is literally being p!ssed against the wall. Sooo wasteful.
So why not just big nuclear reactors?
SMR does NOT significantly change the economic or waste disposal problems with nuclear fission power plants. Anything that takes 50 years to decommission, followed by multiple decades of monitoring at some hapless waste storage site, is just not competitive for civilian use. Military use? Space use? Very specialized industrial use? Fine. Until fusion becomes practical for civilian use, I think wind, solar batteries and geothermal are the best decarbonization bets.
China has 250 plants in the planning stage with 60 currently being built
I'd love to hear your thoughts on the Commonwealth fusion power plant, ARC, to be based in Virginia. Seems extremely promising and a realistic endeavor towards providing cheap electricity when the demand is expected to double in the next few decades.
Wind and solar does work sometimes not to reeling on at all.
The main reason Australia should never go nuclear , is the Coalition's ignorance about science and risk management – they are bible-bashing godbotherers.
Hi from Australia. Our stupid opposition government have come out with their energy policy and their centre piece is 7 SMNR to solve Australia's energy problem which we don't have anyway.
These SMNR's are supposed to supply around 40% of Australia's power needs by 2050. For me, 7 SMNR would be no where enough to supply that much power, as you said, may need 100's of these stupid costly things.
They say it will cost $330 billion dollars for these SMNR's, they got to be on drugs to think this will be cheaper than wind, solar and battery, what do you think?
Nailed it. Nuclear just missed its economic window.
Nuclear power plants generate high level spent fuel (HLSF) which is neither transportable nor disposable. It just sits in the back yards of the 92 nuclear power plants in the US waiting for a solution that hasn't come since the start up of the first US nuclear power plant, Shipping Port, in 1957. These are dirty bombs waiting for a mortar shell. Do you have a High Level Spent Storage facility in your neighbourhood? Do you want one? This for a nuclear plant that will generate power for just 50 years and require storage of HLSF 10,000 years or more. It makes no sense. The real reason all these countries want to build nuclear power plants is that they want fissile materials to build nuclear bombs not to address climate change