bert hubert 🇺🇦🇪🇺🇺🇦Dec 29
'In practice, a “small” reactor brings all the big problems of a conventional reactor: dangerous radioactive fuel, complex safety systems, and the risk of catastrophic failure or sabotage. The only thing that’s truly small about SMRs is their inability to benefit from the economies of scale that, in theory, were supposed to make large reactors affordable — but never actually did.' - https://www.climateandcapitalmedia.com/the-nuclear-mirage-why-small-modular-reactors-wont-save-nuclear-power/
The nuclear mirage: why small modular reactors won’t save nuclear power

Don’t believe the hype, says a 50-year industry veteran

Climate and Capital Media
Show threadTroed SĂĄngbergDec 29

@bert_hubert Most suggestions for SMR do combine them with modern architectures that do not have those problems though.

The "economies of scale" argument also seems to be the wrong way around. Large one-off reactor builds were never able to benefit from such, while factory-line produced SMRs easily will.

Show threadbert hubert 🇺🇦🇪🇺🇺🇦Dec 29
@troed A true believer! I just updated https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/nuclear-no-yes-maybe-but-not-like-this/ but it is aging well.
Nuclear power: no, yes, maybe, but not like this - Bert Hubert's writings

This is a story in three acts, where we go from “trying to procure more nuclear power plants in 2024 is nuts”, to “I could see why you’d want some nuclear”, to “but if so, not like this”. This post has been quite a trip to write, where I rediscovered that writing something down is an ACE way to find out you didn’t know what you were talking about. It was also a good exercise in changing my mind a few times.

Bert Hubert's writings
Show threadTroed SĂĄngbergDec 29

@bert_hubert No beliefs anywhere, I just have this irritating need to point out falsehoods when I see them spread online ;) Your article looks sound, but the link you shared contained the errors I pointed out.

I think molten salt thorium based SMRs would be a good addition to our energy producing infrastructure, but yes, we'll mostly have wind and solar powered (battery smoothened) since those will be cheaper.

We haven't even begun to plan for the energy we'll need to desalinate seawater just to pump inwards to re-fill all the aquafiers we've been overusing for hundreds of years :D We need lots and lots of energy, all over.

Show threadbert hubert 🇺🇦🇪🇺🇺🇦Dec 29
@troed thing is, if you follow the history of (small) nuclear power, the promise is always that THIS design will be safe, simple, affordable AND run on fuel that we actually have. And it always turns out you can't get all of these at the same time. Molten salt has proven to be VERY tricky for example. By now, you need to be a believer to assume that this time it will work.
Show threadbert hubert 🇺🇦🇪🇺🇺🇦Dec 29
@troed Good link on the challenges of molten salt: https://thebulletin.org/2022/06/molten-salt-reactors-were-trouble-in-the-1960s-and-they-remain-trouble-today/
Molten salt reactors were trouble in the 1960s—and they remain trouble today

Molten salt nuclear reactors—based on a 1960s Oak Ridge National Lab experiment—are all the rage among some nuclear power enthusiasts. But is that experiment worthy of emulation? Perhaps not.

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
Show threadTroed SĂĄngberg

@bert_hubert I know what the challenges are, but it does seem as if we have them sorted out.

I would hope Copenhagen Atomics or similar gets the funding though rather than just relying on China for the progress though. Europe needs to control European energy security.

Dec 29 at 5:01pmWeb