Mastodawn

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

Troed Sångberg Dec 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.

bert 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

Troed Sångberg Dec 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.

bert 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.

Herbert Blankesteijn Dec 29

@bert_hubert @troed Similarly, every decade or so the nuclear waste problem appears to have been solved. But every decade the solution is different, indicating that every former solution wasn´t so good after all.

Troed Sångberg Dec 29

It was solved many decades ago, we just don't allow the solution. High school physics: Something which is highly radioactive is so only for a short amount of time. Something which is radioactive for a very long time isn't dangerous.

(This is a plain physics statement, not something that can be debated)

... with that knowledge in mind, now ask yourself what that "nuclear waste" is.

Clemens Zauner Dec 29

@troed I call bullshit here. If your path would be viable in an economic sense, someone (on this planet) would have taken it.

Until you can present a solution which ticks the following boxes (all of them):

[ ] Safe
[ ] Available
[ ] Fiscally viable

please spare us with excuses and vague promises, or pointing to faceless entities which forbid you doing X.

Thank you.

Troed Sångberg Dec 29

@czauner I really don't care about what you call "bullshit" - this is not exactly secret. What we call "nuclear waste" is in reality still fuel, just not fuel that can be used in the fuel cycle we've built our general power producing reactors for.

After either reprocessing that "waste", or using it directly in breeder reactor cycles, what's left is very little (mass) and is only radioactive for a few hundred years and can thus simply be stored in containers on the sites themselves.

Now, if you're interested in this subject - why didn't you already know this?

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/fuel-recycling/processing-of-used-nuclear-fuel

Processing of Used Nuclear Fuel - World Nuclear Association

Used nuclear fuel has long been reprocessed to extract fissile materials for recycling and to reduce the volume of high-level wastes. New reprocessing technologies are being developed to be deployed in conjunction with fast neutron reactors which will burn all long-lived actinides.

Clemens Zauner Dec 30

@troed
You obviously failed to read my post. And operate on false assumptions on my knowledge. You seem to carry your sparse understanding about decay-chains and fissile products proudly as a banner — without realising that the arguments of others are not based in their lack of know-how, but in their awareness of realities.

Just in case you even missed the 2nd line of my above post: There are currently no economically viable paths for fissile energy-production, Exactly 0 of this 'great ideas' survive even the first attack of a spreadsheet.

There are in fact a lot of good reasons to invest into fissile technology, and to keep and expand knowledge. Large-scale energy production is none of them. And not only because it's way too expensive. But just the cost-factor alone makes nuclear power-plant already the least favourable choice.

Troed Sångberg Dec 30

@czauner Feel free to link any supporting information to support your arguments.

You need another person to look up the Costs per kWh for varying modes of production?

Srsly? Yeah, I would be able to provide you links, but that is such an easy task that even you should be able to master it.

For a starter you might look at 'Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Energy', their only interest is - as a financial firm - the 'money' side. Therefore beeing 'neutral' regarding all other factors, they would suggest anything beeping able to turn a profit.

Or, just dig up the projects of the last 20 years, and look at the bottom line (projected vs. real costs).

It' easy. You can do it.

Troed Sångberg Dec 30

@czauner You replied to a post about nuclear waste, not power production.

Clemens Zauner Dec 30

Your lack of reading and comprehension is showing again, we are in this thread:

https://eupolicy.social/@bert_hubert/115803704798747017, if you don't believe me - just scroll upward.

If you want to discuss exclusively nuclear waste, then make your own thread. This one has economic reasons in it, just reread the original toot from Bert Hubert.

Troed Sångberg Dec 30

@czauner You replied to me, to a reply I had made to Herbert, which specifically was about nuclear waste.

Go be annoying someplace else.

Clemens Zauner Dec 30

@troed
Please learn how mastodon and the concept of threads work. You seem to lack knowledge about basics.

It would generally also help to be taken seriously if you don't show the absolute lack about the Medium you are writing in.

If you want to talk exclusively nuclear waste:

Make a new thread.

You do this by making a new toot, not by replying to an existing one. Maybe the admin of your instance can explain this in detail to you.

Thank you.

PS: Shifting goalposts is generally frowned upon. I do know, that this 'tactic' is quite wide-spread in lesser platforms (e.g. X, formerly known as twitter). But let's not engage in such dishonest methods as long as possible, agreed?

Troed Sångberg Dec 30

@czauner I accept your apology. Feel free to discuss power generation in one of the other subthreads.

/instance admin