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 threadHerbert BlankesteijnDec 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.
Show threadTroed SĂĄngbergDec 29

@hmblank

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.

@bert_hubert

Show threadcateDec 29
@troed @hmblank @bert_hubert interesting, also considering simple physics: our planet is 4 billions old and so our natural radiation is older (formed by a previous star). But in Switzerland we have problem of natural radioactivity on basements. So your reasoning missed some important parts. Physicist here.
Show threadTroed SĂĄngbergDec 29

@cate

Oh I'm Swedish, we have radon gasses in some of our basements too from back when we didn't know what we used when building. There are also cities with higher backround radiation due to the rock compositions they're built on.

None of that invalidates my statement though, so why don't you discuss that instead of something that wasn't relevant?

@hmblank @bert_hubert

Show threadcate
@troed @hmblank @bert_hubert it invalidates your reasoning: a dangerous radioactive material (uranium) that is started billions of years ago (radon is a byproduct). So it is wrong that short lived radioactivity is much more dangerous and after some years things will be ok. Half lifetime and energy are not correlated, and quantity matters. You are invalidating all studies on long term storage.
Dec 30 at 5:16pmWeb
Show threadTroed SĂĄngbergDec 30

@cate

I'm not. Our problem is that we take all the low radioactive stuff and clumps it together with the highly radioactive to the call it all "waste". If we separate it into different things then the requirements on the storage becomes very different.

Take radon as an example - it's not dangerous at all unless you have it being produced in enclosed areas.

The discourse regarding "nuclear waste" makes it out as something that's highly dangerous/radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years which simply isn't true.

Now, just to clear something up. You said you're a physicist, yet your reply begins with "a dangerous radioactive material (uranium)". This isn't correct, unless you're talking about a specific highly enriched isotope. The uranium we mine out of the ground is perfectly safe to play with.

@hmblank @bert_hubert