New-wave reactor technology could kick-start a nuclear renaissance — and the US is banking on it ( www.cnn.com )

Off the Siberian coast, not far from Alaska, a Russian ship has been docked at port for four years. The Akademik Lomonosov, the world’s first floating nuclear power plant, sends energy to around 200,000 people on land using next-wave nuclear technology: small modular reactors.

This technology is also being used below sea level. Dozens of US submarines lurking in the depths of the world’s oceans are propelled by SMRs, as the compact reactors are known.

SMRs — which are smaller and less costly to build than traditional, large-scale reactors — are fast becoming the next great hope for a nuclear renaissance as the world scrambles to cut fossil fuels. And the US, Russia and China are battling for dominance to build and sell them.

IchNichtenLichten ,
@IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world avatar

"SMRs — which are smaller and less costly to build than traditional, large-scale reactors"

They somehow forgot to mention a few key things:

They don't actually exist yet.

They may be cheaper but they generate way less power. If you added up the cost of enough SMRs to equal one conventional nuclear plant they would be even more expensive than an already prohibitively expensive method of generating power.

What a dumb article.

4am ,

They exist, what do you mean? We’ve been powering a fleet of submarines with them since the 1950s.

Yeah, it’s going to cost a lot upfront to get them commercially viable, but for the few places where renewables need assistance, I don’t see why this can’t make sense.

roastedDeflator ,
@roastedDeflator@kbin.social avatar

To my understanding we don't have an energy problem. We have a problem of industrialization in combination with global capitalistic tendencies. No wonder the article mentions the following:

The International Energy Agency, which outlined what many experts say is the world’s most realistic plan to decarbonize, sees a need to more than double nuclear energy by 2050.

Also, taking into consideration how dangerous nuclear accidents are, not only I don't feel any safer with this technology -no matter how much it is praised- I feel literally scared when I hear statements like:

But a nuclear renaissance is coming, the IEA says.

JungleJim ,

The problem as I see it is all your statements are "I feel" and "I fear" with no sources about anything either way.

roastedDeflator ,
@roastedDeflator@kbin.social avatar

The following is related to SMRs:

Why Small Modular Nuclear Reactors Won’t Help Counter the Climate Crisis || By Arjun Makhijani, Ph.D. and M.V. Ramana, Ph.D.

And on the problem of Indutrialization some elements can be found here:
What Are Some of the Drawbacks of Industrialization? - Investopedia

Summary of "Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism" by David Harvey

Would the above satisfy you @JungleJim?

JungleJim ,

It certainly seems like there's a point you're making instead just "the sky is falling" so yes, thank you.

aelwero ,

The risk of anything whatsoever happening to any given individual from nuclear is miniscule compared to the very real risk to literally everyone everywhere posed by coal and gas power...

We're all on a runaway train barreling towards catastrophe, and you're essentially saying the bathroom needs a floor mat so someone doesn't slip and fall. That's about how the risks compare

roastedDeflator ,
@roastedDeflator@kbin.social avatar

If that's your take on my comment(s), I would suggest you take a 2nd look at them.

KillingTimeItself ,

statistically they have a point. Coal mining has killed SEVERAL orders of magnitudes more people over its history, even oil and gas are relatively dangerous compared to nuclear. Nuclear is inline with both wind and solar roughly with the amount of yearly sustained injuries.

roastedDeflator , (edited )
@roastedDeflator@kbin.social avatar

Personally, I don't care about these statistics. The point I was trying to make was that under capitalism any industry has the goal to make huge amounts of profit. Coal, nuclear you name it. Nothing is about sustainability, unless it is related to greenwashing. So I don't trust their approach, including the safety of these places. Also the need for more power is for industry expansion, not to heat our homes for instance.

[By the way, I am not a communist. Mondragon is a model of non-capitalistic industrial development that has been successfully expanding since the 1950's. By no means am I saying their approach is perfect, nor that perfection is the goal. Their example is important tho cause we can learn from them. For the Cleveland Model, they used Modragon's input. They refers to Gar Alperorovitz amongst others]

Masterblaster ,

some actual good news

Gradually_Adjusting ,
@Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world avatar

One of the less widely discussed issues with nuclear is that the bigger plants are all somewhat unique in their engineering particulars, which makes it more costly to maintain them. SMRs can be more readily standardised, which is expected to improve their economics as well as their cost to maintain.

Tak ,
@Tak@lemmy.ml avatar

If I'm not mistaken SMRs also handle power demand shifts better and don't have to just do a base load. Something very useful with the growth of renewables and how they are not always supplying power.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • news@lemmy.world
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •