The smaller they are, there more there are, the more there is a risk of mistakes and dissemination to bad actors I think.
Like, this sudden optimism concerning nuclear power is a bit worrying. Lowest bidder building small plants everywhere. What a nightmare ...
I really don't get where all this trust for the competence of others comes from.
And now we are supposed to put small ones kinda everywhere where incompetent morons or terrorist can blow them up?
I don't think it's fair to think so little of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. They have standards. I don't think it's reasonable to assume they will give up their standards of safety.
No one's said "we" are "supposed to put small ones kinda everywhere." This one's being installed at a military base. It should have adequate security.
The U.S. nuclear power industry has been producing energy for 66 years without a single fatality to a member of the general public.
> And now we are supposed to put small ones kinda everywhere where incompetent morons or terrorist can blow them up?
I'm pretty sure that a major military base in the middle of the Alaskan Interior has reasonably good security.
I'd rather have a plant that might spew poison than one that will definitely spew poison.
Small reactors won't be economical if they take that many people to run.
Also, naval reactors aren't small. Aircraft carriers have two 250 MW (700 MW thermal) reactors. That is a respectable power plant and much larger than proposed modular reactors.
What are the numbers? What’s the TCO difference to similar systems without atmospheric carbon emissions?
The reasons are not simply refueling concerns, although that is a factor. The boats still need to refuel the humans onboard, ie. food supplies and occasionally munitions.
The reactor powers the boat using less mass than a typical diesel-electric, is more quiet, and can remain underwater for an entire deployment if necessary - something that's simply not possible with other power generation methods.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine#:~:te....
To be absolutely pedantic not all US navy reactors are on submarines. They also power surface ships with them.
The question is “What are the numbers?”
Clearly the navy uses nukes due to advantageous performance characteristics. What are the numbers that a civilian small nuke must make to be viable?
Personally, I’m bullish on the companies in the micro reactor space that have minimal site construction. I’m less bullish on Oklo, given that their application had some glaring omissions and got denied an NRC license.
Everything is relative - but there's vastly more nuclear powered submarines than aircraft carriers. The Virginia Class, for example, is powered by a single 30MW reactor[1].
The article states these "microreactors" will range from 15MW to 100MW.
The "Nukes" in the Navy are highly trained, yes, but a military environment is going to be far rougher than anything privately managed for land-side power generation.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine#:~:te....
The military has demonstrated you can easily maintain and operate them with a handful of 18 to 22 year olds.
No, they haven’t. Military reactors aren’t run by relatively junior enlisted personnel alone.
Can you explain why this would be the case? I suppose you might need less manpower to run the reactor, which might mean fewer total man hours. But does that necessarily mean it gets less attention and care?
I think, in other words, the cost to guard and physically secure a reactor doesn't depend on the size of the reactor, just the existence of the reactor [1]. A large reactor would require the same defense as a small one.
Note that the majority of the cost of nuclear is the people [2].
[1] https://www.nrc.gov/security/faq-force-on-force.html
[2] https://energy.mit.edu/news/building-nuclear-power-plants/
But on the other hand we have managed to have air travel(which also relies on meticulous maintenance and operations) very safe despite sharp increase of flight over the years, so it must be possible to find a way to make it work.
Isn't it a bit absurd? Why we require this high level of scrutiny for these industries, but not for others, where our effort can get higher results?
It appears to not require active safety systems. And we are talking about Alaska.
Anyone informed knows it is harmless.
Nuclear technology, operated by responsible operators in well-designed plants is extremely safe. Unfortunately we live in a world where Nuke plant operators literally bribe legislators for billion dollar bailouts and the companies responsible for operating our fleet are the worst profit-maximizing ghouls you can imagine. It's the essence of John Glenn's quote about the Apollo missions, "My life depended on 150,000 pieces of equipment, each bought from the lowest bidder."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/22/ohio-house-...
https://www.politico.com/states/new-jersey/story/2020/06/24/...
I think the strongest anti-nuclear case is one of civilization collapse (fast or slowly) and instability - what happens when say, Russia, can no longer afford or has the capability to maintain these plants? Even shutting them down leaves huge massive problems for multiple generations.
Then you have the waste storage issue which is largely a political issue. This needs to be solved before nuclear in the US can really be seen as realistic - imo.
Even if it goes horribly wrong, even if there's another Chernobyl event and I end up dying 10 years premature due to cancer, I'll be happy knowing the planet won't be a hot disaster in a 100 years time. And even then, my odds are good, even if it's a 70s Russian plant we're talking about. Chances are I'll live much longer, breathing healthier air.
People say "why not renewables" but so far these only work with storage, which we haven't figured out yet. No major area in the world lives entirely off renewables with no fossil fuel backup or imports. Except maybe some very special cases that have very few people and very good hydro (Norway). But even Switzerland, with a favourable geography, doesn't run entirely on renewables, it is indeed nukes that fill the gap.
Ironically of course, clean energy Norway is a major exporter of gas and oil...