Is this article a joke?
- The chapter titled "Advanced reactors may make waste problem worse" mentions nothing about waste.
- The chapter titled "Not likely to help cut emissions" acknowledges that it would help cut emissions.
- HALEU fuel is needed to offset the smaller size of the reactor core, which results in increased neutron leakage: nope.
- "Factory construction is a risk": compared to traditional, behemoth reactor construction? Really?
There's more, but I'm at work. Is this article actually a joke?
It does appear like a bit of stream-of-consciousness opinions from the ex-regulator, pulled together for the article.
I would imagine there were no chapter titles to begin with and were added editorially in an almost random way.
It really would be good to see some comprehensive solution to the waste issue from someone who knows more and could not be considered amusing by anyone else.
> The chapter titled "Advanced reactors may make waste problem worse" mentions nothing about waste.
I think that's just a mistake in placement of headers? The next chapter does talk about waste: "In fact, a recent U.S. National Academy of Science analysis noted that advanced reactors do not solve the problems of nuclear waste and may, in fact, exacerbate the problem."
A simple typo or editing mistake does not make an article a joke.
> "Not likely to help cut emissions" acknowledges that it would help cut emissions.
No it does not. It feels like you must have skimmed the article very fast.
"Certainly, existing nuclear power plants play a significant role in greenhouse gas reductions and will continue to do so."
Of course existing nuclear power plays a role. We should absolutely not shut them down if it can be avoided. Whether NEW SMR reactors will help more than just investing the same amount in renewables is an open question.
> HALEU fuel is needed to offset the smaller size of the reactor core, which results in increased neutron leakage: nope.
What a helpful comment /s
Care to elaborate?
> "Factory construction is a risk": compared to traditional, behemoth reactor construction? Really?
Uh yeah.. really.
I really don't get how SMR proponents just take it for granted that the huge cost downsides of going small can be fully offset by mass production. Especially considering that we're not really talking about all that huge volumes of production any time soon anyway.
Imagine if you tried to claim that you could make the MWh cost of wind power go down by building smaller wind turbines in larger volumes. You'd have a really hard time defending that position. The trend is clearly favoring going bigger and bigger, even if the challenges related to construction and transportation is huge.
The "behemoth reactor" construction model is well proven, and physical factors dictate that it's the solution with the lowest potential construction costs. So yeah, going for an unproven model that MIGHT make up for higher costs with efficiencies associated with factor construction is absolutely a huge risk.
There's more, but I'm at work. Is this article actually a joke?