The folly of wind and solar as energy sources

[Frood]

You mean spread out the risk.

No, I mean reduce it. At least that is what is being claimed about them, because they are not producing electricity anywhere in Canada yet.



The greater safety should come via the use of passive safety features that operate without human intervention. No need to rely on Homer J. Simpsons to prevent a meltdown.

I've seen some of these proposals. They may be slightly less dangerous to operate but there are still risks.



And spreading them out, they become targets for bad actors with a mind to cause localised carnage.



They'd become potential stationary tactical nukes in a contamination sense... no thanks.

[Thiel]

You mean spread out the risk.

No, I mean reduce it. At least that is what is being claimed about them, because they are not producing electricity anywhere in Canada yet.



The greater safety should come via the use of passive safety features that operate without human intervention. No need to rely on Homer J. Simpsons to prevent a meltdown.

I've seen some of these proposals. They may be slightly less dangerous to operate but there are still risks.



And spreading them out, they become targets for bad actors with a mind to cause localised carnage.



They'd become potential stationary tactical nukes in a contamination sense... no thanks.

In theory, SMR's seem like a sound idea.  If emergency cooling is needed, specialized valves open automatically—allowing steam to discharge from the reactor vessel into the containment vessel. The steam then condenses and water flows back into the core through a second set of valves at the bottom of the reactor vessel. This helps cool the reactor down.



As the water boils, the steam that is created recirculates, setting up a passive safety cooling process that continues until the heat and pressure eventually stabilize.



With fewer parts needed to accomplish the same safety function, the company's simplified design allows the valves to open automatically without the need for additional pumps, power or operator action.



This leads to greater reliability of the safety system and lower capital costs when building the reactor.



So far, the only working SMR's are in the Russian Far East. But, Ontario and some American states will have them online before the end of this decade.



This short video explains their emergency cooling system.

[Frood]

You mean spread out the risk.

No, I mean reduce it. At least that is what is being claimed about them, because they are not producing electricity anywhere in Canada yet.



The greater safety should come via the use of passive safety features that operate without human intervention. No need to rely on Homer J. Simpsons to prevent a meltdown.

I've seen some of these proposals. They may be slightly less dangerous to operate but there are still risks.



And spreading them out, they become targets for bad actors with a mind to cause localised carnage.



They'd become potential stationary tactical nukes in a contamination sense... no thanks.

In theory, SMR's seem like a sound idea.  If emergency cooling is needed, specialized valves open automatically—allowing steam to discharge from the reactor vessel into the containment vessel. The steam then condenses and water flows back into the core through a second set of valves at the bottom of the reactor vessel. This helps cool the reactor down.



As the water boils, the steam that is created recirculates, setting up a passive safety cooling process that continues until the heat and pressure eventually stabilize.



With fewer parts needed to accomplish the same safety function, the company's simplified design allows the valves to open automatically without the need for additional pumps, power or operator action.



This leads to greater reliability of the safety system and lower capital costs when building the reactor.



So far, the only working SMR's are in the Russian Far East. But, Ontario and some American states will have them online before the end of this decade.



This short video explains their emergency cooling system.

[Anonymous]

Human error has caused all problems at nuclear plants from Three Mile Island to Chernobyl to Fukushima. The idea of eliminating the need for operational personnel will eliminate that.



I don't know enougb about these modular reactors, and since we aint got any up and running, we shall see if they can supply power needs at a decent price. Safety issues are not not a concern I have with them.

[Frood]

Just keep that shit away from my region....

[Thiel]

Still reliant on valves though.... it's still a mechanical contraption.



Valves in series have failed the big nuke plants before.



Now they want to miniaturise the unit as a trade off for massive accidents so instead of major meltdowns, we'll have mini ones dotting our regional areas.



Will new cars or existing homes need radiation monitoring equipment integrated in?



It's ridiculous to me that we could water down catastrophe by spreading it more thinly everywhere.

First, they really can't melt down. Second, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission just agreed that any emergencies that could possibly occur at a small modular nuclear power plant probably won't even get past the fence.



No need to come up with huge evacuation plans for nearby cities or anyone living near the plant, like we did for older plants. You can just stand there at the fence and watch what's going on.



These reactors just won't melt down or otherwise cause any of the nightmares people think about when imagining the worst for nuclear power. In case of any emergency, the reactor just shuts down and cools off.



That means just what it sounds like - the reactor doesn't need the complex back-up power systems that traditional reactors require and which traditionally add a lot of cost as well as some uncertainty. No humans or computers are needed to intervene, no AC or DC power, no pumps, and no additional water for cooling.



So you don't have to be ready to evacuate everyone who lives nearby. They will never be affected.



A couple of additional features are: 1) no one can hack this reactor and 2) refueling of this reactor does not require the nuclear plant to shut down. It's probably why this reactor design is sailing through the regulatory approval process faster than any reactor in history.

[Frood]

Still reliant on valves though.... it's still a mechanical contraption.



Valves in series have failed the big nuke plants before.



Now they want to miniaturise the unit as a trade off for massive accidents so instead of major meltdowns, we'll have mini ones dotting our regional areas.



Will new cars or existing homes need radiation monitoring equipment integrated in?



It's ridiculous to me that we could water down catastrophe by spreading it more thinly everywhere.

First, they really can't melt down. Second, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission just agreed that any emergencies that could possibly occur at a small modular nuclear power plant probably won't even get past the fence.



No need to come up with huge evacuation plans for nearby cities or anyone living near the plant, like we did for older plants. You can just stand there at the fence and watch what's going on.



These reactors just won't melt down or otherwise cause any of the nightmares people think about when imagining the worst for nuclear power. In case of any emergency, the reactor just shuts down and cools off.



That means just what it sounds like - the reactor doesn't need the complex back-up power systems that traditional reactors require and which traditionally add a lot of cost as well as some uncertainty. No humans or computers are needed to intervene, no AC or DC power, no pumps, and no additional water for cooling.



So you don't have to be ready to evacuate everyone who lives nearby. They will never be affected.



A couple of additional features are: 1) no one can hack this reactor and 2) refueling of this reactor does not require the nuclear plant to shut down. It's probably why this reactor design is sailing through the regulatory approval process faster than any reactor in history.

Despite the best laid plans, shit happens....



I'm not willing to have any of these mini nuke plants anywhere near me or potentially able to poison my home and food chain.



And I shouldn't be compelled to either....

[Bricktop]

There is only one logical and sensible energy source we should be investing in.



Nuclear.

In theory nuclear is the best but in practice it is susceptible to gross negligence and freak acts of nature.



Fukushima was built in an unstable region, along a coast, and they were using Mox fuel and storing the spent rods in a very unsafe manner.



Chernobyl wasn't maintained correctly due to poor maintenance from a collapsing soviet empire.



TMI almost became a fully fledged meltdown because of emergency systems failing.



And if nuclear power plants are miniaturised and spread out remotely as some researchers and companies would like to do,  we're looking at numerous human error or environmental events rendering little pockets of no go zones for decades all over.



Nuclear should be a limited use application only.

Whilst you're right that errors have been made, it is also true to say that lessons have been learned, just as when the world discovered steam power, oil energy and other forms of energy.



Given the number of nuclear reactors in operation, the fact that we've had only three serious accidents, with relatively little loss of life, should not mean that we turn our backs on clean and efficient nuclear power. Two of those accidents were caused by human error (Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island) and the other was a freak tsunami. The overall safety of nuclear power has been exemplary.

[Frood]

There is only one logical and sensible energy source we should be investing in.



Nuclear.

In theory nuclear is the best but in practice it is susceptible to gross negligence and freak acts of nature.



Fukushima was built in an unstable region, along a coast, and they were using Mox fuel and storing the spent rods in a very unsafe manner.



Chernobyl wasn't maintained correctly due to poor maintenance from a collapsing soviet empire.



TMI almost became a fully fledged meltdown because of emergency systems failing.



And if nuclear power plants are miniaturised and spread out remotely as some researchers and companies would like to do,  we're looking at numerous human error or environmental events rendering little pockets of no go zones for decades all over.



Nuclear should be a limited use application only.

Whilst you're right that errors have been made, it is also true to say that lessons have been learned, just as when the world discovered steam power, oil energy and other forms of energy.



Given the number of nuclear reactors in operation, the fact that we've had only three serious accidents, with relatively little loss of life, should not mean that we turn our backs on clean and efficient nuclear power. Two of those accidents were caused by human error (Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island) and the other was a freak tsunami. The overall safety of nuclear power has been exemplary.

There have been more accidents and close shaves than that.



I remember a number of them in the news on the East Coast of the US or through what my father told us or what we overheard in the evenings when he'd get home. He was an engineer on many of the New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey reactors but not TMI... shit happened and if it could get swept under the rug, it was attempted....at least for the more mild mishaps.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... by_country">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country



Even recently they've increased allowable radiation exposure levels in Japan because they haven't been able to reduce them.



It's sleight of hand stuff with the energy sacred cow.

[Anonymous]

There is only one logical and sensible energy source we should be investing in.



Nuclear.

In theory nuclear is the best but in practice it is susceptible to gross negligence and freak acts of nature.



Fukushima was built in an unstable region, along a coast, and they were using Mox fuel and storing the spent rods in a very unsafe manner.



Chernobyl wasn't maintained correctly due to poor maintenance from a collapsing soviet empire.



TMI almost became a fully fledged meltdown because of emergency systems failing.



And if nuclear power plants are miniaturised and spread out remotely as some researchers and companies would like to do,  we're looking at numerous human error or environmental events rendering little pockets of no go zones for decades all over.



Nuclear should be a limited use application only.

Whilst you're right that errors have been made, it is also true to say that lessons have been learned, just as when the world discovered steam power, oil energy and other forms of energy.



Given the number of nuclear reactors in operation, the fact that we've had only three serious accidents, with relatively little loss of life, should not mean that we turn our backs on clean and efficient nuclear power. Two of those accidents were caused by human error (Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island) and the other was a freak tsunami. The overall safety of nuclear power has been exemplary.

Fuskushima was a disaster waiting to happen from the time they began construction on it.

The accident occurred at the Fukushima plant - the report notes in its conclusions - is the result of collusion between government, the regulatory agencies and TEPCO (the company operating the six reactors). The combination of their negligence betrayed the Japanese nation's right to be safe from nuclear accidents. The disaster is clearly a man-made disaster. "We believe" conclude the ten experts of the Commission "that the underlying causes of the accident are to be found into the organizational and control systems that supported wrong decisions and actions". Collective and systemic fault, therefore, even cultural (the inveterate tendency of Japanese society to obedience and insularity), not attributable to individuals.

http://www.scienceonthenet.eu/content/article/luca-carra/human-error-fukushima/september-2012#:~:text=The%20accident%20occurred%20at%20the,be%20safe%20from%20nuclear%20accidents">http://www.scienceonthenet.eu/content/a ... 0accidents">http://www.scienceonthenet.eu/content/article/luca-carra/human-error-fukushima/september-2012#:~:text=The%20accident%20occurred%20at%20the,be%20safe%20from%20nuclear%20accidents.

[Anonymous]

These reactors just won't melt down or otherwise cause any of the nightmares people think about when imagining the worst for nuclear power. In case of any emergency, the reactor just shuts down and cools off.

I remember some Conservative premiers who were advocates of SMR technology talking about that.....Dr Leslyn Lewis did too when she sought the Conservative Party leadership..



Still, we have so much natural gas and transmission pipelines in place for it, changing energy sources seems like a waste of taxpayer money.

[Anonymous]

Here in Ontario we have sixteen nuclear units in operation. These reactors amount to 11,400 MW of generation capacity and are located at three sites. There will be no more like Darlington ever constructed. But, Darlington Nuclear Generating Station is Ontario's, and Canada's, only licensed site for new nuclear generation.



Ontario Power Generation, with Ontario government's support, is moving forward with plans to build Canada's first SMR at the Darlington site, pending regulatory approvals from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.



Our population is growing rapidly. We need to increase power generation. This is a cheaper alternative to hydro and a safer alrernative to conventional nuclear. We don't have vast reserves of natural gas like Alberta and BC nor the infrastructure to deliver it and with Trudeau in power that will never happen. So, SMR's it will be.

[Anonymous]

https://scontent.fyxd2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/274344111_730741568333218_4539619427904301842_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=pHOfb6XfxNEAX-jhq3V&_nc_oc=AQlVSiv-IUm8e91Y25yPSunYRewbtH5KtYMw3oSeTciGJKR3Qh0-i6I0PBemGayvtStUp2AfK5bAeGyZGioqux1x&_nc_ht=scontent.fyxd2-1.fna&oh=00_AT-MloKqGDMwj3oY9uxTFOhV0G23iea_kBV3pLRkHqZwIg&oe=622AE792">

[Anonymous]

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1499907549746937860">https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1499907549746937860



https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1499909806504779779">https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1499909806504779779

[Anonymous]

Elon Musk has called for a boost in Europe's nuclear-energy output amid fears of a gas shortage on the back of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.



Musk tweeted on Sunday evening that it's "extremely obvious" that Europe should restart dormant nuclear power plants and boost the output of those that are operational.