Rolls Royce Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Approval

[Mannginger]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-59212983

A good thing in my opinion, although not coming on-line until 2031. We need a good balance of sustainable energy and nuclear and I much prefer these concepts than the massive Hinkley / Heysham etc beasts

I don't have much patience for those who criticise this through the lens of "only sustainable" as I'm not convinced that wind / wave can generate enough power for us on their own

[Knoxville2410]

Positive news as long as this guy isn't running the show...

[Digga]

Went out for a curry last month with some mates I'd not seen in a good while. By pure coincidence the one I sat next to has been working at AMRC and was explaining the project.

I've personally always thought nuclear has the potential for future requirements, albeit that the sheer size and also legacy pollution of older reactors makes them un-viable long-term. It's very interesting.

[Mark-ri571]

Knoxville2410 said:

Positive news as long as this guy isn't running the show...

Can’t help but think “st on it” or “nice bit of squirrel”

[JagLover]

Looks positive.

Unless storage capacity improves then Nuclear has to form a large part of power generation so there is a reliable source of a good proportion of our electricity needs.

[46and2]

Is there a reason these can't be placed on something like an oil platform? We can then sink them into the abyss if they cause any problems.

[gazza285]

46and2 said:

Is there a reason these can't be placed on something like an oil platform? We can then sink them into the abyss if they cause any problems.

Do you eat fish?

[Richyvrlimited]

46and2 said:

Is there a reason these can't be placed on something like an oil platform? We can then sink them into the abyss if they cause any problems.

then all the radiation can leak out into the oceans?

[JagLover]

Richyvrlimited said:

46and2 said:

Is there a reason these can't be placed on something like an oil platform? We can then sink them into the abyss if they cause any problems.

then all the radiation can leak out into the oceans?

You could actually swim safely in a fuel rod pool if you didn't go too deep.

https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/

[anonymous-user]

Good decision, get on with it!

[pquinn]

46and2 said:

Is there a reason these can't be placed on something like an oil platform? We can then sink them into the abyss if they cause any problems.

Personally I prefer to secure things in a concrete bunker somewhere solid than to put them on stilts in a corrosive environment.

But that's just me.

Anyway assuming these are based on the naval reactor designs they really should be idiot proof.

[46and2]

JagLover said:

You could actually swim safely in a fuel rod pool if you didn't go too deep.

https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/

That my understanding, radiation doesn't travel too far underwater. I suppose fish would use it as a reef and become contaminated.

[46and2]

pquinn said:

46and2 said:

Is there a reason these can't be placed on something like an oil platform? We can then sink them into the abyss if they cause any problems.

Personally I prefer to secure things in a concrete bunker somewhere solid than to put them on stilts in a corrosive environment.

But that's just me.

Anyway assuming these are based on the naval reactor designs they really should be idiot proof.

That's the thing though, there are many reactors touring the worlds oceans as we speak.

[Knoxville2410]

46and2 said:

That my understanding, radiation doesn't travel too far underwater. I suppose fish would use it as a reef and become contaminated.

The problem arises if any nuclear waste was to leak out, you then have the whole seafood food chain ingesting radioactive particles which will then pass to humans.

[ChemicalChaos]

JagLover said:

Richyvrlimited said:

46and2 said:

Is there a reason these can't be placed on something like an oil platform? We can then sink them into the abyss if they cause any problems.

then all the radiation can leak out into the oceans?

You could actually swim safely in a fuel rod pool if you didn't go too deep.

https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/

Water does attenuate radiation extremely well.... assuming it is not the water itself that is radiaoactive (such as the leaking cooling water at Fukushima)

Anyway, I'm sure I saw a program a few years ago about a new type of reactor under development that would run on the WASTE products of conventional reactors. Anyone know what happened that one?

[46and2]

Knoxville2410 said:

46and2 said:

That my understanding, radiation doesn't travel too far underwater. I suppose fish would use it as a reef and become contaminated.

The problem arises if any nuclear waste was to leak out, you then have the whole seafood food chain ingesting radioactive particles which will then pass to humans.

True and I suppose we can't reliably ensure there would be no leakage.

[Byker28i]

Good stuff, although I expect the 'not in my back yard' types to say they don't want one near, although hadn't they identified existing sites that could be used.

[Plymo]

46and2 said:

Is there a reason these can't be placed on something like an oil platform? We can then sink them into the abyss if they cause any problems.

The Russians have been putting what are effectively the same reactors used in their icebreakers onto barges for providing power in remote areas - the idea being that they already have the infrastructure to build and maintain them, and when it needs refuelling it gets towed back to base, refuelled then towed back to the site.
And being on a ship it doesn't have to comply with the same safety standards as it would if it were installed on land - even in Russia

And RR do the reactors for submarines, it seems the idea for these SMRs is the same sort of technology, but scaled up on land.
I like the idea of them being factory produced and identical, it makes a lot of sense - after all, there are already new reactors being built every few years as part of the submarine programme, and it just seems to work (unlike all the issues around new nuclear power stations!)

If the prototype works and it all goes as planned, it's a great idea! Especially as unlike wind or solar they should be providing more stable power which is always a good thing, as well as being small which means unlike a big power station if any individual one needs to be shut down then you aren't losing a big percentage of your supply

Maybe it would even help with the hydrogen issue - any oversupply from excess wind/nuclear (with excess wind more likely I'm guessing) could be used for hydrogen production, as it doesn't really matter if it's inefficient when you've got lots of extra juice, and otherwise you'd be paying the wind farms not to generate...

[46and2]

Plymo said:

Maybe it would even help with the hydrogen issue - any oversupply from excess wind/nuclear (with excess wind more likely I'm guessing) could be used for hydrogen production, as it doesn't really matter if it's inefficient when you've got lots of extra juice, and otherwise you'd be paying the wind farms not to generate...

I watched an economics video that basically was saying that energy is the ultimate form of currency/money/wealth. In that countries that can produce more energy than they need can turn it to wealth creation. We have the means to provide an energy surplus in this country, these SMEs only really need to be an interim solution which provides the abundant energy to get us to full scale renewable use.

[Biggy Stardust]

46and2 said:

I watched an economics video that basically was saying that energy is the ultimate form of currency/money/wealth. In that countries that can produce more energy than they need can turn it to wealth creation. We have the means to provide an energy surplus in this country, these SMEs only really need to be an interim solution which provides the abundant energy to get us to full scale renewable use.

That's really nice.How do the renewables produce enough power on windless winter nights? Or maybe that's the whole point of the SMRs.