Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

xtrsports t1_j5vbm92 wrote

Reply to comment by 2SK170A in A small modular nuclear reactor just got US approval — a big milestone. by Natural_Dark_2387

Canada is wasting their time and money on building these given the fact that they are shutting down like 6 reactors in a few years. They should have built 2 new large reactors and then 2 new SMRs to supplement. Irrespective im a proud supporter of SMRs and the technology but its gotta make sense for where you are putting it.

5

Cynical_Cabinet t1_j5vf4qa wrote

Last time it was attempted to build new full size reactors was in 2009. The plan got abandoned when the estimated cost was $26billion.

12

deltadovertime t1_j5w4n0s wrote

There hasn’t been a new nuclear power plant built in North America in easily the last 20 years that isn’t 10x over budget. Anything that isn’t an SMR or something that uses liquid fuel is dead technology that will never be built again.

6

xtrsports t1_j5wabm0 wrote

Building an SMR is no different than building a conventional large reactor.

5

Revolutionary_Ham t1_j5wnfhs wrote

What a silly and uniformed comment.

5

xtrsports t1_j5x5uvo wrote

Yes my years of working on large scale nuclear construction projects, supporting current estimate for new SMR builds and currently working on a workforce plan for building SMRs allows me be misinformed and make a silly comment.

1

Revolutionary_Ham t1_j5x70pk wrote

Okie dokie judging by your post/comment history and and love for Andrew Tate. I’d guess you’re working with about a 78 iq and some problems with telling the truth. But if I should just take your word for it.

3

xtrsports t1_j5ycp1n wrote

Oh yea Tate is the Top G and my 78 iq is still 77 points higher than whatever the hell you are working with given your ability to form thoughts and arguments. But then again you will be working im the maritime industry so maybe i shouldnt be surprised.

2

deltadovertime t1_j5zo9gw wrote

Watts Bar is the only reactor that has been completed in North America since 1996. You must have had a second job then I don’t know what youve been doing since then. Or you are retired have no clue what you are talking about with regards to the nuclear industry circa 2020.

0

xtrsports t1_j602l99 wrote

Yea lets tell the guys at Vogtle they are building a rocket ship and not nuclear reactors.

3

Nonducorduco7 t1_j5wa2up wrote

That uses liquid fuel? Explain

3

deltadovertime t1_j5zn791 wrote

There are a multitude of different reactor types but two very high level groups are solid fuel vs liquid fuel.

Solid fuel has been used in almost all if not all commercial reactors in the world. In these reactors the fuel assemblies are generally made of uranium and are a solid component. This means that during regular use of the reactor there is waste heat that needs to be removed. If this doesn’t happen the fuel melts creating an environmental catastrophe. Most solid fueled reactors also operate at high pressures. This makes safety systems for the reactor very complicated and require lots of redundancy.

Liquid fuelled reactors use an already liquid fuel. Waste heat still needs to be removed from the fuel but melt down is not possible. This also has passive safety features as you can create systems that can dump the fuel into tanks where criticality of the fuel stops and the heat can passively removed. The fuel is also at at atmospheric pressures with simplifies safety designs.

There have been a few research reactors proving the liquid fuel concept but there were technical challenges that needed to be overcome specifically with the corrosive nature of the high temperature salts they use as fuel.

Ultimately the industry went with solid fuel for a multitude of reasons. Technical challenges were only a portion as it’s not like todays reactors are simple. You also have to realize that todays reactors were chosen originally because they created plutonium for bombs. The liquid fueled thorium salt reactor was one of the first reactors tested but abandoned ultimately because it didn’t create plutonium well.

4

Puzzleheaded-Ease-14 t1_j5vxx44 wrote

or hear me out: SMRs have usefulness in places like Saskatchewan, Atlantic Provinces, smaller cities and northern population centers where hydro/solar/wind isn’t viable for year round supply.

Not everywhere needs a large scale nuclear reactor. Plus Canada is rich in uranium reserves.

Renewables should be the main source and the grid should have a solid nuclear base for continuous supply if/when environmental conditions/events interrupt renewable supplies.

5