Apparently nuclear power is easy to do. 2030 it goes online, just announced today... talk about fast.

[lexluthermiester]

But it does give off secondary radiation, so it requires a double loop to isolate the steam system from the primary salt coolant loop. I just don't see the advantages over a gas-cooled design where the coolant is completely inert both chemically and atomically.

The main advantage is contamination risk factors. Even with the secondary and tertiary(most people don't know about that) emissions, should a leak or failure take place, contamination mitigation is very measurably easier to manage and potential general contamination is much lower. Yes, it adds complexity to the system but the front-end complexity is more than offset and made up for by the back-end safety and accident management considerations. Molten salts that are easily neutralized, deionized and depolarized are much better than other solutions that are much more hazardous to clean up should an accident take place. While accidents are rare, it's better safe than sorry and molten salts take away much of the danger factors.

There are those who argue that such a system is not ideal but the safety aspects are undeniable.

Possibly reduced operating pressures; however I feel that the potential for problems is greater from permitting radioactive elements outside of the core vs having a pressure vessel for a core.

That is another benefit that can not be understated. Pressure vessels with radioactive materials are never good idea, even if well built. And this is because if an accident happens, it's big damn mess.

 

[Panther_Seraphin]

It's better than water, I will certainly give you that. But it does give off secondary radiation, so it requires a double loop to isolate the steam system from the primary salt coolant loop. I just don't see the advantages over a gas-cooled design where the coolant is completely inert both chemically and atomically.

Possibly reduced operating pressures; however I feel that the potential for problems is greater from permitting radioactive elements outside of the core vs having a pressure vessel for a core.

Size is the big one for GCR style designs. An equivalently sized GCR vs PWR etc is in order of magnitudes larger for the same theoretical power output.

Also corrosion was a big thing for GCR reactors, its why the UK moved away from Magnox designs towards PWR in the 70s/80s. Storing of the Magnox assemblies required near immediate reprocessing due to the inability to be stored in water for long periods of time. Hence why Sellafield is an absoloute environmental disaster.

 

[Assimilator]

the world doesn't need a huge number of multi-gigawatt power plants

Yes we do, it's called base load.

Most of their construction can be done in a factory -- then moved onsite for final assembly.

How exactly is that useful?

Eh? Nuclear power is demand-based power. Solar and wind are not. Until or unless we make a few quantum leaps forward in energy-storage technology, wind and solar will *never* fill a majority of the world's power needs. The hardest problem a utility faces isn't generating the energy ... it's matching supply to demand in real time, second-by-second.

How does any of this invalidate the point I was making?

You mean the same PRC that's currently building more than 150 coal-fired power plants? Yep, that's green all right.

China is building more coal plants but might burn less coal

China is adding more coal capacity, but its plants are running less often.

www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com

There are multiple reasons for this that are better covered by the above article, but the tl;dr is that the PRC is building more coal capacity but is expected to be running it less of the time as more renewables come on board. Those coal plants will also eventually make excellent battery storage facilities.

Standards of living in the West are the highest in all history. And when one defines "economic equality" as "everyone's equally poor", they lose all claim to rational debate.

I should have said "the gap in living standards". And I never defined economic equality in the way you're claiming.

Private companies competing created the original infrastructures that governments allow to degrade over time.

Libertarian nonsense. Private companies didn't build the US interstate system, for example.

 

[Endymio]

Size is the big one for GCR style designs. An equivalently sized GCR vs PWR etc is in order of magnitudes larger for the same theoretical power output.

It's not the "gas cooling" part of current AGRs that leads to the larger core, but the use of natural uranium rather than enriched. There are fast GCR designs that have the same or higher power densities. And while currently-operating AGR cores are some 40X larger than a PWR core, remember the core is a tiny fraction of the overall plant size.

Yes we do, it's called base load. ... How exactly is that useful?

The context was achieving economies of scale. A nation that needs 3 or 4 GW-scale PWRs needs 30 or more SMRs, which is irrefutably closer to the goal.

And SMRs, unlike their larger brethren, can be largely built in factories rather than fully constructed on site. You ask how this is useful? Why not ask Henry Ford? Imagine if your SUV was built by hand in your own garage by a team of onsite engineers who had each and every component -- down to the bolts in the engine and chassis itself -- first shipped to your home.

How does any of this invalidate the point I was making?

You claimed SMRs were "inviable in the face of wind and solar". You can't replace baseline power with demand sources.

Libertarian nonsense. Private companies didn't build the US interstate system, for example.

Ah, but private companies DID build the US Interstate System. The federal government only funded and managed the project -- and as a result, the project took 4X as long (almost 40 years) and 40X the cost of the original plan. Had federal workers done the actual construction, it wouldn't even be half complete today.

 

[R-T-B]

As @Count von Schwalbe has already pointed out, one large pile is cheaper than several small ones. If you hypothesis one pile per plant, you're up over $50B in costs per major city.

Yep infrastructure tends to be expensive.

I don't have much else to add. I wasn't really trying to act as a propenent of anything here, just know it's doable (if expensive).

 

[Panther_Seraphin]

It's not the "gas cooling" part of current AGRs that leads to the larger core, but the use of natural uranium rather than enriched. There are fast GCR designs that have the same or higher power densities. And while currently-operating AGR cores are some 40X larger than a PWR core, remember the core is a tiny fraction of the overall plant size.

Oh I know but larger core = larger containment etc etc etc, it just becomes a knock on effect.

The context was achieving economies of scale. A nation that needs 3 or 4 GW-scale PWRs needs 30 or more SMRs, which is irrefutably closer to the goal.

And SMRs, unlike their larger brethren, can be largely built in factories rather than fully constructed on site. You ask how this is useful? Why not ask Henry Ford? Imagine if your SUV was built by hand in your own garage by a team of onsite engineers who had each and every component -- down to the bolts in the engine and chassis itself -- first shipped to your home.


You claimed SMRs were "inviable in the face of wind and solar". You can't replace baseline power with demand sources.

Two points here.

1. SMRs in theory can be built to a blue print and so in turn economies of scale may come into place. But thats in theory and still questionable currently. But if it does come to fruition then things like LARGE datacenters, Arc furnaces etc could possibly have these SMRs in their planning to remove load from the general grid
2. Larger single plants run into the same problems we have in the UK where you have a load of power at A but you cant get it to B due to infrastructure limitations (cable/transformers etc) again this can be mitigated by Govt planning and decisions in regarding to Housing/Larger project placement.

 

[Assimilator]

Imagine if your SUV was built by hand in your own garage by a team of onsite engineers who had each and every component -- down to the bolts in the engine and chassis itself -- first shipped to your home.

A power generating plant isn't an SUV, or any other sort of commodity consumer item.

You claimed SMRs were "inviable in the face of wind and solar". You can't replace baseline power with demand sources.
www

They're nonviable because they're more environmentally fraught than wind or solar, while also being more expensive than big nuclear.

Ah, but private companies DID build the US Interstate System. The federal government only funded and managed the project -- and as a result, the project took 4X as long (almost 40 years) and 40X the cost of the original plan. Had federal workers done the actual construction, it wouldn't even be half complete today.

"Only" funded the project... which would never have happened without those funds. Which is exactly what I said.

Not to mention those the highways remain under the ownership and stewardship of the state, as opposed to being sold off and allowed to decay.

 

[Endymio]

Oh I know but larger core = larger containment etc etc etc, it just becomes a knock on effect.

Oh certainly. My only point is that the core size is dictated by the use of natural uranium, not the gas cooling.

[SMRs] aree nonviable because they're more environmentally fraught than wind or solar, while also being more expensive than big nuclear.

The "environmentally fraught" factoid is a myth. When you consider the vast amounts of raw material which need to be mined and produced, as well as the land area consumed, the environmental footprint of wind and solar is at least 1000X greater than nuclear. And SMRs are only more expensive than big nuclear if you build just one of them, which defeats the purpose of the design.

"Only" funded the project... which would never have happened without those funds. Which is exactly what I said.

No, what you said was that the government should control power generation and distribution. Are you backing down from this?

...those the highways remain under the ownership and stewardship of the state, as opposed to being sold off and allowed to decay.

Bridges and highways privately owned and operated are in excellent repair in the US, whereas the public ones generate a continual stream of complaints regarding maintenance issues. And if you're talking about industrial power generation being owned and run by the state, I suggest you examine states which have already attempted this, like Cuba, North Korea, and republics of the former USSR.