Start of a New Nuclear Generation

[ez8004]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSL5N1UY4W1

 

Roll on nuclear power for clean and emission free power generation.

[Cyclone]

The government has a strong track record of ignoring the recommendations of panels it sets up itself, so whilst this is probably a good idea, there's no guarantee that it will happen.

[ANGELFIRE1]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSL5N1UY4W1

 

Roll on nuclear power for clean and emission free power generation.

 

 

I agree, but the downside of nuclear power is the waste. Doesn't it take hundreds of years before this waste is considered "safe".

 

Angel1.

[Cyclone]

I agree, but the downside of nuclear power is the waste. Doesn't it take hundreds of years before this waste is considered "safe".

 

Angel1.

 

The amount of waste is actually tiny, and if we can sort out the next generation of reactors then it will be reduced even more.

Ultimately nuclear is more environmentally friendly than most of the green types of energy!

[ads36]

we've got loads of nuclear waste that our grandparents left us after the cold war.

 

we need a long term solution for that, even if we stopped using nuclear power tomorrow.

 

we seem happy to release the waste from fossil fuels (CO2) straight into the atmosphere, where we know it's definitely going to cause serious problems. but mention safe storage of nuclear waste, and all sensible conversation evaporates.

 

ideally, you'd keep the really dangerous stuff above ground for about 50 years, in a cooling pond, where you can keep an eye on it, before moving it to long term underground storage/disposal.

 

Yes, 50 years. now that might sound like a long time, but we've been doing exactly that at Sellafield. It's now an ongoing process. A bit like a coal mine, or land-fill site, or quarry, etc. it takes decades to return the site to a 'safe' condition.

Edited August 15, 2018 by ads36

[geared]

we've got loads of nuclear waste that our grandparents left us after the cold war.

 

we need a long term solution for that, even if we stopped using nuclear power tomorrow.

 

Newer reactor designs can use the old waste as fuel, producing very little waste of their own.

 

Problem is they are mega-money to construct, no-one wants to live next to them.

Also judging by the mess Hinkley Point C has become it's almost a given the Government will negotiate such a crap deal that it will cost the tax-payers billions of pounds in extra fees.

[ads36]

that's the point of SMR's.

 

at the moment, pretty much every reactor is a new design.

 

designing is an expensive process, obtaining approval is expensive, building a new design is an expensive process, and decommissioning a unique design is expensive.

 

with SMR's, you only have to design once. and the construction can be done on a production line, in a dedicated facility. the capacity of a power station can be increased simply by adding additional modules.

 

let's say a module has a functional life of a few years, before it needs re-fueling. and you've got a bank of 10/20/40 in a power 'station', you'll have a continual process of renewal/de-re-commissioning. something like 5 modules per year in a 20-bank station.

 

the idea is take something big and complicated: designing, building, decommissioning, single, unique power stations. and turning it into a production line, with experienced people, and proven processes.

 

much cheaper than the current model, which is do everything for the first time, every time.

Edited August 15, 2018 by ads36