With regards to SMNRs, we have the likelihood of everything that went wrong with Vogtle (and far worse) going wrong with any new SMNR:
First and foremost (with today the last day to comment on a major part of the most massive destruction of nuclear regulation in history), the regulatory leniency that was ENTIRELY responsible for Vogtle's cost overruns will be vastly worse. (I say "entirely" because the NRC approved designs that weren't viable and should have stopped the project for that reason alone).
Second, we're falling for nuclear propaganda when we use the word "Small" as in "SMALL Modular Reactor". Every AI-drawn picture of what they'll look like is basically just a big boxy building but guess what? First of all, how many of those images show people and cars and tractor-trailer trucks nearby to give you a real sense of size? Hardly any! (How many things have you bought from Amazon that weren't as big when they arrived as you thought they'd be?) And second of all (for this point), the majority of these reactors have MOST of the reactor built underground, going down 100 feet or more (and that's not including borehole reactor plans). And there may be a dozen or more at any one site.
Third, cost-overruns are obviously not unusual for any first-of-a-kind large industrial project. But to keep costs down, these reactors have to be highly automated in ways that have never been done before: With AI. It's GUARANTEED to be in the software because everything from the operating systems to the software that controls the lasers that etch the microchips that populate the computers is built with AI these days, not to mention the security software, which will have to be constantly updated throughout the construction process as the threat environment changes and progresses (as it has done, and has been quite an ENIGMA for the software industry all along). But even ignoring AI, there is not going to be anything "modular" about the so-called Small MODULAR Reactors for a long, long time because the first dozen — or more — will be the "guinea pigs" for their design -- and will be competing against perhaps DOZENS of other designs. And only one will be best (whatever that means).
Many other things will inevitably go wrong: Fuel cladding fractures because they have to make so many new designs of fuel so quickly (and make a lot of it, in order to make cost-per-unit go down). Steam generator leaks for similar reasons. Even meltdowns caused by poor design, poor construction, poor maintenance, poor operation, sabotage or war. And even if it seems to work, it would still face the probability of abandonment after early shutdown (competing energy sources will out-price it the day it opens), or after "successful" usage, just leaving the toxic waste for others to absorb the cost and health hazards.
And most likely, it will never make back a dime over what solar or wind and energy storage would have provided for orders-of-magnitude less risk, money, time and effort.
Everything about nuclear energy is a boondoggle.
Atoms for Peace my foot!
Ace Hoffman, Carlsbad, California USA
This comment was submitted today and is registered as comment mor-lwfy-cm4b for the Proposed rule: NRC Reviews of Reactor Designs Previously Authorized by U.S. Department of Energy or Department of War
###
Contact information for the author of this newsletter:
Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, California USA
Author, The Code Killers:
An Expose of the Nuclear Industry
Free download:
acehoffman.org
Blog:
acehoffman.blogspot.com
YouTube:
youtube.com/user/AceHoffman
Email: ace [at]
acehoffman.org
Founder & Owner,
The Animated Software Company
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments should be in good taste and include the commentator's full name and affiliation.