The NuScale VOYGR reactor is a pressurized water reactor, not a molten salt reactor. See Scott Ramsey's comment above. What is being built is very small 1 MW thermal test reactor to apparently explore the feasibility of molten salt power reactors. It is clearly not what the article calls an SMR. Utter nonsense.
The statement on how long nuclear waste needs to be contained in that article shows an abysmal knowledge of radiation effects.
A n Isotope that has a half life of 100000 years only emits half of it's radiation in 100000 years. Basically background radiation levels.
The dangerous isotopes are those whose half life is much shorter as they are emitting more radiation over a short period of time. Take an isotope with a half life of 500 years. In the first 500 years it releases 50% of it's radiation so over that 500 years the average radiation that is emitted is 0.1%. Obviously more in the initial years and less towards the end.
Also all radiation is not the same. There are alpha rays, electrons and gamma rays. The dangerous one is the gamma ray. They are emitted early in the radioactive decay. So containment doesn't need to be 1000 or more years. This article suggests 600 years at which time the nuclear waste would be less toxic than the waste from wind or solar.
I appreciate the information. It's comforting, don't you think, that we'll only need to contain that waste on-site at generation points for 600 years? And guard it, like we do now?
What about materials returning to criticality while in those storage barrels on-site? That is mentioned.
If you were able to justify any of this madness, tell me something. Could I pay you enough to do a walk-through at the Fukushima site? How about Chernobyl? Maybe unit 2 at TMI?
Chernobyl.There have been workers Actually at the plant for some time dismantling the plant. You can now go on tours to some of the evacuated areas. here are some interseting facts for you.
Two months after the explosion my wife and I were in Tokyo for week whilst some zealots were talking of having the 2024 Olympic games needing to be moved from Tokyo. The background levels of Radiation in Tokyo were lower than in Melbourne Australia.
And yes I really would love to do one of the tours near Chernobyl but advancing age and mobility issues mean it likely won't happen
Here's what I know about Chernobyl's wildlife. Mutated earthworms 2feet long. Dogs that have survived are mutated to live less affected by the radiation. Horses, same deal. Way to go, we can all mutate. Not survive.
I did not ask you how things are going at Fukushima, after the dumping of radioactive water and waste directly into the ocean. I asked you if you'd walk through.
You are such a gentleman. But your language is only part of the problem. the major thing is you closed mind. No point in giving yu the uth. If it doesn't agree with your thoughts it is wrong.
Ken, I usually respect your opinions and your life experience. However, it seems you have been caught up in the hype against anything nuclear, and the nuclear paranoia which differs little from more recent mass-paranoia campaigns. I worked in the world’s largest nuclear power complex, the eight-reactor entity known as USS Enterprise (CVN 65) through three of its 50+ years of operation. Each of our reactors produced power within about a factor of ten (specifics may still be classified) of the small modular reactors in this discussion, and their ability to go into a safe shutdown with natural circulation is one indication of the advances in technology since the Big E was built in the 1950s. Not one of the hundreds of US Navy reactors has ever experienced catastrophic failure, like the Soviet-designed Chernobyl. For you to talk intelligently about reactor safety, you need to first understand basics like the difference between graphite moderated (Chernobyl) and pressurized water (most American), and other basic designs. Meanwhile, to offer insight into the health physics of nuclear radiation: I got significantly less radiation exposure over 3+ years working in nuclear power plants than I emitted during the first hour after injection for a PET scan. Ken, be careful not to let fear mongers manipulate your thinking, as they apparently have with you and many others.
Giant earthworms are common in the bush areas of New Zealand ie. relatively undisturbed soil. I doubt any reports of two foot worms around Chernobyl reflect anything other than relatively undisturbed conditions allowing something that was once much more common to repopulate.
Outstanding article, and I have reached out to them to interview them on a podcast, but have not heard back. - The Stargate Data center is huge, but having the new reactor in Abiline is way cool!
Perhaps they can build many of these and decommission the ugly wind turbines and solar panels. Nukes for baseload and AI data centers. Plus natural gas and oil for liquid energy and transportation. T Boone Pickens used to promote CNG for trucks and semi’s. That was a fantastic idea, very practical and cost effective. Electric semi’s are extremely heavy and would destroy the highway roadbeds. Recharge time for Electric semis make them unusable in commercial operations.
NuScale has nothing to do with this project. Natura Resources is the SMR company out of Abilene, TX. The test reactor is 1MW located on the campus of ACU.
Not only that --- Natura/Abilene is a totally different and novel type of reactor. Nuscale's Voyager is based on good old PWR technology, which is why it has much more potential to be impactful in the next 20 years.
The market will ultimately decide and there are probably applications for both depending on customer needs. Trade off of high pressure LWR vs low pressure but high temp molten salt.
Full disclosure: I hold publicly traded stock shares in SMR, the ticker symbol for NuScale. Please dont buy until after my call options close out on May 16, or Some of my shares will be called before what I hope will be the coming surge. (Not advice. I’m not in that business.)
I went to reply to your remark about oversized earthworms at Chernobyl and find that comments have been disabled, also cannot read your reply. NO argument changes the fact that these two-foot-long snake-like creatures were not in this location before the accident. Your investments be damned, this is not and could never be, clean or safe technology. Nuclear is great for WMDs and that is IT.
The reactor will not produce any electricity as it is basically a test reactor. All the heat, instead of turning a turbine and producing power, will dump it's steam through a heat exchanger to the atmosphere. So, this isn't the big mile stone you are alluding to in the article. The design approved by the NRC will only produce 1MW thermal energy, nowhere near the NuScale full design.
Got it, if we want to spur agriculture, develop new swimming sites, spawn fish and bless our landscapes with ecological abundance, we should dump nuclear waste everywhere. my God why didn't I think of that
The NuScale VOYGR reactor is a pressurized water reactor, not a molten salt reactor. See Scott Ramsey's comment above. What is being built is very small 1 MW thermal test reactor to apparently explore the feasibility of molten salt power reactors. It is clearly not what the article calls an SMR. Utter nonsense.
The wave of the future
I call your attention to this link, from the article:
https://www.ucs.org/resources/advanced-isnt-always-better
Also this from Stanford:
https://sustainability.stanford.edu/news/small-modular-reactors-produce-high-levels-nuclear-waste
The statement on how long nuclear waste needs to be contained in that article shows an abysmal knowledge of radiation effects.
A n Isotope that has a half life of 100000 years only emits half of it's radiation in 100000 years. Basically background radiation levels.
The dangerous isotopes are those whose half life is much shorter as they are emitting more radiation over a short period of time. Take an isotope with a half life of 500 years. In the first 500 years it releases 50% of it's radiation so over that 500 years the average radiation that is emitted is 0.1%. Obviously more in the initial years and less towards the end.
Also all radiation is not the same. There are alpha rays, electrons and gamma rays. The dangerous one is the gamma ray. They are emitted early in the radioactive decay. So containment doesn't need to be 1000 or more years. This article suggests 600 years at which time the nuclear waste would be less toxic than the waste from wind or solar.
https://jackdevanney.substack.com/p/600-year-old-spent-nuclear-fuel-is?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
I appreciate the information. It's comforting, don't you think, that we'll only need to contain that waste on-site at generation points for 600 years? And guard it, like we do now?
What about materials returning to criticality while in those storage barrels on-site? That is mentioned.
If you were able to justify any of this madness, tell me something. Could I pay you enough to do a walk-through at the Fukushima site? How about Chernobyl? Maybe unit 2 at TMI?
If you say sure, I'll know you are lying.
Chernobyl.There have been workers Actually at the plant for some time dismantling the plant. You can now go on tours to some of the evacuated areas. here are some interseting facts for you.
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/chernobyl/faqs
The exclusion zone now is basically a wildlife reserve.
https://phys.org/news/2021-04-wild-horses-flourish-chernobyl-years.html
As for Fukushima virtually all the deaths were due to the evacuation not radiation. Here is a report.
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/appendices/fukushima-radiation-exposure
Only 2.1% of those evacuated from the original exclusion zone were still not allowed home 10 years after the disaster.
https://www.pref.fukushima.lg.jp/uploaded/attachment/416423.pdf
Two months after the explosion my wife and I were in Tokyo for week whilst some zealots were talking of having the 2024 Olympic games needing to be moved from Tokyo. The background levels of Radiation in Tokyo were lower than in Melbourne Australia.
And yes I really would love to do one of the tours near Chernobyl but advancing age and mobility issues mean it likely won't happen
Here's what I know about Chernobyl's wildlife. Mutated earthworms 2feet long. Dogs that have survived are mutated to live less affected by the radiation. Horses, same deal. Way to go, we can all mutate. Not survive.
I did not ask you how things are going at Fukushima, after the dumping of radioactive water and waste directly into the ocean. I asked you if you'd walk through.
You are nothing but a fucking idiot.
You are such a gentleman. But your language is only part of the problem. the major thing is you closed mind. No point in giving yu the uth. If it doesn't agree with your thoughts it is wrong.
Goodbye Ken have fun in your little worldd
Ken, I usually respect your opinions and your life experience. However, it seems you have been caught up in the hype against anything nuclear, and the nuclear paranoia which differs little from more recent mass-paranoia campaigns. I worked in the world’s largest nuclear power complex, the eight-reactor entity known as USS Enterprise (CVN 65) through three of its 50+ years of operation. Each of our reactors produced power within about a factor of ten (specifics may still be classified) of the small modular reactors in this discussion, and their ability to go into a safe shutdown with natural circulation is one indication of the advances in technology since the Big E was built in the 1950s. Not one of the hundreds of US Navy reactors has ever experienced catastrophic failure, like the Soviet-designed Chernobyl. For you to talk intelligently about reactor safety, you need to first understand basics like the difference between graphite moderated (Chernobyl) and pressurized water (most American), and other basic designs. Meanwhile, to offer insight into the health physics of nuclear radiation: I got significantly less radiation exposure over 3+ years working in nuclear power plants than I emitted during the first hour after injection for a PET scan. Ken, be careful not to let fear mongers manipulate your thinking, as they apparently have with you and many others.
Giant earthworms are common in the bush areas of New Zealand ie. relatively undisturbed soil. I doubt any reports of two foot worms around Chernobyl reflect anything other than relatively undisturbed conditions allowing something that was once much more common to repopulate.
Wonderful news. Interesting and informative article. Thank you for your work.
Great news !!
We need a thousand of these SMR’s. One for every AI data center and spread the rest into small cities and metro areas.
Outstanding article, and I have reached out to them to interview them on a podcast, but have not heard back. - The Stargate Data center is huge, but having the new reactor in Abiline is way cool!
Thanks, Stu. Texas is covering all the bases! Ed
Perhaps they can build many of these and decommission the ugly wind turbines and solar panels. Nukes for baseload and AI data centers. Plus natural gas and oil for liquid energy and transportation. T Boone Pickens used to promote CNG for trucks and semi’s. That was a fantastic idea, very practical and cost effective. Electric semi’s are extremely heavy and would destroy the highway roadbeds. Recharge time for Electric semis make them unusable in commercial operations.
Natura Resources was issued the first construction permit EVER by the NRC to build a molten salt reactor in the US. NuScale was not involved.
Thanks Scott. Correction made!
I thought Nuscale uses PWRs, so thanks for confirming.
NuScale has nothing to do with this project. Natura Resources is the SMR company out of Abilene, TX. The test reactor is 1MW located on the campus of ACU.
Thanks Scott. I will correct that. Ed
Not only that --- Natura/Abilene is a totally different and novel type of reactor. Nuscale's Voyager is based on good old PWR technology, which is why it has much more potential to be impactful in the next 20 years.
The market will ultimately decide and there are probably applications for both depending on customer needs. Trade off of high pressure LWR vs low pressure but high temp molten salt.
So a micro-reactor rather than an SMR. Still of great interest.
Full disclosure: I hold publicly traded stock shares in SMR, the ticker symbol for NuScale. Please dont buy until after my call options close out on May 16, or Some of my shares will be called before what I hope will be the coming surge. (Not advice. I’m not in that business.)
I went to reply to your remark about oversized earthworms at Chernobyl and find that comments have been disabled, also cannot read your reply. NO argument changes the fact that these two-foot-long snake-like creatures were not in this location before the accident. Your investments be damned, this is not and could never be, clean or safe technology. Nuclear is great for WMDs and that is IT.
Take a look at the SMR in Ontario Canada just approved. Construction underway. This will produce power.
The reactor will not produce any electricity as it is basically a test reactor. All the heat, instead of turning a turbine and producing power, will dump it's steam through a heat exchanger to the atmosphere. So, this isn't the big mile stone you are alluding to in the article. The design approved by the NRC will only produce 1MW thermal energy, nowhere near the NuScale full design.
This is a relevant article:
https://open.substack.com/pub/1longtrain/p/lets-try-this-again?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1zyuut
And this article shows a much different picture of Hanford.
https://madihilly.substack.com/p/hanford-what-a-waste?utm_source=multiple-personal-recommendations-email&utm_medium=email&triedRedirect=true
Got it, if we want to spur agriculture, develop new swimming sites, spawn fish and bless our landscapes with ecological abundance, we should dump nuclear waste everywhere. my God why didn't I think of that