New-wave reactor technology could kick-start a nuclear renaissance — and the US is banking on it | CNN
www.cnn.com
The US government and companies are plowing billions into small modular reactors. China is leading in the tech, Russia is making almost all the fuel. The US is playing catch-up.

Off the Siberian coast, not far from Alaska, a Russian ship has been docked at port for four years. The Akademik Lomonosov, the world’s first floating nuclear power plant, sends energy to around 200,000 people on land using next-wave nuclear technology: small modular reactors.

This technology is also being used below sea level. Dozens of US submarines lurking in the depths of the world’s oceans are propelled by SMRs, as the compact reactors are known.

SMRs — which are smaller and less costly to build than traditional, large-scale reactors — are fast becoming the next great hope for a nuclear renaissance as the world scrambles to cut fossil fuels. And the US, Russia and China are battling for dominance to build and sell them.

  • roastedDeflator@kbin.social
    513·
    10 months ago

    To my understanding we don’t have an energy problem. We have a problem of industrialization in combination with global capitalistic tendencies. No wonder the article mentions the following:

    The International Energy Agency, which outlined what many experts say is the world’s most realistic plan to decarbonize, sees a need to more than double nuclear energy by 2050.

    Also, taking into consideration how dangerous nuclear accidents are, not only I don’t feel any safer with this technology -no matter how much it is praised- I feel literally scared when I hear statements like:

    But a nuclear renaissance is coming, the IEA says.

    • JungleJim@sh.itjust.works
      72·
      10 months ago

      The problem as I see it is all your statements are “I feel” and “I fear” with no sources about anything either way.

    • aelwero@lemmy.world
      51·
      10 months ago

      The risk of anything whatsoever happening to any given individual from nuclear is miniscule compared to the very real risk to literally everyone everywhere posed by coal and gas power…

      We’re all on a runaway train barreling towards catastrophe, and you’re essentially saying the bathroom needs a floor mat so someone doesn’t slip and fall. That’s about how the risks compare

        • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          5·
          10 months ago

          statistically they have a point. Coal mining has killed SEVERAL orders of magnitudes more people over its history, even oil and gas are relatively dangerous compared to nuclear. Nuclear is inline with both wind and solar roughly with the amount of yearly sustained injuries.

          • roastedDeflator@kbin.social
            12·
            10 months ago

            Personally, I don’t care about these statistics. The point I was trying to make was that under capitalism any industry has the goal to make huge amounts of profit. Coal, nuclear you name it. Nothing is about sustainability, unless it is related to greenwashing. So I don’t trust their approach, including the safety of these places. Also the need for more power is for industry expansion, not to heat our homes for instance.

            [By the way, I am not a communist. Mondragon is a model of non-capitalistic industrial development that has been successfully expanding since the 1950’s. By no means am I saying their approach is perfect, nor that perfection is the goal. Their example is important tho cause we can learn from them. For the Cleveland Model, they used Modragon’s input. They refers to Gar Alperorovitz amongst others]

            • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
              2·
              10 months ago

              fair enough i guess. You’ll be mused to know that nuclear is just about as unprofitable as it gets. So maybe that will rouse some feathers so to speak.

              Realistically, i agree with you, get rid of all humans, no more sustainability problems. Problem solved.

    • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      21·
      10 months ago

      Also, taking into consideration how dangerous nuclear accidents are, not only I don’t feel any safer with this technology -no matter how much it is praised- I feel literally scared when I hear statements like:

      you should look into the stable salt reactor design.

      Passively safe, inherently contained, and even when catastrophically failed, not a major concern. Many gen IV designs adhere to these sorts of principles. They’re just inherently safe now. The only way you can fuck them up is by actually just becoming a problem.

      Nuclear waste storage is still a problem, but greatly reduced with fast reactor designs. For numerous reasons i won’t get into right now because this comment would be three pages long otherwise.

      And besides, if you live near a coal plant you are actively consuming more harmful pollutants than if you were near a nuclear plant. Fun fact the japanese government evacuated people into areas WORSE than the initial areas they were in. This was due to gross negligence, but it was such a minor dosage, it basically didn’t matter anyway.