Small Modular Reactors: Safer and Cheaper?

Published: April 21st, 2011

In the wake of the Fukushima accident, and on the 25th anniversary of Chernobyl, the debate over whether nuclear power can be safe and economical enough to be a big part of the world's energy future, especially for helping to reduce global warming emissions, is in full swing once again. The danger of a major accident that releases significant amounts of radioactivity is just part of it. Nuclear power plants also generate radioactive waste that has to be disposed of somehow, and the creation and transportation of nuclear fuel raises the risk of weapons-grade uranium or plutonium finding its way into the hands of bomb-makers. On top of this, how much it will cost to build enough power plants to make a dent in global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions is uncertain — especially if Fukushima leads to tougher safety regulations.

For decades, though, some nuclear engineers have been pushing an alternate technology that they claim could address these concerns. Called Small Modular Reactors (SMR's), these plants, which have been proposed with a variety of designs, would be inherently cheaper to build and safer to operate than conventional plants, for a variety of reasons — or at least, so their proponents argue. They may be right, but so far the nuclear industry hasn't had enough real-world experience with any of the proposed designs to know how well their performance lives up to their theoretical promise.

Here are some of the ways SMR designs would differ from conventional nuclear power plants. This graphic is interactive, so click around to check out all the features:

Posted in Climate, Energy, Nuclear, Society, Global, United States, Charged

« Charged

Comments

By Liviu Popa-Simil (Los Alamos/NM/87544)
on May 13th, 2011

The problem in US is that “the old boys Club” is addicted to water/steam reactors ans US is addicted to oil, and rejected any revolutionary concept, in the favor of evolutionary development (little or no progress with “research and development” done by known, preferred people and companies, using studies like “The Road map for generation 4”, NERI, etc. in fact to eliminate most of the new idea for the sake of focusing on old ideas from 1970’s.
That will put US in trouble as not having the right power sources and no time to develop them from scratch when the time will come, and will come soon - see the books Challenges of the future - http://www.amazon.com/Liviu-Popa-Simil/e/B004QFA5UU - and understand how important the nuclear option is in spite of Fukoshima, Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island, etc.
More if you will read the proposal : http://brc.gov/e-mails/June10/ADNucP.pdf one will learn about the posibilities offered by nano-technologies and the actual modular reactor concepts to deliver, better, safer energy, independent of weather and far from water sources (rivers, lakes, sea-shores).
What is important is that the governments to want to listen and understand the importance or the Future Challenge and do the right things to prepare and prevail.
With regards

Name (required):

Email (required):

City/State/Zip:

Enter the word you see in the image below: