What Drives This Madness On Small Modular Nuclear Reactors?
https://cleantechnica.com/2023/11/30/what-drives-this-madness-on-small-modular-nuclear-reactors/
“There have been successful nuclear generation deployment programs in the world. The USA, France, Canada and South Korea managed it, more or less.”
There has not been a successful nuclear generation program ever as they all depend on a) mining which requires putting poor people in danger b) disposal which relies on putting poor people in danger.
You can’t hand wave the “putting poor people in danger” away any more than you can do so with mining coal or fracking.
When you have a subheading that reads, “What are the seven conditions for success for nuclear energy?” I WOULD EXPECT you to name them. The author never does.
“In the early 2000s, wind, solar and batteries hadn’t seen massive global deployments and astounding cost reductions, and wind and solar especially had not been proven to be able to be managed to create reliable grids.”
This is complete and utter bullshit. Texas grid depends on renewables for over 20%.
@feloneouscat The author appeared to be referring to figures from the early 2000s in that part of the article. I suppose you could interpret 2023 as early 2000s. That wasn't my interpretation of the phrase.
It’s also irrelevant as SMR’s had not been approved. So bringing it up is silly.
My point is that many countries started moving towards renewables about that timeframe. Texas started moving to renewables in the early 2000’s. The idea that this wasn’t viable, which he implies, is pure bullshit as it was REPUBLICANS, not liberals, who made the push in this state — because it was more profitable than coal or gas.
The idea that it was not “proven technology” is about as worthless a statement as you can muster — like saying “no grid is 100% coal” which is true, ergo you can’t have a 100% coal generated grid, which is false.
His entire thesis is fraught with logical inconsistencies, poorly written diatribe and nuclear fanboyism.
The only thing he gets correct is that we DO need to cut down drastically greenhouse gases. But SMRs are not the way to do it.
SMRs trade one environmental disaster for another with the side benefit bit that some people are more expendable than others.
We see this kind of thinking in Appalachia where they blow up mountains for coal. Uranium is no better and disposal in the US has had people like Bernie Sanders arguing to dump it in East Texas near a poor Hispanic town (Republicans in this state killed it because elections).
@feloneouscat I don't think the author is in favor of SMRs.
I disagree. He doesn’t think they are good policy, but for all the wrong reasons. He does think that France has a viable nuclear program which is not even vaguely true.
@stuartblair
Did he not bother Googling?
Iceland – 86.87%
Norway – 71.56%
Sweden – 50.92%
Germany — 50%.
SMR would (and remain) a SMALL part of ANY grid because being small THEY LITERALLY CANNOT generate the kind of energy required.
All the danger without the power. This is high risk low payoff. About as bad an economic decision as any business can make.
His heart is in the right place but climate change isn’t the ONLY criteria. We can’t kill off the poor to allow the rich to survive.