nuclear-news

The devil, as usual, is in the details. For instance, the cost of a nuclear reactor per unit of electrical generating capacity declines with increasing size……There are economies of scale associated with security, too ….Nuclear power advocates have long promised far more than they can deliver, ignoring essential hurdles such as cost, safety, and performance. Decades of experience, however, have proven those promises to be hollow and hazardous. The notion that “small is beautiful” for nuclear reactors is not just fanciful; it is whistling past the graveyard of the “nuclear renaissance” that never was

The problems with small nuclear reactors, THE HILL, By Dr. Arjun Makhijani – 06/15/11  “…… the enthusiasts of small reactors are back, promoting “small modular reactors” (SMRs) which, they say, can solve the central economic problem of large reactors that each cost so much and take so long to build that it becomes a “bet the farm” risk. But this is hype and hope more than substance. Unfortunately, Congress and the administration are buying into it.

And the notion that U.S. workers would get the bulk of the factory jobs is entirely fanciful, given the rules of the World Trade Organization on free trade. Most likely the reactors would be made in China or another country with industrial infrastructure and far lower wages.

And what would we do if the severe quality problems with Chinese products, such as drywall and infant formula, afflict reactors? Will there be a process for recalls, as has happened with factory products from Toyotas to Tylenol? How do you recall a radioactively-contaminated, mass-produced nuclear reactor if it has problems?

There are economies of scale associated with security, too. Today, large crews staff a reactor control room round-the-clock and guard the site. To reduce operating costs, some vendors are advocating to lower the number of security staff and to require only one operator for three modules, raising serious questions about whether there would be sufficient personnel in the event of an accident or attack.

The same problem is associated with safety. The cost of electricity from SMRs would skyrocket if each reactor had to have its own secondary containment structure. Such containment is needed to prevent large-scale releases of radioactivity in case of a severe accident. To ameliorate this problem, it has been proposed to put a number of SMRs in a single containment structure.

The result is that a typical reactor project would still have to be very large with several reactors per project; a single small reactor at a site would become prohibitively expensive if security and safety standards are to be maintained. This would defeat the purpose of the flexible “modular” design.

All these problems would be associated with SMRs even if we stuck with the basic design approach – light water reactors – that is well-known.  They would be compounded with new rector designs and new types of waste.

Nuclear power advocates have long promised far more than they can deliver, ignoring essential hurdles such as cost, safety, and performance. Decades of experience, however, have proven those promises to be hollow and hazardous. The notion that “small is beautiful” for nuclear reactors is not just fanciful; it is whistling past the graveyard of the “nuclear renaissance” that never was. hehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-a-environment/166609-the-problems-with-small-nuclear-reactors
—