nuclear-news

TODAY. SMRs underground – long drop nuclear toilets? – a chance to use that beaut new word – enshittification

Yes, I learned that Word of the Year 2024 – Macquarie only yesterday, and have been dying to use it. So, thanks to NucNet – Small Modular Reactors / Underground Plants ‘Could Be Built In City Centres’ 27/11/24 – I have now got a most appropriate opportunity.

 “Small modular reactors (SMRs) should be built underground, including in city centres, to protect them from military attacks, seismic activity and other natural hazards, according to a new academic study.“

Gee, that’s nice.  Deep Fission, a startup based in Berkeley, California, has raised funding to start this idea – “The concept is simple yet groundbreaking: build a small nuclear reactor just 30 inches wide and lower it into a mile-deep drill shaft. This approach could sidestep the immense costs and safety concerns that have long plagued traditional nuclear power.”

Yay! It’s a simple idea – a “small” nuclear reactor, a mile under the city centre, doesn’t need a containment cover –  “a cost-effective, scalable solution to the world’s energy needs“.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) defines ‘small’ as under 300 MWe, – but that’s got a bit blurry lately. NuScale’s (failed) small nuclear reactor project was for 462 MWe.

But anyway, isn’t it a relief to know that our cities can have the Artificial Intelligence data centres quite handily placed with the “small” nuclear reactors tucked away underneath us? And of course, it’s all going to be so very cheap. Although, If the SMRs are really only 30 inches wide, we might need quite a lot of them, to meet all our energy needs, not just the data centre’s needs. Will that be cheap?

But – wait a minute? Why do they need to be a mile underground? I thought that the beloved, though not yet existing, small nuclear reactors were already so very safe and so cheap.

Safety has been the big selling point for SMRs. The top nuclear marketing body – The International Atomic Energy Agency tells us of their wonderful safety features – Passive cooling systems , Fewer mechanical parts , Auto fail safe , Increased safety margins . Lower power output. The IAEA means that SMRs are safer than big reactors. (Oh dear – it does not mean that they are safer than wind and solar power.!)

So – everybody has been enthused over the safety of these not-yet-existing nuclear gimmicks – but now we’re being told that they might be a target for military or terrorist attacks and natural hazards.

So – underground will be fine? With climate change – what about flooding? Oh dear – the marketing story for the nuclear industry moves further into confusion. Thank you, Macquarie Dictionary for that so applicable term – “enshittification”. And I like their second choice, too – “brainrot”

November 30, 2024 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | Christina's notes