FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Small Nuclear Reactors
Small Nuclear Reactors
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago
Bristol |
"Looks like these are ready to go to the design stage.
Good or Bad?"
It has to be the way forward as long as they are built by Britain and not another country it’s about time we produced our own energy and not rely on other foreign companies.
Wind and solar are not going to produce enough on their own and will rely on battery storage which in itself is very harmful to the environment.
Small nuclear power stations can be turned up and down as required not like the larger ones, but there needs to be more investment in disposal of spent fuel maybe instead of wasting time on billionaires ha ding jolly’s to space it could be fired towards the sun as it would be barely noticeable to that mass and just burn up 
Costly maybe but a dam sight cheaper than coal and fossil fuel subsidies |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Looks like these are ready to go to the design stage.
Good or Bad?
It has to be the way forward as long as they are built by Britain and not another country it’s about time we produced our own energy and not rely on other foreign companies.
Wind and solar are not going to produce enough on their own and will rely on battery storage which in itself is very harmful to the environment.
Small nuclear power stations can be turned up and down as required not like the larger ones, but there needs to be more investment in disposal of spent fuel maybe instead of wasting time on billionaires ha ding jolly’s to space it could be fired towards the sun as it would be barely noticeable to that mass and just burn up
Costly maybe but a dam sight cheaper than coal and fossil fuel subsidies "
as i understand it, and happy to be proved wrong
the reactorsare based on uk naval reactors, which are a licensed US design
disposal is an issue, but we've not really moved forward on this area for years, you need a geologically stable location miles from anywhere, such as abandoned anhydrous salt mines.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago
Bristol |
"Looks like these are ready to go to the design stage.
Good or Bad?
It has to be the way forward as long as they are built by Britain and not another country it’s about time we produced our own energy and not rely on other foreign companies.
Wind and solar are not going to produce enough on their own and will rely on battery storage which in itself is very harmful to the environment.
Small nuclear power stations can be turned up and down as required not like the larger ones, but there needs to be more investment in disposal of spent fuel maybe instead of wasting time on billionaires ha ding jolly’s to space it could be fired towards the sun as it would be barely noticeable to that mass and just burn up
Costly maybe but a dam sight cheaper than coal and fossil fuel subsidies
as i understand it, and happy to be proved wrong
the reactorsare based on uk naval reactors, which are a licensed US design
disposal is an issue, but we've not really moved forward on this area for years, you need a geologically stable location miles from anywhere, such as abandoned anhydrous salt mines...."
. There was a bike on the radio was saying he flies all over England and there are lots of disused quarries that nothing is being done with |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago
Bristol |
"Looks like these are ready to go to the design stage.
Good or Bad?
It has to be the way forward as long as they are built by Britain and not another country it’s about time we produced our own energy and not rely on other foreign companies.
Wind and solar are not going to produce enough on their own and will rely on battery storage which in itself is very harmful to the environment.
Small nuclear power stations can be turned up and down as required not like the larger ones, but there needs to be more investment in disposal of spent fuel maybe instead of wasting time on billionaires ha ding jolly’s to space it could be fired towards the sun as it would be barely noticeable to that mass and just burn up
Costly maybe but a dam sight cheaper than coal and fossil fuel subsidies
as i understand it, and happy to be proved wrong
the reactorsare based on uk naval reactors, which are a licensed US design
disposal is an issue, but we've not really moved forward on this area for years, you need a geologically stable location miles from anywhere, such as abandoned anhydrous salt mines..... There was a bike on the radio was saying he flies all over England and there are lots of disused quarries that nothing is being done with "
Bloke not bike   |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rFunBoyMan
over a year ago
Longridge |
There only one concern..
They're planning one in North Wales at sea level within 500 meters of the shoreline, so three things worry me:
1) Storm surge as storms are already and set to become stronger.
2) Sea level rise in 20-50 years will put it underwater.
3) Tsunami - for a long time, there has been talk of Tenerife or now LaPalma breaking a chunk off that will cause a Tsunami that will swamp the East Coast of the USA and reach into the Irish Sea.
Fukushima ring any bells? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"Looks like these are ready to go to the design stage.
Good or Bad?
It has to be the way forward as long as they are built by Britain and not another country it’s about time we produced our own energy and not rely on other foreign companies.
Wind and solar are not going to produce enough on their own and will rely on battery storage which in itself is very harmful to the environment.
Small nuclear power stations can be turned up and down as required not like the larger ones, but there needs to be more investment in disposal of spent fuel maybe instead of wasting time on billionaires ha ding jolly’s to space it could be fired towards the sun as it would be barely noticeable to that mass and just burn up
Costly maybe but a dam sight cheaper than coal and fossil fuel subsidies "
I think RR are involved in this. Certainly sounds good though as others say waste material needs a decent solution. I would add to that security would need to be looked at to given the dangers involved. Good to see such things being looked at |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Looks like these are ready to go to the design stage.
Good or Bad?
It has to be the way forward as long as they are built by Britain and not another country it’s about time we produced our own energy and not rely on other foreign companies.
Wind and solar are not going to produce enough on their own and will rely on battery storage which in itself is very harmful to the environment.
Small nuclear power stations can be turned up and down as required not like the larger ones, but there needs to be more investment in disposal of spent fuel maybe instead of wasting time on billionaires ha ding jolly’s to space it could be fired towards the sun as it would be barely noticeable to that mass and just burn up
Costly maybe but a dam sight cheaper than coal and fossil fuel subsidies "
Elon musk says China can produce all of its power by solar so I don’t see how the U.K. can’t with solar wind farms off shore amd in shore |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago
Bristol |
"I agree with a safe and secure launch method that waste should be packed up and shot towards the sun just like a certain car was sent a few years ago."
Yup this
The sun would not even notice it and burn it up instantly |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Elon musk says China can produce all of its power by solar so I don’t see how the U.K. can’t with solar wind farms off shore amd in shore
The problem is a night when the wind doesn't blow."
when doesn’t the wind blow in the U.K. lol |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Looks like these are ready to go to the design stage.
Good or Bad?
It has to be the way forward as long as they are built by Britain and not another country it’s about time we produced our own energy and not rely on other foreign companies.
Wind and solar are not going to produce enough on their own and will rely on battery storage which in itself is very harmful to the environment.
Small nuclear power stations can be turned up and down as required not like the larger ones, but there needs to be more investment in disposal of spent fuel maybe instead of wasting time on billionaires ha ding jolly’s to space it could be fired towards the sun as it would be barely noticeable to that mass and just burn up
Costly maybe but a dam sight cheaper than coal and fossil fuel subsidies
as i understand it, and happy to be proved wrong
the reactorsare based on uk naval reactors, which are a licensed US design
disposal is an issue, but we've not really moved forward on this area for years, you need a geologically stable location miles from anywhere, such as abandoned anhydrous salt mines...."
Yep. Retasked naval reactors. Not quite sure why that requires so much more money to use for civilian power generation or why this didn't happen sooner but from a baseload perspective and time to market not a bad idea although some security and waste disposal points to consider.
China's Thorium salt option may prove to be the better approach long-term, but they are all better than coal or gas from a global perspective. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Looks like these are ready to go to the design stage.
Good or Bad?
It has to be the way forward as long as they are built by Britain and not another country it’s about time we produced our own energy and not rely on other foreign companies.
Wind and solar are not going to produce enough on their own and will rely on battery storage which in itself is very harmful to the environment.
Small nuclear power stations can be turned up and down as required not like the larger ones, but there needs to be more investment in disposal of spent fuel maybe instead of wasting time on billionaires ha ding jolly’s to space it could be fired towards the sun as it would be barely noticeable to that mass and just burn up
Costly maybe but a dam sight cheaper than coal and fossil fuel subsidies
as i understand it, and happy to be proved wrong
the reactorsare based on uk naval reactors, which are a licensed US design
disposal is an issue, but we've not really moved forward on this area for years, you need a geologically stable location miles from anywhere, such as abandoned anhydrous salt mines....
Yep. Retasked naval reactors. Not quite sure why that requires so much more money to use for civilian power generation or why this didn't happen sooner but from a baseload perspective and time to market not a bad idea although some security and waste disposal points to consider.
China's Thorium salt option may prove to be the better approach long-term, but they are all better than coal or gas from a global perspective."
From the (limited) reading I've done they are naval reactors+
The benefits are;
Manufacturing done off site - improvement in quality control
Design widely in use for many years
Containment vessel smaller and cheaper
I've kept an eye on the salt reactors. Definitely worth considering. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rallvalCouple
over a year ago
Dunfermline |
"I agree with a safe and secure launch method that waste should be packed up and shot towards the sun just like a certain car was sent a few years ago."
It will require a huge amount of fuel to do it. First you need to get it and all the shielding into orbit then you need to get it into the sun which will require a lot of fuel to reach. Braking down from 30Km/s needs a huge amount of fuel.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago
Bristol |
"I agree with a safe and secure launch method that waste should be packed up and shot towards the sun just like a certain car was sent a few years ago.
It will require a huge amount of fuel to do it. First you need to get it and all the shielding into orbit then you need to get it into the sun which will require a lot of fuel to reach. Braking down from 30Km/s needs a huge amount of fuel.
"
These are the kind of things that should be researched instead of trying so hard to justify keeping using fossil fuels.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rFunBoyMan
over a year ago
Longridge |
"Elon musk says China can produce all of its power by solar so I don’t see how the U.K. can’t with solar wind farms off shore amd in shore
The problem is a night when the wind doesn't blow.when doesn’t the wind blow in the U.K. lol "
Most of late spring and summer the wind wasn't strong enough caused by High pressure sat over us, then over the summer into autumn, High pressure locked in cloud meaning solar dropped considerably.
September/October were both mainly overcast months.
It's been a more cloudy year this year and my solar production is down over the last 5 years this year.
Wind is great but a week of High pressure (still air) with lots of moisture and the battery back up is low, sun ain't shining so strong, what's the backup as this is the perfect storm for both wind and solar?
Tidal/battery is crucial to the solution as it is guaranteed twice a day but timing is an issue, solar and wind are great but reliance on it is too risky, hence nuclear.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rFunBoyMan
over a year ago
Longridge |
"I agree with a safe and secure launch method that waste should be packed up and shot towards the sun just like a certain car was sent a few years ago.
It will require a huge amount of fuel to do it. First you need to get it and all the shielding into orbit then you need to get it into the sun which will require a lot of fuel to reach. Braking down from 30Km/s needs a huge amount of fuel.
"
Depends on the fuel chosen which could be and the carbon offset if needed. Ban pleasure Space flights and use the credits there instead.
SpaceX use liquid Methane, obtain Methane from the digestion of plants, burn in the rocket engine to produce CO2, grow more grains to ferment back to Methane. A perfect Net Zero solution.
Does not require fuel to get all the way to the Sun, just break away from Earth's gravity pull and Physics will do the rest. Probes into Space carry little fuel. Just use other objects in space to catapult it to the Sun.
It can be done, just the nightmare of an accident is the issue but this can be overcome. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I agree with a safe and secure launch method that waste should be packed up and shot towards the sun just like a certain car was sent a few years ago.
It will require a huge amount of fuel to do it. First you need to get it and all the shielding into orbit then you need to get it into the sun which will require a lot of fuel to reach. Braking down from 30Km/s needs a huge amount of fuel.
Depends on the fuel chosen which could be and the carbon offset if needed. Ban pleasure Space flights and use the credits there instead.
SpaceX use liquid Methane, obtain Methane from the digestion of plants, burn in the rocket engine to produce CO2, grow more grains to ferment back to Methane. A perfect Net Zero solution.
Does not require fuel to get all the way to the Sun, just break away from Earth's gravity pull and Physics will do the rest. Probes into Space carry little fuel. Just use other objects in space to catapult it to the Sun.
It can be done, just the nightmare of an accident is the issue but this can be overcome."
A few years ago NASA wanted to launch a reactor into space to power a deep space satellite. The world went nuts about the environmental risk.
Deep storage in vitreous format please. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rallvalCouple
over a year ago
Dunfermline |
"Does not require fuel to get all the way to the Sun, just break away from Earth's gravity pull and Physics will do the rest. Probes into Space carry little fuel. Just use other objects in space to catapult it to the Sun."
That's not how orbital dynamics works. It is incredibly hard to reach the Sun, yes the gravity is a help but it is a lot easier to travel away from the sun than towards it.
Pointing at the sun for a burn has no real effect because you are travelling with a rotational speed of 30Km/s. Once the burn is over you will return to the Earth orbit like watching a ball return to the surface of the water once you stop pushing it.
In order to 'drop' towards the Sun you need to slow down which requires a braking burn and a lot of fuel. You slow down and then you drop to a lower orbit. Space craft returning to earth do a retro/braking burn to drop out of orbit.
The counter-intuitive bit is that is that as you drop to a lower orbit you actually speed up and then you need to bleed off that new speed (Kepler's 3rd Law). You basically need to constantly brake all the way to the sun.
You can use other planets to help brake the waste but it could take decades orbiting the sun and other planets to in lose enough sideways speed to drop into the sun. Solar probes take a much longer time to reach the sun than the outer planets for this reason. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rFunBoyMan
over a year ago
Longridge |
Without getting too deep into it as the general comment was to pack it up and send it into Space.
Other than that just like the Voyager's, fling em out into deep space and pray no Aliens open them and get pissed at our polluting of the Universe and send StarFleet to punish us!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rallvalCouple
over a year ago
Dunfermline |
"Without getting too deep into it as the general comment was to pack it up and send it into Space.
Other than that just like the Voyager's, fling em out into deep space and pray no Aliens open them and get pissed at our polluting of the Universe and send StarFleet to punish us!!"
I remember that episode of Star Trek.
And remember Space 1999. Burying it on the moon never ends well. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I dont think sending a potential dirty bomb into space is a great idea. Theres always a chance of a launch going wrong and distributing nuclear waste into the upper atmosphere will not be a good result.
Surely challenger wasnt that long ago for people to have forgotten what may happen. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
