reply on: Utah, Texas, and SMR maker are suing NRC over small nuclear reactor regulations \ stacker news ~Politics_And

pull down to refresh

42 sats \ 10 replies \ @Satosora 2 Jan \ on: Utah, Texas, and SMR maker are suing NRC over small nuclear reactor regulations Politics_And_Law

Is the NRC micromanaging, or are they actually just trying to keep a monopoly on nuclear energy?

59 sats \ 0 replies \ @Cje95 2 Jan

The NRC is in a bind because they are trying to apply old rules and techniques to modern things. There process kinda sorta works for the historically large nuclear reactors but they are not very good for SMRs. Congress has tried to work on passing legislation to address this over the last couple of years to no success but it has been a growing area of agreement with both partys

31 sats \ 8 replies \ @k00b OP 2 Jan

Speaking to a person's intent, let alone a group of people, is kind of a fool's errand, isn't it?

31 sats \ 7 replies \ @k00b OP 2 Jan

So speaking as a fool, I'm more fond of the theory that we neutered nuclear energy development for nation security reasons.

11 sats \ 6 replies \ @Satosora 2 Jan

I understand the danger behind it, but right now it is our only viable source of clean energy. Ethanol, wind, and solar energy havent progressed far enough. I dont know if it ever will. They did announce that they could irradiate the nuclear waste and it would be fine in 80 years.

177 sats \ 0 replies \ @Cje95 2 Jan

SMR’s for the most point are almost entirely safe. For one they do not deal in the sheer size of current plants (these things will fit on the bed of an 18 wheeler) and there are some under development that would take the “used” power rods (large reactors only extract 10% tops of the power possible out of the rods which is why it is radioactive) and use them to power it while also decreasing the radiation.

Essentially it would take rods that are radio active for thousands or years and turn it into just hundreds which is significant.

31 sats \ 4 replies \ @k00b OP 2 Jan

It seems like it has the potential to be the most practical non-fossil fuel energy source, but I’m no expert on this stuff. Great powers just cause great fears.

11 sats \ 3 replies \ @Satosora 2 Jan

We have had some meltdowns that create that fear. Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima. There is cause to be alarmed, but I feel our technology and understanding has gotten a lot better. Im sure there will be new sources where we can harvest energy in the future. Fission is a possibility.

10 sats \ 2 replies \ @Bell_curve 2 Jan

Chernobyl was incompetence. Three Mile Island was also human error but not as bad.

Fukushima was bad luck from a tsunami and some errors in modeling future disaster scenarios.

11 sats \ 1 reply \ @Satosora 2 Jan

Chernobyl was an early reactor. Even though there were safeties in place, they werent able to change the situation. Nuclear energy can be dangerous in the wrong hands. Hence why these situations happened.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 2 Jan

Chernobyl was the epitome of dysfuntion in the Soviet Union during the 1970s and 80s. Everything was falling apart. Nothing was working the way it was supposed to. Every citizen and resident knew that something was broken and needed to be fixed. This level of Soviet dysfuntion was unsustainable.

Chernobyl disaster was 1986. Gorbachev was 'elected' as 'leader' in 1985 as the young face that would revitalize USSR. Berlin Wall fell in 1989.

Chernobyl disaster was a harbinger of collapse in hindsight.

reply on another page