Comments by "Tony Wilson" (@tonywilson4713) on "Nuclear Power's Facelift: Small Modular Reactors || Peter Zeihan" video.

Engineer here - 100% RIGHT. This is just Peter being pathetically like 100s of other commentators and just regurgitating PR from companies trying to raise money. I really like Peter when he's explaining geo-politics but as an engineer I think he needs to either employ an engineer or just STFU on engineering topics. Because every time he's either 1/2 Wrong, 3/4 Wrong, or 100% WRONG.
5
FOR FARK SAKE CAN YOU JUST GO AND WATCH ROLLS ROYCE'S OWN VIDEO BY ONE OF THEIR ENGINEERS. Its here on YouTube. He said it would be 2035 before they could be ready to start deliveries of SMRs. And that was provided they started back when he said it. These constant claims that its just a few years away ARE NONSENSE.
4
Aerospace engineer here - GREAT COMMENT.
2
@TheMrgoodmanners LISTEN DlCKHEAD AND ACTUALLY LISTEN ITS NOT THE SAME TECHNOLOGY MOST OF THESE COMPANIES ARE PUMPING And I really do mean to be SCREAMING THAT AT YOU. Because these things have been said and said and said and no matter how many times you stupid clowns wont listen. I know about the reactor in Russia and there's another in China because all the SMR projects are listed on Wikipedia. I know about the reactors in submarines and aircraft carriers. I'm an engineer and used to work with ex-US Navy Nuclear Power plant operator/technician who served on Aircraft Carriers. He told me about his training and the way they are operated. You simply can't just use military reactors in domestic installations. Then there's other realities. If you actually go back and look at the history of reactors many would now be classified as SMALL. Many of this new generation are completely different technology and want to use things like TRISO fuel pellets. NOBODY has yet proven TRISO works short term or long term let alone if it can be manufactured at scale. Almost all of them want to use HALEU fuel grades and there's NO PLANTS that make HALEU for domestic use. You stupid clowns are driving all the engineers crazy BECAUSE YOU JUST WONT LISTEN. All you do is keep repeating the same stupid SHlT again and again.
1
@johnhargreaves3620 YES I AM WELL AWARE that many of the SMRs proposed are based on the military units out of subs and aircraft carriers. Its one of the main reasons I tell people they should take what Rolls Royce, GE and Framatome say seriously and the rest of the SMR crowd as just people trying to make noise to raise money. So if one of the engineers from Rolls Royce is saying that it will be AT BEST 2035 for the first production SMRs then that's the best date and everyone else can STFU.
1
@Withnail1969 What you are talking about is called HALEU fuel, which stands for High Assay Low Enriched Uranium. For uranium the dividing line between low enriched and highly enriched where it can be used for weapons is 20% U235. Natural Uranium is around 0.7% U235. Typical fuel grade is 3-5% U235. Military grade was typically around 8% but it varied depending on reactor type and how long they wanted to go between refuelling. That changed with more modern military reactors which use HALEU and is why they can go 20+ years without refuelling. HALEU is around 19-19.5% as in just below that 20% value. On that 20% value as far as I know its theoretically possible to make a critical mass device go bang with 20% but as far as I know nobody did that. Hiroshima was a combination of 50% and 80%. If you want to read up on it Wikipedia is actually very good on the subject.
1
@Withnail1969 Agreed. On a basic level you need 2-5 times as many gas centrifuges depending on what your normal U235 fuel is. that alone costs a lot of money to build, operate and maintain. Then there's the TRISO fuel many are claiming they want to use. NOBODY has yet made enough of it to run a real test and prove it works. There is a real chance SMRs will find a niche but its not going to be in the next couple of years. That's just pure nonsense. I just saw Peter's latest on the Israeli attack on Iran and that's even worse than this one for basic technical facts.
1