Comments by "Tony Wilson" (@tonywilson4713) on "Modular Nuclear Reactors Are Not the Future of Energy || Peter Zeihan" video.

There's a YES and NO on that because its not just the USN but Brits and French and Russians too. There's a significant distinction between what technology in the reactors used in navies and what these companies were proposing and that was the fuel pellets. The CURRENT reactors in submarines and aircraft carriers (which are the same units) use fuel pellets (the small lumps inside the fuel rods) the same way they do for normal power reactors. That's because most of the American and British power reactors which are PWRs (pressure water reactors) were developed from the early submarine reactors. The new SMRS were going to use Highly Enriched Uranium but in lumps the size of a grain of sand and encased in ceramics. So instead of a stacks of long thin rods that got hot enough to create super-heated steam there would be these round balls that got hot enough to create superheated steam and once finished and the Uranium was burnt off it would already be packed wrapped in ceramics ready for burial.
9
@jacobtaylor7506 Its not often mentioned that the reason PWRs became the mainstay of the nuclear power industry was because the tech had already been developed for the USN. Its like all the stuff that eventually trickles down to our cars from the racing industry. Those guys sort all the bugs out of the technology to where its reliable. The USN had similarly sorted out all the tech and operating and maintenance details of PWRs, which made it easy to scale up for the power industry. Plus the USN supplied a steady stream of skilled operators to the power industry. In some ways it also stifled other tech like molten salt. Why spend the time on that when you have PWRs all sorted out? Similar for the CANDU reactors which the Canadians have sorted out. For a country like Australia (my country) its not a matter of IF but WHEN we have nuclear. The actual discussion needs to be WHAT TYPE. I was pro-MSR until recently when James Krellenstein was talking about CANDU and he pointed out the experience they now have operating CANDU. He said MSRs look very good but at the moment NOBODY has any real experience operating and maintaining them year after year. So for Australia right now I'd say CANDU is the best option because the Canadians speak English, behave rationally and we get on really well with them.
6
@richardpatterson302 Yeah but they are much smaller than the CANDUs. The video "Small Misunderstood Reactors" with James Krellenstein has some great info on that particular site.
2
@k53847 Your close. Its only been the recent generations of nuclear powered Navy reactors that use the HEU fuel. Older generations like those in the LA class can go 10 years between re-fuels NOT 18 months. The 18 months applies to the civilian power generating systems. It all depends on the fuel grade (% of U235) they use. That's one of the major unanswered questions on SMRs which also plan to use HEU. WHERE ARE THEY GETTING IT?
2
Great comment - have you seen the video with James Krellenstein on Decoupled Media about SMRs which is titled "Small Misunderstood Reactors"? James has done 4 videos on Decouple all worth the time but the one on Enrichment is a must watch for anyone who thinks nuclear is part of the energy future. When I saw it I was stunned by some of the information. There's also another great video by Elina Charatsidou who is a nuclear physicist and she explains what SMRs are and aren't. That one is titled "Nuclear Physicist EXPLAINS - What are SMRs? Small Modular Reactors"
1
@richardpatterson302 Yeah the Canadians now lead America in nuclear development for civilian power. I have known this for a couple of years. Kirk Sorenson like me is an aerospace engineer and he got into the MSR development while working at NASA on solving how to power a Lunar Base. Kirk's been pointing how Canada has kept their development programs going for years. Leslie Dewan who was famous for the WAMSR told congress a few years ago that the biggest problem in America was the lack of government development funding. Its why all the nuclear tech development including SMRs, Gen 4 PWRs and MSRs whether fueled by Uranium or Thorium are all not where they need to be. AND THEY ALL point at Canada saying "look what they are doing" and they have been saying it for years.
1
@richardpatterson302 On those SMRs in Ontario I highly recommend hearing what James Krellenstein said to Decouple Media in the video Small Misunderstood Reactors. I can tell you what he said but its best you go watch for yourself.
1
@jimgraham6722 I can see CANDUs going in where Hazelwood and Liddell were. Both already have the Grid Connection and BOTH have the water needed. If the grid connection has been removed for Hazelwood the alley is still there. Plus if needed Hazelwood could repurpose the pit as extra cooling storage. The same can also be said for future potential sites like Yallourn North. Does that mean we should just start and get going? Almost, but at the least we need a SENSIBLE public discussion where all the ratbags are DENIED the microphone. By ratbags I mean the ratbags on BOTH sides. Some of the pro-nuclear people are the WORST. Their arrogance stinks and makes sensible discussion impossible. The Greenies are so deluded they aren't worth wasting time on.
1
@jimgraham6722 Portland doesn't have the Fresh water but could use sea water but in its favor there's high powered energy link to Melbourne that was put in for the Aluminum smelter. Its possible but not as practical as the La Trobe valley. Liddell is next to Lake Liddell, near Muswellbrook in the Hunter Valley of Australia. Maybe you're thinking of one of the other soon to be decommission coal fired units in NSW. Almost any coal fired power station is reasonably good for nuclear because: 1) The cooling water is available. 2) The link to the grid is available. 3) You already have a workforce trained in operating and maintaining the steam side of the system right there. They just need to swap the coal skills for nuclear skills which in Australia's case will (long term) come via the Navy.
1
@davidjknell That's a nice lateral thought but its just not that simple. For starters how many reactors and how much power do you think they bring for this task? Second you can't just connect any generator to a power grid. You have to sync the generator to the grid or its damn ugly when you close the breaker.
1