Comments by "Bob thebomb" (@bobthebomb1596) on "Push for small modular nuclear reactors goes into ‘overdrive’ with Rolls Royce" video.

  1.  @Drakesy  It is impossible for a civil reactor to produce a nuclear explosion.
    3
  2.  @donnairn3419  That is the Germans
    3
  3. The difference is the length of time it will take to gain an operating license. The RR system is based on proven technology for which there is a wealth of knowledge and experience (though you might want to look up the differences between Gen II and Gen III technology). As such, it should be relatively straightforward to demonstrate compliance with current licensing legislation. Molten salt reactors, for all their advantages going forward, will require new licensing procedures and new test regimes to prove compliance.
    2
  4.  @MrVaticanRag  Yes it does move on, but are you really saying that you would be happy for Indonesia, a country with practically no experience of running nuclear reactors, to license a completely new design? MSR's are fundamentally safer than PWR designs, but they still have to be designed and built correctly.
    2
  5. If you believe in climate change - CO2 and pollution If you don't - pollution Either way, phasing out coal usage for energy production makes sense. Coal extraction is not going to end any time soon, there are just too many other uses for it.
    2
  6. Except there is, deep storage. Although in this case surface storage pending re-use in future Gen IV reactors is more applicable.
    2
  7.  @JR-km4gt  I would have no issue living near to a nuclear reactor.
    2
  8. If so, then they had better start looking at molten salt reactors. These SMRs are a temporary solution to a current need, but the future is molten salt and liquid fuel. They are safer, more efficient and more applicable to load following.
    1
  9.  @MrVaticanRag  I know that, but the regulatory systems still have to be put in place and the safety case for the reactor made and agreed. Where is Indonesia going to look for the experience necessary to grant such a license? How many countries worldwide have operating molten salt reactors to draw experience from? Answer - none. I totally support the development of such reactors, but there is no getting away from the fact that much work remains to be done before they can be rolled out safely.
    1
  10. I guess it never occurred to you that it is possible to construct more factories to build them?
    1
  11. Such ignorance. The original technology for submarine reactors came from the US whereas France developed them independently.
    1
  12.  @serviusm9523  No, they would be a civilian development by RR. I am not belittling RR (I am British) but there is no need to belittle France either. They have the technical ability to adapt their military reactors for civilian use if required.
    1
  13.  @jonathansimmons5353  Good band
    1
  14.  @JaskoonerSingh  It is not going to be a problem though. Its not like anyone needs to access the chosen sites for any reason, other than to store waste. All of the high level waste produced in sixty years of operation in the UK would fit into a single Olympic sized swimming pool. The vast majority of spent fuel is uranium (over 95%), plutonium (~1%) and stable fission products (~3%). Once Gen IV reactors come online the uranium and plutonium will be reusable in a far more efficient process. Trans-uranic actinides (eg. Americium,) can also be destroyed in some Gen IV reactors (producing more energy) or eliminated altogether if the thorium cycle is followed.
    1
  15.  @namename9998  That's not true. 90% of the spent fuel has the potential to be re-used, but there is still a lot of low and intermediate waste produced. It is no use pointing out the errors in wind and solar claims, then making the same type of claims for nuclear. All processes generate waste which must be dealt with. The only way to persuade the public is to be honest with them.
    1
  16.  @namename9998  What I was saying is that your claim "Nuclear creates the least waste. 90% can be reused as fuel" is misleading. It implies that 90% of all waste can be reused when in reality we are talking about 90% of the spent fuel. Of course I agree that this is by far the most hazardous class of waste. However it allows the anti-nuclear lobby to claim that you are being dishonest. To the layman radioactive waste is radioactive waste. They may not make, or understand, the distinction between high, intermediate and low-level waste and the hazards presented by each. The lobbyist can present your comment as "lying" or promoting "fake news" and therefore that you must be....(insert conspiracy theory). I am not saying similar misleading claims are not made for wind and solar. Both are portrayed as "green" while ignoring the environmental impact of manufacture and disposal of equipment. Or claim that they are "cheap" while ignoring the cost of the storage required to make them reliable. Essentially I am saying be mindful of how you phrase a comment so that it cannot be taken out of context.
    1
  17.  @namename9998  My initial comment was a generalised one, all forms of radioactive waste can be disposed of by deep burial. Once I moved on to provide more detail I specifically referred to "High level waste" and "spent fuel" rather than "waste" I am not saying you are wrong, I understood what you meant, I am merely saying be careful with the language you use.
    1
  18. Fast spectrum breeder reactors can utilise U238, thus extending the availability of uranium as a fuel.
    1