43
Korean Containership with Molten Salt Nuclear Reactor Gets ABS Approval (maritime-executive.com)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/technology@piefed.social
16 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 3 months ago (8 children)

We’ve had naval reactors for decades. Noting that, what is the holdup with SMRs on land?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    They're a solution in search of a problem. Renewables and storage costs are so low that there's no business case for new nuclear, let alone the even more expensive SMRs.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    The rapidly dropping cost of wind and solar has definitely tanked a lot of nuclear projects. The cost-benefit analysis done during the planning of a new nuclear plant is usually completely underwater 5 years later.

    However, there are some areas where there isn't enough open ground for wind or solar installations, and nuclear would be a good option for replacing existing fossil fuel plants. Small modular reactors would be great for dense urban areas that are still supported by natural gas plants.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    When a naval reactor fails it gets submerged in water. When an inland reactor fails it either gets submerged in water or the area potentially becomes uninhabited for generations. It's really all about access to water. Even an island nation like Japan has had trouble keeping nuclear reactors full of water in the past, e.g. Fukushima.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    Er, wasn't the problem at Fukushima caused by the plant being full of water?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    The isolation condenser (IC) was functioning prior to the tsunami, but the DC-operated control valve outside of the primary containment had been in the closed position at the time to prevent thermal stresses on the reactor components. Some indications in the control room stopped functioning and operators correctly assumed loss of coolant (LOC). At 18:18 on 11 March, a few hours after the tsunami, operators attempted to manually open the IC control valve, but the IC failed to function, suggesting that the isolation valves were closed. Although they were kept open during IC operation, the loss of DC power in unit 1 (which occurred shortly before the loss of AC power) automatically closed the AC-powered isolation valves to prevent uncontrolled cooling or a potential LOC. Although this status was unknown to the plant operators, they correctly interpreted the loss of function in the IC system and manually closed the control valves. The plant operators would continue to periodically attempt to restart the IC in the following hours and days, but it did not function.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent