#SMR floating nuclear power plant will benefit land scarce countries like Singapore. One day Singapore just need to rent 10-20 such power plant offshore.
@@paulbedichek2679 Nuclear plants produce a waste product that can be used for nuclear bombs. Enriched uranium. That would not be much if any problem with SMR's.
@@danielhanawalt4998 No, no one has ever used waste from a reactor from commercial use to get a bomb , Iran wants a bomb but it is using centrifuges to successively enrich U to get to the required level, the US and Israel can obviously stop this whenever it is convenient, although they would have to deploy forces on the ground, but this is not Pu from reprocessing, India got a bomb from Canada building them a research reactor but again not Pu from reprocessing civilian waste. Yes, of course SMR’s do nothing to help with proliferation, NuScale will have the same fuel same spent fuel although different lengths. The fast reactors such as Natrium are proliferation resistant, some SMRs such as those using TRISO fuel and an IMSR would be resistant to diversion, but it is a complete myth that anyone anywhere uses civilian spent fuel for bomb production or that that is why US didn’t pursue salt reactors, that was 50 years ago and no one on earth has one grid connected, they aren’t bound by US rules yet China only has a tiny 2MW thermal test experiment.
@@danielhanawalt4998 Enriched U is what goes into the reactor spent fuel is what comes out,the French and Russians reprocess, they don’t use it for bombs, they already have weapons which came first, the weapons development is what led to the development of all this wonderful clean energy, a steady supply unlike renewables without all the unmitigated waste wind and solar leave.
@@paulbedichek2679 I think you're right about most of that, but the waste from reactors is radioactive and has a long shelf life. That's what people are worried about. The waste is stored in pretty secure containers, but there's the possibility of leaks. I think most people are afraid of melt downs and that is a problem, but nuclear is actually safer than some other so called green energy production.
Common sense says that a nuclear power plant on a stressed ice breaker could easily create a crack in some critical part. Wonder what the milli-Sievert reading is in the cabin next to the plant is? Dumb idea.
#SMR floating nuclear power plant will benefit land scarce countries like Singapore.
One day Singapore just need to rent 10-20 such power plant offshore.
SMRs seems like the way to go, especially if the problem with the waste can be solved.
What waste problem?
@@paulbedichek2679 Nuclear plants produce a waste product that can be used for nuclear bombs. Enriched uranium. That would not be much if any problem with SMR's.
@@danielhanawalt4998 No, no one has ever used waste from a reactor from commercial use to get a bomb , Iran wants a bomb but it is using centrifuges to successively enrich U to get to the required level, the US and Israel can obviously stop this whenever it is convenient, although they would have to deploy forces on the ground, but this is not Pu from reprocessing, India got a bomb from Canada building them a research reactor but again not Pu from reprocessing civilian waste.
Yes, of course SMR’s do nothing to help with proliferation, NuScale will have the same fuel same spent fuel although different lengths.
The fast reactors such as Natrium are proliferation resistant, some SMRs such as those using TRISO fuel and an IMSR would be resistant to diversion, but it is a complete myth that anyone anywhere uses civilian spent fuel for bomb production or that that is why US didn’t pursue salt reactors, that was 50 years ago and no one on earth has one grid connected, they aren’t bound by US rules yet China only has a tiny 2MW thermal test experiment.
@@danielhanawalt4998 Enriched U is what goes into the reactor spent fuel is what comes out,the French and Russians reprocess, they don’t use it for bombs, they already have weapons which came first, the weapons development is what led to the development of all this wonderful clean energy, a steady supply unlike renewables without all the unmitigated waste wind and solar leave.
@@paulbedichek2679 I think you're right about most of that, but the waste from reactors is radioactive and has a long shelf life. That's what people are worried about. The waste is stored in pretty secure containers, but there's the possibility of leaks. I think most people are afraid of melt downs and that is a problem, but nuclear is actually safer than some other so called green energy production.
Need to make it 500MWe scale
Common sense says that a nuclear power plant on a stressed ice breaker could easily create a crack in some critical part. Wonder what the milli-Sievert reading is in the cabin next to the plant is? Dumb idea.