It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Small Modular Nuclear Reactor plant SIZE of AN 18 WHEELER is the future of the US energy grid

page: 1
12

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 10:30 PM
link   
Hmmm From looking into a UFO siting and trying to research current events back in Oct 2016 i stumbled across this below and wondered that if you were to look forward . well this is why it's the future of the electric grid no more massive Plants servicing entire regions but a smaller modular unit for a town or building ... yes a building or a facility, manufacturing plant ect The Clintons were onto something with the uranium one deal Hmmm...

WOW There are today... twelve ( that we know of ) of these in OPERATION !!! Mid 2020's? nope 2018

Please read these fascinating articles they're not to long.....

www.uamps.com...

morningconsult.com...

newsroom.nuscalepower.com...

SMRs are on track to becoming a reality in the United States in the near future — with NuScale paving the way. In June 2018, the company’s design became the first and only SMR to ever complete the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s first phase of a design certification application review — clearing a significant hurdle toward commercialization.

Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems will commercialize NuScale’s SMR as the country’s first NuScale plant by the mid-2020s

THIS was in today's news out of UTAH

U.S. Department of Energy will take the planned nuclear power produced out of two of the 12 small modular nuclear reactors ....

Interesting read and your looking at the future just compare the first computers with what we have today now put that progression twards these and viola each house or neighborhood in the future will have one one of these .... it follows trajectory of other industry larger to smaller.

Hope you enjoyed.


edit on 11-1-2019 by TheJesuit because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-1-2019 by TheJesuit because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Kind of interesting, but I wonder if they are going to be cost effective or whether they will wind up more of a risk for the communities that house them. There would still need to be high security at each plant that has these, small plants would not be economically feasable.



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 11:06 PM
link   
To quote from the article these issues were addressed in the design:

NuScale’s SMR design is a 50 megawatt, pressurized water reactor and high pressure steel containment,... to distinguish it from designs that do not have an integral containment. Twelve NPMs, each with its own dedicated steam turbine generator, could be combined in a single 600 MW power plant that is safer than existing designs, cost competitive, reliable and affordable. Importantly, the innovation in the NPM design is in using and re-packaging proven pressurized light water reactor materials, fuels and safety features in a simpler, safer, more elegant way.

I know this is direct so biased of course but if you see the pics they look like a vertical 18 wheeler sized unit ( confirmed by person below) stuffed into the ground ....

I met a person that told me he was part of a team working on an assembly line to mass produce these a few years ago... US ACE in VA and it was a secret facility at the time so we'll see more of these in the future The risk factor would be less than Chernobyl size so smaller area to lose/ recover if one went south ...

a reply to: rickymouse


edit on 11-1-2019 by TheJesuit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: TheJesuit

They are still going to need security at the site, you can't have people walking in or someone shooting a bunch of mobile launcher bombs at it or the grid system that fuels the cooling. Someone could just blow up the cooling pipe input or exhaust feedsand it could still blow up. I suppose once a facility was built, having more of these would reduce the cost than just one or two. The new ones they are working on in Europe can be turned off quickly, sort of a less power unit using thorium.



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Cool!! Do you have any links for the ones in EU ??? I'd love to read up on the progress & developments over there!

a reply to: rickymouse



posted on Jan, 12 2019 @ 12:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheJesuit
Cool!! Do you have any links for the ones in EU ??? I'd love to read up on the progress & developments over there!

a reply to: rickymouse



Here is one on the Thorium reactors, some nuclear plants can be converted. www.technologyreview.com...

The other is science.howstuffworks.com...

There are all sorts of articles about the fusion reactor testing and the Thorium reactors.



posted on Jan, 12 2019 @ 02:19 AM
link   
This one was used in project iceworm.

A portable one : )




posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 02:53 AM
link   
a reply to: TheJesuit

while this is slightly off track, i read a Jimstone page one day where he said he went and talked to the bloke who deisnged the first of the nuke reactors that went into production.

Jimstone said this engineer told him that the entire fuel rod was capable of being completely used up. In other words the system as this engineer designed it, was intended to leave the fuel rod completely inert.

This was to be achieved by putting taking the rods out of the main reactor and putting them through an ever smaller reactor to generate power, until the fuel in the rod was completely used up.

Jimstone said the engineer told him the powers that should not be, who came from a very small but very powerful mid east country wanted the situation that exists to day. That being that the US is now sitting on a time bomb. Thousands of fuel rods that have a lot of radiation still in them that cannot be disposed of but which is a problem that grows bigger and bigger every day and will pollute the US more and more for longer and longer.

I thought the concept was rather likely actually.

Is there any technical reason why a fuel road cannot be put through smaller and smaller reactors?

interested in thoughts on this.



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 03:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Azureblue

The technology to use spent fuel rods have been around since the 50s. Problem was Jimmy Carter banned there use for fear that these fuel rods would be acquired by terrorists.

Reality many countries recycle the fuel rods to produce energy. Only we are stupid enough to try to bury them without even having a facility to do so. Until that ban is lifted we will continue to lose out on a source of energy.

And to answer your question no there isnt a good reason not to use them.


edit on 1/13/19 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 08:06 AM
link   
www-pub.iaea.org...

check out techdoc 1349 as an addition to the above publication.

f.



posted on Jan, 14 2019 @ 01:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Azureblue

The technology to use spent fuel rods have been around since the 50s. Problem was Jimmy Carter banned there use for fear that these fuel rods would be acquired by terrorists.

Reality many countries recycle the fuel rods to produce energy. Only we are stupid enough to try to bury them without even having a facility to do so. Until that ban is lifted we will continue to lose out on a source of energy.

And to answer your question no there isnt a good reason not to use them.



thanks for that - indicates jimstone can be right.







 
12

log in

join