US gives first-ever OK for small commercial nuclear reactor

He said the next step is for the cooperative to submit a combined construction and operating license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The process also includes an environmental analysis. Webb said the cooperative will likely have that ready within two years.

The first small modular reactor is scheduled to come online in 2029, with 11 more to follow in 2030.

The modular reactors are light-water reactors, which are the vast majority of reactors now operating. But modular reactors are designed to use less water than traditional reactors and have a passive safety system so they shut down without human action should something go wrong.

US gives first-ever OK for small commercial nuclear reactor

An energy cooperative in Utah has plans to construct 12 small commercial nuclear reactors in Idaho.

The reactors have advanced safety features. They have automatic shutdown and are self cooling.

These reactors can generate 60 megawatts, enough power to supply 50.000 homes.

They already have a place on federal land picked out for the reactors. Agreements have been made.

There are still some more hoops to jump through. But it looks like this is really going to happen.

I think this is a good thing. Many small reactors would drastically reduce our carbon footprint and keep the US energy independent. But they need to be safe and self contained.

Opposition to clean and safe nuclear power by the environmentalists and climate change alarmists is the most baffling thing to me.

Here we have a safe, proven, clean energy source that can drive our economies into the future without further destabilizing the climate and they stand against it?

To me, nuclear and fusion are the future of energy production for the next century or more.

a reply to: projectvxn

how is it clean?

The amount of HLW produced (including used fuel when this is considered as waste) during nuclear production is small; a typical large reactor (1 GWe) produces about 25-30 tonnes of used fuel per year.

originally posted by: projectvxn
Opposition to clean and safe nuclear power by the environmentalists and climate change alarmists is the most baffling thing to me.

Here we have a safe, proven, clean energy source that can drive our economies into the future without further destabilizing the climate and they stand against it?

To me, nuclear and fusion are the future of energy production for the next century or more.

Maybe and I do agree in part, but Nuclear is not completely " Clean " while the heat stacks produce little more than vapor the reactor itself does have by product of toxic waste .

Those plutonium rods do have to be replaced as disposed of.

I think an advanced form of solar energy is probably the future , or anti-matter perhaps.

a reply to: SeaWorthy

a reply to: asabuvsobelow



Waste can be recycled and repurposed. The US does not engage in nuclear waste product recycling on a large scale. In fact, the US is far behind in nuclear technology.

The energy density of nuclear fuel is huge.

The environmental impact is minimal. No harmful emissions. Modern reactor technology makes the production of nuclear power much safer than the older designs currently in use today.

I didn't say it is completely clean. I did say it is clean. The environmental impact is highly controllable with nuclear energy. Can't even say that with NatGas or solar.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

I think an advanced form of solar energy is probably the future , or anti-matter perhaps.

That may be 100's of years away.

This can fill the gap.

originally posted by: LookingAtMars
a reply to: asabuvsobelow

I think an advanced form of solar energy is probably the future , or anti-matter perhaps.

That may be 100's of years away.

This can fill the gap.

Agreed it can fill the gap.

But if the Government starts loosening there grip on some of the Alien tech it could be closer than you think, you know Antimatter or "positrons" as they called it back then has been around as long as Nuclear Energy.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

We don't have the luxury of relying on fabled technologies. Humanity has to work with what it has.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

But if the Government starts loosening there grip on some of the Alien tech it could be closer than you think

That's a good point.

Who knows what kind of power sources they might be hiding from us. Whatever powers the tic-tac looks pretty clean.

a reply to: SeaWorthy

It's about perspective.
All the used nuclear fuel used in a power plant that has been in service for decades is still on the property of the power plant.
It takes up very little space.

Compare that to a coal plant burning a train load or more coal per day.
An average home uses 4750 pounds of coal for electricity every year.

www.mcginley.co.uk...

Americas biggest power plant burn 11 million tons of coal per year.

gizmodo.com...


Making electricity is dirty.
Nuclear is the least dirty.

a reply to: Bluntone22



You could also do like the French have and recyle the nuclear waste. They have been doing it for decades and end up being able to recycle about 80 percent. Not bad since it can be a source for plutonium. In fact they did this to restock their nuclear capabilities so it was a win win for them.

a reply to: LookingAtMars


I'm currently working on an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the testing of a prototype micro-reactor that is "air" cooled and will be using TRISO fuel. There are supposedly three companies designing their own prototype and then one of the three will be selected for testing. It will supposedly fit inside a connex container and be able to be transported by truck. It is going to be theoretically used to power small units in remote areas.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Yeah solar isn't quite there yet, there's all kinds of issues with production of the photovoltaic compounds, as well as energy lags and spikes to the grid that it's helpful but not your soul source of energy. I say this as a person who is having solar tiles installed on my house during the build. That, hydroelectric, and wind are all great things to move forward with, but nuclear is pretty much the most effective method we have currently.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Hey I've been to that plant! In fact I've been in most of the coal and natural gas simple and combined cycle plants in the southeast US. Outside by the coal stack and trains it's pretty nasty, same with the FGD (Flue-gas desulfurization) areas as well. Inside the plants are for the most part (aside from some 60's and 70's era plants, which remind me of Alien) are very clean internally. The power they produce is very dirty, and trying to deal with fly ash in either a dry or wet form causes all sorts of spills on a fairly regular basis.

a reply to: projectvxn

yeh I agree that its cleaner than most other fuels but we still cant remedy the waste

even with advances in the new radioactive decay diamond batteries
we stil cant get rid of the waste quick enough its going to be someone elses problem in 100 years

but hey all the # left over from the US nuclear tests is going to be someones problem very soon maybe in like 50 years time the bikini islands is going to need looked at

but lets hope this works out for China and for Humanity

CHinas new sun

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow

originally posted by: projectvxn
Opposition to clean and safe nuclear power by the environmentalists and climate change alarmists is the most baffling thing to me.

Here we have a safe, proven, clean energy source that can drive our economies into the future without further destabilizing the climate and they stand against it?

To me, nuclear and fusion are the future of energy production for the next century or more.

Maybe and I do agree in part, but Nuclear is not completely " Clean " while the heat stacks produce little more than vapor the reactor itself does have by product of toxic waste .

Those plutonium rods do have to be replaced as disposed of.

I think an advanced form of solar energy is probably the future , or anti-matter perhaps.

Solar requires batteries that we don’t have yet, Anti Matter reactors only exist in science fiction.

a reply to: projectvxn
What happens to these plants if we have an EMP?

a reply to: SeaWorthy

They should be hardened against EMP's and CME's. Not sure if they are, it would cost more money.

originally posted by: projectvxn
Opposition to clean and safe nuclear power by the environmentalists and climate change alarmists is the most baffling thing to me.

Here we have a safe, proven, clean energy source that can drive our economies into the future without further destabilizing the climate and they stand against it?

To me, nuclear and fusion are the future of energy production for the next century or more.

Can we store the nuclear waste in your backyard?

a reply to: jacobe001

Can we make a point without logical fallacies?

originally posted by: SeaWorthy
a reply to: projectvxn
What happens to these plants if we have an EMP?

Why is this relevant to the discussion?

Why would we have an EMP?