The US now has three microreactors running – and data centers are watching closely

[maxxcool7421]

500 years from now .. every person on earth will hate our guts for burying waste they have to dig up and clean up millions of tons of material and rod waste. typical human garbage thinking.

 

[agentnate009]

And all of these small fission reactors are producing dangerous, long lived, radioactive waste. Fusion reactors are better, but solar plus batteries is ideal.

They are looking into recycling the waste from older reactors so all that waste needs to be processed and made into fuel for these smaller reactors to use. It wasn't done before due to costs involved.

Considerations for Reprocessing of Spent Nuclear Fuel

 

[Endymio]

It was banned by a nuclear non-proliferation treaty we signed. The easiest way to develop a nuclear weapon is to extract the Plutonium from spent fuel rods and to stop that the US and most of the rest of the world put a ban on recycling old fuel rods.

Carter enacted that ban. Reagan lifted it after nearly five years, but the industry had died out and, with no new reactors being built, it never restarted.

BTW, we have advanced reactor designs on the books (such as Rubbia's "energy amplifier") that literally burn nuclear waste as a fuel source, destroying them entirely.

.... we would have to build 289 conventional reactors to meet the 400 GW goal and thus thousands of micro-reactors to meet that goal. Micro-reactors are simply not capable of delivering what we need

You're somewhat confused here. Firstly, the microreactors above are primarily intended to test and validate new designs and technology, much of which can (and hopefully will) be incorporated into larger designs. Secondly, many of these microreactors are designed for places where conventional reactors cannot provide power: maritime operations, very remote communities, outer space, etc.

Third and most importantly: who gave you the idea that building thousands of these reactors is infeasible? The entire point of these designs is mass production. They're not built on site, in a manner that takes billions of dollars and 5, 10, or even 20+ years. Instead, they're produced on factory assembly lines, then shipped fully assembled and fueled to location. That assembly line process allowed Henry Ford to quickly transform from building one car every two years to 50,000+ per year. It can do the same with reactors.

 

[Endymio]

And all of these small fission reactors are producing dangerous, long lived, radioactive waste.

Most industrial waste (mercury, lead, cadmium, etc) are dangerous forever. Nuclear waste has the advantage of decaying over time. And one thing the anti-nuke nuts never tell you (if they're even aware of it themselves) is that there is an inverse relationship between radioactivity levels and half-life: the truly deadly isotopes decay in weeks or months, whereas the earth's atmosphere is a full 1% argon-40, which has a half-life of over one billion years.

 

[LordVile95]

Because you may get ²³⁹Pu.

Which toh could just force them to sell to the military

 

[LordVile95]

And all of these small fission reactors are producing dangerous, long lived, radioactive waste. Fusion reactors are better, but solar plus batteries is ideal.

Not really the solar production and disposal is worse environmentally, has to be done several times over an alternative reactors life cycle and is significantly less efficient and reliable.

Long lived isotopes are actually the safest it’s the ones with half life’s of hours to weeks you have to be concerned about. If it takes 1Kg of isotope a billion years to decay by half that’s only 500g of material that’s produced radiation in a billion years. If it’s a half life of 6 hours that’s 500g of material in 6 hours and there’s only 62.5g left to decay after a day.

 

[Melkor Unlimited]

How many half-lives
does have
a radioactive cat?

 

[Theinsanegamer]

...nuclear projects do not have to drag on for decades. "The fact that they can do this and do this so quickly, it shows that the preconceived notions we've had about nuclear are no longer valid anymore,"

Yup, do it very fast and very quickly. Certainly nothing bad can happen if you rush it a bit. Go for it.

China has been building nukes rapidly for decades.

And all of these small fission reactors are producing dangerous, long lived, radioactive waste. Fusion reactors are better, but solar plus batteries is ideal.

Fusion is a pipe dream.

There was a single death from radiation exposure from Fukushima. 30 from Chernobyl, 15 confirmed radiation induced thyroid cancers in later years. But hey, lets be REAL liberal with the numbers, and say the 4,000 potential deaths from Chernobyl and 573 indirect from Fukushima were all radiation caused.

4,573. In 72 years of commercial nuclear power production. And those are from two accidents (because nobody died from three mile island, because unlike the soviets we didnt try to intentionally blow that reactor up). In normal operation, nearly all deaths in power plants are due to steam explosions or other industrial causes, not radiation.

Between 1999 and 2020, coal power is estimated to have killed 460,000 people in the united states alone. And before you go "muh solar, muh batteries", the mining for the materials used in those batteries kills as many as 2,000 per YEAR in the congo alone, not counting the countless medical issues from the likes of China dumping the toxic runoff from production of these devices into the global water supply.

Nuclear is incredibly safe, pearl clutching fear mongering from NIBMYs like yourself have held the industry back for decades, when realistically we should have retired fossil fuels from our power grid half a century ago.

 

[Endymio]

There was a single death from radiation exposure from Fukushima. 30 from Chernobyl, 15 confirmed radiation induced thyroid cancers in later years.

I have no problem with your other figures, but there were many more than 15 thyroid cancer cases from Chernobyl. However, cases would have been near zero-- had the Soviets not first tried to cover up the incident and distributed iodine pills to those downwind. There were still people fishing in the reactor's cooling pond several days -- days! -- after the meltdown, as the Politboro struggled to decide what version of events to release.

I'll also note that thyroid cancer is almost never fatal, and also that Chernobyl was a highly unstable "positive void coefficent" design never built in the West.

 

[BadThad]

This is the best energy news America has had in DECADES! After allowing the Globalists and the Chinese to derail these nuclear plans many years ago with fear and inefficient "green scamergy", America is back on track to continue our energy dominance. God Bless America!

 

[BadThad]

If "the industry" really wants to build a bunch of huge energy sucking AI Data centers, they should provide their own power. And unless they are closed loop on water, they should find their own water resources too. Considering how many homes & businesses got built in the desert southwest, I'm surprised they aren't building them there, then complaining about lack of water & power LOL.

100% agree, otherwise it's a backdoor, UNFAIR tax on regular consumers.

 

[BadThad]

China has been building nukes rapidly for decades.

Fusion is a pipe dream.

There was a single death from radiation exposure from Fukushima. 30 from Chernobyl, 15 confirmed radiation induced thyroid cancers in later years. But hey, lets be REAL liberal with the numbers, and say the 4,000 potential deaths from Chernobyl and 573 indirect from Fukushima were all radiation caused.

4,573. In 72 years of commercial nuclear power production. And those are from two accidents (because nobody died from three mile island, because unlike the soviets we didnt try to intentionally blow that reactor up). In normal operation, nearly all deaths in power plants are due to steam explosions or other industrial causes, not radiation.

Between 1999 and 2020, coal power is estimated to have killed 460,000 people in the united states alone. And before you go "muh solar, muh batteries", the mining for the materials used in those batteries kills as many as 2,000 per YEAR in the congo alone, not counting the countless medical issues from the likes of China dumping the toxic runoff from production of these devices into the global water supply.

Nuclear is incredibly safe, pearl clutching fear mongering from NIBMYs like yourself have held the industry back for decades, when realistically we should have retired fossil fuels from our power grid half a century ago.

I contend China intentionally tricked the world into solar and wind while they feverishly built coal and nuclear plants and a few token wind/solar "show pieces" - for sales purposes to pawn their hardware off to the world. It was a win-win-win for the commies!

They slowed America down, they tricked the globalists into "climate change panic", and advanced their electrical energy dominance with nuclear and coal. The greatest threat to the planet is not "climate change" via CO2, it's the acute and brutal attack on our environment by the dirty countries like China and India and much of the African continent.

The CO2 alarmism is but cover noise for the disgusting pollution spewed by the worst offenders. I sure as hell don't see Green Peace sailing up the Ganges and threatening to shut the entirety of India down for their gross destruction of the environment. Why is that? Because the brunt of the charade is aimed at crippling America.

 

[LordVile95]

I have no problem with your other figures, but there were many more than 15 thyroid cancer cases from Chernobyl. However, cases would have been near zero-- had the Soviets not first tried to cover up the incident and distributed iodine pills to those downwind. There were still people fishing in the reactor's cooling pond several days -- days! -- after the meltdown, as the Politboro struggled to decide what version of events to release.

I'll also note that thyroid cancer is almost never fatal, and also that Chernobyl was a highly unstable "positive void coefficent" design never built in the West.

“Confirmed” is doing the heavy lifting. In total Chernobyl only killed 31 people directly and a suspected 4,000 from exposure afterwards though it’s incredibly murky as to the reliability of the estimations.

I will also hold out on saying if fusion is a pipe dream or not to see if SPARC actually manages to fire up on time at the end of the year and then again to see if it can actually surpass engineering breakeven rather than just scientific as it’s intending to next year.

 

[CMadi]

Finally.

 

[Endymio]

“Confirmed” is doing the heavy lifting. In total Chernobyl only killed 31 people directly and a suspected 4,000 from exposure afterwards though it’s incredibly murky as to the reliability of the estimations.

Yes. But there were also several thousand confirmed cases of non-fatal thyroid cancer, primarily among children. Unlike the global death figures -- which are indeed sketchy future estimates -- these are confirmed beyond doubt.

 

[LordVile95]

Yes. But there were also several thousand confirmed cases of non-fatal thyroid cancer, primarily among children. Unlike the global death figures -- which are indeed sketchy future estimates -- these are confirmed beyond doubt.

Or was it just increases screening that caused a larger kilo)

 

[Endymio]

Or was it just increases [sic] screening that caused a larger kilo) [sic]

No. First of all, post-Chernobyl, thyroid cancer cases in Ukraine went from an average of five per year to several thousand per year, then over time returned to normal. There was no increased screening -- one does not miss pediatric thyroid cancer: it generates a large goiter on the neck.

I myself have seen numerous Ukrainian children (now adults) bearing the scar from this surgery. And point of fact, a relative of mine by marriage was one of those killed at Chernobyl; I've visited the site of Pripyat myself, several years after the accident.

But again: thyroid cancer from I-131 uptake is easily preventable ... had the USSR merely issued iodine pills, essentially all those cases would have been prevented.

 

[LordVile95]

No. First of all, post-Chernobyl, thyroid cancer cases in Ukraine went from an average of five per year to several thousand per year, then over time returned to normal. There was no increased screening -- one does not miss pediatric thyroid cancer: it generates a large goiter on the neck.

5 cases of thyroid cancer in a population of over 50 million sounds very incorrect and if that is the reported rate it would support my postulation that screening frequency played a massive part in the spike and then tailed off when the screening ramped back down. As an example the UK currently has several thousand cases per year and has a comparable population.

I myself have seen numerous Ukrainian children (now adults) bearing the scar from this surgery. And point of fact, a relative of mine by marriage was one of those killed at Chernobyl; I've visited the site of Pripyat myself, several years after the accident.

So basically your perspective is skewed and you want to believe that the worst case rather than what the trend and data suggest.

But again: thyroid cancer from I-131 uptake is easily preventable ... had the USSR merely issued iodine pills, essentially all those cases would have been prevented.

Maybe with the few cases it actually caused but the likelihood is the vast majority were just found due to increased screening. It can also be skewed by the population as if there were more girls the figures would be way higher as they’re about 4x more likely to get it

 

[Endymio]

5 cases of thyroid cancer in a population of over 50 million sounds very incorrect and if that is the reported rate it would support my postulation that screening frequency played a massive part in the spike and then tailed off when the screening ramped back down.

Come back to reality. Your theory has more flaws than a dime-store diamond.

- There was no increased screening right before Chernobyl
- There was no drop in screening years later.
- The massive case increase mirrored the fallout plume, leaving other areas of the country untouched.
- Screening isn't necessary to detect pediatric thyroid cancer. Its symptoms (and outcome, if untreated) cannot be missed.

But worst is that it's beyond doubt of the origin of these cancers, as many of the removed tumors were biopsied and found to contain I-131, which can have only come from the meltdown.

As an example the UK currently has several thousand cases per year and has a comparable population.

LOL, where do you get this stuff? There are some TEN cases of pediatric thyroid cancer in the UK each year. Not "several thousand".