Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The Case for Nuclear Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: HPilot who wrote (228)	3/18/2011 12:30:03 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 312

I'm still interested in Pebble Bed reactors and whether Thorium is a viable alternative.. Pebble Beds seem inherently less risky.. Hawk

To: HPilot who wrote (228)	3/18/2011 2:06:57 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 312

The main benefit of smaller reactors is more flexibility, you can have one if that's what you need, or you could combine a bunch and have the equivalent of a normal sized or larger nuclear power plant. Smaller, as you point out, doesn't really mean safer, the risk from each is less, but you'd have more of them for the same amount of power, but the new designs are also safer whether you make them large or small. Much safer than the 2nd generation plants in Japan, and even more so than the Russian reactors without a containment building. Third generations reactors (the normal modern reactor, although there are quite a few second generation still in operation for now) don't need functioning pumps to keep a deactivated reactor cool enough to avoid a meltdown. Fourth generation reactors are safer still. The smaller reactors would likely be some type of fourth generation design. I don't think any new third generation designs will be created, or 2nd generation reactors built. To the extent nuclear power has a future its fourth generation (or later) reactors, and perhaps some day fusion.