Moutaineer, given your education, you might be in a position to know the answer - How radical a technology change are the new next generation nuclear reactors over what has existed traditionally? Are they a brand new thing, or a merely a tweak on the old tech?Mountaineer wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 6:59 am
I took a post graduate level nuclear engineering class in college several decades ago. We studied all reactor designs as I recall, from those used in submarines to those developed for the electrical power industry. By and large, reactors are generally safe; but as someone said upstream, anything designed and made by man is subject to failure - bridges still collapse, airplanes crash, toilets leak, etc. Nuclear waste is hazardous and long lasting (overall it is probably no more hazardous than many other chemicals and biological products, it's just that the word nuclear has an emotional scare factor associated with it - like the word cyanide has). Because nuclear waste is so long lasting, it is important to place it in geological sites that are not prone to earthquakes and are as best science can tell stable for a very long time; you don't want to put it is just anyone's back yard.
I hear them referenced as SMR (Small Modular Reactors) and Gates' Terrapower, who recently went into partnership with the Federal Government calls theirs TWR (Traveling Wave Reactor).
If you believe the Terrapower literature, it's all pros and few cons, even with regard to waste. I think they claim a five factor reduction in waste, and an 80% reduction in use of enriched uranium.
But I know some of the scientific journals are skeptical. It's hard for a layperson to know. So if you any insight, it would be helpful.