Only the military & govt experimental reactors are allowed to use High Enriched Uranium. SMRs have to use Low Enriched like any other civilian reactor.

For now the goal is just to make planes run on hydrogen at all. It’s obvious that we will have an abundance of green hydrogen in the future, even if today we do not, given that we reach the point where wind + solar generation exceeds demand more and more often.

If we’re using a bit of blue hydrogen just to progress R&D in hydrogen planes and be ready for green hydrogen flights in the future, that seems totally fine by me.

Your downvotes are completely undeserved. I guess this sub only wants to hear good news, doesn't matter if its true or not. A nice story to feel good...

[removed]

[removed]

By this standard, please explain how any energy source is renewable. Even if steel/aluminum (wind) and silicon (solar) are abundant, they certainly are finite and they each depend on energy storage, which means lithium right now. I fail to see how nuclear is meaningfully different from a resource consumption standpoint.

Naval reactors aren’t “much less safe” than civilian/commercial reactors.

You didn't read the article. It says, "Though no-one died directly in the nuclear meltdown." This person died because he had lung cancer after working with radiation since 1980. Fukushima likely didn't help, but even your own article doesn't attribute his death to Fukushima directly.

But fine, between 3 Mile Island and Fukushima there has been between 0-1 deaths.

That is 100% not true.

According to their own cost estimates, the NuScale plant (Utah site, their first.major one) is going to come in at $89/MWh produced (or $119/MWh pre subsidy). By contrast, according to DoE number wind comes in at $32/MWh US onshore right now, and solar comes in at $20-40/MWh.

This is all per unit of electricity output, ie already adjusted for capacity factor / average output being higher on nuclear.

If you want to discuss it per nameplate capacity, solar is $1/W at 20% capacity factor, wind at $1.5/W for 35% capacity factor, whereas NuScale nuclear is $20/W at 95% capacity factor.

Could also be worth noting that in 2021 globally solar+wind produced more electricity than nuclear, and in the US, wind + solar together produced about 60% as much as nuclear. So this idea even that nuclear currently produces vastly more electricity, or that wind/solar aren't proven at scale, is wrong.

Please don't spout nuclear talking points that are easily falsifiable with a 5 minute google search.

Nuclear is safe, technologically viable, low carbon, but economically completely uncompetitive in most situations compared to solar/wind. And hence the industry should be left to fade away.as we spend our money on the options that phase out fossil fuels quicker and cheaper.

https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/land-based-wind-market-report-2022-edition

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/81325.pdf

https://ieefa.org/resources/eye-popping-new-cost-estimates-released-nuscale-small-modular-reactor#:~:text=The%2053%25%20increase%20in%20the,%245.3%20billion%20to%20%249.3%20billion

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-stacked

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

Nuclear is literally NOT renewable. It uses uranium as fuel which is a non-renewable resource. There is plenty available, especially if we start extra ring from seawater, but that doesn't change the fact that it's non-renewable.

And nuclear absolutely isn't more cost effective than solar/wind, especially if you are running into the small modular reactor thing. This is a complete Reddit meme.

By their own cost estimates the NuScale plant's main first project in Utah is going to cost $89/MWh produced over it's lifetime (or $119/MWh if you include the government subsidy).

By contrast US onshore wind is averaging about $33/MWh pre-subsidy as of 2021 according to the US DoE, and utility scale solar is coming in between $20 and $40/MWh according to the NREL.

This is all scaled by the amount of power produced, per MWh of electricity actually generated, not per MW of capacity.

If you look at cost per capacity, NuScale is tracking at $20/W (for 95% capacity factor), whereas solar is hovering around $0.9/W (20% capacity factor). So adjusting again, that's $4.3/W for "95% equivalent" amount of power from solar, which is nearly 5x lower than NuScale SMR.

If you want to argue the idea that nuclear has a place because it may reduce storage requirements, I am willing to entertain that discussion. I will disagree with you, but at least it is a valid line of discussion.

However if you are just going to continue make easily falsifiable claims that nuclear is cheap and renewable, then it isn't worth discussing anything with you, as you are just willfully ignorant.

Thank you.

all the people downvoting are no fun at parties i bet, that was hilarious

I've watched BTTF 100s of times but only once or twice in English and in the French version they say ''2,21 Gigowatts'' and only now noticed it's different in the original version.

You must've been hemorrhaging a bunch holy shit! Glad you're still alive and well, that sort of complication a few generations ago would've been fatal.

Nuclear is renewable. It's safe, and it produces vastly more electricity (cost-effective) than wind and solar. So maybe DYOR and support the clear winner.

That's completely wrong. It's cheaper because solar and wind produce vastly less electricity than nuclear. And nuclear is safe. Don't get it twisted.

And I thought they didn't like nuclear energy. They seem to only be promoting wind and solar projects lately. That's excellent news though.

>What could go wrong? I mean, Fukushima killed 0 people

Regardless of stances on nuclear power, that's just objectively wrong: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-45423575

Naval reactors use uranium that is much more highly refined and presumably they are allowed to be much less safe because you're not usually within many miles of civilians. NuScale smrs are made to be built in a factory and then shipped to site via train and truck. They are also designed to be installed in groups at a site. The design is, allegedly, inherently safe meaning the mechanical design prevents meltdown or the release of radiation.

Fundamentally they are the same in that they are pressurized water reactors that use fuel rods.

This is old news, the NRC approved this over the summer.

Stop being so dramatic. He's just another person like 8 billion others out there.

Me too but I couldn’t resist. English isn’t my mother tongue is a really bad excuse too.

Well, nuts. Obviously, I'm glad to be alive, but this was the worst part of labor and the most painful. Still way better than being dead though.

1.21 Jigawatts baby...

I hate that I laughed at that.