
Canada begins Small Modular Reactor strategy roadmap - Caveman_Coder
http://world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Canada-begins-SMR-strategy-roadmap-2702187.html
======
jfaucett
What many people is this thread don't realize is that nuclear is by far the
cleanest form of energy for the environment. It has no intermittancy problems
like Wind and Solar. The process of building nuclear is extremely clean
compared to building wind turbines and solar panels which devastate the
environment due to the rare metals needed and production process.

Its also vastly friendlier for humans and animals. The number of deaths due to
meltdowns, and accidents in nuclear palls in comparison to all those occuring
due to wind turbines and solar.

If you're an environmentalist it behooves you to honestly look at the research
and data that has accumulated over the past 40 years on this topic.

~~~
lucidguppy
I find it hard to look at nuclear when much of what is limiting solar and wind
is political.

So far every nuclear accident we've seen are going to be around for _forever_
timescales.

The US could have been at the forefront of solar and wind power but it
continually tries to push coal.

~~~
jfaucett
Please note though that the "forever" timescale becomes harmless for all
intents and purposes relatively quickly. So IMHO and I don't really know the
cause, this conception we have of nuclear is a really uninformed one. See:
[https://www.quora.com/How-long-does-nuclear-fallout-
last](https://www.quora.com/How-long-does-nuclear-fallout-last)

~~~
amelius
See also:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16500964](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16500964)

"Today, the liveliness of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki serves as a
reminder not only of the human ability to regenerate, but also of the extent
to which fear and misinformation can lead to incorrect expectations. After the
bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, many thought that any city targeted by an
atomic weapon would become a nuclear wasteland. While the immediate aftermath
of the atomic bombings was horrendous and nightmarish, with innumerable
casualties, the populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not allow their
cities to become the sort of wasteland that some thought was inevitable. This
experience of can serve as lesson in the present when much of the public and
even some governments have reacted radically to the accident in Fukushima--in
the midst of tragedy, there remains hope for the future."

~~~
jiojfekjl
Ok, but more than 30 years after the Chernobyl disaster, it's still not safe
to live in Pripyat. Worker's are limited to spending no more than 5
consecutive hours on site.

[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/ukrai...](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/ukraine/articles/how-
can-i-visit-chernobyl-and-is-it-safe/)

So yeah. Foreverish.

------
jrobn
Too little to late. I hate to get political, but this is more of a political
issue than a technical one. The earth is already on track for another massive
extinction due to climate change caused by warming global temperatures and
human consumption. Instead of worrying about a few radioactive waste sites we
have instead created a global and spectacularly hard to fix problem.

We put a man on the moon in less than a decade without any prior experience or
technical know-how but we can’t figure out how to make safer nuclear reactors
and install them? Bowl of shit.

------
johan_larson
They "launched a process" to "prepare a roadmap" to "explore the potential" of
something something.

Such vigor. Much audacity. Wow.

------
smoyer
"Canada has launched a process to prepare a roadmap to explore the potential
of on- and off-grid applications for small modular reactor (SMR) technology."

I'm a fan of building more nuclear reactors but this tag-line doesn't give me
much hope - in essence it's a "process to plan to explore the potential".
There's not even a hint of experimental science much less development in that
sentence (I hope these are the writers words and that Canada's plans are (or
involve) a bit more concrete.

------
bonesss
This is highly interesting, and long overdue.

Canada has a lot of "oil sands" that would benefit greatly from atomic process
heat, reducing carbon footprint, turning feedstock losses into salable
product, and increasing production rates. Canadas mineral resources,
engineering capabilities, and regulatory mindset are highly favorable to
becoming a technological leader in an important sector.

~~~
bayesian_horse
Not to mention a lot of empty land where there is nobody to complain about
radiation, accidents or nuclear waste.

------
tonteldoos
This seems interesting, but what technology are they planning on using, and
how does it compare with other projects around the world? This comes up every
now and again it seems, and then dies away again (eg PBMR -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_modular_reactor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_modular_reactor)).

------
woodandsteel
I have a question. Let me start by saying I was opposed to nuclear for a long
time, but more recently have become persuaded that we should be pursuing these
new nuclear technologies.

My question concerns China. I know it is busy building many conventional
nuclear plants. But is it also working on new nuclear technologies?

------
bayesian_horse
At least with the current technology there are too many downsides to nuclear
power. The nuclear waste issue still hasn't been solved, and nuclear accidents
do happen, apparently despite all the security measures.

Small reactors, maybe even mobile, can only make this worse.

~~~
cperciva
Nuclear accidents happen, yes... at power plants with designs which were
outlawed on safety grounds 40 years ago.

If you want to prevent nuclear accidents, you should be supporting attempts to
build new reactors, because that's the fastest route to getting the old ones
decommissioned.

~~~
gambiting
Exactly. It's an almost catch-22 situation: old reactors are unsafe, so people
protest building new ones, which would make the old ones obsolete and make the
whole technology safer.

~~~
Zigurd
Not really a catch-22: The chicken was supposedly declared safe before it laid
those radioactive eggs. And if the designs and siting were subsequently found
to be unsafe, why are those reactors re-certified as safe? The nuclear power
industry has only itself to blame for costs and safety.

~~~
gambiting
Because the identified issues have been rectified - but the fixes add to the
complexity and you are always relying on a fix to make it safe - while newer
designs(pebble bed reactors) are inherently safe.

~~~
Zigurd
Re "Because the identified issues have been rectified" you mean like the
containment buildings at Fuk that did not contain? And what, exactly, can one
rectify about unsafe siting?

