They're a solution in search of a problem. Renewables and storage costs are so low that there's no business case for new nuclear, let alone the even more expensive SMRs.
The rapidly dropping cost of wind and solar has definitely tanked a lot of nuclear projects. The cost-benefit analysis done during the planning of a new nuclear plant is usually completely underwater 5 years later.
However, there are some areas where there isn't enough open ground for wind or solar installations, and nuclear would be a good option for replacing existing fossil fuel plants. Small modular reactors would be great for dense urban areas that are still supported by natural gas plants.
When a naval reactor fails it gets submerged in water. When an inland reactor fails it either gets submerged in water or the area potentially becomes uninhabited for generations. It's really all about access to water. Even an island nation like Japan has had trouble keeping nuclear reactors full of water in the past, e.g. Fukushima.
And? So what? There are 9 sunken nuclear submarines on the ocean floor, about 700 Nuclear vessels have sailed since the 1950s and about 200 are current.
They generate a little heat but thats about it. The water shields the outside world from wide spreading bursts of radiation.
Did you read the article? Once seawater enters the reactor, corrosion might affect the control rods to the point where the whole thing might spiral into criticality, maybe to the point of the reactor exploding. It's just a bit of heat for 50 to 100 years until it suddenly might become an atom bomb.
The isolation condenser (IC) was functioning prior to the tsunami, but the DC-operated control valve outside of the primary containment had been in the closed position at the time to prevent thermal stresses on the reactor components. Some indications in the control room stopped functioning and operators correctly assumed loss of coolant (LOC). At 18:18 on 11 March, a few hours after the tsunami, operators attempted to manually open the IC control valve, but the IC failed to function, suggesting that the isolation valves were closed. Although they were kept open during IC operation, the loss of DC power in unit 1 (which occurred shortly before the loss of AC power) automatically closed the AC-powered isolation valves to prevent uncontrolled cooling or a potential LOC. Although this status was unknown to the plant operators, they correctly interpreted the loss of function in the IC system and manually closed the control valves. The plant operators would continue to periodically attempt to restart the IC in the following hours and days, but it did not function.
Nuclear heats up water to turn steam turbines to generate power. There's still that loss from heat source to electricity stage they have to figure out.
The molten salt acts as both a heat storage buffer, and a backup shell if things go wrong. But if there's a catastrophic failure and seawater gets in, the salt will dissolve in water and spew potentially radioactive particles far and wide. Not sure this is a good idea for use in water. At least, on land the molten salt will stay put.
It's not zero but it's also not exactly high. They didn't specify the core type or reactor design in the article, but it's possible to run a molten salt reactor using solid fuel bundles too. The salt theoretically shouldn't have long lived radionuclide species in it, so if there is a potential release it would decay within weeks well ahead of that release contaminating food supplies or something. The low solubility would help out a lot here by increasing the time it takes to dissolve short lived species into the water.
It's an entirely different ball game if you're using a liquid core salt reactor though like a sodium fast reactor, or a thorium LFTR (much less likely. The fuel reprocessing demands are complex and aren't suitable for being on a ship lol. Better for dry land)
It depends if we're talking about coolant salts or fuel salts, no? If it's coolant salt in the heat exchanger, no big. But if it's fuel salt, it's actually mixed with the fissile material (Uranium/Thorium, not sure what Samsung is using).
And then there's the corrosive byproduct 'waste' of the process (highly corrosive Tritium in some systems). That has to be removed or stored in glass, then disposed on-shore. Unless they've come up with a different process, all of this is extra-double risky to lose in seawater with a potentially large damage radius.
Side issue: since it's a container ship, it will be landing at ports. Leakage or spill at the wrong time could potentially flow to intake ports of desalination plants sprinkled all over Asia, Middle East, and Africa. We're seeing container and tanker ships get damaged in Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea practically daily. None of this is theoretical speculation.
I'm just a casual watcher. Putting nuclear anything in water, or flying up to space gives me what scientists call 'the heebie-jeebies.'
I was talking coolant salts, which is what the article implies. To my knowledge, just neutron exposure alone will activate certain elements in the salt making it radioactive on its own, but they're short lived since it's typically a neutron absorption making a short lived isotope.
27 Comments
phoenixz@lemmy.ca · 5 pts · 33d
Ships like that can't really sail on solar, or wind, and the ones using fossil fuels are extremely polluting, so I welcome this
supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz · 3 pts · 33d
Yes ships like this could sail on wind or solar!
corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca · 5 pts · 34d
wordsmearing
Eldritch@piefed.world · 3 pts · 34d
Containerschiff
user_name@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 34d
We’ve had naval reactors for decades. Noting that, what is the holdup with SMRs on land?
IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.wtf · 6 pts · 34d
They're a solution in search of a problem. Renewables and storage costs are so low that there's no business case for new nuclear, let alone the even more expensive SMRs.
NaibofTabr@infosec.pub · 3 pts · 34d
The rapidly dropping cost of wind and solar has definitely tanked a lot of nuclear projects. The cost-benefit analysis done during the planning of a new nuclear plant is usually completely underwater 5 years later.
However, there are some areas where there isn't enough open ground for wind or solar installations, and nuclear would be a good option for replacing existing fossil fuel plants. Small modular reactors would be great for dense urban areas that are still supported by natural gas plants.
IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.wtf · 1 pts · 34d
That's where HVDC comes in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current
Do you have any examples of places where there isn't enough open ground for on or offshore wind or solar?
scibra122@piefed.social · 2 pts · 33d
A boat deck (I'm being cheeky)
Einskjaldi@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 33d
Navy ones are small because they're weapons grade high enriched material, so it's mostly a proliferation issue that they're not used everywhere.
FiniteBanjo@feddit.online · 0 pts · 34d
When a naval reactor fails it gets submerged in water. When an inland reactor fails it either gets submerged in water or the area potentially becomes uninhabited for generations. It's really all about access to water. Even an island nation like Japan has had trouble keeping nuclear reactors full of water in the past, e.g. Fukushima.
Asetru@feddit.org · 1 pts · 34d
Interestingly, seawater corrosion can actually cause criticality for nuclear reactors instead of preventing it.
FiniteBanjo@feddit.online · 1 pts · 34d
And? So what? There are 9 sunken nuclear submarines on the ocean floor, about 700 Nuclear vessels have sailed since the 1950s and about 200 are current.
They generate a little heat but thats about it. The water shields the outside world from wide spreading bursts of radiation.
Asetru@feddit.org · -1 pts · 33d
Did you read the article? Once seawater enters the reactor, corrosion might affect the control rods to the point where the whole thing might spiral into criticality, maybe to the point of the reactor exploding. It's just a bit of heat for 50 to 100 years until it suddenly might become an atom bomb.
FiniteBanjo@feddit.online · -1 pts · 33d
9 of them
Asetru@feddit.org · 0 pts · 33d
Very constructive.
FiniteBanjo@feddit.online · 1 pts · 33d
We've also set off hydrogen bombs on the surface of the ocean several times.
NaibofTabr@infosec.pub · 1 pts · 34d
Er, wasn't the problem at Fukushima caused by the plant being full of water?
FiniteBanjo@feddit.online · 1 pts · 34d
The isolation condenser (IC) was functioning prior to the tsunami, but the DC-operated control valve outside of the primary containment had been in the closed position at the time to prevent thermal stresses on the reactor components. Some indications in the control room stopped functioning and operators correctly assumed loss of coolant (LOC). At 18:18 on 11 March, a few hours after the tsunami, operators attempted to manually open the IC control valve, but the IC failed to function, suggesting that the isolation valves were closed. Although they were kept open during IC operation, the loss of DC power in unit 1 (which occurred shortly before the loss of AC power) automatically closed the AC-powered isolation valves to prevent uncontrolled cooling or a potential LOC. Although this status was unknown to the plant operators, they correctly interpreted the loss of function in the IC system and manually closed the control valves. The plant operators would continue to periodically attempt to restart the IC in the following hours and days, but it did not function.
fubarx@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 33d
Nuclear heats up water to turn steam turbines to generate power. There's still that loss from heat source to electricity stage they have to figure out.
Source: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/students/science-101/how-does-nuclear-power-plant-make-electricity
The molten salt acts as both a heat storage buffer, and a backup shell if things go wrong. But if there's a catastrophic failure and seawater gets in, the salt will dissolve in water and spew potentially radioactive particles far and wide. Not sure this is a good idea for use in water. At least, on land the molten salt will stay put.
iocase@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 33d
It depends. Lithium fluoride salts have pretty low solubility in water
Solubility source
It's not zero but it's also not exactly high. They didn't specify the core type or reactor design in the article, but it's possible to run a molten salt reactor using solid fuel bundles too. The salt theoretically shouldn't have long lived radionuclide species in it, so if there is a potential release it would decay within weeks well ahead of that release contaminating food supplies or something. The low solubility would help out a lot here by increasing the time it takes to dissolve short lived species into the water.
It's an entirely different ball game if you're using a liquid core salt reactor though like a sodium fast reactor, or a thorium LFTR (much less likely. The fuel reprocessing demands are complex and aren't suitable for being on a ship lol. Better for dry land)
fubarx@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 32d
It depends if we're talking about coolant salts or fuel salts, no? If it's coolant salt in the heat exchanger, no big. But if it's fuel salt, it's actually mixed with the fissile material (Uranium/Thorium, not sure what Samsung is using).
And then there's the corrosive byproduct 'waste' of the process (highly corrosive Tritium in some systems). That has to be removed or stored in glass, then disposed on-shore. Unless they've come up with a different process, all of this is extra-double risky to lose in seawater with a potentially large damage radius.
Side issue: since it's a container ship, it will be landing at ports. Leakage or spill at the wrong time could potentially flow to intake ports of desalination plants sprinkled all over Asia, Middle East, and Africa. We're seeing container and tanker ships get damaged in Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea practically daily. None of this is theoretical speculation.
I'm just a casual watcher. Putting nuclear anything in water, or flying up to space gives me what scientists call 'the heebie-jeebies.'
iocase@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 32d
I was talking coolant salts, which is what the article implies. To my knowledge, just neutron exposure alone will activate certain elements in the salt making it radioactive on its own, but they're short lived since it's typically a neutron absorption making a short lived isotope.
lettruthout@lemmy.world · -13 pts · 34d
“WCGW?” Said every nuclear proponent. And following yet another technical/economic failure: “This one for sure bro!”
Fuck nuclear power.
FiniteBanjo@feddit.online · 10 pts · 34d
I'll take a nuclear failure completely submerged in water over deisel bilgewater any day of the week.