Dr. Kelvin Kemm is a brilliant South African nuclear physicist and longtime dear friend of CFACT’s.
As Kelvin writes at CFACT.org:
“Nuclear power is the future; there is no doubt about it. You can easily carry in your car enough enriched uranium to power your entire suburb for half a century. You certainly can’t do that with coal, gas, or oil.”
And intermittent, inefficient wind and solar? Fuhgeddaboudit!
Dr. Kemm posted further about the potential of small modular reactors, or SMRs.
“An SMR is defined as being less than 300 MW in size, with some being as small as 10 or 20 MW. So, it is possible to imagine a factory, mine, or town, owning its own nuclear reactor. In fact, a facility such as one of these can even have its own electricity grid, which is not connected into a national grid, and need only be half a dozen kilometers in diameter…or smaller.
“The ‘modular’ in the name implies the goal of building most of the nuclear reactor indoors, like motor cars are made on a production line. Then, one merely transports the SMR in easily transportable subassemblies to the site, where they are essentially bolted together, thereby getting rid of many difficult processes such as cutting and welding outdoors on site.
“So, this modular approach leads one to the obvious conclusion that SMR systems will be inexpensive to build and will drop in cost as their versatility catches on.”
CFACT’s Duggan Flanakin has been studiously tracking developments in nuclear energy for decades.
Duggan is enthusiastic about what small modular reactors can do for Africa. Duggan posted:
“Millions of Africans have no access to electricity, and millions more have only intermittent, often-interrupted access — at a price many cannot afford. Africa is looking to nuclear, because ‘it is clean [and thus compatible with UN climate goals], reliable, and does not depend on the rain or sun. It provides consistent power, day and night.'”
Small modular reactors are available now and offer a very constructive way to meet our energy needs.
Then, on to cracking the design challenges of fusion.
Our energy future is bright.
No unreliable wind and solar required.
Craig Rucker is a co-founder of CFACT and currently serves as its president. Widely heralded as a leader in the free market environmental, think tank community in Washington, D.C. This article was first published HERE
And intermittent, inefficient wind and solar? Fuhgeddaboudit!
Dr. Kemm posted further about the potential of small modular reactors, or SMRs.
“An SMR is defined as being less than 300 MW in size, with some being as small as 10 or 20 MW. So, it is possible to imagine a factory, mine, or town, owning its own nuclear reactor. In fact, a facility such as one of these can even have its own electricity grid, which is not connected into a national grid, and need only be half a dozen kilometers in diameter…or smaller.
“The ‘modular’ in the name implies the goal of building most of the nuclear reactor indoors, like motor cars are made on a production line. Then, one merely transports the SMR in easily transportable subassemblies to the site, where they are essentially bolted together, thereby getting rid of many difficult processes such as cutting and welding outdoors on site.
“So, this modular approach leads one to the obvious conclusion that SMR systems will be inexpensive to build and will drop in cost as their versatility catches on.”
CFACT’s Duggan Flanakin has been studiously tracking developments in nuclear energy for decades.
Duggan is enthusiastic about what small modular reactors can do for Africa. Duggan posted:
“Millions of Africans have no access to electricity, and millions more have only intermittent, often-interrupted access — at a price many cannot afford. Africa is looking to nuclear, because ‘it is clean [and thus compatible with UN climate goals], reliable, and does not depend on the rain or sun. It provides consistent power, day and night.'”
Small modular reactors are available now and offer a very constructive way to meet our energy needs.
Then, on to cracking the design challenges of fusion.
Our energy future is bright.
No unreliable wind and solar required.
Craig Rucker is a co-founder of CFACT and currently serves as its president. Widely heralded as a leader in the free market environmental, think tank community in Washington, D.C. This article was first published HERE
8 comments:
Nah no thank you mate. We are on a massive fault line and have abundant natural energy sources. The gummint just doesn’t want to keep up with infra spend.
Seismic events associated with that "massive fault line" are as much a threat to thermal and hydro power generation structures as they are to nuclear plants. What would you feel safer living beside, a dam or a nuclear power plant? Do some homework and think hard before you answer.
I don't know why we shouldn't consider nuclear energy as a natural energy source anyway. After all, something similar is happening inside our sun all the time, and we couldn't live without that.
Auckland doesn't have the earthquate risk other parts of NZ have. Auckland and surrounding area has roughly a 3rd of NZs modern electrical power hunry population.
What is practicle, reliable and cost effective to meet NZs needs. Energy needs to be cheap, on demand uninterrupted supply.
Solar/wind can't deliver on NZs requiremts so put that aside.
All the other options on the table and work out how we are to power NZ and the mix of energy gerneration required. Hygo, clean coal, gas, geothermal, Nuclear... Cheap energy is the life blood of civilisation.
NZ electrical power is expensive and suject to shorages. Cost of living is high and NZ economy underproforming. Energy is foundational.
Barend is correct - dams wash over, earth dams split, wind turbine towers fall over in earthquakes.
Think nuclear submarine power plant size, really just the size of a couple of 40 foot containers at worst. The chances of them being built on a fault line is remote.
Everyone, please take the blinkers off and disregard the scare tactics of the past - nuclear has proven itself to be safe.
I am all in favour of nuclear, provided it costs less than gas or coal. I do not think that is the case now
Branded still learning about nuclear accidents. Losing power is one thing but radiation is another. Keep learning, everyone!
Anon 133, a Geiger counter in any one of several underground rail stations in Sydney indicates more radiation than would be permissible for a nuclear power plant.
I have learned quite a bit about nuclear accidents over the years. Not that there is much info available as there have been so few of them. Three Mile Island death toll = zero. Fukushima death toll = one. Chernobyl was a Fred Flintstone reactor staffed by personnel who were more into the vodka than their jobs as was reflected by their absenteeism due to hang-obvers, so it doesn't really count.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.