Article 5: Small reactors could make nuclear energy big again. How do they work, and are they safe?
Bocca , R. (2022, October 6). Small reactors could make nuclear energy big again. How do they work, and are they safe?World Economic Forum . Retrieved January 27, 2023, from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/10/nuclear-power-power-plant-smrs-clean-energy/
In this report by Bocca he discusses once again the miniaturization of nuclear reactors and how this may have an effect on the energy grid in the future. He brings up how fear due to the catastrophes at Chernobyl and Fukushima as well as the association with nuclear weapons has led to a great amount of distaste with nuclear as a whole, and that plants are beginning to be shuttered fast then they can be built. Bocca then provides the benefits of continued operation and creation of these plants, and how the smaller scale may alleviate fears of a catastrophe.
This once again shows how it is necessary for the creation of a positive image around nuclear energy in order for it to be seriously considered in the future of clean energy, and with no deaths from pollution caused by emissions, nuclear power increasingly looks like the most beneficial option, at least economically until further research can be put into nuclear energy.
I’m with you, Luke. I’m a big advocate of nuclear too. Do you think small reactors are the future? I think when the public thinks of nuclear they imagine the nuclear plant of the 1960s. You mention creating a positive image around nuclear, which I agree is necessary. How could we go about doing that?
Hope this topic kept you interested, Luke. Thanks for all your contributions.
I definitely agree with you on the potential that nuclear energy brings to the table, especially since it produces so little waste and has a high-energy density. Do you think it’s possible to change the public’s opinion on nuclear? Although ideally so, I worry the threat the nuclear and its association to atomic bombs would make the idea of nuclear power forever be disdained in the eyes of the American public.
I believe it to be possible to change America’s stance on nuclear through a honest
assessment of our current climate situation, which almost without doubt requires nuclear, and as older generations who lived through the hottest parts of the Cold War begin to phase out of government if the right advocacy programs are put in place, it will be possible to reassert nuclear’s image. Additionally, Thorium reactors, an offshoot of nuclear will not carry the same recognition, saving them from the scorn of the publics eye.
I agree that we can use nuclear energy for the future. You talk about how people are sacred of nuclear power because of nuclear weapon incidents with Chernobyl and Fukushima, but what steps do we follow to make sure we do not let this happen again?
The primary problems with both Fukushima and Chernobyl were poor design. Chernobyl had copper-tipped cooling rods which was done to save money and is what ultimately caused the meltdown combined with human error. Additionally, Fukushima was built in a tsunami zone, which is already bad enough. To top that however, the backup generators meant to sustain the plant in case of a tsunami were built below sea level, and flooded due to being below. With a revised building code for all plants these issues should not be a problem, and the dozens of well-functioning plants prove this to be correct