Canada beats Britain in race to launch first mini-nuclear reactor in the West. Whats about The USA?

Can D. Trump crash US COMMIES (GREENIE saboteurs ) and bring back (big time) nuclear power ?

  • Yes!

    Votes: 1 33.3%
  • no

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I am not sure

    Votes: 2 66.7%

  • Total voters
    3
The US already has small nuclear reactors in all of our carriers and also in a bunch of submarines. We built that shit DECADES ago.
Somehow the Navy didn't get the NRC to license the design on land.
That might be one way Trump can get a SMR design approved, if its robust enough to withstand an earthquake.
 
The US already has small nuclear reactors in all of our carriers and also in a bunch of submarines. We built that shit DECADES ago.

looks like Canada leads the way !

1746832003958.webp

1746832051904.webp
 
Somehow the Navy didn't get the NRC to license the design on land.
That might be one way Trump can get a SMR design approved, if its robust enough to withstand an earthquake.
It makes sense that they didnt want a bunch of civilians on land seeing their tech and selling it to our enemies, which certainly would have happened over the decades. Civilians do work on aircraft carrier reactors, but they are highly scrutinized and not likely to sell us out.
 
You dont power a nation with mini reactors. You want full sized nuclear monsters hooked up to the electrical grid.
i saw this argument before, why do you think so ?

context :

1746832493983.webp
 
i saw this argument before, why do you think so ?

context :

View attachment 1109439
Yes, its cheaper to make a mini reactor, and faster. That doesnt mean it will produce as much energy as a full sized reactor, which will last for DECADES. Im no expert, but i would imagine that the cost benefits are better with full sized reactors, over time.

The US is rich as fuck. We dont need to save money in the short term. Short term thinking is for loser nations.
 
that doesnt mean it will produce as much energy as a full sized reactor, which will last for DECADES.
we just need to build more SMRs , and they will last for DECADES as well , changing , upgrading them non-stop

 
Somehow the Navy didn't get the NRC to license the design on land.
That might be one way Trump can get a SMR design approved, if its robust enough to withstand an earthquake.
DW passed from being anti-nuclear (all the documentaries about it where negatively focused, like "Atom mon amour" about France love of nuclear energy, that was deleted) to being almost pro-nuclear. :clap:

Great seeing DW interviewing actual nuclear engineers and not just anti nuclear activists - FREAKS like they have in the past:thup:
 
Yes, its cheaper to make a mini reactor, and faster. That doesnt mean it will produce as much energy as a full sized reactor, which will last for DECADES. Im no expert, but i would imagine that the cost benefits are better with full sized reactors, over time.

The US is rich as fuck. We dont need to save money in the short term. Short term thinking is for loser nations.
The mini-reactor still "boils water" and spins a turbine to generate energy. And one "large" turbine has a lower cost, lower operating costs than "small" turbines combined for the same power, the same story with the reactor - it's cheaper to build one at 1 GW than ten at 100 MW.
From an economic point of view, at the level of a country where there are no problems with territory (and Canada and the USA are such countries), of course it is necessary to build full-size nuclear power plants.

Russila creted floating nuclear power plant (Russia's floating nuclear power plant passes one billion kWh), but according to people who are involved in the operation, the cost of electricity obtained in this way is very high, it is clear that such a solution can only be used where it is generally impossible to build a power plant.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom