![]() ![]() Most of the attention and funding is misguided at best, and actively hostile to climate action at worstįirst, let’s explore briefly the world of small modular nuclear reactors (SMNR) or small and medium reactors (SMR). They’ve existed since the 1950s and they aren’t any better now than they were then. They don’t solve any of the problems that they purport to while intentionally choosing to be less efficient than they could be. Small modular reactors won’t achieve economies of manufacturing scale, won’t be faster to construct, forego efficiency of vertical scaling, won’t be cheaper, aren’t suitable for remote or brownfield coal sites, still face very large security costs, will still be costly and slow to decommission, and still require liability insurance caps. ![]() And inevitably, some come from entrepreneurs attempting to build a technology that they hope will take off in a major way, making them and their investors a lot of money. ![]() Much of it comes from the nuclear industry. Much of that is driven by governmental policies and investments focusing on technology. Like hydrogen, small modular nuclear reactors have been seeing a resurgence of interest lately. ![]() Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication. It brings to mind a quote from a past director of the Central Electricity Generating Board: “One day you may get more energy out of nuclear fusion than you put in, but you will never get more money out than you put in.” Martin O’Donovan Ashtead, Surrey It is great news that scientists have succeeded in getting more energy out of fusion than they put in. Meanwhile the headlines that followed this result, Turrell’s psychological trumpet, simply serve to reassure and detract from the urgency of what needs to be done now. Even the optimists understand that it will be decades before fusion power can contribute to the grid, regardless of this achievement. We only have years to achieve the changes that are necessary to avoid social catastrophe due to what’s happening to the biosphere, and that’s assuming it’s not already too late. But it will make not one jot of a positive difference to the challenges my children and grandchildren will face as a result of the climate crisis. Yes, it’s a fantastic achievement for those scientists and engineers who have worked to achieve this proof on concept well done them. Dr Chris Cragg LondonĪrthur Turrell writes that achieving “net energy gain” has a psychological effect akin to a trumpet to the ear. After all, it has taken 60-odd years and huge amounts of money to get this far. However, I am prepared to bet that a true fusion power station is unlikely to be running before my grandchildren turn 70. In this regard, what is really valuable is that the community can now concentrate on this type of reactor, rather than other designs like the tokamak. It is indeed good news that the US National Ignition Facility has got a “net energy gain” of 1.1 MJ from an inertial confinement fusion device using lasers. Dr Mark Diesendorf University of New South WalesĪs someone who once wrote a critical report for the European parliament on fusion power back in the late 1980s, I hate to rain on Arthur Turrell’s splendid parade ( The carbon-free energy of the future: this fusion breakthrough changes everything, 13 December). The US National Ignition Facility, which did the research, is part of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which has a history of involvement with nuclear weaponry. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |