Tue Jan 24, 2012, 06:57 PM
FBaggins (11,647 posts)
Small is beautiful for federal fundsLast edited Wed Jan 25, 2012, 11:25 AM USA/ET - Edit history (2) The US Department of Energy (DoE) is to help push forward the manufacture of small modular nuclear reactors through new cost-sharing arrangements with private industry to support design and licensing activities. The DoE intends ultimately to fund up to two designs for small modular reactors (SMRs) through a cost-shared partnership which will support first-of-a-kind engineering, design certification and licensing. To that end, it has issued a draft Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) to solicit inputs from industry in advance of the full FOA, aiming at a deployment date for the reactors of 2022. Small, compact reactors of around 300 MWe in capacity - around a third of the size of a typical commercial nuclear power plant - can potentially offer a range of strengths in terms of safety, construction and siting as well as potential economic benefits. Their modular 'plug and play' nature means that they could be made in factories and transported to generation sites, offering economies of scale and reducing both capital costs and construction times. Their small size makes them suitable for small electric grids and locations that cannot support large reactors, while offering the flexibility to install units individually or as modules in a larger generating complex, adding more modules incrementally as required. As well as using a simpler reactor design, SMRs can incorporate a high level of passive or inherent safety in the event of malfunction. ...snip... The NRC is currently involved in pre-application activities on both designs in anticipation of a design certification application for the NuScale reactor in the first months of 2012, followed by one for the mPower design towards the end of 2013. http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Small_is_beautiful_for_federal_funds-2301127.html
Cutaway of NuScale's containment vessel and integrated reactor system (Image: NuScale Power)
|
7 replies, 601 views
| Author | Time | Post | |
| FBaggins | Jan 2012 | OP | |
| bananas | Jan 2012 | #1 | |
| FBaggins | Jan 2012 | #2 | |
| bananas | Jan 2012 | #3 | |
| FBaggins | Jan 2012 | #4 | |
| bananas | Jan 2012 | #5 | |
| Maslo55 | Jan 2012 | #6 | |
| SpoonFed | Jan 2012 | #7 |
Response to FBaggins (Original post)
Wed Jan 25, 2012, 03:45 AM
bananas (20,168 posts)
1. “Small IS Beautiful”! Robert Bryce Pushes Nuclear Power by Quoting Famous Author Who Called It “an Ethical, Spiritual, and Metaphysical Monstrosity”
|
Last edited Wed Jan 25, 2012, 03:55 AM USA/ET - Edit history (2) "In particular, Bryce actually has the
chutzpah to quote economist E. F. Schumacher’s famous line “Small is beautiful” to promote fossil fuels and nuclear power — when Schumacher wanted us to get off of fossil fuels and was strongly anti-nuke!" http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/06/10/241882/small-is-beautiful-robert-bryce/
“Small IS Beautiful”! Robert Bryce Pushes Nuclear Power by Quoting Famous Author Who Called It “an Ethical, Spiritual, and Metaphysical Monstrosity” By Stephen Lacey on Jun 10, 2011 at 12:38 pm The NY Times has published an error-riddled op-ed by Manhattan Institute disinformer Robert Bryce. The piece makes a decidedly schizophrenic and misleading case against renewable energy in California. Bryce argues that because large-scale renewable energy projects have some local environmental impact, we should avoid developing them and instead focus on much more dangerous fossil fuels and nuclear. The former “paper of record” should be embarrassed to run pro-dirty -energy disinformation from someone so widely refuted (see “Debunking Robert Bryce’s power hungry gusher of lies“). In particular, Bryce actually has the chutzpah to quote economist E. F. Schumacher’s famous line “Small is beautiful” to promote fossil fuels and nuclear power — when Schumacher wanted us to get off of fossil fuels and was strongly anti-nuke! <snip> Climate Progress contacted Bill McKibben, who wrote the Foreword to a re-release of Schumacher’s 1973 classic, “Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered.” We asked him what he thought about Bryce quoting Schumacher this way. He replied: <snip> The full op-ed is worth debunking in detail because Bryce is pushing a bunch of anti-clean -energy talking points that are becoming popular in conservative circles. Progressives need to know how to debunk them. We’ll try to cover the key points here with useful charts. <snip> |
Response to bananas (Reply #1)
Wed Jan 25, 2012, 11:25 AM
FBaggins (11,647 posts)
2. Wouldn't that be more relevant if it actually replied to the article in the OP?
|
Last edited Wed Jan 25, 2012, 11:27 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1) It doesn't.
Oh sure... I could have put the link in there (I'll fix that)... but you might also have read the article that your post actually replies to. This isn't Bryce's piece that ran in the WSJ last week advocating nuclear power. This is a news piece reporting of actual government support for development of SMRs in the US. |
Response to FBaggins (Reply #2)
Wed Jan 25, 2012, 11:55 AM
bananas (20,168 posts)
3. Same shit, different asshole.
|
Last edited Wed Jan 25, 2012, 12:14 PM USA/ET - Edit history (2) Your "news" source is "World Nuclear News",
I read it before I made that post. The article I posted applies to both. |
Response to bananas (Reply #3)
Wed Jan 25, 2012, 12:29 PM
FBaggins (11,647 posts)
4. Sorry... your bias is showing.
|
Last edited Wed Jan 25, 2012, 12:34 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) Yes, the source is also biased (as am I). But it isn't advocating nuclear power... it's reporting on actual DOE plans. It isn't an op-ed... it doesn't make a "case against renewable energy"... it doesn't present disinformation... it doesn't quote Schumacher (it quotes the Secretary of Energy)... nor is it authored by someone they think has been "widely refuted"
In short... the article you posted bears no relations whatsoever to both. Except to the extent that both appear to use the English language. You saw "small is beautiful" and went googling for an already-formed rebuttal... ...and whiffed. |
Response to FBaggins (Reply #4)
Wed Jan 25, 2012, 02:12 PM
bananas (20,168 posts)
5. Get real - "Small Is Beautiful" is an extremely influential book read by architects and engineers worldwide
|
It's so influential that Bryce and WNN are twisting its meaning in their misguided attempts at promoting nuclear energy.
WNN is a division of WNA, WNA's purpose is to promote nuclear energy, don't pretend you don't know that. And don't pretend that the editor at WNN is so illiterate and incompetent that they didn't know where the phrase came from. |
Response to bananas (Reply #5)
Thu Jan 26, 2012, 05:47 AM
Maslo55 (61 posts)
6. because
|
NUCULAR is evil, am I right??
To the topic - Small modular reactors have a great potential. Especially the fact that they can be easily made passively safe, due to their low power per unit, and also provide for decentralised power grid, but also can provide stable reliable power and capacity factors, contrary to other small decentralised power systems. I am glad DOE is finally funding new nuclear development, especially SMRs. This should have been done long ago. More nuclear means less CO2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor |
Response to bananas (Reply #5)
Sat Jan 28, 2012, 09:52 PM
SpoonFed (853 posts)
7. Curious.
|
I don't see FBags rebutting.
There is some point too low to stoop? |

