Small is beautiful for federal funds

[FBaggins]

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)

[bananas]

1. “Small IS Beautiful”! Robert Bryce Pushes Nuclear Power by Quoting Famous Author Who Called It “an Ethical, Spiritual, and Metaphysical Monstrosity”

"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>

[FBaggins]

2. Wouldn't that be more relevant if it actually replied to the article in the OP?

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.

[bananas]

3. Same shit, different asshole.

Your "news" source is "World Nuclear News",
I read it before I made that post.
The article I posted applies to both.

[FBaggins]

4. Sorry... your bias is showing.

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.

[bananas]

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.

[Maslo55]

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

[SpoonFed]

7. Curious.

I don't see FBags rebutting.
There is some point too low to stoop?