Small Modular Reactors are needed in African countries

Dr. Kelvin Kemm

Nuclear power is not new. It has been in operation for over half a century, with an excellent record for providing reliable baseload electricity.

Not only has the electricity turned out to be reliable, but it is also the safest, greenest and most inexpensive electricity currently available to mankind. The proof exists.

But to judge from much of the barrage of anti-nuclear propaganda, which has been projected by anti-nuclear activists, people can be forgiven for doubting such claims. Let us consider the infamous Fukushima nuclear power incident in Japan. Not one single person was killed or injured by nuclear radiation at Fukushima. Read that again. Not one single person!

Nuclear power stations run for very many years. Over their lifetime the electricity produced is inexpensive. The concept of ‘cost’ can be judged only over a life-cycle, not at initiation.

Ask whether a brand new Boeing or Airbus passenger aircraft cost a lot of money. It is wrong to look at the purchase price on the day of delivery You need to examine the situation at the end of the life of the aircraft, when you can then count the total passengers carried, tally operating costs, and then work out its profitability to the air carrier, and hence the actual operational ‘cost’. Don’t confuse the concepts of ‘purchase price’ and ‘cost’. They are very different.

Anti-nuclear activists go out of their way to induce public confusion with respect to this important distinction.

Nuclear power is highly profitable. Both airlines and nuclear power operators know how to calculate these cost figures very accurately. That is why both are confident in making a profit on a new investment in their respective fields of expertise.

Figure 1. Koeberg Nuclear Power Station near Cape Town


Over the past half-century, nuclear power has proven itself to have been highly reliable and profitable. It will be even more reliable and more profitable in the future.

Many people do not seem to realise that nuclear technology has advanced dramatically during recent decades. Modern nuclear reactors are far more advanced now than ever before. Modern fabrication techniques, modern electronic systems, modern metal alloys, modern computer control, modern internet-based operating surveillance, modern robotics; the list goes on. All this means we now have ‘space-age’ nuclear reactors, compared to those built in the previous century.

As nuclear reactors developed over the first half-century of nuclear power, they became larger, and all were based on having a large body of water available, such as an ocean or major lake.

But this design concept had a built-in self-limiting barrier. They needed the water! However, many countries do not have a coastline. Many don’t even have major lakes or rivers. So the customer-base was limited.

Big and small nuclear

Africa is enormous. It is larger than the US, Europe, China, India and Japan added together. That means even some African countries which do have an ocean coast also have major areas very far from the ocean that need to be electrified. South Africa is a good example.

South Africa is the same size as the whole of Western Europe. The distance from South Africa’s inland capital, Pretoria, to Cape Town is the same as the distance from Rome to London. The world’s most southerly nuclear power station, Koeberg, is situated on the southern coast of South Africa, from where it serves the southern regions.

But major mining areas are 1000 km inland, in arid areas with no large water bodies, while South Africa’s vast coal deposits and coal-fired power stations are clustered in the far north east of the country. That means very long transmission lines are required to serve the country.

The nuclear power from Koeberg is South Africa’s cheapest and most reliable electricity.

Figure 2. The position of South African coal fields relative to the Koeberg Nuclear Power Station.
Note that the length of the black line is the same as the distance from Rome to London

So during the last decade of the 20th Century, South African nuclear technologists decided to investigate building a small nuclear reactor which would not need water cooling. Its purpose was to serve large mining and industrial complexes, and arid inland regions.

There certainly is still a need for large nuclear power plants, but there is also a desperate need for much smaller ones too.

Initial design criteria for a new small reactor were that it should be easy to build, and easy to add more reactors to an existing complex. The idea of pursuing a ‘modular’ concept became a cornerstone of design. Another very important design constraint was that the electricity produced should not be more expensive than the current selling price of South Africa’s coal-fired electricity.

The Small Modular Reactor (SMR) had to be gas-cooled, so inert helium gas was chosen. Fuel had to be easy to load into the reactor, and easy to transport, so graphite-based fuel balls the size of cricket balls were chosen. The term ‘pebbles’ was adopted for the fuel.

Thus was born the South African Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) Project.

Figure 3. Fuel ball with graphite matrix, containing 9 grams of Uranium.
The fuel was fabricated near Pretoria.

South African SMR development

This project developed steadily to the point at which the total staff complement was some 2 000 people. The Project advanced such that by 2008 the PBMR team was ready to construct the First Of A Kind (FOAK) prototype. The site had been selected and approved and all was ready for the starter’s pistol to fire.

Then fate intervened. The world 2008 financial crisis was initiated in the US, as a result of a foolish housing mortgage policy. This cascaded around the world. Big international banks which had become involved in the financing deals for the PBMR suddenly became bankrupt or unable to honour their pledges to the PBMR. At the same time South Africa had an unexpected change in government, with a new president and cabinet taking office. A number of major projects were then put on hold, the PBMR are being one of them. Nuclear technologists thought this ‘hold’ would last for a few months, but in fact it turned out to be years.

Further delay was induced due to the extreme green sentiment which started to rage around the World, with a prime target of the activists being energy. The targets included fossil fuels, nuclear power and even hydroelectric. Romantic visions of the world running on solar and wind power became the darling image for much of the media. The realities of physics and technological engineering were largely overlooked or ignored. Sound reasoning became a victim of the circumstances, as strange images appeared, such as a schoolgirl lecturing the United Nations on world energy policy.

A group of far-sighted SMR developers in Pretoria then formed a private company to develop a variant of the PBMR. It was financed by a cluster of companies and individuals who believed in the SMR concept.

Some careful review planning was done and important decisions taken. Primary among them were decisions to produce a small nuclear power plant which was inexpensive to design and build, and could be built rapidly.

This led to significant design decisions. The PBMR had been designed with a Brayton cooling system in which helium travels through the reactor core and then directly into the turbine; it then returns to the reactor. The reactor outlet temperature of the Helium was 940°C. This was an excellent design.

The HTMR-100 design

The new team embarked on a new SMR variant, named the HTMR-100. However two significant changes were introduced. The team decided to reduce the outlet gas temperature to 750°C, and pass the helium into a conventional water heat-exchanger, and not directly into the turbines, which meant the turbines would run on steam.

These were very important decisions for the ease of development, and for the consequent economics. The lower temperature reduced a great deal of complexity, with respect to the design and fabrication of the reactor.

Inserting a water heat-exchanger meant the turbines would be driven using conventional steam, and not helium. In turn this meant that everything ‘downline’ of the reactor itself could be purchased off-the-shelf, and therefore did not induce any financial uncertainty into these aspects of the design, or into the construction costs of all that portion of a power station. All this is standard equipment and is well understood in the engineering world.

Bearing in mind the ‘modular’ imperative in the SMR concept, this approach of the HTMR-100 is ideal for deployment into other African countries, and also anywhere where an identified construction site could be a challenge in terms of distance to transport and integrating large sub-assemblies.

The design and development of the HTMR-100 is far advanced, having been developed for over a decade.

Figure 4. Scale model of the HTMR-100, set in a typical arid South African mining town setting.
Scale is 200m across the x-axis in the picture

The model shown in Figure 4 is the current 100-megawatt nuclear power station, built to scale from the engineering drawings. This model is not a futuristic concept; it is a real design that currently exists. The model shows placement in an arid area, in a typical South African mining town setting. There is no large body of water available, and since water is generally scarce in such environments, no extensive manicured gardens. This is the reality of a workhorse small nuclear power station in Africa.

The HTMR-100 is a Generation IV (Gen IV) reactor, which is a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor. It is a significant advance on the much lower temperature water-cooled reactors. The advanced technology that has been achieved is partly a result of the initial extensive design and development of the PBMR.

A massive amount of work went into the PBMR development, over a period of more than a decade. Not only was advanced science and engineering addressed, but also all the operational and safety procedures, system qualifications, and all the other paper-based nuclear processes that are so important to the functioning of a modern nuclear power station.

Few people realize that the PBMR project advanced as far as building demonstration systems, which all worked exactly as designed. In 2008 the PBMR team was ready to start construction.

Process heat applications

The PBMR was designed to produce electricity, but it did not take long to realise that the high temperature of the outlet gas offered significant potential applications for using the process heat, without needing to produce electricity first. So the HTMR-100 was designed to employ its 750°C outlet gas in a process-heat function, as well as producing electricity.

This means a high-temperature gas reactor has many more potential applications than conventional low-temperature reactors.

These range from mining frozen tar-sands in high-latitude Canada, to extract oil; to converting coal to petrol and diesel, as is done in South Africa. Many more process-heat applications will be developed, as high-temperature SMRs are deployed.

During the last couple years there has been a rapid worldwide increase in interest in the potential of nuclear power supplied by SMRs. Now we find that it is not only nuclear scientists and engineers who recognize the potential of Small Modular Reactors, but also politicians and business leaders.

Figure 6. An SMR such as the HTMR-100 can easily be constructed anywhere in a country where the electricity is required

Current world attitude

For decades internationally, an unreasonable anti-nuclear attitude has prevailed amongst many people. Part of this was a legacy of the nuclear bombings in Japan which finally ended World War II. Large portions of the international public were led to believe that a nuclear reactor could explode like a bomb. It can’t. So in many cases the public linked a ‘no nukes’ sentiment to weapons and nuclear reactors. This was very unfortunate, but slowly as decades passed the thinking sections of the public realised that reactors were not nuclear explosives.

But sadly some anti-nuclear political activists have tried to keep false nuclear reactor narratives alive. They also propagated the false story that nuclear radiation itself is so dangerous that even some minute amount is somehow deadly, or will lead to terrible long-term effects. Such assertions are far from the truth.

Thankfully, over the past two years the worldwide attitude toward nuclear power generally, and SMRs particularly, has been changing significantly in a positive manner.

Anti-nuclear activists still try to oppose the acceptance of nuclear power, but wisdom and an appreciation of reality have started to take hold among many people.

A contributing factor concerning negative sentiments about fossil fuels and carbon dioxide emissions has played a role in causing people in authority to declare that nuclear power emits no CO2 and is therefore accepted as ‘green’ in the context of the CO2 emissions argument. Operating reality has shown that romantic ideas about wind and solar power running countries are just not feasible.

Over the past two years there has been a rapid acceptance of the critical worldwide potential role of SMRs, in any society.

Figure 7. In October 2021 President Emmanuel Macron announced a new drive for France to develop a Small Modular Reactor programme. He also said that there is a significant export market for SMR technology.

Previously, nuclear power was generally imagined to be large nuclear plants, which were the exclusive domain of a few wealthy, technologically advanced countries. Now with the SMR development advancing so rapidly, politicians and voters have realised that an SMR can be deployed in most countries of the world, should any country want one.

SMRs can be placed virtually anywhere they are needed, by any country. They can even be owned by private companies.

Types of SMR

The realisation of the extreme value of an SMR system has spawned significant international interest, and activity.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has defined SMRs as being 100 MW to 300 MW in output, in contrast to conventional large nuclear plants which can be of the order of 2000 MW to 4000 MW. That makes SMRs a completely different philosophy, compared to the past public understanding of nuclear power.

The IAEA also published a handbook listing many types of SMR currently being conceptualised or developed around the world. They range in nature considerably.

For example, in a molten salt design the uranium fuel is introduced into a salt that becomes liquid at a higher temperature, and then flows through the reactor.

Figure 8. HTMR-100 runs on solid fuel spheres which can be stockpiled on site.

The HTMR-100 uses ‘pebbles,’ which are graphite balls containing small grains of Uranium that in turn are coated with a thin protective shield of silicon carbide. That makes the Pebble fuel itself exceptionally safe from any leaks of radioactive particles, let alone the protective containment of the entire reactor itself.

The fuel balls are easily transported by road over long distances, making them ideal for African conditions. They are very robust and can withstand rough handling, in contrast to the fragile large metal fuel assemblies used in large nuclear reactors.

Taking an overall view, the HTMR-100 is an ideal nuclear reactor system to be deployed in any area, including arid and remote regions.

A significant quantity of fuel can be safely stockpiled in underground bunkers, so supplies covering months or years can be kept on site. Even if road or rail links are disrupted, reactor operation will not be affected.

Africans are proud that the Pebble Bed design and fuel were developed in South Africa, a pilot plant was built and fuel of an extremely high standard was produced. International tests verified all this.

Figure 9. Chemical engineer Zak Madela at a portion of the demonstration PBMR fuel production plant at Pelindaba near Pretoria

Current development position

A nuclear development team is currently working on SMR development in South Africa. Unfortunately the team is small and very underfunded. There is no government funding. A significant number of nuclear professionals is available to rapidly expand the team if funds become available.

The development group is open to international funding. Being a private company, the HTMR-100 group is in a position to entertain a wide range of proposals. A number of approaches from interested parties have already been made, as the international favourable attitude toward SMR development advances.

Fortunately South Africa has an energy minister who appreciates the need and reality of providing a reliable supply of baseload electricity to the country. He has launched a program to build 2,500 megawatts of new nuclear power, to add to the existing nuclear power base, and has specifically stated his support for including SMRs.

So the government attitude towards SMR development and deployment in South Africa is positive. In addition, about a dozen other African countries have declared their intention of following a nuclear power path in the future. Some have already set up national nuclear bodies to advance their plans.

Clearly the potential exists for a network of SMRs in Africa. These can be in a number of African countries, but operating in collaboration such that operating experience, maintenance functions and general management experiences are shared for mutual benefit.

The creation of such an African network of SMR operators seems inevitable.

Industrial fabrication site – Kragbron

In South Africa a nuclear site for the construction of a prototype SMR nuclear reactor has been identified at the Pelindaba site of the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa), near Pretoria. It is close to where the HTMR-100 team is currently working.

In addition, another site in the Free State Province has been offered as a site for setting up facilities for fabricating multiple reactor components and assemblies, for national and international deployment.

This is the town of Kragbron, which is very close to the major industrial fabrication area of Vanderbijlpark, where many facilities provide heavy engineering, and thus not only expertise and experience for modern fabrication, but also industrial users for the electricity.

Figure 11. View of a portion of the residential area of Kragbron.

Suitable industrial buildings and an infrastructure also exist at Kragbron.

In fact the owners have already said that they would also like to build an operating commercial HTMR-100 there as soon as possible, to supply additional reliable electricity to the region.

Figure 12. Layout of the Kragbron area.

The town of Kragbron is privately owned and available for any other related technology developments, so an entire fabrication industry could be built there for any applicable technology developments.

Small grids

The countries of Europe have such an interconnected electricity grid system that each one acts as a backup for the others. For example, when the UK is short of electricity it imports nuclear-based electricity from France and hydro-power from Norway, via undersea cables.

Within continental Europe, electricity trading across borders happens constantly, each country backing up its neighbours. In Africa this is not the case; trans-border electricity movement is minimal. African countries are so large that even within a single country moving electricity from one region to another can be a major challenge, requiring transmission cables hundreds of kilometers long.

However a huge advantage of an HTMR-100 is that the reactor can be placed anywhere. Furthermore, a single reactor can have it own electricity grid, not necessarily connected to the rest of the country. Thus, for example, a remote mining community could have one or two reactors serving its own dedicated grid which is only 10 or 20 km wide. This can then be integrated into a larger grid later when the authorities wish to do so.

Small nuclear reactors offer extensive flexibility, and they run continuously, independent of day or night, rain or sunshine, wind or no wind. They also do not need a system for delivering a continuous fuel supply; deliveries two or three times a year would be sufficient.

Nuclear power is the future. Within the near future, there will also be nuclear reactors on the moon and Mars. They almost certainly will be based on a gas-cooled SMR principle.

______________

Dr Kelvin Kemm is a nuclear physicist and CEO of Stratek Business Strategy Consultants, a project management company based in Pretoria. He is part of the Stratek Nuclear Consortium, which is developing the HTMR-100 nuclear reactor. He carries out business strategy development and project planning in a wide variety of fields.

4.8 40 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

374 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 28, 2021 10:13 am

For those who can’t visualise just how big Africa is despite the excellent description there is a wonderful website that allows you to play with these things:

America in cyan, India in yellow and China in orange

Screenshot 2021-11-28 180505.jpg
November 28, 2021 10:16 am

I should have stopped reading the above fluff PR article when I ran across this statement:

“Not one single person was killed or injured by nuclear radiation at Fukushima. Read that again. Not one single person!”

One can only wonder how author Dr. Kelvin Kemp was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that not a single person working at the power plant or living in the adjacent city of Fukushima suffered from, or will suffer from, longer term effects from exposure to radiation released at Fukushima. Maybe Dr. Kemp does not consider accelerated, radiation-induced damage to genetic codes as an “injury”?

Then, there is this statement:

“The design and development of the HTMR-100 is far advanced, having been developed for over a decade.”

Sure “far advanced”, but without a single example of a working prototype. You know, a prototype plant that could demonstrate the following critical design “features” never before used in a working (not experimental) nuclear power plant AFIK:
gas cooling of the nuclear reactor core
method(s) to SCRAM a gas-cooled core, given the low specific heat of helium versus that of water (as exists in conventional water-cooled nuclear power plants).
graphite-based fuel balls
— a very high gas temperature (750 C), high water pressure (> 500 psig, for reasonable overheat above saturation assuming turbine blades are capable of sustained temperatures at temperatures of 250 C or higher) gas-liquid heat exchanger . . . high pressure steam and high pressure water frequently leading to leaks in associated plumbing
— an air-cooled condenser for collapsing the lower pressure, low quality steam exiting the power turbines back to water whereupon in can be pumped up in pressure to be recycled back to the helium-water heat exchanger, noting that forced air cooling is notoriously inefficient compared to the water-evaporative cooling used in typical nuclear power plants . . . the primary reason they are almost always located near surface bodies of water.

Last, but far from least, the very rosy PR makes no mention whatsoever of the two critical issues of:
a) how and where to store/dispose of the long-life radioactive waste products in the graphite fuel balls once the uranium therein has decayed below levels useful for power production, and
b) how to provide security against terrorists stealing the graphite fuel balls that would eventually have to be transported as new fuel to the tens to hundreds of SMRs, or to be transported from those same SMRs as spent fuel, with the possibility of said terrorists using those fuel balls directly in a “dirty” bomb, or instead perhaps refining stolen new fuel balls into enough uranium to produce a nuclear weapon. Toward this point, I take notice of the pictures of the nice scale models of the SMR facilities (Figures 4, 6 and 8 in that above article) that were “built to scale from the engineering drawings . . . not a futuristic concept; it is a real design that currently exists” show no security fencing, no security guard gates or roadway access blockades, or any other considerations for fending off potential attacks from terrorists.

Bottom line: the time for a SMR of the type described in the above marketing PR article is definitely NOT NOW.

dave fitz
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
November 28, 2021 10:35 am

The PBMR pebble bed design was analyzed in germany 20 yrs ago and they demonstrated the amount of waste material that would need to be interned for thousands of years would be several times greater than that of a normal light water reactor.

Few of the currently operating reactors in the US are competitive with natural gas combined cycle plants, and none are competitive with renewables. The newest reactors in the US and EU are costing 2-3 times their original guaranteeed not to exceed cost estimate and take about 3 times longer to construct than originally claimed.

Simply waiving ones hands and claiming we can ignore the damage caused by Chernobyl and Fukushima is not going to work for many people, and such an approach is not going to work as long as people have memories.

Reply to  dave fitz
November 28, 2021 2:55 pm

Memories of media – they do not last as they are fake and must be repeated daily early and often. Which people notice with the snoring monotone.
Any analysis in Germany that excluded reprocessing, unlike France, is a fallacy of composition.
Never forget Adenauers maxim :
Was schert mich mein Geschwätz von gestern?
I’m afraid MSM does not get this….

Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
November 28, 2021 10:49 am

“…how to provide security against terrorists stealing the graphite fuel balls”

How do you guard against terrorists stealing your balls?

Reply to  Hatter Eggburn
November 28, 2021 11:43 am

Hatter Eggburn,

You have sunk to the lowest possible common denominator, I see. Not at all surprising.

No further response from me is necessary.

Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
November 28, 2021 12:08 pm

Your analysis and pompous proclamation is a bollocks. Why?
Everyone knows the Fukushima tsunami was heading for Bavaria, and they announced the 5 month previously secretly planned exit from nuclear NOW!

I’m afraid you simply do not get it!

Amos E. Stone
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
November 28, 2021 11:44 am

All but one of the UK reactors are cooled by CO2, not water. They have been producing electricity since the 80s.

Reply to  Amos E. Stone
November 28, 2021 12:40 pm

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe those reactors use supercritical CO2. Most supercritical fluids, excluding helium, have numerous advantages in terms of heat transfer compared to their subcritical gas phase, especially in their much higher densities.

Amos E. Stone
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
November 29, 2021 9:18 am

The AGR operates at a pressure of about 40 bar. It would need to be nearly twice that to be supercritical.

The previous generation of gas cooled Magnox reactors operated at even lower pressures.

But, even though you just asked for examples of working gas cooled reactors, you fairly point out that we should be talking about helium. So I’ll raise you these:
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Dual-criticality-for-Chinese-demonstration-HTR-PM

Reply to  Amos E. Stone
November 30, 2021 8:02 am

You are correct that an operating pressure of about 40 bar would be about half the critical pressure of CO2. So, I stand corrected in my previous belief that all UK nuclear reactors used supercritical CO2 for cooling. Thank you for informing me of that fact!

It does beg the question of why subcritical CO2 cooling of reactor cores has not been baselined for use in modern nuclear power plant designs.

In my recent research to answer that question, I ran across a most-interesting paper that discusses the history of subcritical CO2-cooled nuclear reactors in the UK and the pros and cons of using this cooling method; here is the link to the downloadable pdf article titled “Lessons Learned From GEN I Carbon Dioxide Cooled Reactors”:
https://inldigitallibrary.inl.gov/sites/sti/sti/2761750.pdf

Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
November 28, 2021 11:53 am

BTW, I should have checked this earlier, but I need to post these facts now, as they speak directly to the credibility of Dr. Kelvin Kemp, author of the above article, who stated verbatim:
“Not one single person was killed or injured by nuclear radiation at Fukushima. Read that again. Not one single person!”

From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties :

deaths: one person confirmed dead from radiation

non-fatal injuries: 6 with cancer or leukemia, 2 workers taken to hospital with radiation burns

Facts matter.

Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
November 28, 2021 12:15 pm

All were killed by water and the massive psychological stress of relocation.
So bad it spread to Berlin, expecting an immanent tsunami in Bavaria.
The real world matters!

Your credibility is in question, and that damages the climate debate.

Reply to  bonbon
November 28, 2021 1:16 pm

Please take your claims and complaints to Wikipedia . . . they are the cited source for the “inconvenient” facts that you and Dr. Kemp so eagerly want to overlook.

BTW, I hardly think, in any conceivable way, that a question as to my credibility “damages the climate debate” . . . but thanks for promoting me in this way.

Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
November 28, 2021 1:53 pm

Yes it does. Funny how nuclear does that. Something like neutron induced fission.

How Lise Meitner set the cat among the pigeons, what?

Reply to  bonbon
November 29, 2021 7:28 am

griff, is that you?

cgh
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
November 29, 2021 8:41 am

You conveniently ignore the nearly 2000 fatalities from the excessive and unnecessary evacuation caused by the sort of radiophobia you espouse.

Reply to  cgh
November 29, 2021 9:22 am

Didn’t ignore them . . . they are “off topic” to my previous post, as heartless as that sounds.

And attempts at deflection are often so obvious.

Richard Page
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
November 28, 2021 12:39 pm

“Maybe Dr. Kemp does not consider accelerated, radiation-induced damage to genetic codes to be an ‘injury’?” 35 years after Chernobyl and there is zero evidence for this idea so why should there be any after Fukushima? Just what evidence do you have that there would be any genetic damage, aside from in comic books?

Reply to  Richard Page
November 28, 2021 1:01 pm

I wonder what he would have to say about the Covid Omicron variant? Not sure if the RNA strand can mutate, as it has a haplotype adaption mechanism not the same thing as mutation. Still the planet is in panic mode.

Reply to  Richard Page
November 28, 2021 1:29 pm

Richard Page posted, incredibly:

“35 years after Chernobyl and there is zero evidence for this idea . . .”

In response:
“According to the official, internationally recognised death toll, just 31 people died as an immediate result of Chernobyl while the UN estimates that only 50 deaths can be directly attributed to the disaster. In 2005, it predicted a further 4,000 might eventually die as a result of the radiation exposure.”—source: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190725-will-we-ever-know-chernobyls-true-death-toll

Radiation causes cancer and suppresses immunity by disrupting the genetic codes in a number of different cell types in a human body exposed to such.

You asked for it . . . you got it.

Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
November 28, 2021 1:57 pm

31 burned at the fire – the rest is bullshit.
At Windscale, the Chernobyl model, how many burned, how many reported?
The LNT model is an inverse Hockey Stick, a parody of Mann’s nutty climate model.

Richard Page
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
November 28, 2021 3:34 pm

And in the 35 years since Chernobyl, out of the 4,000+ projected or modelled further fatalities, how many people have actually died as a result of Chernobyl?
15 – 15 out of the projected 4,000+.

You asked for it… you got it.

Reply to  Richard Page
November 30, 2021 8:15 am

And the scientific reference—just one will suffice—to support your assertion is?

. . . so, no, I ain’t got it, at least yet.

(Come on, I supply you with solid references . . . can’t you at least reciprocate?)

MarkW
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
November 28, 2021 1:15 pm

The long term studies after Hiroshima and Nagasaki show that long term damage from radiation is low to non-existent.

Reply to  MarkW
November 28, 2021 2:00 pm

Short term – milliseconds is something else though. Model projections predate climate projections. Same methodology, what?
Some crazies in D.C. model a nuke exchange as winnable, utterly insane.

Reply to  MarkW
November 29, 2021 7:59 am

MarkW,

Please post reputable source(s) for what you assert.

In comparison, science-based long term studies show that the long term damage from exposure to nuclear bomb radiation is most certainly real and significant.

From the well-recognized journal Science article discussing long term health and mortality rates of survivors of the Hiroshima nuclear bomb (see https://www.science.org/content/article/how-atomic-bomb-survivors-have-transformed-our-understanding-radiation-s-impacts ):
“Thousands of others died prematurely over the years because of radiation-induced cancer, a tally that is still growing . . . Among those who were within about 900 meters of the hypocenter and received more than 2 grays of radiation, 124 have died of cancer . . . In its latest LSS update, RERF scientists conclude—based on comparisons of cancer deaths between the exposed group and unexposed controls—that radiation was responsible for 70 of those deaths . . .The numbers of deaths are low because few who were close to ground zero survived the blast, explains Dale Preston, a biostatistician at Hirosoft International who previously worked at RERF. But among these people, ‘Most of the cancers are due to the radiation’, Preston says . . . Radiation most increased the risk of leukemia among survivors, followed by cancer of the stomach, lung, liver, and breast. There was little impact on cancers of the rectum, prostate, and kidney. Exposure also heightened the risk of heart failure and stroke, asthma, bronchitis, and gastrointestinal conditions, but less so; for those with a 2-gray exposure, 16% of noncancer deaths were deemed attributable to radiation.”

John Endicott
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
November 29, 2021 11:12 am

“Thousands of others died prematurely over the years because of radiation-induced cancer, a tally that is still growing”

Hiroshima was 70+ years ago, we’ve long since passed the point where any deaths could be described as “premature”, any further deaths are well within natural lifespans/causes. Or to borrow post-pandemic terminology: we’re now talking deaths with Hiroshima, not deaths from Hiroshima.

Reply to  John Endicott
November 29, 2021 1:20 pm

By your logic, a 75 year or older man or woman could not possibly die prematurely in an automobile accident . . . after all, they were born 70+ years ago.

Since you need help understanding the situation and the concept of “premature”, this is from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hibakusha :

The Japanese word hibakusha is generally used to define the survivors of the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan on August 6 and August 9, 1945. “As of March 31, 2021, 127,755 hibakusha were still alive, mostly in Japan. The Japanese government recognizes about 1% of these as having illnesses caused by radiation.” “The memorials in Hiroshima and Nagasaki contain lists of the names of the hibakusha who are know to have died since the bombings. Updated annually on the anniversaries of the bombings, as of August 2021, the memorials record the names of almost 520,000 hibakusha; 328,929 in Hiroshima and 189,163 in Nagasaki.”

Despite your reference to “post-pandemic terminology”, we are still talking deaths presently occurring from Hiroshima nuclear bombs.

John Endicott
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
November 30, 2021 3:01 am

And none of these 70+ year old people would ever have possibly developed cancer had Hiroshima never happened? really? What an amazing coincidence that the only place in the world where 70+ year olds would never have to worry about developing cancer is the one place where we decided to drop a bomb. Sorry, but at 70+ years we are very much passed from and well into with territory.

Reply to  John Endicott
November 30, 2021 7:41 am

Your post is easily recognized as the logical fallacy of a straw man argument.

Please state exactly where, and at what time, I ever posted—or even implied—that any group of people would not have developed cancer “had Hiroshima {nuclear bomb radiation exposure—GD} never happened”?

John Endicott
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
November 30, 2021 8:48 am

No more of a fallacious strawman than your attributing me to the idea that a 75-year old can’t die prematurely in an automobile accident (and idea I never stated!!!!).

The bottom line is at 75+ years on, Hiroshima is *history* (it’s not a current event, like your strawman of a 75 year old getting into an automobile accident). It’s not the driving force behind people dying *today*. Even your previous quote shows the “with” rather than “of” reality when it says “The memorials in Hiroshima and Nagasaki contain lists of the names of the hibakusha who are know to have died since the bombings” rather than “who are know to have died as a result of the bombings”.

Reply to  John Endicott
December 1, 2021 6:01 pm

You see, John, it’s not so easy to dismiss what you previously posted, however idiotic it now appears. To wit, this verbatim from your post above:
Hiroshima was 70+ years ago, we’ve long since passed the point where any deaths could be described as “premature”, any further deaths are well within natural lifespans/causes.”

I just posted my response to that for all to consider that a 75+ old person dying as a result of an automobile accident could not be considered as a death “well within natural lifespans/causes” (your exact words).

I’m sorry to see that you have difficulty following this . . . that you equate the above to a strawman argument . . . a basic course in logic could be beneficial for you.

John Endicott
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
December 2, 2021 4:31 am

You see, John, it’s not so easy to dismiss what you previously posted”

Thanks for the admission that you are looking to dismiss the truth but are failing to do so.

” a basic course in logic could be beneficial for you.”

Bwahahahahahahahaha. That’s rich coming from you with your illogical postings.

I just posted my response …”

You failed to comprehend what you read and then posted a strawman, You got called on it. too bad so sad. Again Hiroshima was 70+ years ago – it’s long since past it’s time as being the cause of anything. A car accident today would be a recent event that literally is the direct cause of death today. The later is in no way relevant to what was said about the former. So instead of projecting your own failings onto others, perhaps you should take that basic course in logic, because clearly you are the on that needs it.

Editor
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
November 29, 2021 8:30 am

I mean, you bring up interesting engineering criticisms first, then veer off the rails with your concerns about nuclear waste and security. Those questions are the easiest to answer.

I’m more interested in the outstanding (remaining) questions regarding HTGRs and efficient cooling in the absence of large amounts of water.

To be clear, helium cooled reactors are very interesting, and there are quite a few benefits over water cooled reactors (such as our current LWRs). That there are still engineering questions shouldn’t be viewed as a negative necessarily, but just a reflection of where we are with our understanding.

To be fair, I think your characterization of the OP isn’t unwarranted. Certainly it’s PR, but that doesn’t *necessarily* mean it’s wrong. What everyone should understand about projects like these is that the remaining work to be done is actually, often, stuff that no one has experience in. I mean, we might have experience designing safety systems within the specifications that currently exist for pressurized water, but how do you go about designing systems for which the specifications haven’t even been written (i.e. figured out) yet.

SMR companies are coming out asking for help designing various aspects of their projects, and looking for us to help based on our experience, but sometimes it’s only tangentially relevant. Yeah, we can get there, and yeah, maybe we can get there quicker than (or, as quickly as) anybody else. But the work’s still foundational and needs effort to get correct. And, effort = money (funding).

Idk, I think I lost my main point somewhere in my rambling. I guess what I’m trying to say is that the engineering points you bring up are valid, but they’re not limiting. Certainly they all have solutions. What remains to be seen is whether their particular design is worth investing in further, or if there are other more efficient designs that we should pursue. <insert shrug emoji here>

rip

November 28, 2021 10:31 am

Small modular reactors are needed……everywhere.
In canada we can start with the oilsands to replace all the gas we burn boiling oil and boiling water. Then move on to all the remote communities across the north that are 100% dependent on summer deliveries of diesel without which they would have to evacuate within hours.

November 28, 2021 10:36 am

SMRs are needed everywhere.
They are the sensible future of energy.
Except for neanderthal anti-nuclear luddites who want to go back to hunter-gathering.

November 28, 2021 10:47 am

SMRs?
“Where’s the future?
Here’s the future!
We’re the future!
Yea – How does that suit ya?”

https://youtu.be/JEH6JeCRkSU

Rosalind
November 28, 2021 11:43 am

What about nuclear waste disposal? It is already a problem in the US.

Reply to  Rosalind
November 28, 2021 12:02 pm

Because no fast breeder progress. A technological problem caused by standing still when th entire solar system bobs up and down through a radiation environment – akin to that silly King Canute ordering te tide to top.

MarkW
Reply to  Rosalind
November 28, 2021 1:17 pm

It’s a problem in the US because the politicians want it to be.
We have known how to take care of the waste. They same way the rest of the world takes care of it.
Reprocess it. All of the short term stuff is gone in a couple of years. All of the long term stuff isn’t waste, it’s fuel.

Reply to  MarkW
November 28, 2021 2:01 pm

Exactly.

cgh
Reply to  MarkW
November 29, 2021 8:45 am

And the shelf-life for storage is for all practical purposes infinite. It will be just as useful reprocessed a century or a millennium from now. The real problem is pretending that there is no solution.

Reply to  MarkW
November 29, 2021 9:13 am

MarkW,

I’m surprised to see this fairy tale coming from you:
“Reprocess it. All of the short term stuff is gone in a couple of years. All of the long term stuff isn’t waste, it’s fuel.”

Really???

A “couple of years” and “reprocessing” has NOT solved the problems of long term waste from refining nuclear fuels and from operating nuclear fission power plants.

As but one example, from https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/news/newsmajor-types-nuclear-waste-that-produce-radioactivity-6027468/ :
“The vast amount of waste created by nuclear power plants can lead to high radiation and raise temperature levels. In recent years, many concerns have been raised over the disposal of radioactive waste and harmful radiations from these plants. The transmission of this radiation can cause a potential damage to the surrounding atmosphere. The cost of managing the nuclear waste is also high . . . The various types of nuclear waste include uranium tailings, transuranic (TRU) waste, low-level waste, intermediate-level waste, high-level waste and spent fuel rods . . . High-level waste accounts for more than 95% of the radioactivity released in the power generation process from nuclear sources. As the high-level waste produces a significant amount of heat, it needs cooling. While handling and transporting the waste, it should be shielded to avoid harmful exposure. As high-level waste contains irradiated nuclear fuel rods, exposure to the unshielded waste at close range can result in immediate death of humans.”

And it is absurd to assert that all of the radionuclides present in “spent fuel”, many with half-lives great than 20 years, such as cesium-137 and strontium-90, can be reprocessed into fuels suitable for subsequent use in a nuclear fission reactor.

John Endicott
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
November 30, 2021 3:06 am

 many concerns have been raised over”

many concerns have been raised about many things, does not mean the concerns are always justified or even factually based. A lot of the time raised concerns are entirely emotional and non-fact based. Just look at the “concerns” of extinction rebellion and other far out there protest groups for plenty of examples of concerns that defy logic, reason, and facts.

Reply to  John Endicott
November 30, 2021 7:31 am

John, in regards to your reply, you might want to consider what the phrase “can’t see the forest for the trees” actually means in the broad context.

John Endicott
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
November 30, 2021 8:56 am

The forest, Gordon, is that the world isn’t as simplistic as your non-factual “concerns” that you use to support your irrational anti-nuclear world view. Perhaps if you’d look beyond the trees, you’d be able to see that forest yourself.

Reply to  John Endicott
December 1, 2021 6:14 pm

Any true scientist, let alone engineer, knows quite well that the world is not “simplistic’.

You are way off-base in asserting that the concerns I raised over the simplistic PR article above about the ease of now building a working SMR, without first demonstrating a prototype, are “non factual”.

As Richard Feynman famously stated: “You must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.” 

John Endicott
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
December 2, 2021 4:23 am

Yes, Richard Feynman certainly has your number. Glad you at least recognize that. Now run along and educate yourself about nuclear power so you aren’t so fooled in the future.

c b
November 28, 2021 11:59 am

Nuke plants and warring muslims / tribes … that’d be interesting.

Reply to  c b
November 28, 2021 1:06 pm

Colonial chauvinism again :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_Arab_Emirates
Even the nominally Wahabite Saudi’s are pursuing nuclear :
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-o-s/saudi-arabia.aspx

Colonialism sunglasses are actually opaque even when the rednecks burn!

Alan Robertson
November 28, 2021 12:11 pm

Japan’s Toshiba has several SMR designs ready to install, for years.
This info is not in any way, a detraction from the work and changing attitudes in South Africa.

kzb
November 28, 2021 1:15 pm

Fission is only a large energy resource with reprocessing. If the whole world takes up once-through uranium burning it will be all gone pretty quickly.

Editor
Reply to  kzb
November 29, 2021 8:36 am

Yeah..no. There are immense uranium reserves, notably in sea water. Certainly enough that we can safely power our world for the duration it takes to figure out fusion (assuming terrestrial fusion in the absence of an immense gravitational field is energy positive).

rip

November 28, 2021 3:51 pm

Calder Hall sold the first commercial nuclear power in 1956. 65 years ago now.

Kit P
November 28, 2021 6:31 pm

I have just discovered the marketing problem with nuclear power 40 years ago.

A cute name!.

How about name CBWR or CPWR for cute boiling water reactor or cute pressurized water reactor.?

All nuclear small are small.

What LWR do so well is produce massive amounts of power without requiring massive amounts of fuel on a daily basis.

If you need small amounts of power use oil.

SMR are a solution looking for a problem.

November 28, 2021 8:53 pm

While it is dangerous to extrapolate trends, nuclear power in the U.S. was growing at a rate up until the 1979 Three Mile Island incident and the 1986 Chernobyl disaster that it would today easily be producing about half of U.S. electricity. Seizing on the bad publicity, environmental activists managed to shut off nuclear development. In addition to output gains from existing plants and an inevitable funding focus on nuclear plant designs, technology and safety improvements, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions would be far below today’s levels. So when speaking to global warming activists, I like to remind them America’s emissions are in large part their own fault. Unintended consequences of mindless alarmism.

cgh
Reply to  Pflashgordon
November 29, 2021 8:51 am

Quite right. But the antinuclear activists in one sense were the paid flunkies of oil and gas lobby, which was deeply worried about the growth of nuclear power and the consequent shrinking of their market space. In the 1960s and ’70s, stoking antinuclearism was just good business sense for the oil majors.

And it remains so today. the largest supporters of antinuclear lobbyists in Ontario remain the gas companies.

biff
November 29, 2021 12:39 am

Graphite ‘robust’ you have to be kidding

marty
November 29, 2021 3:53 am
Oh dear! Can you imagine what happens to the nuclear waste in Africa? You only have to look at the garbage dumps in Africa where the garbage workers collect paper, cloth, electronics, cables, copper etc. under the worst conditions and then sell them again.
Beta Blocker
November 29, 2021 9:10 am

Rosalind: “What about nuclear waste disposal? It is already a problem in the US.”

MarkW: “It’s a problem in the US because the politicians want it to be. We have known how to take care of the waste. They same way the rest of the world takes care of it. Reprocess it. All of the short term stuff is gone in a couple of years. All of the long term stuff isn’t waste, it’s fuel.”

When the Yucca Mountain project was shut down in 2010, the reason most often cited was politics. Harry Reid of Nevada was Majority Leader in the Senate and most Nevadans didn’t want the repository in their state.

What wasn’t reported at the time, and what is still left unsaid today, is that the real reason why Yucca Mountain was shut down is that it makes no sense whatsoever to be burying our spent nuclear fuel underground, as was being directed by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA). Our spent nuclear fuel is far too valuable as a future source of energy to just walk away from it forever.

The easy way out for the Obama administration and the Congress to deal with the problem that the NWPA was an exceptionally stupid policy which had the seeds of its own failure built directly into it was to simply defund the Yucca Mountain project and be done with it. So that’s what was done.

If we want to reprocess our spent nuclear fuel, we already have two government-owned facilities which have roughly 80% of the nuclear-chemical processing infrastructure needed to safely reprocess our civilian spent nuclear fuel. These two facilities will remain in operation handling their current missions for another hundred years or more. One is the Savannah River Site in South Carolina, the other is the Hanford Site in Washington State.

Chemical separation facilities for reprocessing our civilian spent nuclear fuel could be added to the Savannah River Site and the Hanford Site at fairly reasonable cost. 

The benefit here is that all the waste management infrastructure needed to deal with the useless radioactive byproducts from the reprocessing operations is already present at these two facilities and is already doing a similar job safely. Send the useless waste to the WIPP facility in New Mexico and bury it in the salt beds of the Salado Formation. 

Even if we don’t choose to reprocess our spent nuclear fuel, keeping it stored in dry casks above ground is a perfectly safe and cost effective way of managing it for a hundred years or more. If a cask develops a leak, then move the spent fuel to a new cask or else overpack it.

Anti-nuclear activists tell me they don’t trust the people who monitor the casks to be as diligent as they need to be in keeping the casks safe. My response to this fear is that as long as the anti-nuclear activists are keeping up their pressure on the nuclear industry to follow its own safety rules, we don’t have to worry about leaking casks.

November 30, 2021 11:25 am

 Not one single person was killed or injured by nuclear radiation at Fukushima. Read that again. Not one single person!”

got any references for this statement?

How about indirect health and mortality consequences- the effects of evacuation, loss of homes, property, livelyhood?

Then consider that Japan arguably had, and probably still has, the most careful supervision of the nuclear power industry, including a liability insurance requirement on the operators. Here in the West, government relieves nuclear power operators of all liability. Had this accident happened anywhere else, the consequences would surely have been much worse.

And speaking of consequences, they are still piling up on the shores of the Pacific, and silently being consigned to the waves.

“…the safest, greenest and most inexpensive electricity currently available to mankind. The proof exists.”

Do you have links for this proof?

“The concept of ‘cost’ can be judged only over a life-cycle, not at initiation.”

Then how can you claim nuclear is “…the most inexpensive”. The life cycle must include permanent safe disposal of spent fuel and dismantlement of reactors that are no longer viable, on which there is no data, since it has yet to be achieved.

“Nuclear power is highly profitable.”

Only because governments take on the entire burden of liability with funds they do not have.
Even in Japan, where the operators are required to bear some liability, the coverage came nowhere near that needed to compensate for the damage to lives and property from a relatively minor accident (compared to Chernobyl) that was clearly due to equipment failure aggravated by operator negligence.

I’d love to have a “safe, reliable and inexpensive” nuclear reactor to run my home electrical grid, and maybe a few smaller ones to run motor vehicles and portable tools, but not before they come with instrumentation and documentation the layman can reliably use to safely operate and monitor the power plants, and safely and affordably dispose of the spent fuel and scrapped hardware.

Speed
December 1, 2021 2:53 am

For the two or three people who might stumble across this thread after three days and 368 comments … WSJ reports …

Nuclear-Fusion Startup Lands $1.8 Billion as Investors Chase Star PowerNo one has been able to generate net energy by combining atoms, yet Commonwealth Fusion Systems has attracted Bill Gates and George Soros

Commonwealth Fusion Systems LLC said it has raised more than $1.8 billion in the largest private investment for nuclear fusion yet as startups race to be the first to generate carbon-free energy like the sun.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/nuclear-fusion-startup-lands-1-8-billion-as-investors-chase-star-power-11638334801?st=thtwpfsesvbzxa7&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Peter Taylor
December 1, 2021 5:50 am

Sir – you are entirely untrustworthy on key safety issues. There were no casualties at Fukushima because the offshore winds blew the huge release of cs-137 out to sea. If you don’t know thisor simply don’t mention that you know – how can I trust anything else you say? I used to adevise the EU Commission on safety, and the UK government on waste disposal issues, as well as emergency planning. You mention none of these issues nor how they affect costings. You don’t talk of the possibility of a melt-down, how to contain it or the consequences if you fail. Another issue then of trust. The ‘anti-nuclear’ movement consists of some educated engineers and informed environmentalists – and you completely fail to credit any of its arguments. Another issue then of trust in your judgement. What seems to be going on in your mind concerns an economic and technocratic opportunity in support of industrial interests – and if what you fail to address signifies a vacant part of your mind, then the anti-nuclear movement is fully justified in its opposition. And by the way – the modern Green New Deal would be (secretly) quite happy to have a zero-carbon nuclear component – you are behind the times. That is why they make no audible noises.