11,000 nuclear reactors by 2100?

Posted by bex — 17 September 2008 at 12:27pm - Comments

Oh dear. From Nuclear Reaction:

Yesterday we brought you the fantastical tale of the Brazilian government announcing their ambition to build 50 new nuclear reactors by 2050. No sooner had the disbelieving laughter died down here at Nuclear Reaction, along came the World Nuclear Association (WNA) with an amazing fantasy of its own. Wait until you see this - it's amazing. There are comedians who would kill for this ability to make people laugh...

In its Nuclear Century Outlook report, the WNA has an upper ‘outlook projection' of 11,000 new nuclear reactors being built by the end of the century.

Read that again. The WNA can envisage a scenario in which 11,000 nuclear reactors will be built in the next 92 years.

That means starting to build this October 120 reactors a year...

...which is 10 reactors every month...

...which is one reactor every three days.

Where’s all the waste going to go? Where are the engineers, the materials, the finance, and the technology going to come from?

Read the full story »

Article tagged as: nuclear power, nuclear reactors, WNA
Comments Commenting is now closed

Hi Colin

Oddly enough, I thought of you when I read that :-)

A few key points:

  • The company claims to have a confirmed order of six reactors and they say the first reactor would be installed in Romania. Romania’s National Committee for Nuclear Control knows nothing about this.
  • Despite the technology being presented as real, there's no prototype of this kind of reactor yet. It only exists on paper - and even then the design isn't yet finalised.
  • There's no approval for the design or license - even for the prototype.
  • This reactor doesn't solve the intrinsic problem of what to do with the nuclear waste: the company says: "…there are known ways of dealing with it [the waste]. For security reasons, we're not disclosing what will happen to it, but it's not going to just sit in some bucket somewhere. Recycling was 'baked in' to our reactor design from the beginning." ie the company's asking us to take them at their word, on blind faith.
  • Hyperion provides no backup for their claims that the small units pose no proliferation risk. They don't say how they will prevent extra proliferation risks during the numerous transports, production or refuelling.
  • Burying a nuclear installation is highly risky; if something goes wrong, there's not a lot that can be done to prevent spreading of contaminants. If there's damage due to an earthquake etc, the problem might not even be detected.

I'll leave it there for now...

Cheers,

Bex
gpuk

By bex - 12 November 2008 at 5:57pm

Hi Colin Oddly enough, I thought of you when I read that :-) A few key points:

  • The company claims to have a confirmed order of six reactors and they say the first reactor would be installed in Romania. Romania’s National Committee for Nuclear Control knows nothing about this.
  • Despite the technology being presented as real, there's no prototype of this kind of reactor yet. It only exists on paper - and even then the design isn't yet finalised.
  • There's no approval for the design or license - even for the prototype.
  • This reactor doesn't solve the intrinsic problem of what to do with the nuclear waste: the company says: "…there are known ways of dealing with it [the waste]. For security reasons, we're not disclosing what will happen to it, but it's not going to just sit in some bucket somewhere. Recycling was 'baked in' to our reactor design from the beginning." ie the company's asking us to take them at their word, on blind faith.
  • Hyperion provides no backup for their claims that the small units pose no proliferation risk. They don't say how they will prevent extra proliferation risks during the numerous transports, production or refuelling.
  • Burying a nuclear installation is highly risky; if something goes wrong, there's not a lot that can be done to prevent spreading of contaminants. If there's damage due to an earthquake etc, the problem might not even be detected.

I'll leave it there for now... Cheers, Bex gpuk

By bex - 12 November 2008 at 5:57pm

Comments

Follow Greenpeace UK