Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Power

Small Modular Nuclear Reactor Partnership Announced between America and Ukraine (kyivindependent.com) 124

An anonymous reader shared this report from the Kyiv Independent: The United States will partner with Ukraine to transition Ukraine's coal-fired plants to small modular nuclear reactors, and to use them to help decarbonize its steel industry, the countries announced on November 16 at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Baku, Azerbaijan...

The partnership will build a roadmap and provide technical support to "rebuild, modernize, and decarbonize Ukraine's steel industry with small modular reactors," according to a statement from the U.S. State Department... It will also "facilitate the transition of Ukraine's coal-fired power plants to secure and safe SMR nuclear power plants utilizing existing infrastructure and retraining the workforce," the statement read.

Another project announced at the conference, known as COP29, will build a pilot plant in Ukraine to demonstrate production of clean hydrogen and ammonia using simulated small modular reactor technology.

That clean hydrogen/ammonia project involves a multinational public-private consortium which also includes Japan and South Korea, according to the U.S. State Department. Their announcement says the three projects "will help position Ukraine to take a leadership role on secure and safe nuclear energy" (as well as industrial decarbonization).

Three years ago the U.S. State Department launched a program to help countries develop nuclear energy programs "to support clean energy goals under the highest international standards for nuclear safety, security, and nonproliferation." That program will send $30 million for these three projects...
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Small Modular Nuclear Reactor Partnership Announced between America and Ukraine

Comments Filter:
  • With nuclear power in a war zone.

    • we can have an other chernobyl

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Narcocide ( 102829 )

      Well, in this particular case, adding a bunch of (hypothetically) meltdown-safe SMR's won't appreciably change that. There's a conspicuously old-school style "bomb fuel factory" nuclear plant [slashdot.org] right in the middle of this war zone already.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
    • You're missing the point. Ukraine is very much Not In My BackYard.

      What better place to test potentially dangerous new technology than on far away foreign soil?

      • You're missing the point. Ukraine is very much Not In My BackYard.

        What better place to test potentially dangerous new technology than on far away foreign soil?

        Then why not near Sudzha, Ukraine? It's far enough away from any large populations that if anything goes wrong there are fewer people who might be affected.

      • New technology? These are SMRs and this is Slashdot. You are in 2024 in case you got lost. These are decades old. JFC
    • by quonset ( 4839537 ) on Saturday November 16, 2024 @05:35PM (#64950689)

      With nuclear power in a war zone.

      You mean the largest nuclear power plant in all of Europe which is currently occupied by Russian troops [bbc.com]? The one where Russia has been threatening the Ukrainian workers? The one where Russia has military equipment parked inside the plant [cnn.com] and on the grounds? The one which is operating only by the thinnest of threads due to the Russians not allowing basic maintenance [energy.gov]? Or did you mean all the other nuclear plants [npr.org] Ukraine is operating inside the war zone?

      • You make a good if obvious point. Of all the peaceful and thinly populated places on earth - why a war zone where energy production get hammered regularly?

        Itâ(TM)s sobering how the nuclear power plants keep going in these conditions: everyone has got skin in the game. Oppressed and oppressors alike.

    • With nuclear power in a war zone.

      Don't worry, there won't be any war in Ukraine come January 21 -- or a Ukraine.
      Don't know what Russia will be calling it, Putin is still work-shopping names.

      /s

      • I realize you're being sarcastic, but the war is at a stalemate, and it's in everyone's interest to end it.

        For that to happen, Putin needs a face-saving way out.

        He's more likely to get that from Trump than Biden.

    • We already have that. Zaporizhzhia, remember? It's not the tech at issue, it's the idiot end users. Nukes are bad
    • by bjwest ( 14070 )
      Do you think these things will go online next week?
    • With nuclear power in a war zone.

      Ukraine already has nuclear power plants, and in fact is threatening to use their fissionable material to build and launch nuclear bombs in the two-kiloton range. If they don't get the military assistance they need to fend off Russia, they WILL fire nukes. At that point, development of SMRs won't even be a footnote in news stories about the war in Ukraine.

  • 1. Reading all the news about SMRs, they are in development stage. 2. This project will be in Ukraine's backyard. So someone is accepting the risks... 3. From long term investment viewpoint, what are the investment opportunities now?
    • My question exactly. There's this [slashdot.org] hot tip from a while back but I think it's gone cold; I thought I heard later they were scrapping the plans despite receiving approval. There's also this one [slashdot.org] from more recently. I'm not sure about either though. Can anyone else weigh in here?

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      1. Reading all the news about SMRs, they are in development stage.

      They are. There are currently zero prototypes. There are no proven designs. All there is are economically very much non-viable approaches, which consist of military reactors (very expensive to run) and nuclear ice-breakers (still a _lot_ more expensive than oil-powered, but endurance is a huge advantage for an ice-breaker). None of these designs make any economic sense as stationary installations.

      Hence, SMRs are basically completely new designs. It is not even clear whether the idea works economically and t

    • Several countries already ordered SMRs to replace old coal stations.
  • ...disappear once Putin's boyfriend takes over the US

    • Given how variable/changeable Trump can be, there is a possibility you're right. But given some of his cabinet selections (especially Rubio), I suspect the more likely outcome is Trump offers Putin the 20% of Ukraine he already has annexed in exchange for a cease fire (which still sucks).

      If there's a DMZ, the question will be - will it be carved out of the space Russia already occupies, or will Trump tell Zelinsky to give up even more territory for that?

      Anyway... if that's what Trump does, hopefully it is p

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by quonset ( 4839537 )

        Essentially what you're saying is the draft dodger would want Ukraine to surrender. Seems about right. He couldn't be bothered to defend his own country so why bother helping a fledgling democracy when he can ingratiate himself with a dictator.

        • Essentially what you're saying is the draft dodger would want Ukraine to surrender. Seems about right. He couldn't be bothered to defend his own country so why bother helping a fledgling democracy when he can ingratiate himself with a dictator.

          It runs in the family; his grandfather Frederick Trump (originally Friedrich Drumpf) left Germany for the U.S. avoiding the draft there. He later tried to return, but a royal decree was issued ordering him to leave the kingdom of Bavaria within eight weeks as punishment for having failed to do mandatory military service and failing to give authorities notice of his departure to the US when he first emigrated in 1885.

          - Historian finds German decree banishing Trump's grandfather [theguardian.com]
          - Trump's Grandfather Was [snopes.com]

        • Ukraine ceased being a democracy several years ago when Zelensky cancelled elections. https://apnews.com/article/rus... [apnews.com]
          • The elections weren't cancelled "several years ago", just since martial law was declared following the Russian invasion. But the current government took power in 2014 after overthrowing the elected president in the Maidan revolution. There have been elections since including the one won by Zelensky, but not one where all of the people in the territory claimed by Ukraine have participated. Russia may or may not be less democratic than Ukraine, Putin was elected, but neither one is exactly a model of democrac
      • Given how variable/changeable Trump can be, there is a possibility you're right. But given some of his cabinet selections (especially Rubio), I suspect the more likely outcome is Trump offers Putin the 20% of Ukraine he already has annexed in exchange for a cease fire (which still sucks).

        Missing from your analysis is the wilfulness of Ukraine. You assume that they'll just roll over and accept America "negotiating" on their behalf. I'm fairly certain that you're wrong about that. They're already talking about how they'll use the plutonium they have for their nuclear power plants to make and deploy kiloton-range bombs, unless they get enough war aid to continue the fight with conventional weapons.

        It's possible that they're just rattling their sabres, but I don't think so. They've had a bellyf

        • I expect Ukraine to pull out all the stops and make this war MUCH more costly for ALL concerned than it has been so far.

          Unfortunately that may be correct. Ukraine has little left to lose and there are some people in leadership roles who may well be prepared to commit suicide rather than concede defeat. I am not sure Zelynski has the ability to stop them.

          The only real winning strategy for Ukraine is similar to Britain's in World War II after the fall of France, hang on until the United States gets into the war. Trumps victory makes that very unlikely (although maybe not impossible) and they are going to get pretty desperate

    • So you are saying we shouldn't bother. Gotcha.

  • Luckily this won't really happen. Trump will quash this.

  • by sbrown123 ( 229895 ) on Saturday November 16, 2024 @06:12PM (#64950729) Homepage

    Only issue I have is the hypocrisy that these are the same people who avoid building them here.

    Build them here now! The only people who oppose nuclear plants in the US are crazy people, people who hate the environment, and those heavily invested in crappy Chinese solutions like solar or wind. Or usually a combination of all those.

    • by hey! ( 33014 )

      The only people who oppose nuclear plants in the US are crazy people, people who hate the environment, and those heavily invested in crappy Chinese solutions like solar or wind. Or usually a combination of all those.

      Or have a problem with the government subsidies that will be needed to make a buck with these things. Understand, I fully realize that fossil fuels are in effect subsidized by their being allowed to pollute, not to mention to the degree they drive our foreign and military policies. But when they see government dollars going into private pockets to make this happen people will have conniptions.

    • Some in libertarian circles have argued against nuclear power, around "state" (government) subsidy at the outset of the industry, relation to weapons and military use, and liability limitations (Price-Anderson Act in the US), as distortions against a free market. China was not a factor in the 70s/80s when I first heard these arguments.
    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Add the people that actually understand the economic and technological realities. Nuclear power sucks in all its aspects and SMRs will not fix that.

      But you are just pushing lies, obviously.

    • those heavily invested in crappy Chinese solutions like solar or wind

      You managed to combine racism with technical incorrectness, my hat is off to you sir. Your pepe is in the mail.

    • Or people opposed to nuclear plants in the USA are realists who understand that building a nuclear plant now does nothing for the environment kicking the can 20 years down the road while your house is on fire.

      In the meantime you can have a large solar park up and running within 1-2 years.

      I'm pro nuclear, but the time for it was 20 years ago. By all means we should be building new nukes, but anyone who talks about it in the same sentence as the environment or as a counter to wind / solar needs to have their

  • ... drop down a shit load of renewables.

  • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Saturday November 16, 2024 @07:49PM (#64950861)
    Russia is basically going to take the land they have already stolen and go back and lick their wounds and try to recover their military enough to come back in a few years and take the rest of it.

    Whether they do or not will depend on whether or not America has elections in 2 years. I'm not 100% convinced we are going to. But assuming we do and assuming people come to their senses and give the Democrats Congress then we are going to arm the ever-loving shit out of Ukraine to a degree that cannot be imagined.

    And we damn well should be doing that right now because Ukraine is a bread basket and climate change is real and we are going to want all that grain and food to be going to ourselves and our allies in order to keep our food prices down.

    But that is way way way too complicated a thought for a lot of Americans so here we are taking an extremely valuable economic partner and handing them over the Russia for God knows what reason. And we're not even going to get the 99 cent eggs we sold them out for anyway since egg prices are largely a function of bird flu.
    • Do you actually truly believe we won't have elections? That sounds absolutely unhinged. What evidence do you have to even think that, other than out of context sound bites? He's been president before. Just calm down.

      Democrats need to drop the wokeness and racebaiting bs. Divide and conquer doesn't work in politics. They just need to do better and quit acting like they know what's better for everyone than they do and they'll be in control again.
      • Largely for show. At least if the Republicans succeed in consolidating power over the next couple of years. As election results have come in The Republican party didn't win by as much as we had thought, for example Trump lost the popular vote.

        I think there will be a midterm election but I think the Republican party will do everything it can to prevent people from voting in it. It'll be the usual stuff. They will purge registered voters and they will shut down polling locations in blue districts using ge
        • One thing I have learned is it's good to have friends that are in the opposite news circle. The algorithm is great at locking people in. It astonishes both of us how much the same topic is portrayed completely different. If you watch conservative news you find that they are saying the exact same things as liberal news, just about Democrats. For example, the Biden administration took great lengths to suppress speech. If you don't buy into the court cases then it really does look like they were trying to use
  • Yeah, what a great idea because that'll make Ukraine's steel exports MORE competitive, right? Nuclear power isn't at least 4Xs more expensive than coal, right?

It is better to travel hopefully than to fly Continental.

Working...