Small Modular Nuclear Reactor Partnership Announced between America and Ukraine (kyivindependent.com) 54
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...
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...
What could possibly go wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
With nuclear power in a war zone.
we can have an other chernobyl (Score:2)
we can have an other chernobyl
Re: (Score:2)
Practical cost and MW generation numbers (Score:2)
The hype of small nuclear reactor power generators keeps getting put out there by the media and governments.
What is the cost of a practical system?
How long will it take to build one?
How much does it cost to connect to the local power grid?
What is the life expectancy?
What is the generation capacity per year?
What is the expected cost and plan for cleanup and decommissioning?
Re: (Score:2)
They've already got the original to worry about:
https://www.reuters.com/world/... [reuters.com]
Re: we can have an other chernobyl (Score:2)
As a self-proclaimed grammar Nazi, this statement offends, on so many levels. I'll just add a y at the end of "an" so it makes more sense
Re: (Score:2)
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:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Even better to put it near the Russian border and directly upwind of Moscow.
Re:What could possibly go wrong (Score:5, Informative)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
So if something goes wrong in their beta test they can blame it on saboteurs, obviously. Seriously, I'm sure they're thinking this will help the domestic markets in the long run. I just wanna know which companies are involved...
Re: Ukraine? How bogus can this be?! (Score:1)
What are the investment opportunities in SMRs? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Ukraine will likely... (Score:1, Troll)
...disappear once Putin's boyfriend takes over the US
Re: (Score:1)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, Putin created the war, but Biden hasn't done much to prevent or end it.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect you'll wish Trump could get that deal. I don't think Putin will settle for that. His initially announced SMO objectives were the four oblasts + denazification + disarmament + neutrality. The price will be higher now.
While we've been busy with making pronouncements and sending dribs and drabs of funds and arms there, the Russians have built the sinews of a war economy. Ukraine is very near collapse now and will probably hit that point shortly. The current strategy of sending all the good force
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect you'll wish Trump could get that deal. I don't think Putin will settle for that. His initially announced SMO objectives were the four oblasts + denazification + disarmament + neutrality.
I think that is about right, and the real question may be what does Trump do if Putin says, "No"? Or if, as is likely, both Ukraine and Russia say, "No.". I am not sure Trump will take "No" for an answer. With Ukraine he can shut off the weapons but then what does he do about Putin. And if he escalates, how will Putin respond. Our propaganda describes this as an imperialistic Russian war of choice, but Russian propaganda describes it as an existential war forced on it by NATO aggressive expansion. And both
Re: (Score:2)
Our propaganda describes this as an imperialistic Russian war of choice, but Russian propaganda describes it as an existential war forced on it by NATO aggressive expansion.
The truth is Russia invaded Ukraine over a goddamn association agreement with the EU.
And both sides may well be guilty of believing their own propaganda.
I think it is hilarious people still assume everything that happens in the world is a result of great power competition between the US and the USSR when the USSR doesn't even exist anymore and the entire Russian economy is less than the economy of either California or Texas. It can never be the case Ukraine wanted to join Europe and Russia didn't want to lose control over Ukraine... It's NATO and the US that made us do it.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a suspicion that Trump will declare "mission accomplished" and hand it over to Europe. Let them deal with Putin. I'm not kidding.
The Russian perspective on every war in that region since the 1990s is that they were stoked by the West, from Chechnya to Georgia to the Armenia/Azerbaijan conflict to this current Ukraine situation. From their perspective, the neocons fomented this to isolate and control Russia in the vain hope of overthrowing their government.
That's not going to happen, and frankly it
Re:Ukraine will likely... (Score:4, Interesting)
I suspect you'll wish Trump could get that deal. I don't think Putin will settle for that. His initially announced SMO objectives were the four oblasts + denazification + disarmament + neutrality. The price will be higher now.
Personally I would like to know what deal Putler intendeds to get out of the US after airing naked pics of Trumps wife on state television.
While we've been busy with making pronouncements and sending dribs and drabs of funds and arms there, the Russians have built the sinews of a war economy.
Ah so that's why they are shutting down perfectly functional refineries (ones not yet bombed by Ukraine), merging hydrocarbon producers after Gazprom et el posted epic losses, cutting payments to wounded soldiers and reducing government staff by 10% while the heads of their military industry cries about untenable interest rates.
https://www.reuters.com/busine... [reuters.com]
The Russian economy is growing!!
Ukraine is very near collapse now and will probably hit that point shortly.
What else is new? We've been hearing this nonsense from Russian stooges every day for the past three years. At least come up with something new or actually provide credible objective evidence substantiating your rhetoric.
The current strategy of sending all the good forces to Kursk and trying to keep that shrinking salient from disappearing is like sending your best soldiers into a fire sack while the rest of the country is nibbled apart bit by bit.
This is hilarious. The loss ratios for Russians in Kursk are presently out of this world. Entire Russian convoys are being obliterated.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/d... [forbes.com]
The usual for warfare is happening - you start off holding fast and then the progress for one side starts getting faster and faster with time as painful attrition sets in.
This is a war of attrition with no end in sight. The Ukrainians are intentionally trading position in exchange for better ratios against Russian personnel and equipment.
While the rate of losses have been higher recently that has been declining over the last weeks. The best resource I'm aware of for tracking changes over time (albeit with some lag):
https://www.warmapper.org/stat... [warmapper.org]
You have better vision than me if you can visually discern the differences over the last couple years on the chart.
But expecting realistic appraisal when so many have deluded themselves about the true nature of the situation there...
Do you believe you are providing a realistic appraisal?
Re: (Score:2)
What else is new? We've been hearing this nonsense from Russian stooges every day for the past three years.
What I have heard for the last three years is how Russia was on the verge of collapse.
I think it is hilarious people still assume everything that happens in the world is a result of great power competition between the US and the USSR when the USSR doesn't even exist anymore and the entire Russian economy is less than the economy of either California or Texas.
I agree. We have no reason to be concerned about Russia and yet we are pouring money, weapons and military support into Ukraine on a continent thousands of miles away from either of those two states. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day and Trump is right on this one. We have no real interest in the outcome except as some kind of imaginary "great power conflict".
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. We have no reason to be concerned about Russia and yet we are pouring money, weapons and military support into Ukraine on a continent thousands of miles away from either of those two states. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day and Trump is right on this one. We have no real interest in the outcome except as some kind of imaginary "great power conflict".
I addressed why this is the dangerously wrong perspective in the same post you quoted. The issue isn't Ukraine in and of itself the issue is what's next on the menu for imperialist conquest and what that is going to cost in blood and treasure compared to the cost of stopping Russia in Ukraine.
"At the end of the day the question of why is not even relevant. The only question that actually matters is how far does Putler intend to take his "existential war forced on it by NATO" ... will he take it to Georgia?
Re: (Score:2)
We're not getting a stalemate, it's a Ukrainian defeat. They're almost out of soldiers, meaning out of military fraction, and the hopes that Russia is near collapse are just that, hopes. It's not going to happen.
Listening to morons talk about this as if they know better for the last almost three years has been grating. I'm part of the MIC in the US. Have been for 25 years. I've been in combat myself. This is a losing war and it's fairly close to the loss point. The same crap that was given about Afgh
Re: (Score:2)
We're not getting a stalemate, it's a Ukrainian defeat. They're almost out of soldiers, meaning out of military fraction
What is the basis of this statement? Are you simply blessing us with what your feelings say is true or do you have credible objective information to support your assertions? In the history of war it is rarely ever the case any side runs "out of soldiers".
Listening to morons talk about this as if they know better for the last almost three years has been grating.
I'm part of the MIC in the US. Have been for 25 years. I've been in combat myself. This is a losing war and it's fairly close to the loss point. The same crap that was given about Afghanistan and the other wars before it is being said about this one. "We're making progress...we will be victorious!" was just what Westmoreland said about Vietnam before Tet. It's the same deal now.
What is the relevance of any of the above to the Ukraine war?
Re: (Score:2)
You aren't paying attention to what is actually happening there - this is what I meant by lack of realistic appraisal of the situation. You believe the propaganda. Ok. Let's see who is right. Give it some time.
Re: (Score:2)
You aren't paying attention to what is actually happening there - this is what I meant by lack of realistic appraisal of the situation. You believe the propaganda. Ok. Let's see who is right. Give it some time.
I provided a number references to refute your statements regarding Russian economy, Kursk and territorial control. If you have credible objective evidence to support your position then provide it otherwise you are just wasting everyone's time.
Re: (Score:2)
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]
Re: Ukraine will likely... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So you are saying we shouldn't bother. Gotcha.
Nuclear proliferation... yay! (Score:2)
Luckily this won't really happen. Trump will quash this.
I would be fine with this (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Or just ... (Score:2)
... drop down a shit load of renewables.
So thanks to Trump winning (Score:3)
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.