Uranium clean/dirty energy source....

[techs]

Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb

Originally posted by: techs
As any 12 year old should know, almost no oil is used to create electricity anywhere in the world. Coal, natural gas, hydroelectric are the primary sources for electrical generation.
So building nukes wouldn't affect OPEC nor the price of gas.

The US generated 66512000000 kWh of electricity from petroleum in 2007 according to the EIA. While only a fraction of the total, it is hardly "almost no oil" (depending on efficiency its between 80-100 million barrels, or about 4-5 days worth of total US consumption @ ~20 million barrels a day).

Also natural gas prices are tied to oil prices - when oil is high, natural gas is high too. So if oil prices start to heading to >$100/barrel expect natural gas prices to triple (based on historical evidence).

Originally posted by: techs
And would I rather put up with the health effects of burning coal and natural gas which can cause some illnesses as I get older, than risk contaminating a very large portion of America and killing possibly tens of millions within weeks, I will have to go with continued burning of coal and natural gas. Though I would like to spend just a little more money to clean up coal emissions as much as is cost effective.

:roll:

A 1982 study by Sandia National Laboratories found that a core meltdown and radiological release at one of the two operating Indian Point reactors could cause 50,000 near-term deaths from acute radiation syndrome and 14,000 long-term deaths from cancer.

* The number of near-term deaths within 50 miles, due to lethal radiation exposures received within seven days after the attack, is approximately 3,500 for 95th percentile weather conditions, and approximately 44,000 for the worst case evaluated. Although we assumed that the ten-mile emergency planning zone was entirely evacuated in these cases, this effort was inadequate because (according to Entergy's own estimate) it would take nearly nine and one half hours to fully evacuate the ten-mile zone, whereas in our model the first radiological release occurs about two hours after the attack.
* Near-term deaths can occur among individuals living as far as 18 miles from Indian Point for the 95th percentile case, and as far as 60 miles away in the worst case evaluated. Timely sheltering could be effective in reducing the number of near-term deaths among people residing outside of the ten-mile emergency planning zone, but currently no formal emergency plan is required for these individuals.
* The number of long-term cancer deaths within 50 miles, due to non-acutely lethal radiation exposures within seven days after the attack, is almost 100,000 for 95th percentile weather conditions and more than 500,000 for the worst weather case evaluated. The peak value corresponds to an attack timed to coincide with weather conditions that maximize radioactive fallout over New York City.
* Based on the 95th percentile case, Food and Drug Administration guidance would recommend that many New York City residents under 40, and children in particular, take potassium iodide (KI) to block absorption for radioactive iodine in the thyroid. However, there is no requirement that KI be stockpiled for use in New York City.
* The economic damages within 100 miles would exceed $1.1 trillion for the 95th percentile case, and could be as great as $2.1 trillion for the worst case evaluated, based on Environmental Protection Agency guidance for population relocation and cleanup. Millions of people would require permanent relocation.

That study has been completely debunked. I will find you the link.
EDIT:
A very quick search, which didn't turn up the most respected studies:
http://www.ens-newswire.com/en...007/2007-11-05-091.asp
http://www.nci.org/01nci/11/pr-ind.htm

Some 20 million Americans live within Indian Points 50-mile fall-out zone that could be irradiated following a meltdown or spent fuel fire. At the time Indian Point 2 was licensed in 1974, one of the Atomic Energy Commissions own officials said that siting a plant so close to New York was

"A large radioactive release triggered by a terrorist attack on or accident at the facility could have devastating health and economic consequences, rendering much of the Hudson River Valley, including New York City, uninhabitable," according to the local Riverkeeper, a nonprofit organization seeking a shutdown of Indian Point.

Oh yeah, btw, it seems the studies most people quote are by the industry influenced Nuclear Regulatory Commision, which refuses to let truly independent analysts study the effects of an accident, citing 'national security"

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: techs
That study has been completely debunked. I will find you the link.
EDIT:
A very quick search, which didn't turn up the most respected studies:
http://www.ens-newswire.com/en...007/2007-11-05-091.asp
http://www.nci.org/01nci/11/pr-ind.htm

Some 20 million Americans live within Indian Points 50-mile fall-out zone that could be irradiated following a meltdown or spent fuel fire. At the time Indian Point 2 was licensed in 1974, one of the Atomic Energy Commissions own officials said that siting a plant so close to New York was

"A large radioactive release triggered by a terrorist attack on or accident at the facility could have devastating health and economic consequences, rendering much of the Hudson River Valley, including New York City, uninhabitable," according to the local Riverkeeper, a nonprofit organization seeking a shutdown of Indian Point.

Oh yeah, btw, it seems the studies most people quote are by the industry influenced Nuclear Regulatory Commision, which refuses to let truly independent analysts study the effects of an accident, citing 'national security"

Still waiting for a reputable link, something of the caliber of Sandia National Laboratories.
Thus far, you've got a quote in there from "Riverkeeper, a nonprofit organization seeking a shutdown of Indian Point." Nope, no bias there. Might as well ask PETA to write an article about animal testing.
And the Nuclear Control Institute, which appears to be another group which opposes all nuclear energy, and which displays a mushroom cloud when you mouseover some of their links. And they seriously seem to think a worldwide ban on nuclear weapons is possible. The genie's out, and the only way to put him back in is to magically eliminate all knowledge and record of nuclear power, which would also have to include eliminating all uranium on the planet, before someone else discovers the exact same things we've already learned.


IF there's a meltdown, and the multiple redundant safety systems all fail at the same time (you've at least 4 major levels of safety to prevent the release of radioactivity), then there might be a problem. I'm not sure exactly what could cause this in a properly-run reactor in the US - like I said, Chernobyl didn't have a containment vessel, and they really did a lot to bypass the other safety features, and they had some other critical design flaws which are not present in our reactors. And then there's the pebble-bed reactor that's been mentioned a few times. A meltdown simply can't occur in one of them.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: techs
That study has been completely debunked. I will find you the link.
EDIT:
A very quick search, which didn't turn up the most respected studies:
http://www.ens-newswire.com/en...007/2007-11-05-091.asp
http://www.nci.org/01nci/11/pr-ind.htm

Some 20 million Americans live within Indian Points 50-mile fall-out zone that could be irradiated following a meltdown or spent fuel fire. At the time Indian Point 2 was licensed in 1974, one of the Atomic Energy Commissions own officials said that siting a plant so close to New York was

"A large radioactive release triggered by a terrorist attack on or accident at the facility could have devastating health and economic consequences, rendering much of the Hudson River Valley, including New York City, uninhabitable," according to the local Riverkeeper, a nonprofit organization seeking a shutdown of Indian Point.

Oh yeah, btw, it seems the studies most people quote are by the industry influenced Nuclear Regulatory Commision, which refuses to let truly independent analysts study the effects of an accident, citing 'national security"

Still waiting for a reputable link, something of the caliber of Sandia National Laboratories.
Thus far, you've got a quote in there from "Riverkeeper, a nonprofit organization seeking a shutdown of Indian Point." Nope, no bias there.
And the Nuclear Control Institute, which appears to be another group which opposes all nuclear energy, and which displays a mushroom cloud when you mouseover some of their links. And they seriously seem to think a worldwide ban on nuclear weapons is possible. The genie's out, and the only way to put him back in is to magically eliminate all knowledge and record of nuclear power, which would also have to include eliminating all uranium on the planet, before someone else discovers the exact same things we've already learned.

Sandia National Laboratories?
"Sandia National Laboratories, which is managed and operated by the Sandia Corporation (a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation), is a major United States Department of Energy research and development national laboratory" (wiki)
No bias there.
/sarcasm

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: octopus41092
The only country that is energy independent is France. Guess why. Nuclear power.

France is highly dependent on energy imports (oil and natural gas, specifically). France just has one of the highest percentages of power production from nuclear power. And don't let that figure fool you, we still produce twice as much as the second country on the list.

And what if I'm all for nuclear power, but prefer CANDU reactors? They're a lot better than most reactor types out there. It's not that they completely mess up the original question, but they can take natural uranium and thorium.

Originally posted by: techs
And would I rather put up with the health effects of burning coal and natural gas which can cause some illnesses as I get older, than risk contaminating a very large portion of America and killing possibly tens of millions within weeks, I will have to go with continued burning of coal and natural gas. Though I would like to spend just a little more money to clean up coal emissions as much as is cost effective.

Don't group natural gas with coal. Natural gas is actually a fairly clean source of energy. Coal is extremely destructive. Starting with getting it, the mining leaves massive pools of slurry and ash that just hopefully don't contaminate the surrounding areas (which they do). These pools include radioactive waste and numerous heavy metals. The coal plants spew much of the same. Why are there warning on tuna and other fish? Coal plants. That's just one example. Coal plants also produce several times the radiation nuclear plant.

Oh, and VHT reactors can produce hydrogen, so another bonus if we ever get the whole fuel cell thing going with cars.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: techs
Let's make a pro's and cons list:

Cons:
1) Nuclear won't affect the cost of gas or oil.
2) Nuclear costs more than coal, gas and hydroelectric.
3) There is no permanent place to store the highly dangerous waste products.
4) And accident or natural disaster that affects a nuke plant could potentially be the most devastingly destructive event in US history.
5) Nuclear plants could be a prime target for terrorists.
6) Nuclear plants do produce some thermal pollution into the rivers they are sited near to provide cooling water.
7) Nuclear plants do occasionaly emit some radioactivity, though very little.
8) Nuclear planst have more downtime than conventional plants of gas or coal.


Pros:
1) Nuclear plants produce no immeditate air emissions.
2) Nuclear plants have more uptime than wind plants.

Even or unknown:
1) Nuclear plants may or may not have more uptime than hydro plants, which can be affected by droughts.
2) Nuclear plants rely on imported uranium, while gas plants rely on imported gas.

Did I miss anything?

Nuclear plants also produce tremendous amounts of energy. (Around 1500 MW for a modern reactor, they are modular in nature so you can have as many reactors as you want on a single site, the largest sites in the US have 3 for 4500 MW).

For a comparison the Hoover Dam produces about 2000 MW.

Modern plants would also be more efficient than the current dinosaur fleet of reactors from the 60s and 70s we have today.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: techs
Let's make a pro's and cons list:

Cons:
1) Nuclear won't affect the cost of gas or oil.
2) Nuclear costs more than coal, gas and hydroelectric.
3) There is no permanent place to store the highly dangerous waste products.
4) And accident or natural disaster that affects a nuke plant could potentially be the most devastingly destructive event in US history.
5) Nuclear plants could be a prime target for terrorists.
6) Nuclear plants do produce some thermal pollution into the rivers they are sited near to provide cooling water.
7) Nuclear plants do occasionaly emit some radioactivity, though very little.
8) Nuclear planst have more downtime than conventional plants of gas or coal.


Pros:
1) Nuclear plants produce no immeditate air emissions.
2) Nuclear plants have more uptime than wind plants.

Even or unknown:
1) Nuclear plants may or may not have more uptime than hydro plants, which can be affected by droughts.
2) Nuclear plants rely on imported uranium, while gas plants rely on imported gas.

Did I miss anything?

Cons:

1) Not affecting the price of gas/oil is a positive (in that it wont increase it )
You haven't provided any evidence that it won't have an effect.
2) Yeah its more expensive than coal and gas plants to build. If it weren't for NIMBYers the cost of a nuclear plant would be less than a hydroplant (the russians have proposed building a 1000 MW plant at a cost of $1.5billion, 1000MW hydro is in the $2billion region, it often appears cheaper due to its smaller output. The biggest recent on I know of is the Three Gorges hydro in China @ $24 billion for 9800MW).
3) You can recycle much of the waste, or use it as fuel in a breeder reactor.
4) You haven't provided any info on this. Therefore it is not worth discussing.
5) Terrorists would have a lot of trouble damaging a modern failsafe nuclear design. They could probably cause a minor leak, but it would be unlikely that they could kill millions.
6) Nuclear plants can run closed loop if you are worried about thermal pollution of rivers.
7) The radioactive leaks are less than the amount of radiation released from burning tonnes of coal... again that would be a positive
8) Average coal is 85%, there are nuclear reactors in the 90%'s

Pros:

Add -
They have more uptime than solar.

2007 costs - Energy Utility Cost Group showed that nuclear utility generating costs averaging 2.866 c/kWh, comprising 1.832 c/kWh operation and maintenance, 0.449 c/kWh fuel and 0.585 c/kWh capital expenditure. NEI gave a lower cost of 1.68 c/kWh for fuel and operation/maintenance.

Vs 2.37 c/kWh for Coal and 6.76 c/kWh for gas.

If building new plants, co-locating industries which could make use of waste heat/steam could increase efficiencies.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: techs

That study has been completely debunked. I will find you the link.
EDIT:

http://www.nci.org/01nci/11/pr-ind.htm

I think you will find that link does not debunk the study.

Protip: If it references it thus -

Coalition members pointed to a 1982 NRC study that attempted to estimate the peak number of deaths and casualties that would result from a meltdown at Indian Point.

it is using it as supporting evidence...

 

[Modelworks]

Until nuclear plants can raise the efficiency I am really not for building of plants everywhere. 90% waste of a fuel source is really bad.

It isn't that we can't generate the power we need cleanly and cheaply, it is that we can't get it to where it is needed most. Instead what we need to focus on is fixing the national power grid. As some engineers said, it is being held together with duct tape, chewing gum wrappers, and a lot of praying. Look at places like death valley. Extremely hot, perfect place for a solar reflector based power plant. But we have no means for getting that power to the cities that need it. Other places have the perfect weather for wind turbines, again can't get the power to places that need it. When the west coast is during the evening hours and needs more power they could get it from the east coast where load would be low at those same times, but they can't because the grid is so messed up .

Developing of power storage systems could also help a lot. The way it works right now power plants have to switch on and off generators as demand rises and falls every minute. Every time a generator spins up that is wasted resources until it reaches speed. If they are now making too much power, that same generator now gets shut down. They need to be able to store energy .

 

[PottedMeat]

Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb

Originally posted by: techs

That study has been completely debunked. I will find you the link.
EDIT:

http://www.nci.org/01nci/11/pr-ind.htm

I think you will find that link does not debunk the study.

Protip: If it references it thus -

Coalition members pointed to a 1982 NRC study that attempted to estimate the peak number of deaths and casualties that would result from a meltdown at Indian Point.

it is using it as supporting evidence...

Plus it was filed a month after 9/11 - kneejerk reaction anyone?

Lol, all those chemical plants in New Jersey are a way bigger risk.

 

[Regs]

nm

 

[JDub02]

I say we use nuclear, coal, solar, wind, hydro ... whatever is right given a regions natural resources.

 

[RoloMather]

Need more nuke plants built to replace the ones that are going offline.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Until nuclear plants can raise the efficiency I am really not for building of plants everywhere. 90% waste of a fuel source is really bad.

It isn't that we can't generate the power we need cleanly and cheaply, it is that we can't get it to where it is needed most. Instead what we need to focus on is fixing the national power grid. As some engineers said, it is being held together with duct tape, chewing gum wrappers, and a lot of praying. Look at places like death valley. Extremely hot, perfect place for a solar reflector based power plant. But we have no means for getting that power to the cities that need it. Other places have the perfect weather for wind turbines, again can't get the power to places that need it. When the west coast is during the evening hours and needs more power they could get it from the east coast where load would be low at those same times, but they can't because the grid is so messed up .

Developing of power storage systems could also help a lot. The way it works right now power plants have to switch on and off generators as demand rises and falls every minute. Every time a generator spins up that is wasted resources until it reaches speed. If they are now making too much power, that same generator now gets shut down. They need to be able to store energy .

you still can't store more electricity than you generate. X MW for 12 hours is just that, 12X MWh. I'd much rather have X MW for 24 hours, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year with something like 98% uptime, rather than half of that at best.. assuming you don't have a cloudy day.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon


you still can't store more electricity than you generate. X MW for 12 hours is just that, 12X MWh. I'd much rather have X MW for 24 hours, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year with something like 98% uptime, rather than half of that at best.. assuming you don't have a cloudy day.

That isn't why storage is important. If plants could store power it would make operation cost much lower. Instead of having to power on and off generators they could rely on the storage to make up the difference. Only powering on extra generators when they needed to replenish the storage. The generators have to stay spinning sometimes even when they are not being used since if a peak is expected you can't wait for the generator to spin up.

The other benefit is that you cannot send but only so much power over the grid . If there were remote storage sites then those sites could be used to power during high peak times and recharged over off peak times. They could provide extra power for two hours then take the off peak time of 5 hours to recharge. This works because the storage site is close to the destination vs being across the country.

This explains it better:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage

 

[PlasmaBomb]

@modelworks - huh?

Power up and power down generators? Maybe fuel oil generators... to match peak demand. The actual steam turbines can take days to turn on and off.

As for waste - it is possible to reprocess currently, it just isn't done for fear of nuclear proliferation...

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb
@modelworks - huh?

Power up and power down generators? Maybe fuel oil generators... to match peak demand. The actual steam turbines can take days to turn on and off.

Not sure what you are trying to say. I know the nuclear plant near me can bring turbines online or offline in under an hour.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb
@modelworks - huh?

Power up and power down generators? Maybe fuel oil generators... to match peak demand. The actual steam turbines can take days to turn on and off.

Not sure what you are trying to say. I know the nuclear plant near me can bring turbines online or offline in under an hour.

Sorry I'm talking about cold starting.

Wiki -

When warming up a steam turbine for use, the main steam stop valves (after the boiler) have a bypass line to allow superheated steam to slowly bypass the valve and proceed to heat up the lines in the system along with the steam turbine. Also a turning gear is engaged when there is no steam to the turbine to slowly rotate the turbine to ensure even heating to prevent uneven expansion. After first rotating the turbine by the turning gear, allowing time for the rotor to assume a straight plane (no bowing), then the turning gear is disengaged and steam is admitted to the turbine, first to the astern blades then to the ahead blades slowly rotating the turbine at 10 to 15 RPM to slowly warm the turbine.

Your local nuclear plant may keep them spooling and at a relatively high temp, in which case they aren't really "off", but even that may take 2-4 hrs to bring back up to peak.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Sorry I should have just left the "off" out of it, since steam bypass technically means you can turn a turbine "off" pretty quickly compared to cold starts.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon


you still can't store more electricity than you generate. X MW for 12 hours is just that, 12X MWh. I'd much rather have X MW for 24 hours, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year with something like 98% uptime, rather than half of that at best.. assuming you don't have a cloudy day.

That isn't why storage is important. If plants could store power it would make operation cost much lower. Instead of having to power on and off generators they could rely on the storage to make up the difference. Only powering on extra generators when they needed to replenish the storage. The generators have to stay spinning sometimes even when they are not being used since if a peak is expected you can't wait for the generator to spin up.

The other benefit is that you cannot send but only so much power over the grid . If there were remote storage sites then those sites could be used to power during high peak times and recharged over off peak times. They could provide extra power for two hours then take the off peak time of 5 hours to recharge. This works because the storage site is close to the destination vs being across the country.

This explains it better:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage

oh ok, i thought you meant storage for solar energy

 

[PlasmaBomb]

He is talking about load levelling.

Checking up on steam turbines, they do indeed have different procedures depending on if they are cold, warm or hot.

Typical steam turbine power up from warm -

MS ? SC < 65 C
HP&IP> 100 C

60 rpm/m (10 minutes)
Hold 600 rpm for 30 minutes
Increase rpm at 30rpm/minute
Hold 2500 rpm till HP&IP > 200 C

Typically that is 4 hours to get to minimum operating temp (370 C) and minimum load.

(although this is for an older steam generator, so modern ones may be faster).

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: herm0016

Originally posted by: techs
As any 12 year old should know, almost no oil is used to create electricity anywhere in the world. Coal, natural gas, hydroelectric are the primary sources for electrical generation.
So building nukes wouldn't affect OPEC nor the price of gas.

And as for the idiotic (yes, IDIOTIC) statement that France is energy independent, they are 100 percent NOT. They only use nuclear for electricity. And they have to import uranium to run their nuke plants. Plus import oil and gas for their cars and heating (no, they don't heat with electricity). So as opposed to Germany which mines it own coal for its electricity and imports oil and gas for cars and heating, France is in exactly the same position. OR rather Germany is in a better position. They use their own coal while France imports uranium.

And would I rather put up with the health effects of burning coal and natural gas which can cause some illnesses as I get older, than risk contaminating a very large portion of America and killing possibly tens of millions within weeks, I will have to go with continued burning of coal and natural gas. Though I would like to spend just a little more money to clean up coal emissions as much as is cost effective.

you are calling people idiots and claiming that nuclear will kill " tens of millions within weeks"?

a Chernobyl in new reactors is very nearly impossible. new reactors have containment buildings, water systems that are gravity fed and do not conduct military experiments in them like Chernobyl. we also train the people who run them, unlike russia.

pot.. meet kettle...

btw: i am licensed by the NRC to handle radioactive sources ie.. i have lots of training.

Worst case scenarios using Indian Point Nuclear Power plant just north of New York City. And the tens of millions are the actual deaths within a year.

And a new Chernobyl type accident is not "very nearly impossible". Geez, every day bridges fail, computer networks crash, pipes burst, etc. It is the height of hubris to think that it is very nearly impossible for a nuke plant to fail and fail spectactulary.
Heck, try Engineering Disasters on the History Channel for the barest fraction of how completely unforseen events cause spectacular disasters in some of the most well understood engineering practices. Then remember a nuke plant is like a 100 times more complicated.

WTF is your point? Nuclear reactors *can* cause deaths? Here's your for finding that out.

Guess what though, there are plenty of non-nuclear disasters that killed more people than all nuclear reactors in the US combined (and take out Chernobyl and I might say the world).

Chernobyl was operator error, NOT the system error. For a US nuclear reactor to go critical or have issues like Chernobyl, are virtually impossible. Is there a risk? Definitely. Then again, theres a risk that when you get out of bed you'll break a leg that will cause internal bleeding and you'll die. Do you avoid getting out of bed all day for fear of death?

Grow up. The risks of nuclear power are very minimal, and it's the safest and most efficient way to provide power. Let's get it fucking done.

 

[Nerva]

as an analyst who used to cover uranium, it is a pretty bad ass way to use energy. 85% of electricity in france is nuclear powered and they have not suffered any accidents. you just need good risk management and proper disposal of waste materials (not dumping it in the gulf of aden). only problem in our country is that none of the people want to embrace nuclear power. we have uranium mines in this country in the midwest, but we are definitely not known for uranium mining. a lot of uranium mining assets in canada, with australia being a close second.

 

[Nerva]

Originally posted by: iGas

Originally posted by: Hacp
Isn't most uranium non radioactive? So mining won't really affect anybody.

Uranium earth isn't radioactive but the majority of the treehuggers doesn't know that.

what you mine is U3O8 (less than 0.5% U235, compared to 10% for reactor grade and 90% for weapons grade), which is not radioactive. There are less than a handful of uranium mining companies, most of them are exploration companies. The mining companies are cameco, denison, uranium one, paladin and ERA. so it's not a big universe of companies that you can invest in. also you have to recognize that permitting for uranium mining takes forever everywhere, especially so in the US. might not be the best place to invest for a neophyte

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
I like the solution one of my professors had: Put a nuclear power plant in every town. Then no one can complain, "Not in my back yard," because everyone would have one in their back yard.

<snip>

Joking aside, that is actually a very good idea. Build very small pebble bed reactors for every town. They'd be no bigger than a medium sized office.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Jeff7
I like the solution one of my professors had: Put a nuclear power plant in every town. Then no one can complain, "Not in my back yard," because everyone would have one in their back yard.

<snip>

Joking aside, that is actually a very good idea. Build very small pebble bed reactors for every town. They'd be no bigger than a medium sized office.

Except for the problem of transporting fuel and waste to and from lots and lots of reactors all over the place.

And each of those small reactors would still need a very strong containment vessel. Diminishing returns....