[ad_1]
Small modular reactors (SMR) are the future of reliable and abundant energy, and execute circles around solar farms in all critical categories, according to the American action group, the base army.
The SMRs sounds like a better alternative to Peter Dutton’s plan to send Australia even more indebted with five large reactors that would cost approximately $ 600 billion. They would be built on the sites of five current coal centrals: Liddell and Mount Piper in NSW, Tarong and Callide in Queensland, and Loy Yang in Victoria.
However, the coalition proposes SMR at the North power station in South Australia and the Muja power plant in Western Australia. Why not other locations?
A great advantage of the SMR over large reactors is that the prefabricated SMRs units can be manufactured and then sent and installed on the site, which makes them more affordable to build than large energy reactors, which can face construction delays and large explosions of costs.
According to the Atomic Agency Atomic Energy Agency, SMR, by contrast, offers savings in the cost and construction time, and can be deployed incremental to coincide with the growing demand for energy.
The base army should have included wind farms in their spiel because they share the same basic problem as solar farms: low energy density.
As US activists pointed out, a single SMR can feed an entire city in a fraction of the land required for a solar farm. For example, the SMR of 300 megawatts requires less than 10 acres, while a solar farm that generates the same production requires more than 2000 acres, land that could be used for agriculture, housing or industry.
Unlike “impeliacs”, SMRs provide consistent energy 24 × 7. As we know, solar panels stop producing the moment the sun is put on, which forces the dependence on the storage of expensive and inefficient batteries, complicated heat storage systems or fuels of backrest fossil. Meanwhile, SMR offers rain or thunder of constant and uninterrupted energy day or night.
It is common sense, which seems beyond the current bureaucracies in Canberra and state capitals.
If carbon dioxide is considered a problem (which is not), economic planners can give the warm diffuse when knowing that SMR generates energy without producing CO₂ emissions and does not require the massive mining operations necessary for solar panels, which depend on rare earth metals from places like China.
Unlike solar panels, which have a useful life of 20-30 years and create mountains of toxic waste, SMRs can operate for decades with minimal waste and zero dependence on foreign supply chains.
As mentioned above, the issue of energy density, that is, how many homes can be fed by a certain unit of energy, a fuel load in an SMR can provide years of energy, while solar panels must be maintained, cleaned and replaced constantly.
The SMRs also continue to work when the extreme weather, such as snow storms or cyclones, and solar panels and wind turbines become useless.
“SMRs are not just a better energy solution; they are the only realistic path towards long -term independence and energy stability,” says the base army.
“If the United States (Read Australia) wants energy security, environmental responsibility and economic prosperity, we need nuclear innovation, not solar fields that eat our lands and drain our resources.”
[ad_2]
Source link
