Seems like the authors of study are trying hard to convolute the findings to match desired outcome.

Then if you Google authors' names and Bill Gates you can see that there may be an agenda behind this.

WEF wants energy to be expensive so that the process of stripping wealth is accelerated.

You know by 2030 you should own nothing.

What the heck has Bill Gates to do with it?

Besides you're clearly part of the industry lobby trying to squelch all dissenting noises. The straw argument of "expensive energy" is a clear indicator, as nothing says small reactors are cheaper per Watt produced than bigger ones. Usually scale economies make smaller packages more expensive. Just saying.

The economic advantage of smaller reactors is that one module is always down for maintenance so you maintenance team are always productive instead of being active say only one month per year for a single large reactor.

Bill Gates is a WEF member and he is using his influence to advance Great Reset agenda as he fully believes in the cause.

Usually scale economies make smaller packages more expensive.

So by your logic a tiny cellphone should be much more expensive than a phone booth?

*cough* Average price of an iPhone *cough*

:)

Bill Gates has been [1]backing nuclear power for years. He's targeting cost-competitiveness with other sources of power, not expensive ones.

You know by 2030 you should own nothing.

I'm not a billionaire being targeted by the World Economic Forum's proposals for reducing income inequality.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/17/bill-gates-terrapower-builds-its-first-nuclear-reactor-in-a-coal-town.html

Don't fall for that.

[1]Embrace, extend, and extinguish is in Bill Gates DNA.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish

I'm not a billionaire being targeted by the World Economic Forum's proposals for reducing income inequality.

WEF does not target billionaires, unless they are against them. The biggest enemy is the middle class and the goal of WEF is to reduce their income and any wealth they have amassed so we are left with three classes of people - billionaires and millionaire generals, serfs and disposables (e.g. people with aspirations, thought criminals).

I've upvoted your post not because I think it's really an explicit goal, but because some evidence of this being a goal for at least some was evident in a leak of a Citigroup paper of 2005 titled "Equity Strategy. Plutonomy: Buying Luxury, Explaining Global Imbalances" (sic, no idea why the weird captilalisation, but I'm getting offtopic). The authors of this 35 page paper were Ajay Kapur, Niall Maclead and Narendra Singh of Citigroup Research.

There were two followups, the first dated March 5, 2006 by the same authors which was more or less an update (18 pages), the second dated September 29, 2006 which seemed more like a restructuring and had more authors, this also leading to a total of 64 pages.

I'm giving you all this detail because, despite all the frantic efforts of Citigroup lawyers (which mainly prompted the Streisand effect), copies of these papers can still be found online and they're worth reading, even just as an educational effort. You won't like, I fear.

Worth a browse.

"Then if you Google authors' names and Bill Gates you can see that there may be an agenda behind this."

Isn't he was too busy working on his Covid vaccine mind control chips?

Will this help him inject more chips into us? What about fish? Will he inject fish with the chips?

Fission chips?

This is no plaice for such dreadful puns. Salmon should get battered for making them.

He's just doing it for the Halibut. He's not Anglering for votes.

The very specific answers given, and not given, by NuScale and other SMR builders seem to be cherry picked to tell their narative and avoid the given scientific facts that they are worse for the environment and species. Where there are weasel words there is someone lying to you and in this case their lying could kill millions.

Where there are weasel words there is someone lying to you and in this case their lying could kill millions.

Emphasis on 'could'. So kids, don't go playing inside SMRs, or suck on fuel rods. Alternatively, current energy policy will kill millions. So we already know wind blows and sucks. That's why we abandoned windmills well over a century ago.

That's sadly before they became retro, and our useless politicians decided 1,000yr old windmills were the future. So billions wasted on occasional generators, and more billions 'invested' in anti-nuclear campaigning. And given our current self-imposed energy crisis, lots of lobbying activity to steer billions more in the direction of the 'renewables' lobby rather than nuclear. Because nuclear can do reliable, zero carbon power, all 'renewables' can do is destroy the environment, jobs and quality of life.

So rather than admit the EU/UK energy policy has been a collosal mistake, they double down on dumb. So because wind is intermittent, we've become dependent on stand-by generation. So as windmills have increased, so has the dependency and demand for gas. Energy costs have spiralled, even as the 'renewables' lobby tries to convince us that their product is the cheapest form of generation.

Ukraine's just provided our clueless elite with the opportunity to accelerate 'decarbonisation', and give the 'renewables' lobby another $1tn+ to build even more windmills, even though we've known since before the Industrial Revolution that the don't work. Obviously the scum sucking parasites don't want their gravy train derailed, so will sponsor papers like this that cast doubt on competitors.

SMR's are derived from naval reactors, and we know how to manage those. Submariners may be a little.. strange, but that's not due to radiation exposure. But we're exposed to more lethal radiation picnicing outside a nuclear power plant than we would be inside. The waste problem is easily manageable, partly due to the size. But after decades of anti-nuclear FUD, our neo-luddite eco-fascists are still violently opposed to cheap, reliable power.

They probably don't realise the 'renewables' industry is responsible for more deaths and injuries than nuclear. Mainly because nuclear is paranoid about safety, and wind, especially off-shore is just a hazardous environment. So safety issues of working at heights, electrocution, crush injuries from heavy machinery etc etc.

-> even more safer to operate?

Than what? Chernobyl? Fukushima? Three Mile Island?

Nuclear power is not safe.

Communist mismanagement, a natural disaster on a decades old design and a non event relatively speaking.

Nuclear is the most safe energy production (in terms of deaths related to accidents in energy production) regardless on what you’re told. Same as aviation vs cars for transportation. Even though airline accidents are catastrophic, they’re rare. Same with nuclear.

https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

What are you trying to say? It was a commie mismanagement, so it doesn't really matter? Natural disaster, what can you do, shit happens?...

There are strong arguments for using nuclear power, but calling it "safe" is a pure unadulterated lie. When the shit hits the fan nuclear does a lot more damage than a coal power plant catching fire, or even a burst dam. And it's long term damage. Chernobyl is still unfit for humans to live there, but then it's somewhere far away, beyond the rusty remains of the iron curtain, so who cares, isn't it.

Solar causes way more deaths per kWh than nuclear. Coal power pollution kills people down wind. Coal power also releases nuclear waste. There are traces radioactive isotopes in coal and because it takes a huge pile of coal to run a power station the amount released is larger per kWh than the nuclear.

Death reports from non-nuclear power do not make the news because it would be a boring every day occurance.

-> Solar causes way more deaths per kWh than nuclear.

If a solar plant falls over or blows up it won't contaminate an ocean or 1,000 square miles of land.

solar > sunshine > skin cancer

Should we ban medicine to avoid living long enough to develop these kind of problems?

A stable global population of 10 million could burn coal forever and not see any measurable impact, our mere success as a species in the last few centuries just puts different obstacles in our path to overcome.

SMRs are pragmatic given the ticking clock.

Using Chernobyl as an indicator of danger is the wrong argument to make. So far there have been 78 recorded deaths.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll

A greater number of people have died from mishandling of radiotherapy and x-ray machines. This should be much scarier than nuclear power plants because people are closer to these things on a daily basis.

However those few hundred losses pale in the face of renewable energy. One event at a hydroelectric dam can kill up to hundreds of thousands at once!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure

Even that is grossly overshadowed by fossil fuels which are responsible for 8.7 megadeaths per year (https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2021/feb/fossil-fuel-air-pollution-responsible-1-5-deaths-worldwide). That's not a one-off like a Chernobyl disaster, it's every single year. And it's getting worse because despite all the evidence global use is still growing.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-fossil-fuel-consumption

---

Your pathetic fear mongering won't work here. The real obstacle to Nuclear power is it's huge up front cost. Try using that to deter people instead.

The real obstacle to Nuclear power is it's huge up front cost

That's exactly why SMRs became attracive in the first place, even based on "traditional" fission. The upfront costs are mainly the cost of capital - you need to borrow a lot of money for a long time before it starts producing a return. Due to the modular nature of SMRs that time is significantly shortened which again adds to their attractiveness.

It's almost as if the author of that paper was, er, 'encouraged' by those invested in the big plant idea, about as outdated as buggy whip vendors stating that horse drawn transport is so much better..

Personally I think that especially Thorium based SMRs will quite simply be the only future of nuclear industry, but there is, of course, less profit in that for fuel refiners and those holding huge plots of land below which nuclear waste can be stored..

-> Using Chernobyl as an indicator of danger is the wrong argument to make. So far there have been 78 recorded deaths.

WHAT ABOUT THE 1000 SQUARE MILES OF POLLUTED LAND? You people NEVER mention this, so I need to shout about it.

Sure, because shouting adds so much weight to your argument, doesn't it?

/s

When stupid people won't listen it's a way to get their attention. Dumb people understand noise.

No, dumb people make noise.

A lot of dumb noise comes from the pro nuclear lobby. Look how clean it is (not mentioning Windscale, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima).

Dude, we know, but it still beats the alternatives. If we keep burning fossil fuels, we'll lose more land due to rising sea levels and/or exposure to too many extreme weather events, than what we'd lose in the most pessimistic nuclear reactor scenarios. Orders of magnitude more. I can't live in Chernobyl, but I also can't live underwater or anywhere that gets a cat 5 hurricane three times a year.

Ideally, we'd power everything with renewables, but I really don't see any way that's going to happen fast enough (plus, the mining involved in slapping solar panels on everything would also contaminate vast tracts of land).

-> slapping solar panels on everything would also contaminate vast tracts of land

Removing solar panels is as easy as placing them. Not so with nuclear contamination.

The problem with nuclear pollution is the cost falls on the tax payer, not the private companies. They walk away with the profits while leaving all the crap behind for decades. And if there is yet another nuclear accident, which private company would even have the money to clean it? If you say that's the way it is, then start getting taxpayers now to pay for it. Let's say about £100,000 per tax payer to start with, rather than deferring it to their unborn grandchildren. That might liven up the debate, and we can then put the whole nuclear power industry in stocks and throw crap at them all day long.

Nuclear power is one of the worst, dirtiest, malignant industries ever to be invented.

> -> slapping solar panels on everything would also contaminate vast tracts of land

> Removing solar panels is as easy as placing them. Not so with nuclear contamination.

Nice cherry pick

The full sentence you're quoting said

> the mining involved in slapping solar panels on everything would also contaminate vast tracts of land

Moving solar panels about might be easy, undoing the harm inherent in manufacturing them isn't.

You weaken the argument for renewables when you play disingenuous games like that as it gives the other side examples tp show that the argument for renewables is based around lies.

Saying nuclear power is safe is itself a cherry pick. Two can play at that game. When I hear one word of truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth from the pro nuclear lobby I will quote in full. Until then I will quote whatever I like to suit my case.

-> Your pathetic fear mongering won't work here.

1000 square miles of contaminated land is not fear mongering. You are truth denier.

The real obstacle to Nuclear power is it's huge up front cost + the massive downstream cost of waste management that goes on and on and on and on ...

In fact it goes so far on that no one really wants to talk about it because, well ... oh, look over there - a squirrel!

Nuclear fission is great for initiating a big bang, but it's pretty crap as a solution for any kind of 'sustainable' power generation- assuming you give a shit about your descendants.

When someone comes up with a sensibly affordable way of neutralising harmful levels of radioactivity that is effective within a human lifetime then 'fission' may make some kind of logical sense, although given prospective and existing alternatives, probably not a compelling level of sense.

Meanwhile, we blunder on because, well, money talks, and it talks very loudly to those who like having lots of it. Too bad about everybody else who have to live with the consequences of putting wealth before well being.

> assuming you give a shit about your descendants.

The counter-argument though is that none of us are likely to have many descendants to give a shit about if we continue burning fossil fuels because we won't implement nuclear.

What you're advocating here, in fact, is blundering on because you'd prefer to let perfect be the enemy of good.

"Chernobyl is still unfit for humans to live there"

Not exactly true, judging by the proliferation of wildlife. Right now the lack of safety around Chernobyl has, sadly, nothing to do with radioactivity.

It is exactly true. It is why people going into the exclusion area are screened for radiation contamination when they come out. These are not just workers working on site, but anyone who obtains a permit to go into the exclusion area. If it was safe this would not be necessary.

-> Communist mismanagement, a natural disaster on a decades old design and a non event relatively speaking.

Yes. There's always something. And the result is vast contamination.

-> Nuclear is the most safe energy production

There are 1,000 square miles of eastern Europe which are uninhabitable thanks to 'safe nuclear energy production'. You cannot live there. Fukushima is going to dump contaminated water into the ocean because it has run out of space to store this safe product.

Voted down for pointing out some inconvenient truths about nuclear power and how filthy a product it really is.

No, voted down for not being able to do the calculations to compare actual impact - just seeing the mushroom clouds.

Give us your opinion on the 1000 square miles of polluted land. It happened in eastern Europe so it's not important?

Give us your opinion on the many thousands of coal miners killed by lung disease. Oh, they're working class so it's not important?

Better still... instead of throwing meaningless headlines around, do some real calculations on lives lost/impacted per megawatt-hour from different energy policies.

Come on, out with it. What about the 1000 square miles of nuclear pollution around Chernobyl? And Fukushima? Come on. Let's hear you. No digressions.

Graham, don’t waste your time arguing with VoiceOfTroll. That old aphorism about wrestling with a pig, etc etc.

Judging by his post history, he’d be a lot happier if we all gave up on nuclear and instead used lots and lots of lovely Russian oil and gas from that nice Mr Putin.

Anonymous Coward lives up to its name.

Nice digression and diversion. This is about the safety of nuclear power, which is not based on buying oil or gas from anyone. It stands alone all by itself as the worst type of pollution.

We hear about it all the time. Security agencies are concerned about so called dirty bombs. We don't hear them worrying about somebody blowing up a gas or oil bomb to the same extent. Why is that? It is because nuclear material all by itself is dangerous.

There are 1,000 square miles of eastern Europe which are uninhabitable thanks to 'safe nuclear energy production'

Have you tried adding up the square footage of land buried under the waste of coal mining? Might shock you.

There are 1084 square kilometers of now uninhabitable land behind the Three Gorges dam on the Yangtze river in China.

There are 1350 square kilometers of now uninhabitable land behind the Itaipu dam between Paraguay and Brazil.

There are 4250 square kilometers of now uninhabitable land behind the Guri dam in Venezuela.

And so on.

All due to safe energy production of hydroelectric power.

(Source: Wikipedia).

What does that have to do with the alleged safety of nuclear power?

More digressions and diversions from the pro nuclear lobby.

You can live there and people do. If you watch any documentary about Chernobyl you will see the old grannies who moved back as soon as they were able because it is their home and they don't want to live anywhere else. They are not allowed to live there but they do.

" Even though airline accidents are catastrophic, they’re rare. Same with nuclear."

Humans are very poor at risk perception.