Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), the great white hope of OLO's nuclear enthusiasts, fail public liability and cost of security criteria.

See http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=7a9318c0-aad6-405e-832f-66212a87d158&subId=669038

"Transport issues arising from the modular construction model are too often glossed over. Dr David Lowry notes that the UK's so-called Expert Finance Working Group on Small Nuclear Reactors (EFWG)36

"makes no attempt to provide an analysis of how to provide market based insurance for SMRs, against accidents and terrorist attack on modules in transit to site and in situ; nor how to privately fund SMR radioactive waste management: yet these are real risks for nuclear power, SMRs included.

For example, the EFWG (p.11) talks of "road transportable modules which are easily installed on site" but makes no calculation of the exposure to disruption or indeed destruction of such an SMR module being transported on public roads from fabrication facility to operating site, possible hundreds of miles distant."

Furthermore internal estimates indicate the size of the security protection unit (around 60 men and 10 attack dogs) for an SMR would be as expensive as that required for a large reactor.

Also the razor wire protected exclusion zones for SMRs would need to be as large as those for large reactors. Note population and siting concerns http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1687850713000071

Taswegian,
A good start would be to cut some of the red tape that's currently holding back development of renewable electricity infrastructure. AEMC in particular seem to have been very obstructionist lately.

Then it's mainly a case of ensuring cheap capital is available. An easy solution to that would be to massively expand the CEFC.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Alison Jane,
I so rarely consume tipples that I would not be able to name a favourite.
I really don't think it's worth responding to your challenges when you seem to be as closed minded as runner. You make all kinds of baseless claims, most of which indicate a lack or rational thought, like your "climate change cultists" claim which I see you're now extending to an anti-nuclear activist even though it's obvious she has a completely different agenda!

Whatever I say you don't believe even when I post the reasons. Indeed you're so contemptuous of what I have to say that you consider my statement that I'm unimpressed with your namedropping to be an admission of the exact opposite. Your mindset is so totally unscientific that I find it difficult to imagine anyone in academia ever hired you - unless of course your current behaviour is due to more recent effects of senility.

But if anyone else here wants to take up the challenge, I have three tips to get them started:
(tbc)

...

• Some alleged predictions are fake.
For example, Tim Flannery said the rain might not come. The context was why building desalination plants was needed, so the timescale was however long it would take for the dams run dry. Yet some people on this board have such poor comprehension they thought he was predicting it will never rain again!

• Many predictions were conditional on lack of action.
In some cases multiple emission scenarios were modelled. The one that was most dramatic, and hence got most media attention, was the one based on the world ignoring the problem completely and continuing to increase CO2 emissions unabated. But that's not what happened. The Kyoto protocol resulted in developed countries cutting their emissions. Though it was a lot less than needed, it was much better than doing nothing. Modelling of this scenario got results pretty close to what actually happened, yet denialists still pilloried it because we're not getting the results the newspapers say it predicted.

• Many predictions were not made by scientists.
Environmentalists in the early 1990s were making all sorts of alarmist predictions. The scientists at the time knew (for example) that the sea level rises would occur a lot more slowly. But again, less dramatic predictions don't sell newspapers.

THANK for paying a little attention to this "pig-ignorant" 60+ and noe senile old girl.

Its so nice that you young'uns show such respect to the oldies who built this comfortable 1st environment with trifling basics like toilets and taps and even reusable water bottles (intended for water, but you probably fill it with Power minerally balance boutique water for your spandex glad buttocks we all have to look at).

While I soldier on in the "Cha-ni led virus pandemic" and don't die from bog-roll famine, your attempts to meet/aoid the '47 step Flim-flam Flannery challenge ARE SO INCITEFUL AND PLEASE TO THIS "pig-ignorant OLD-fart!

A wait the next challenger with the stamina to match your 15 point character of CC cultist challenge. 15 is your limit, well done, solid 2-2 rating piece of denialism. I can see your don't have the kahunas to match the "47-step Flim-flam Flannery challenge".

Wo has the real stamina for the "47 step Flim-flam Flannery challenge.... Steel-Rednuts?

Hippo isolation day and do practice social distancing between You ego, inner-monalog and your physical body!

Yours, this "senile", "pig-ignorant" old tart, Climate realist
AJ

from Noel Wauchope. Since I wrote this article, things have got more serious for the global nuclear industry. The industry itself certainly recognises this. In France, inspections of nuclear reactors can now be done only "remotely"
The Nuclear Energy Institute outlines the situation. https://www.neimagazine.com/features/featurecovid-19-impacts-nuclear-industry-worldwide-7839553/

So what's your alarmist point here... are you scared of nasty nuclear power that can give you co2 net zero emissions or the virus that might make the operators do " Chai=na Syndrome, Chernobyll, Fujiyama" mistakes.

As for me its still rude mysoginists lke Aiden and Steel-rednuts and the dreaded "how-dare you!", creton -- Grimacing Greta