Antinuclear

The nuclear lobby’s education invasion – masters of the weasel word.

Look it’s just one little word – or sort of two-bit word – “DE-RISK”.

I came across it today, and puzzled over it. T’was in a rapturous article about Sheffield University, launching a major new manufacturing and testing facility in South Yorkshire, in partnership with Rolls Royce.

“SMRs are advanced nuclear reactors that are designed to be factory-built and transported to operational sites for installation. The technology is seen as a clean energy solution that is easier to deliver, scale and is more affordable than building new larger nuclear power stations. Each Rolls-Royce SMR could provide enough low-carbon electricity to power a million homes for more than 60 years.“

There were other words to ponder about – for example “The technology is seen as a clean energy solution” – seen by whom?

But I will stay with “de-risk”, because it’s a lovely word – chosen to impress, – and also to confuse and obfuscate the financial realities of the situation.

These are the meanings that I found

• To de-risk to take steps to make (something) less risky or less likely to involve a financial loss.
• De-Risking is a strategy that companies apply when they cannot manage the money laundering risks that they have obligations to.
• De–risking. means mitigating the risks of doing business in high-risk environments through concessionary finance or investment guar- antees. 
• The de-risking process involves a strategic assessment by companies to reduce exposure to high-risk activities in order to minimize compliance- and operations-related risks 

Well, to cut to the chase.

ECONOMICS. There is a wealth of information about the costs of small nuclear reactors (SMRs). Those in submarines are not suitable for electricity production. The only operating SMRs are in China (The HTR-PM) and Russia (The KLT-40S), and they’re not doing too well.

Meanwhile we have the fiasco of the NuScale SMR venture in the USA – . And with dozens of SMR designs on paper – none are even licensed let alone operative.

And here’s what that radical industrial journal Utility Dive has to say:

“Small modular reactors are at an economic disadvantage. The lower power output of these reactors, less than 300 MW per unit by definition as compared to the roughly 1,000 MW for the typical reactors that have been constructed for over four decades, means less revenue for the owning utility. But the cost of construction is not proportionately smaller. Engineers call this economies of scale. In terms of cost per unit (megawatt) of generation capacity, SMRs and the electricity they produce will be more expensive than power from large nuclear plants currently under construction. As the Lazard estimates show, these large plants are themselves not competitive with renewables.“

In Mirage News’ glowing regurgitation of nuclear hype for small nuclear reactors – not a word about their relatively more toxic radioactive wastes, not a word about their military and weapons, connection not a word about the long time scale, that makes them irrelevant to action on climate change.

But the military-industrial-nuclear-media-complex juggernaut rolls on – conning us with their weasel words – like “de-risk”.

May 22, 2024 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized