Re:Portable nuclear reactor program sparks controversy
by belorn on Tuesday June 29, 2021 @10:15AM
(#27676051)
Large portable diesel generators that operate with that kind of power in 24/7 operation is very dirty, costly, nosily, and require continuously transporting of fuel. You do not want that near a hospital unless it is an emergency (short duration) or the life lost to the pollution is preferable compared to not having a hospital with power. The design parameters for those portable nuclear reactors is to not having to refuel, and being able to use it in places where pollution is not acceptable.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Portable nuclear reactor program sparks controversy
by ajross on Tuesday June 29, 2021 @10:35AM
(#27676361)
Uh... there are many hospitals with deployed diesel backup generators already. It's sort of the standard solution in the space, in fact.
Again, no one seems to be understanding the context here and just wants to jump in with knee-jerk pro-nuclear arguments. The application under discussion is a portable generator to be deployed locally as backup power in presumably-chaotic emergency situations. That is simply not where you want a reactor, period.
Re:Portable nuclear reactor program sparks controversy
by belorn on Wednesday June 30, 2021 @03:40AM
(#27686000)
Backup generators operate during short intervals, not 24/7 for years. Even the pollution created during backup testing runs get documented and is a real point of concern for hospitals. The benefit however of having consistent power outweigh the drawback of temporary pollution.
I don't understand this knee-jerk pro-fossil fuel arguments, using your words. Fossil fuels, especially those in backup generators, are very harmful if run long term. We are currently in a pandemic where one of the primary causes of death is the inability to take up oxygen, and in this context we want to add air pollution?