How is that relevant? Borated water is used in that type of reactor IIRC as a moderator. DB ignored their reporting obligations to the NRC and came very close to a serious accident. It got that way because they were squeezing every cent they could out of the Reactor. Borderline criminal negligence.

So what. SMRs are a dumb idea. The reasons for building Nuclear reactors is not to make more of them, it's to make less of them at a larger scale so they become more efficient and other logistical concerns can be solved.

There are better ways to do Nuclear Power, SMRs are not one of them.

If that was the case it would be a LOCA. Embrittlement as the main limiting factor of the service life of the reactor, that is my point.

It is about as much cognitive energy as I am prepared to waste on the OP. Leaks between primary and secondary cooling loops are an obvious first source. There is a myriad of piping attached to S class facilities and the acronym CRUD was also derived from corrosion in nuclear reactors.

All machines wear out, if they didn't they wouldn't have a service life. How nuclear reactors get there is varied.

No. I'll simply throw more facts at you that demolish your arguments.

What you said was We don't have this problem with current reactor designs, much less modern ones. now you have changed your story to What is being said is that will be accounted for and it will not be a issue. In fact corrosion has been a major problem and the basis of several LERs (but you don't know what that is do you) signaling a potential accident none more real than what happened at David Besse. SMRs are even *more* prone to incidents like this than larger reactors due to higher prevalence of areas of the reactor that cannot be inspected and repaired, which is the current issue with the AP1000 reactors. Obviously your research is inadequate.

Clearly reality is impacting your idealized imaginary idea of nuclear power as the NRC reports differ from your opinion. Reactors are just a machine and like any machine they need maintenance and some machines are easier to maintain that others. In the case of nuclear reactors, bigger really is better. You can either accept the reality and characteristics of the machine based on the available evidence or you can continue to make a fool of yourself. That is your choice.

Essentially you want to call someone out for being wrong about something you clearly know nothing about, relying on meaningless insults to attempt to drive a point home. You want to be right instead of smart, evidenced by the other things you've said:
1. Invented your own vocabulary for Small Modular Reactor then couldn't admit you got something like a typo wrong.
2. Told me I was wrong about the burn up rate of PWR and BWR whilst simultaneously stating it was "efficiency" revealing that not only do you not know about this key operating principle of nuclear power, you have no understanding of efficiency and its relationship to utilization of the reactor.
3. Your claims about the fuel reserves of Uranium being thousands of years is clueless because once extraction of Uranium ores falls below 200grams per metric ton of rock Nuclear reactors will no longer generate an energy return on energy invested in the once through cycle used in the reactors in service (and especially SMRs) around the world.

You are yet to offer a single, fact based argument to back up any of your statements. You can continue to post trite statements as I dismantle your idealized version of nuclear power for my entertainment. Alternatively you can not respond and accept that you're wrong and don't know what you are talking about.

It seems unlikely that you will offer any informed comment based in fact.

Inter-generational psychological abuse is something an AI is well suited to emulate. It's also observable that psychologically and emotionally abusive people have such reduced cognitive capacity they closely emulate an AI.

To be clear, it's not an observation about your grandpa though.

As I said:
Neutron bombardment is a characteristic of criticality within a nuclear reactor. It's how isotopes transmute. The process also causes reactor vessels to become brittle, crack and leak. Whilst you clearly don't understand this characteristic you're simultaneously trying to tell me that metal won't corrode and machines don't wear out.

You say this is an idiotic idea, yet it is the reality that limits the service life of all nuclear reactors defining how they are financed and the gross return on investment they will yield over that service life. An idiotic idea would be you putting forward a salient argument against that reality as you are not arguing with me you are arguing with facts, I am simply presenting them.

"This is not just wrong; it is wrong to the point of being idiotic."

No, you were calling someone out for their ignorance whilst proudly displaying your own. Then you went on to make up your own acronym instead of admitting your error. Where, specifically, are Small Modular Reactors referred to as Small Reactor Modules?

And yes, I've looked. So if you got something so basic that wrong and are prepared to make stuff up to cover your error, it's clear your posts should be scrutinized for assumptions and fiction and you want people to move on so that you can continue doing that.

I said burn-up rate specifically because you referenced energy density. You don't get to re-frame an argument into language that suits you whilst continuing to use your made-up terminology. 1% is actually generous because the real figure for burn-up rates of PWR and BWR is 0.003%. So get your facts right and educate yourself.

Neutron bombardment is a characteristic of criticality within a nuclear reactor. It's how isotopes transmute. The process also causes reactor vessels to become brittle, crack and leak. Whilst you clearly don't understand this characteristic you're simultaneously trying to tell me that metal won't corrode and machines don't wear out.

Your posts are evidence that you have an idealized vision of nuclear power that you believe in and therefore can't understand why others won't share your delusions. Instead of facts, you resort to ad-hominem attacks, as you have demonstrated here. You're inability to process information that challenges your delusion is clear to see from your Simplified Reality Model.

I welcome you to continue to provide me amusement at watching your mental gymnastics.

Yes, because the effort is focused and attention is deep. Distractions are minimized and if I need to go into the office, I go. If I need a meeting, there is zoom or the phone.

Few work well when they are micromanaged.

People have a right to burn carbon based fuels for no other reason than to sit in traffic enjoying the look of the taillights of someone doing the exact same thing.

I'll also point out that some people really enjoy waking up day after day, week after week, year after year to catch public transport to avoid sleeping well and exercising.

And just because it saves employers millions of dollars in rent and electricity cost whilst simultaneously reducing the volume of traffic on the roads and pressure on public transports systems all because they're "educated" enough to do so is just plain selfishness when they could be doing their fair share of contributing to the environmental damage every other human does just going about their business.

I've worked from home since the 1990's when 2400 baud modems and second phone lines were a thing. I don't interview for roles that won't offer this.

You mean like getting the acronym for Small Modular Reactors right?

Current reactor technology only achieves burn-up rates of less than one percent of the fuel ore. Over 99% of the energy density of uranium fuel is inaccessible with current reactor technology. Including this one.

Once they reach then end of their service life and the metals start to corrode they will be impossible to move and impossible to leave in place.

These things are totally impractical.

It's an Oxymoron.

When Nuclear power had promising developments with the Integral Fast Reactor, Big Oil undermined it in a similar way.

First they reframed the mission of Greepeace, who was always drawing scrutiny to Oil and Coal projects into one that was scrutinising Nuclear power, when it was actually more concerned about nuclear weapons.

Then when all the nuclear supporters were distracted and point their vitriol at Greenpeace, Greenpeace were no longer able to draw attention to Big Oil's activities and keep them under scrutiny.

Meanwhile, Big Oil got to lobby congress for changes to energy policy unhindered, successfully defunding the IFR Project and the most promising breakthrough to nuclear power ever made. Something Greenpeace would more than likely have supported were they given a chance to examine the technology and see it fitted in with their mission for nuclear disarmament.

Solar advocates beware, the playbook is virtually the same. Draw scrutiny away from Big Oil, create infighting amongst supporters. The only thing remaining is to look out for what lobby activities are occurring that frame new energy policy to benefit Big Oil and Coal over Solar Power.

Expect more balloons then.

This, and PEW PEW!!

Does that make it cost any less? Spend 2 million to shoot down a $100K balloon? Sounds like asymetric warfare to me.

The air force could always mount lasers on the fighter jets PEW PEW!!!