You mean like getting the acronym for Small Modular Reactors right?
Or maybe Smal Reactor Module? SRM, SMR both have been used interchangeably, both here and in official documents. Nobody cares but you it seems, moving on.
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.
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.
This is simply incorrect. Current reactor technology is 40 years old and 4% efficient, not 1%. SRM are a newer technology and are more efficient. How much more, I'm not sure. But it really doesn't matter since 96% fuel is still good. This fuel is simply removed from the reactor and reprocessed to remove the non-fissionable elements.
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.
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.
This is not just wrong; it is wrong to the point of being idiotic. We don't have this problem with current reactor designs, much less modern ones. If this was a problem, then their design would include a service life before this became a problem.
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.
Based on the quality of your post and the misinformation in it, you clearly have no clue of what modern nuclear technology, much less SRM designs. You probably shouldn't be posting in these kinds of threads till you have a better understanding of the technology.
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.