Saken dukker opp nå og da, men stadig oftere. Kommentaren nederst er i hovedsak en gjenganger; hva gjør en med avfallet? Når en i undertittelen til saken skriver clean, consistent energy, så er det uansett et falsum. (Red.)
Denver Airport to Study
Nuclear Power Option
Small modular reactor proposal aims for clean, consistent energy supply
Matt Ryan
·Monday, August 11, 2025
Key Takeaways:
Denver International Airport has commissioned a feasibility study on
building a small modular nuclear reactor on its 34,000-acre site to provide a
steady, carbon-free power source. The review, announced Wednesday by
Denver Mayor Mike Johnston and DIA CEO Phil Washington, will examine reactor
designs, regulatory requirements, potential funding sources, and safety
considerations.
The $1.25 million study, funded by the airport enterprise, is expected
to take six to 12 months to complete. Officials said the proposal comes as the
airport plans for passenger volumes to reach 120 million annually by 2045, up
from a record 82.4 million in 2024.
Johnston said the project could position DIA as the “greenest” airport
in the world by generating clean power onsite and attracting energy-intensive
industries. Washington noted that small modular reactors can be “stackable” and
“scalable,” allowing capacity to increase alongside airport expansion.
Advocates point to the reactors’ ability to deliver base-load power to offset
the variability of wind and solar generation. Colorado School of Mines
professor Thomas Albrecht told CBS that
many designs are cooled by molten salts or liquid metals rather than water, and
could be installed and connected much like transportable industrial equipment.
If built, the facility would be Colorado’s first nuclear plant since
the Fort St. Vrain site closed in 1989. The announcement coincided with a
change in state law reclassifying nuclear power as clean energy. Supporters say
the technology is safe and necessary to meet long-term energy needs, while
environmental groups cite unresolved concerns about nuclear waste, safety, and
cost.
“It simply cannot be regarded as clean when it is creating waste that
lasts countless generations,” said Chris Allred of the Rocky Mountain Peace and
Justice Center in comments to CBS.
DIA officials emphasized that safety and security will be central to the study’s findings.
Matt's eyes have been turned to the sky for as long as he can remember.
Now a fixed-wing pilot, instructor and aviation writer, Matt also leads and
teaches a high school aviation program in the Dallas area. Beyond his lifelong
obsession with aviation, Matt loves to travel and has lived in Greece, Czechia
and Germany for studies and for work.
Continue discussion - Visit the forum
1.
glidersays:
As a former Navy reactor
operator I have to agree with ALL the comments in the article, both pro and
con.
Waste is the key concern
for me. The Navy has procedures and facilities for handling expended reactor
cores, civilian plants do not. Cores are stored on site until there is a safer
place to put them.
If the currrent
administration thinks they can win elections without Nevada, maybe they’ll push
for final approval of the long planned storage site there at Yucca Mountain.
Ingen kommentarer:
Legg inn en kommentar
Merk: Bare medlemmer av denne bloggen kan legge inn en kommentar.