Nuclear Microreactors Advance as US Picks Two Companies for Fueled Testing (postregister.com) 188
This week America's Energy Department selected two companies to perform the first nuclear microreactor tests in a new facility in Idaho, saying the tests "will fast-track the deployment of American microreactor technologies... The first fueled reactor experiment will start as early as spring 2026."
The new facility is named DOME (an acronym for Demonstration of Microreactor Experiments), and it leverages existing "to safely house and test fueled reactor experiments, capable of producing up to 20 megawatts of thermal energy," according to a local newspaper. [T]wo companies were competitively selected in 2023 and are currently working through a multi-phase Energy Department authorization process to support the design, fabrication, construction, and testing of each fueled reactor experiment. Both are expected to meet certain milestones throughout the process to maintain their allotted time in DOME and to ensure efficient use of the test bed, according to the release... The department estimates each DOME reactor experiment will operate up to six months, with the DOME test bed currently under construction and on track to receive its first experiment in early 2026... The next call for applications is anticipated to be in 2026.
The site Interesting Engineering calls the lab "a high-stakes proving ground to accelerate the commercialization of advanced microreactors..." Based in Etna, Pennsylvania, Westinghouse will test its eVinci Nuclear Test Reactor, a compact, transportable microreactor that uses advanced heat pipe technology for passive cooling. Designed to deliver 5 megawatts of electricity on sites as small as two acres, eVinci could support applications ranging from remote communities to mining operations and data centers. Meanwhile, Radiant (El Segundo, California) will test its Kaleidos Development Unit, a 1.2 megawatt electric high-temperature gas reactor aimed at replacing diesel generators. Designed to run for five years, Kaleidos is fueled by TRISO fuel particles that could offer reliable backup power for hospitals, military bases, and other critical infrastructure.
Radiant's CEO said "In short order, we will fuel, go critical, and operate, leading to the mass production of portable reactors which will jumpstart American nuclear energy dominance."
The new facility is named DOME (an acronym for Demonstration of Microreactor Experiments), and it leverages existing "to safely house and test fueled reactor experiments, capable of producing up to 20 megawatts of thermal energy," according to a local newspaper. [T]wo companies were competitively selected in 2023 and are currently working through a multi-phase Energy Department authorization process to support the design, fabrication, construction, and testing of each fueled reactor experiment. Both are expected to meet certain milestones throughout the process to maintain their allotted time in DOME and to ensure efficient use of the test bed, according to the release... The department estimates each DOME reactor experiment will operate up to six months, with the DOME test bed currently under construction and on track to receive its first experiment in early 2026... The next call for applications is anticipated to be in 2026.
The site Interesting Engineering calls the lab "a high-stakes proving ground to accelerate the commercialization of advanced microreactors..." Based in Etna, Pennsylvania, Westinghouse will test its eVinci Nuclear Test Reactor, a compact, transportable microreactor that uses advanced heat pipe technology for passive cooling. Designed to deliver 5 megawatts of electricity on sites as small as two acres, eVinci could support applications ranging from remote communities to mining operations and data centers. Meanwhile, Radiant (El Segundo, California) will test its Kaleidos Development Unit, a 1.2 megawatt electric high-temperature gas reactor aimed at replacing diesel generators. Designed to run for five years, Kaleidos is fueled by TRISO fuel particles that could offer reliable backup power for hospitals, military bases, and other critical infrastructure.
Radiant's CEO said "In short order, we will fuel, go critical, and operate, leading to the mass production of portable reactors which will jumpstart American nuclear energy dominance."
molten salt reactor (Score:2)
My only 'gripe' with nuclear (Score:2)
Re:My only 'gripe' with nuclear (Score:5, Insightful)
If scientists had a preference we would be using breeder reactors that reduce waste and promote recycling.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How is solar the answer to the question of *where* to put nuclear waste? We're not going to launch it into the sun. At least follow the conversation. The question was not "what power source do scientists prefer".
Re: (Score:2)
How is solar the answer to the question of *where* to put nuclear waste? We're not going to launch it into the sun. At least follow the conversation. The question was not "what power source do scientists prefer".
The the post I responded to said:
My only gripe with nuclear ... is that no state wants to take the waste.
If you don't have any waste you don't have to put it anywhere. Nor do you have to transport it somewhere thousands of miles away through crowded communities. This isn't a "science" problem. They can't make nuclear waste safe.
We're not going to launch it into the sun.
As I recall, that has been proposed. Don't let Elon Musk hear it, he'll be all over it. There is money to be made. He'll get the process down after a few tries ...
Re: (Score:3)
We tried under a mountain in Nevada [wikipedia.org] but spot on, it was NIMBY'd, in this case primarily by Harry Reid, senator from Nevada.
Until there's political will from Congress to do something else of similar scale, some combination of transport, storage and reprocessing it's gonna be on site cooling pool status quo. It doesn't get solved without a shitload of Federal money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I don't agree with him on this issue but I liked Harry Reid, he was a way better majority leader than Schumer imo. Interesting how many of the neocons smelled Trump and did not want to acquiesce.
I appreciate Bill Kristol practically becoming the vanguard and calling for the abolition of the DHS [mediaite.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't get solved without a shitload of Federal money.
Based on the track record, it doesn't get "solved" at all. The nuclear industry is counting on the taxpayers to pick up the tab for cleaning up the temporary storage mess they are leaving next to all their plants. But it will likely take a major Chernobyl scale disaster at a temporary storage facility for anything to happen.
Re: (Score:3)
Well I say Federal dollars mainly because I don't believe the "industry" is capable of doing it on it's own really nor should it be at least without a level of oversight that makes the public/private distinction effectively meaningless.
I don't want the taxpayers to bail them out I want the public to own the system and the process both as a piece of public infrastructure and as a matter of economic and national security.
It's a problem that will have to get solved and businesses can just go out of business an
Re: (Score:2)
why don't we just accept and own it.
Because there is money to be made in the meantime. I think you minimize the extent to which the finance industry dominates government policy. They are really the "we" in why don't "we" own it. Its not clear private industry's control over things changes with government ownership, just the method of control. So the question is whether forcing them to use political processes will get better results or worse. Having taxpayers directly on the hook may make things worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Government does not need financing, it can finance itself, that's why it can and is supposed to handle huge externalities like say, nuclear waste disposal, either through corrective actions on industry or direct action.
With something like nuclear waste and the timescales we are dealing with the taxpayer is on the hook either way, just a matter of when so again why not own it as in nationalize it similar to how France does it.
Re: (Score:2)
Government does not need financing, it can finance itself, that's why it can and is supposed to handle huge externalities like say, nuclear waste disposal
In the United States the federal government is responsible for permanent disposal of nuclear waste. You have seen how that has worked.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.nucnet.org/news/fi... [nucnet.org]
https://www.world-nuclear-news... [world-nuclear-news.org]
More Paper Reactors (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Even more prescient there is the next passage
On the other hand, a practical reactor plant can be distinguished by the following characteristics:
It is being built now.
It is behind schedule.
It is requiring an immense amount of development on apparently trivial items. Corrosion, in particular, is a problem.
It is very expensive.
It takes a long time to build because of the engineering development problems.
It is large.
It is heavy.
It is complicated.
Which back in 1953 correctly describes the difficulties with react
Re: (Score:2)
I looked at the eVinci website and it's hilarious. It tries so hard to avoid mentioning the major downsides, and even has a mock-up of it being transported on a trailer. The actual text notes that it needs a shipping container, presumably a very special one that it able to withstand the most severe road accident imaginable without leaking nuclear fuel all over the road.
It produces 5MWe, and 15MWth. That means it's pumping out a LOT of heat. Despite them claiming that it can work in any environment without c
And actual meaningful tests will be run 2035 (Score:3)
And likely even later. Nuclear is always massively delayed and massively over price.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"They" was Lewis Strauss, the chairman of the US Atomic Energy Commission in a speech. Here's the full quote:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Electricity will never be to cheap to meter, unless you craft special circumstances in the grid.
To say that is a misunderstanding of what it means to be "too cheap to meter".
Consider checking into a hotel room. There's electrical outlets there for use during your stay, correct? When you check out do you get a bill for how much electricity you consumed? No, because among all the expenses in providing that room the cost of the electricity is... say it with me kids... too cheap to meter.
We can apply this same idea to electrical utility service to a house. If the production of the electricity is low e
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and massively over price.
Don't worry this will solve this by making the most expensive form of power we have even more expensive.
Surface area to volume ratio (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Nitpicking with your analogy, it is exactly like running a 10,000HP motor with a system of belts and pulleys because ultimately the application needs to power 10,000 small 1hp devices. It works, but it pushes cost from one place to the next.
Re: (Score:2)
It more than moves costs around, it adds a shit ton extra costs that no one will be interested in. And then it also throws out a shit ton of uncontrolled radio active waste that no one wants to deal with.
Nope, no funny here. (Score:2)
Maybe check back later?
The Nuclear Gravytrain Resumes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the long run,
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear power is hardly "phony"
Where is the "electricity too cheap to meter?" Which nuclear power plants were built on time and on budget, or either one?
Nuclear power doesn't need subsidies, they need only permission
This article isn't about permission. Its about the government organizing and paying for investments in the technology.
If collecting on government subsidies is the definition of an energy source lacking in commercial viability then why all the screaming on seeing subsidies cut for wind and solar
Because the tax breaks to encourage more solar investments are trivial compared to the ongoing public subsidies required by the nuclear industry.
I've always wanted my own hazmat suit (Score:2)
And it's not even Halloween yet...
Re: Yeah right (Score:2)
They haven't in 40 years.
Submarines? Aircraft carriers?
Re: Yeah right (Score:2)
40 years ago was 1985. Ga Power has built 5 nuclear reactors since 1985 at Plant Vogtle,
The most recent were completed in 2023 and 2024.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
LOL, you're not going to war with China.
It has nukes that can reach the US, and the US ruling class fears nothing more than nukes that can reach them.
Your current chieftain sold out to putin because of a telephone threat.
The Chinese reactors will be fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So what? How does it alleviate the fears of the US elites?
Spoiler: it doesn't. At all. Even if they can melt the whole of China into a glass parking lot, it won't save them.
So I don't think folks really understand (Score:2)
We do not care that China has nukes. God will swat those nukes away for us like gnats. And the golden dome will protect us.
Americans can convince themselves of absolutely anything all the way up to when they die in a firestorm. We really just do not give a shit. And the rest of the world needs to come to terms with that reality real fucking fast or we are going to Fermi paradox this Popsicle stand.
Re: (Score:2)
We do not care that China has nukes
I'm not talking about you, dimwit. I'm talking about the people who actually give the orders.
Re: (Score:2)
Cheeto is not the military.
Yes. He is only their commander-in-chief.
But there is a non-zero chance that the US is not the cowards you think we are.
Yep, the bravery of the trumpistan population has been quite discernable from the political developments in the last 7 months.
History is full of groups who believed we are lazy indolent cowards
Yeah, as the song goes, "From the halls of Hochimin city to the beaches of Tikrit".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When that kicks in next year it will get blamed on democrats.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Works in life, my wife caught me in bed with a mistress, i said "Honey, if Joe Biden never used that autopen this never would have happened" and then we all laughed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, making fun of innocent people in Texas who are now dead.
All information on the floods points out that these were preventable deaths that were not prevented. Moreover, they have happened repeatedly year after year and appear to be mostly due to three factors, rapid construction, which dramatically increases runoffs, insufficient and outdated flood control infrastructure and a funding policy on infrastructural spending, which only allocates a minor portion of what's necessary.
The people you should be pointing your condemnation at are those who allow this to contin
Re: (Score:2)
You lost a dumb argument and are feeling butthurt?
You'll get over it.
Sometimes, size doesn't matter (Score:2)
china has the biggest army, navy and air force in the world and that must make the US nervous.
China had a far larger army than imperial Japan prior to the invasion.
France had a far larger army than Germany prior to the invasion.
The US had a far smaller army and navy prior to Pearl Harbor.
Sometimes, size doesn't matter, but quality and preparation does.
Re: (Score:2)
And as we see, the US army has not consistently displayed either, as it has "won wars" only against small bands of people armed with sticks and handguns or by theatrical performance.
The real wars with armed opponents that the US has fought - were either won mostly by the effort of her allies (WWI, WWII), or lost (Korea, Vietnam, the Second gulf war, Afghanistan).
Incidentally, some of the wars the US army has lost were lost to people armed with sticks and handguns.
But while "projecting force" is apparently a
Re: (Score:2)
And as we see, the US army has not consistently displayed either, as it has "won wars" only against small bands of people armed with sticks and handguns or by theatrical performance.
Actually in the Gulf War they beat a military with vast heavy combat experience (Iran-Iraq war). 4th largest in the world, on their home field. While the US may be the largest, a lot of that is about getting an expeditionary force anywhere in the world. That expeditionary force, a small portion of the US military won through better professionalism, better training, and better equipment.
The real wars with armed opponents that the US has fought - were either won mostly by the effort of her allies (WWI, WWII), or lost (Korea, Vietnam, the Second gulf war, Afghanistan).
In none of those did the US military lose. The losses were political. The military wins battles, they don't win wars. Wars
Re: (Score:2)
Actually in the Gulf War they beat a military with vast heavy combat experience (Iran-Iraq war).
Actually in the Gulf War a UN-authorized international coalition forced Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait. But in fact there was little resistance once Iraq realized that the green light by a certain Ms. April Glaspie that was given to Saddam to move on Kuwait was just a tricky move on the part of the Bush admin (sold latter as "naivette") and that there will be no support from the so-called "Arab world".
In none of those did the US military lose. The losses were political.
Keep telling yourself this, if you repeat it 100 times you may even believe it. That won't make it true.
No po
Re: (Score:2)
Well, ... as in non existent.
it would have been enough to point out that China's navy is abysmal
China had a far larger army than imperial Japan prior to the invasion.
That is wrong.
China did not have an organized army when Japan attacked. It was just ~15 years after the revolution and forming of the Republic.
With weapons that were basically WWI standard, or much much older. Half of the people, and that is perhaps an exaggeration, but a small one, who fought the Japanese were partisans.
PLA (Score:2)
You're misunderstanding the purpose and disposition of the People's Liberation Army. The PLA is primarily a political organ with a small military attached to it. The PLA mostly exists to indoctrinate recruits for the CCP. This is rather explicit, but you have to read the documents written in Chinese to see that. About 90% of the current formations aren't capable of fielding either a fighting force or providing logistical support to combat forces. That actually includes much of the PLAAF and the PLAN. About
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the army is probably only significant to it's neighbors. Transporting lots of troops is difficult and expensive. The navy and the air force, however...not to mention the hypersonic missiles.
Re: (Score:2)
What you seem to have forgotten is that the "mighty US army" actually paid Saddam's generals to surrender.
https://www.independent.co.uk/... [independent.co.uk]
Perhaps this happened because the US generals shared the convictions of these many that you mentioned?
Gulf War had no mandate for regime change (Score:2)
The Americans lost that war.
Nope. Iraq was kicked out of Kuwait. Iraqi forces decimated wherever they faced Americans. Land or air. Infantry or armor. Iraqi air defense easily overcome. The US had air supremacy and ground forces were sitting in Iraqi territory able to go anywhere they wanted.
The US chose to leave Saddam in power. Bush Sr recognized we went in with an international coalition and had no mandate for regime change from the UN. Just a mandate to remove Iraq from Kuwait.
Plus 100 hours into the ground fight it looked l
Re: (Score:2)
The humanitarian thing would have been to let the soldiers escape, and only kill the armour.
It should have been plain obvious to everyone in the US forces that the soldiers only stood their ground because the officers put guns on their heads and everyone - men and soldiers - feared their families would be massacred at home if they "just fled".
There is no damn reason to kill a 10km colon of tanks and trucks in the middle of the desert just because you can. Next day they would have been 240km elsewhere, and y
Re: (Score:3)
America won the war and lost the peace.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But not by the US. It was the pro-Iranian factions in Iraq who did that.
The very same pro-Iranian groups, by the way, who then booted most of the US military out of the place and put a fat cross on the hopes of the neocon wing to control the Iraqi oil as their own, the reason for the second Gulf war.
A loss which chieftain trump often laments. [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The military itself is quite successful at doing the war thing. The problem comes when the political class tries to use the military to do non-war things. Ironically, the reason first Gulf War was such a success was everyone in charge of the US military, and many of the politicians in power, had gone through the loss in Vietnam and learned some valuable, if painful, lessons from that experience. That's why the Gulf War had very clear aims that could be accomplished directly with military force and clear cri
Re: (Score:2)
Now the real question you should be asking is if Iraq is better off now?
Re: (Score:3)
It's a good question, right now the answer seems to be "mixed bag" but I recently learned about some major infrastructure spending by Iraq that is underway, one large piece being a "dry canal" between a new massive sea port [wikipedia.org] and Turkey as an alternative to the Suez canal.
Iraq Development Road [wikipedia.org]
So I think if Iraq can stay stable and together for long enough for projects like this to get finished they could very well end up better off in history. Of course we can only guess the counterfactual if Saddam stayed i
Re: (Score:2)
That's a stupid idea that won't work. Highways and trucks are terrible for large-scale logistics across set routes. That highway needs to be a railway. Preferably, an electrified railway.
Re: (Score:2)
It's both a motorway and railway
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. The main point was to question whether the size of a standing army correlates directly to its success in battle.
The Iraqi military collapsed completely. That question is answered.
Gulf War, mot Global War on Terror (Score:2)
Really? I could have sworn that Saddam Hussein was removed from power and executed.
Wrong war. 4th largest Army in the world indicates 1990s Gulf War. Not 2000s Global War on Terror.
Re: (Score:2)
America has 30 aircraft carriers. It has 11 super-carriers and 19 other ships the USN would label as carriers if they were in literally any navy in the world other than the USN.
Re: (Score:2)
I could see that number of aircraft carriers in the US Navy get to 24 by including their expeditionary mobile bases in that classification. Maybe there's a couple other ships I'm missing to get to 30. If this count is of any ship with a helicopter pad and a hangar then that number likely jumps to above 100 aircraft carriers.
Russia has one ship they consider a "heavy battle cruiser with a flight deck" for legal reasons, there's treaties against movement of an "aircraft carrier" through waters controlled by
Re: (Score:2)
I'm seeing parallels with World War Part Two in recent events. We are seeing would could lead to a land battle in Europe and an air and sea battle in the Pacific. Should things get kinetic with China then Russia might take it as an opportunity to ramp up the war in Europe, while China is creating a distraction to thin out the capabilities of NATO there would be less resistance from NATO in Europe. Since these are two different kinds of fights it is not likely to thin out the capabilities all that much.
China
Re: Yeah right (Score:2)
however long it takes to reach out and touch them.
Risk exposing civilian populations, possibly even beyond the war zone with contamination? Doubtful. Even Putin has yet to bomb the Chernobyl containment building. And he's certifiably bat-shit crazy.
Chernobyl hit by drone (Re: Yeah right) (Score:2)
A drone did hit the containment dome over Chernobyl. Maybe it was intentional, maybe it was an accident, maybe it's a "false flag" operation.
https://www.bbc.com/news/artic... [bbc.com]
In the battle between Israel and Iran the attacks on Iran are avoiding power plants and other civil infrastructure. The war is against the Iranian government and military so Israel and her allies are doing what they can to avoid causing hardship among the general population. I'd expect this policy to be followed if there is a war aga
Thinking long term used to be a good thing... (Score:2)
But AC don't think. Why'd you feed it and propagate its vacuous, meaningless Subject? And also support its diversion away from the substance of the story?
Back to the actual story. Lots of potential for Funny there. Much less potential here in today's Slashdot. Yes, there are still a few sources of Funny surviving, but some of them seem more tired than funny... Or maybe I'm projecting? (If would be interesting if Slashdot had a feature for tracking moderation over time. I think there are cases of diminishing
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think China wants a war?
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that all indications are that they are willing to go to war over Taiwan.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that all indications are that they are willing to go to war over Taiwan.
That does appear to be the case as China has been seen building landing barges.
https://www.ryanjhite.com/2025... [ryanjhite.com]
https://interestingengineering... [interestin...eering.com]
There may be better sources than the ones I found and linked above, but that should be a place to start for those that have doubts on China planning to invade Taiwan. If not Taiwan then perhaps some other shore near the Chinese mainland is their target.
China is building up their navy, coast guard, and merchant shipping fleet. I'm not quite sure how the Chinese or
Re: (Score:2)
Those small reactors provide 20MW in heat which is clearly written in the summary. ... IIRC (you can look it up).
The very best thinkable performance in electricity production is around 42%.
The manufacturer how ever is talking about something like 6MW electric
To give a car analogy: a top range car produces 100kW power. So that 6MW is the equivalent of 60 cars. Perhaps 600 american households (your guess is probably better).
Taiwan has 25M people. So up to you to make a guess about households and energy consum
Re: (Score:2)
Micro-reactors create more nuclear waste per amount of power generated than do standard reactors. But there are special use cases where they would be preferable.
Re: (Score:2)
Small reactors exist and have been in operation for decades - in the military.
There is a reason for that - a small reactor requires higher enrichment.
Higher enrichment is, however, verboten, because it makes you a target of B2 bombings.
So "peaceful" micro reactors on a massive scale isn't happening.
Re: Maybe good (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is this the piece of crap that went around dumping radioactive water in the ocean?
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear powered civil cargo ships will likely return:
https://interestingengineering... [interestin...eering.com]
The NS Savannah was taken out of service shortly before petroleum prices spiked. Had they held on with the Savannah just a bit longer then it may have proven to be profitable against oil fired ships. I suspect that if nuclear powered civil shipping comes around again that it will not be so easily killed. At that point it is unlikely for oil prices to be so volatile that it makes nuclear powered ships nonviable. Another
Re: (Score:2)
Had they held on with the Savannah just a bit longer then it may have proven to be profitable against oil fired ships.
In the case of the Savannah, yes and no. That thing was never intended or designed to be economical. It was designed to look cool and be a combination freighter/passenger liner (you don't really see this offered in today's market). A modern nuclear powered cargo ship would look just like a container ship of today.
Some ships and ports have the means to bring shore power to the ships so they don't need to run their diesel generators while in port.
We have that today in Seattle. But the ships that really need it are the passenger liners that dock here. Cargo ships only need enough power to maintain the environment in a relatively small crew s
Re: (Score:2)
Selling power back to the grid? Probably not from cargo ships. They are usually direct drive from a main diesel to each propeller. Their utility power generation capacity is relatively small (see above). Cruise ship propulsion is more likely to be diesel electric. So there's a reason for having a large capacity generator system. Which can be resold.
I was referring specifically to nuclear powered cargo ships, those would be more likely to provide power to the shore as the life of the reactor is more about time in operation than miles traveled. Once the reactor is started it really can't be turned off again and be expected to start right back up, so if it's running anyway while in port then it may as well offload power to shore for sale to make up for the cost of the ship operations.
That said I could see a diesel-electric ship providing power to shore
Re: (Score:2)
A small reactor does not necessarily need higher enrichment. At least not super high as in submarine or carrier reactors.
It simply depends on "how small", and how long you want to run it, before you refuel it.
Re: (Score:2)
> The one unit is claimed to have a 5 year life.
Five years is the interval between refuelings, not the total lifespan of the reactor.
I don't know if it can be refueled in situ, or whether you ship the whole thing back to the factory. Not a big deal either way, if their claims of fitting on a standard semi trailer and being up and running on a new site within 24 hours are true.
Re: (Score:2)
> The one unit is claimed to have a 5 year life.
Five years is the interval between refuelings, not the total lifespan of the reactor.
I don't know if it can be refueled in situ, or whether you ship the whole thing back to the factory. Not a big deal either way, if their claims of fitting on a standard semi trailer and being up and running on a new site within 24 hours are true.
Ain't gonna ship the thing back - the term "Micro reactor" is a bit misleading. It looks to be the size of the old SL-1 reactor. Check my link I posted before.
Regardless, we see the old slashdot zealots are pissed at me, some because they cannot see anything but pro nuclear, and others who shit their panties if someone doesn't condemn nookyaler.
The place has gone to hell.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter how big a reactor is or isn't, it's a target.
Flying shaped charges are cheap and feasible.
Re: (Score:2)
A 10MW neighborhood scale reactor requires negligible transmission/distribution infrastructure cost which partially offsets the lower physical efficiency of the small reactor. That improves time to market, and delivered energy could be close to a large reactor, as long as operating costs are significantly lower.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. That hallucination was already pushed in children's books 50 years ago. Never panned out and will not magically do so now.
Re: (Score:2)
A 10MW neighborhood scale reactor requires negligible transmission/distribution infrastructure cost which partially offsets the lower physical efficiency of the small reactor. That improves time to market, and delivered energy could be close to a large reactor, as long as operating costs are significantly lower.
Gweihir just enjoys disagreeing with me. He thinks I am _ignorant_. The under slashes are apparently important.
One does not have to be a NucE to understand that there is an issue that happens when you push materials to their limits. Part of safety should be not doing that.
And one of the issues with pushing things hard is the contempt that some have with regulations. The human factor. The pushing hard and contempt combo makes for issues.
It is my considered opinion that if there is going to be a futu
Re: (Score:2)
Bla, bla, bla, you have any facts? No, apparently not.
Re: (Score:2)
I supported the paradigm of smaller reactors since about forever, while most people extolled the virtues of reactors for power being as big and centralized as possible.
That is because you are _ignorant_. The only reason nuclear reactors are large is that their relative cost gows down strongly with size. They are still not cost effective at the largest sizes we can build, though and that is with massive lying about the total cost.
Yes, is there some reason you think I don't know the economies of scale. Most respectfully, I've spent a number of years working with NucE's, working with research reactors, did the whole daily dosimeter thing, and while you might think I have no idea of what I'm talking about, they respected my reasoning, if not all agreed with it. I can let the ones who agreed with me, know that despite their degrees and personal knowledge, they are as you put it _ignorant_ .
What I was doing was flow visualization to
Re: (Score:2)
Being a nuclear tech does not qualify you to judge economic aspects. Seriously.
You are just trying to confuse the issue now. Pathetic.
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason nuclear reactors are large is that their relative cost gows down strongly with size.
No, the reason reactors are so expensive in the west is every one is effectively a custom built one-off. There are no economies of scale because we build so few, even though they have standardized designs. China is fixing this problem by creating a permanent supply chain for reactors. They currently have enough heavy forge capacity for 10 pressure vessels and associated components per year, and plans (which they will most certainly meet) for 20 per year by 2030.
https://world-nuclear.org/info... [world-nuclear.org]
Smal
Re: (Score:2)
That is not what I said and you know it. Why are all you nuclear fanbois soft in the head? Oh, well, that is really redundant at this time.
Re: (Score:2)
Mass production is the key to cheaper nuclear, not size.