Startup Targets Datacenters With 3D-Printed Nuclear Reactor Module (theregister.com) 34
Startup Ampera has unveiled what it calls the first 3D-printed nuclear reactor module, built around a silicon-carbide core and pressure vessel designed for a thorium-based microreactor. The company says future systems could deliver 15 or 30 megawatts for up to 30 years without refueling. When The Register asked about availability, their spokesperson said: "We expect the power generation portion of the system to be available as early as 2027, with the nuclear module being available to customers about 2030 based on regulatory approval." From the report: Founder and CEO Brian Matthews revealed the prototype microreactor, which features a fully 3D-printed silicon carbide reactor core and pressure vessel. "This next-generation nuclear core and pressure vessel sets the foundation for factory-built, mass-produced nuclear energy," Matthews said. "The advanced technology and additive manufacturing used demonstrate a clear commercial path for new nuclear technology coming to market in an accelerated manner." His company is developing a subcritical, solid-state, factory-built thorium-based nuclear reactor. Subcritical means the fuel cannot sustain a nuclear chain reaction on its own, which prevents a runaway power excursion.
Ampera uses "solid-state" to describe a design with solid rather than liquid fuel. The proposed fuel uses tristructural isotropic, or TRISO, particles, consisting of a fuel kernel containing thorium, surrounded by multiple ceramic and carbon layers. [...] "Thorium is the future for ultra-safe, clean power production," Matthews said at the time. "By producing TRISO thorium kernels in the United States, we can ensure ample access to the needed fuel supply as we scale up and also minimize price volatility risk."
Ampera also describes the heart of the reactor as as a spherical monolithic gyroid core. A gyroid, as far as we can fathom, is a complex shape that provides a massive surface area relative to its volume, making it well-suited for heat transfer. Its complexity makes it difficult to produce using conventional manufacturing methods, which is where additive manufacturing comes in. The core is 3D-printed using silicon carbide and designed to operate for up to 30 years without refueling, the firm claims. Ampera says its planned systems will provide 15 or 30 MWe, depending on the configuration, enough to supply a typical datacenter. Larger configurations are planned. Matthews said that his company expects to be the first to industrialize factory-built nuclear power with near-term deployment timelines.
Ampera uses "solid-state" to describe a design with solid rather than liquid fuel. The proposed fuel uses tristructural isotropic, or TRISO, particles, consisting of a fuel kernel containing thorium, surrounded by multiple ceramic and carbon layers. [...] "Thorium is the future for ultra-safe, clean power production," Matthews said at the time. "By producing TRISO thorium kernels in the United States, we can ensure ample access to the needed fuel supply as we scale up and also minimize price volatility risk."
Ampera also describes the heart of the reactor as as a spherical monolithic gyroid core. A gyroid, as far as we can fathom, is a complex shape that provides a massive surface area relative to its volume, making it well-suited for heat transfer. Its complexity makes it difficult to produce using conventional manufacturing methods, which is where additive manufacturing comes in. The core is 3D-printed using silicon carbide and designed to operate for up to 30 years without refueling, the firm claims. Ampera says its planned systems will provide 15 or 30 MWe, depending on the configuration, enough to supply a typical datacenter. Larger configurations are planned. Matthews said that his company expects to be the first to industrialize factory-built nuclear power with near-term deployment timelines.
Investor Fishing (Score:5, Insightful)
This sounds like investor fishing. I'll check back in 10 years.
Re: (Score:1)
Like most nuclear projects, I expect it to be either cancelled or still stuck in approvals 10 years from now.
I'm sure that the NIMBY's will fight back even harder than usual on this one, and throw every environmental and regulatory approval roadblock they can at it.
Re: (Score:1)
You say it like it is a bad thing. This is the only way to treat ridiculous and impractical 'concepts of plans' that are backed by money that can buy real political influence.
Re: (Score:2)
like hasbara bros and magats.
Re: (Score:2)
Basic question since I have not researched Nuclear power in a long time. The last time there was a big push and building of nuclear reactors the main problem was the spent fuel rods. The response back then was we will have developed the tech to deal with it in the future when the rods are used up. Has this happened? or are we still doing the bury it in the earth until the future when we have developed the tech to deal with it?
Re: (Score:1)
Milk the bubble before it pops with even bigger pie-in-sky.
3D-printed space-launched quantum fusion AI datacenters self-constructed by AI agents using EM-drive tech to spontaneous generate building material.
Suggestions for more buzzwords?...
Re: (Score:1)
Pfffft, only Web5? we offer Web6!
Re: (Score:2)
As with all SMR designs, it fails to solve the real problems that nuclear power has. You still need all the very expensive support stuff like a containment building, on-site waste storage pools, high levels of security, and extensive monitoring and safety systems. In addition, most of these designs require a cooling pool that much be protected because without it the reactors go into meltdown.
Of course before you can build any of that, you need to go through the expensive and time consuming process of checki
Availability (Score:2)
When The Register asked about availability, their spokesperson said: "We expect the power generation portion of the system to be available as early as 2027
Dang it, "availability" is an overloaded term.
I'll take that! (Score:2)
> "We expect the power generation portion of the system to be available as early as 2027
> with the nuclear module being available to customers about 2030 based on regulatory
> approval." From the report:
I have a million I'll bet they won't. No seriously, anyone want the other side?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They included their out right in the quote, "Based on regulatory approval".
It's also useful to consider, the public are the ones theoretically regulating everything. Sometimes even in practice, when it comes to these data centers. If the bros are having trouble with NIMBY just because of the cooling units, imagine how much trouble they'll have when they add nukes into the picture.
I'd love to see more nukes built, but the right way. Not for this bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also useful to consider, the public are the ones theoretically regulating everything. Sometimes even in practice, when it comes to these data centers. If the bros are having trouble with NIMBY just because of the cooling units, imagine how much trouble they'll have when they add nukes into the picture.
If they don't want them to have nukes they will still happily take all of whatever the NIMBY people are using. That part makes me laugh.
Re: (Score:2)
> "We expect the power generation portion of the system to be available as early as 2027 > with the nuclear module being available to customers about 2030 based on regulatory > approval." From the report:
I have a million I'll bet they won't. No seriously, anyone want the other side?
There are a couple of different steps at the NRC.
First is the design review (validate the design works and would be safe). A new (large scale reactor) design review by the NRC takes (about) 5 years, and that is after the company has spent numerous years in engineering the new design. However, for SMRs (which generally are low power, and inherently safe, and have no proliferation possibilities), the design review can be as short as 18 months.
And then there is the specific site licensing review. The detai
Nuke Them From Orbit (Score:4, Funny)
Is it April 1st already? (Score:2)
I think we've got a better chance of seeing Joe Biden win this year's NYC marathon than seeing this "startup" doing anything other than making investor capital vanish.
Re: (Score:1)
They also claim:
his company expects to be the first to industrialize factory-built nuclear power with near-term deployment timelines.
They're not going to be the first, China already will sell any friendly country advanced modern nuclear reactors which go into production only six years after ground breaking. The US, not being a friendly country (to anyone but billionaires, anyway), still relies on 70 year old technology for ours.
Re: (Score:2)
> which go into production only six years after ground breaking
Sure, in China. I guarantee if you try it anywhere else it will not take 6 years.
Want evidence? Barakah. Took 6 in Korea. Took 12 in UAE.
A counterexample perhaps? Qinshan. Took 8 years to make a CANDU6 in Canada, where they are built. Took 6 years in China.
Simply put, these things take longer to build in countries that don't have a supply chain, and China is no more immune to that effect than anyone else.
But will the core work in my power armor? (Score:2)
Otherwise there will really be nothing worth looting from the data centers I pass on my way to the raider encampments...
"Spherical monolithic gyroid core" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hope they're not using PLA. (Score:1)
PETG has a higher glass temperature.
Re: Hope they're not using PLA. (Score:2)
Print volume is only 25mm^3, but it should fit.
Silicon Carbide is a good target (Score:2)
Silicon Carbide is difficult to work with due to the high temperatures required, so if they have a 3d printing process that is effective at producing the kind of quality needed for a reactor vessel, that's what's really interesting here. Or... whose tech are they using?
Re: (Score:2)
Or... whose tech are they using?
It was apparently manufactured using Additec 3D printers (a company also founded by the same owner as Ampera).
Re: (Score:1)
Thanks for tracking that down. To me that's the real news here. Reactor vessels are not the only application for this technology.
So? (Score:2)