Took long enough

[Pyrate Jim]

U.S. Startup Unveils World’s First Mass-Produced Nuclear Reactor, Set to Transform Power Delivery in Remote Areas

This was a study in school back in the 70's. The US Military already had them in submarines and aircraft carriers. They even trucked one to a military base in Greenland.
Students were tasked with designs to run steam turbines heating the water through radioactive decay small enough to run a farm.
An altruistic dream at the time. I believe stifled by those who wanted to retain a monopoly.
50 years ago, I studied this. (then went into organic chemistry) So I know it can be done - It has been done.
To hear it may be mass produced is something I thought I'd never see.

[BrickHaus]

My last employer developed the upending crane for Nuscales MPBR. The reactor technology is coming a long way in this new era. It's awesome to see this mass produced competition coming to market.

[pghp8ntballer]

So I have to ask… how bad is it when there is a catastrophic failure (meltdown)? What level of radiation is there? What is the worse case scenario? I’m not against this at all. But until there is zero possibility of radiation/contamination beyond unsafe/normal background levels in any possible failure situation, this is questionable at best. I’m excited to hear this is being worked on and making good progress. I’m all for energy independence, either personal or national, but I certainly have my concerns about safety of a commercial micro-reactor if it’s not truly 110% safe.

[SignOfZeta]

Another one of these articles? They sure never stop.

How have they “unveiled” something that they plan to test in 2026? They haven’t even tested the thing yet? Then WTF to they actually have?

What they have unveiled is a fund raising pitch. This will amount to nothing. Bookmark this thread. There is another company like this almost every day. CO2 capture, cold fusion, any type of fusion, honestly, magic EV batteries that last the life of the car, pain-free blood tests, Hyperloop. It’s endless. As long as there is a fool with too much money there will be startups willing to make insane promises.

Once you’ve done work for one of these companies you start to recognize all the signs and become hyper aware of them.

I once worked on a project where the goal was to make aviation kerosene run in gasoline engines with the aid of stratification achieved with compressed air. It didn’t work. Nobody I worked with thought it would ever work. That was a decade ago and still nobody has done it. We took the work though, because the checks cleared. Until they didn’t. The money is spent and the idea is dead…until someone digs it up and shows it to some well landed gentry and then people will work on it again. Maybe I’ll even work on it again. It will never actually be useful as a thing but it will feed me.

There are similar nonsense projects going on and fizzling out over and over all over the world.

[DocsMachine]

I’m all for energy independence, either personal or national, but I certainly have my concerns about safety of a commercial micro-reactor if it’s not truly 110% safe.

-Nothing is 100% safe. Paintball isn't 100% safe. Flying isn't 100% safe.

The simple fact here is that the world needs more energy. If you believe we must wean ourselves off fossil fuels, then the only option is nuclear. We've dammed up most all the damable rivers and streams, wind turbines or solar can't provide steady power, and oil, gas and coal are icky-poo, so what's that leave? The only source of power that's steady and cost effective- and can provide the terawatts we need- is nuclear.

And, up until very recently, the newest reactor in the US was finished in 1976, and used technology designed in the 1960s. Tech has rolled on- what if we'd put as much R&D into nuclear in the last fifty years, as we've put into cars, phones and the internet?

Modern designs for small modular reactors (SMRs) can't "melt down"- as in, using the laws of physics, not just some really good mechanical failsafe.

Yes, there are hazards and drawbacks... just as there are for any generating plant. But the simple, realistic fact is that there are no other options.

Doc.

[pghp8ntballer]

You misunderstood my point. I’m referring to human error and upper management making money based decisions for micro-reactor maintenance/repair in future scenarios. I definitely understand that our (US) power infrastructure is not as modern as it should be. I don’t have an issue with nuclear power for the most part.I haven’t gone a-googling about SMRs and don’t intend to. Nothing is truly safe, but if a SMR can’t melt down then great. If a small nuclear reactor can cause a large amount of harm if not properly maintained, then that is a problem. People will be people, and the people are the problem.

[Pyrate Jim]

Ever feel warm in direct sunlight? That much radiation.
Ever hear of a meltdown on a nuclear submarine in the last half century we've been using them? I haven't.
It's not even close to a reactor powering multiple States or even an aircraft carrier. It doesn't contain enough radionuclide mass to "melt down".
Even "solar energy" panels depend on radiation.

[coyote]

The USSR has had " nuclear accidents" on submarines. They all seem to be "human errors" while working on reactor cores. Nothing like that has happened in decades.

Knowing about the lack of safety at Chernobyl it's easy to presume those exposures followed the same unsafe culture.

[pghp8ntballer]

Ever feel warm in direct sunlight? That much radiation.
Ever hear of a meltdown on a nuclear submarine in the last half century we've been using them? I haven't.
It's not even close to a reactor powering multiple States or even an aircraft carrier. It doesn't contain enough radionuclide mass to "melt down".
Even "solar energy" panels depend on radiation.

This might be a better question… how much radiation can be leaked from these small units? Is it an actual possibility? Obviously these would never be as bad as a full powerplant could be. How does the size of the unit in the article compare to a carrier or sub unit?

[coyote]

So I have to ask… how bad is it when there is a catastrophic failure (meltdown)? What level of radiation is there? What is the worse case scenario? I’m not against this at all. But until there is zero possibility of radiation/contamination beyond unsafe/normal background levels in any possible failure situation, this is questionable at best. I’m excited to hear this is being worked on and making good progress. I’m all for energy independence, either personal or national, but I certainly have my concerns about safety of a commercial micro-reactor if it’s not truly 110% safe.

If you apply these same standards to our prevalent conventional sources of power they fail.

No power source is completely safe. If you look too "green" sources like solar and wind you need to include the mining of battery specific elements like lithium. Extracting those from the earth cause major pollution. That too impacts the health of plants animals and ecosystems. Under the best circumstances about 15 percent of the worlds net power can come from "renewables"

There have been less than 400 deaths worldwide that are directly related to nuclear accidents. There are certainly thousands of indirect deaths and health problems related to those incidents. Sources disagree on the numbers.

Meanwhile air pollution causes millions of deaths annually. 8 million plus in 2021 according to UNICEF.

Modern nuclear power is very safe. The fuel is also recyclable. In a world where our power needs are growing at an alarming rate it's a necessary option. It's much safer than burning fossil fuels, wood and dung. That's the demographic that needs to be affected the most. Cheap abundant energy that is an improvement to setting organic matter on fire.

We won't get "safe". We can get" much safer".

[SignOfZeta]

This might be a better question… how much radiation can be leaked from these small units? Is it an actual possibility? Obviously these would never be as bad as a full powerplant could be. How does the size of the unit in the article compare to a carrier or sub unit?

First off…this thing that the thread is about…it’s never happening. Therefore these units will never leak anything.

That being said, lack of shielding is the biggest apparent issue with building a 1MW nuclear reactor in a shipping crate. As their drawings are depicted this thing couldn’t even shield itself from itself. While that alone makes this totally impossible I’d wager they’ll go out of business before ever getting that far so it doesn’t matter.

[Pyrate Jim]

This might be a better question… how much radiation can be leaked from these small units? Is it an actual possibility? Obviously these would never be as bad as a full powerplant could be. How does the size of the unit in the article compare to a carrier or sub unit?

In the classes I took decades ago, mind you, the theoretical mass was limited to about the size of a dice cube. Finding which isotopes worked best.
The article did not specify dimensions, mass or element used. The "active" part could be as small as a postage stamp or large as a Volkswagen.

You have to separate the concepts. Atomic bombs are bad because...Radiation. Yet, all life on Earth needs radiation to survive. Photosynthesis and all that.
Almost Zoroastrian in its dichotomy. Much like water. You can't live without it, but too much can drown you.

[SignOfZeta]

-Nothing is 100% safe. Paintball isn't 100% safe. Flying isn't 100% safe.

The simple fact here is that the world needs more energy. If you believe we must wean ourselves off fossil fuels, then the only option is nuclear. We've dammed up most all the damable rivers and streams, wind turbines or solar can't provide steady power, and oil, gas and coal are icky-poo, so what's that leave? The only source of power that's steady and cost effective- and can provide the terawatts we need- is nuclear.

And, up until very recently, the newest reactor in the US was finished in 1976, and used technology designed in the 1960s. Tech has rolled on- what if we'd put as much R&D into nuclear in the last fifty years, as we've put into cars, phones and the internet?

Modern designs for small modular reactors (SMRs) can't "melt down"- as in, using the laws of physics, not just some really good mechanical failsafe.

Yes, there are hazards and drawbacks... just as there are for any generating plant. But the simple, realistic fact is that there are no other options.

Doc.

Since all human activity carries risk, then all things are risky, therefore equally risky, therefore calculating risk is pointless and all pursuits should be taken on with no regard to risk. I reject this totally.

Radiation can be bad but it also is the source of all life on earth so we don’t have to worry about it. Naturally I reject that.

Progress has made failure impossible. Therefore let’s put as many people as possible on this unsinkable ship. I reject this totally as well.

There is no way to use less energy so we need a magic bullet in order to keep using more. I reject this also. Not only is it greedy and stupid and lazy as hell, it won’t work.

“Can’t melt down using the laws of physics.” Show your work, please. One should not reference “the law” unless it’s the law of Jehovah. Science should only be referenced by example, specific theories, etc. “Smart people said so” is not a thing worth repeating.

[COB]

I worked with top Physicists at NBS in the early 80's, doing radiation detection research and development. We did a field trip to a local private manufacturing facility that used radiation to create the powder for printers ink used in newspapers. We sent test sample through their machine to measure the radiation output. Their in-house testing procedures were so bad that they were off by factors of tens. There is a much larger risk of catastrophic failure in private unregulated hands. I agree that we need a solution to our energy needs, but allowing minimally trained people to operate radiation sources is a recipe for absolute failure.

[DocsMachine]

“Can’t melt down using the laws of physics.” Show your work, please.

-Here, let me Google that for you. The term you're looking for is called passive nuclear safety:

Such design features tend to rely on the engineering of components such that their predicted behaviour would slow down, rather than accelerate the deterioration of the reactor state; they typically take advantage of natural forces or phenomena such as gravity, buoyancy, pressure differences, conduction or natural heat convection to accomplish safety functions without requiring an active power source.

There is a much larger risk of catastrophic failure in private unregulated hands. I agree that we need a solution to our energy needs, but allowing minimally trained people to operate radiation sources is a recipe for absolute failure.

-Who says they'd be minimally trained? Do airlines use "minimally trained" jet pilots? Do hospitals use "minimally trained" neurosurgeons? Do the computer chip makers use "minimally trained" technicians in their silicon foundries?

Modern reactor designs, as above, may not need Rickover-qualified Nuke Techs, but that doesn't mean they'd be hiring out-of-work housepainters and Krogers bagboys.

At the base of it, it's a simple binary equation: We, as a culture, need more electrical power- and if things like AI keep on the same route, orders of magnitude more power.

There are no more significant rivers to dam, there's a limit to how many wind turbines we can put up, there's a hard limit to how much solar can supply and how steadily, coal and natural gas are persona non grata now, and we can't produce enough sunflower seeds to feed all the gerbils on running wheels it'd take just to power most of downtown Cleveland.

Fusion is- and will likely remain- 20-50 years off, where it's been for 20-50 years. So what's that leave?

If you want a great deal of constant/nonintermittent energy, a supply in the multi-terawatt class, and demand it be at least carbon-neutral... sorry, but nuclear is the only such solution.

Doc.

[COB]

Doc, sorry if the "minimally trained" comment seemed bias, but private industry is in the business of making money. In the beginning they all start out well. The management and staff are well versed and trained in the new product that they created or are making. But then the standards begin to get compromised for the bottom line. Less training time. Less quality control on the human side. A general complacency begins to settle into the work force. And a steep rise in insular thinking begins to take place. Suddenly the QC and HR departments are thinking more about making sure no mistakes are made public, than fixing the underlying issue. Workers and Unions become more protective of their jobs. Demanding more compensations and less concerned with holding themselves accountable for any mistakes or lapses in proper procedures. It's the human factor.
In a small way, just look at Boeing and their recent issues. Inspectors not checking or failing to notice, if bolts are in place and secured. We have seen it in every industry. The fear of the financial consequences becomes the driving force.
I don't have all the answers. Yes, the production of power must make money to sustain the proper and safe operation of the facility and its distribution system. I also believe that we need to find a long-term viable energy solution. However, we must make sure the management of that system is not driven solely by the profit loss ratio. Safety must always be the primary factor.

[pghp8ntballer]

Not disagreeing with anyone here and I’m glad to see more sides of the discussion showing up.

Doc, I wouldn’t have known what to search for to get the info I was thinking of.

Thanks for all the additional info everyone.

[DocsMachine]

It's worth noting that most current reactors operating in the US, were designed in the sixties, and burn about two percent of their fuel. The partially burned rods are then removed and simply stored outside in pools of water.

Why? Because everyone is so afraid of radiation, that they're not allowed to truck the fuel over the road to a reprocessing plant. Building such a plant at every nuclear reactor is not cost effective... so the used fuel, which could be reprocessed to get decades more use out of... just sits.

Also, we could be using "breeder" reactors, that 'burn' the Uranium, and in the process, turns into Plutonium. The Pu could then be re-burned in a different reactor, getting something like an order of magnitude more energy out of the fuel.

Between reprocessing and "breeding", we could be getting literally a hundred times more energy out of a given unit of nuclear fuel, than we are today.

Why aren't we? Fear and politics. The not-unwarranted fear of radiation, and the politics of NIMBY.

So we burn just 2% of what we have, and dump the rest in a poor excuse for storage in the hopes that someday, somebody else can do something with it.

Doc.