Copenhagen Atomics' FIRST Test Reactor

[@NomenNescio99]

Quote from Admiral Rickover's famous paper from the 50ies. "An academic reactor or reactor plant almost always has the following basic characteristics: It is simple. It is small. It is cheap. It is light. It can be built very quickly. It is very flexible in purpose (“omnibus reactor”) Very little development is required. It will use mostly “off-the-shelf” components. The reactor is in the study phase. It is not being built now." Most nuclear power startups sadly seems to be forever stuck with an academic reactor. But Copenhagen Atomics is slowly moving further, and is no longer a pure paper reactor company, things are actually being developed and built now - great news. I wish them the best of luck, and wish for speedy progress away from the academic reactor to a real world reactor.

[@rodkeh]

They are crooks and swindlers and you are just their shill. Fossil fuels meet all your requirements and they the cheapest and cleanest source of energy on the planet which is all available and accessible right now! No swindles needed to fleece the public as nuclear does!

[@SinisterMD]

This is the future. Been a huge fan of thorium reactors for years now. We know that molten salt works with the MSRE back in the 60's. Love the modular design. Ammonia is a novel fuel for ships, however nitrogen oxide emissions (NOx and NO/N2O) are a concern with N2O being a very potent greenhouse gas, offsetting the carbon neutral nature of the process.

[@bartroberts1514]

Nuclear is the future for medical isotopes and military applications, perhaps, but much too costly for commercial energy. We know that molten salt has too many issues not just from MSRE back in the 60's failing, but also from an entire non-nuclear molten salt industry we've learned such lessons from as "don't do it unless you absolutely have to," and "never, ever mix with anything else dangerous." You can love all the Rube Goldberg 'modular' designs in the world; doesn't make them practical. Ammonia is an inferior fuel to urea, for ships, however there are no coastal routes that cannot be navigated with battery powered shipping, and marine biofuel from the waste byproducts of lumber milling is more practical still, getting senescent methane-generating timber out of the forests and replacing with young clean new carbon-capturing growth.

[@migBdk]

@@bartroberts1514 Battery shipping is a nice idea, but consider the cost of a battery and the size of it. Batteries are a very low-density type of energy storage. Meaning the ship will have to give up significant amounts of shipping capacity with a battery switch. That's very bad for the economy. Also the "biofuel from waste byproducts" sound nice in theory but the amount of fuel needed for global shipping far exceeds the amount that can be made from byproducts of lumber milling.

[@bartroberts1514]

@@migBdk Seriously? Batteries are too heavy for use on ships!? Batteries are too costly for ships?! Not much on the maths, here. Ever even been on a ship? Significant amounts of shipping capacity? Like the fuel tanks and engine room take up? Your objections are noted. But they're absurd. Battery ships are more economical per nautical mile-tonne. That's good for the economy. They're independent of fossil; making them only bad for one kind of economics: the kind that causes climate change. As for the amount of fuel 'needed' for shipping by sea, plus aviation, after conversion to electric for the portion that gains from that transition, is about 13% less than the available biofuel from lumber mill wastes.

[@3ntomcrav]

shut up and take my money

[@arubaga]

That is not the problem. Lack of licensing from a government is the problem.

[@SteenLarsen]

Excellent presentation! Thank you for your work to giving us a world with abundant, cheap and climate friendly energy!

[@williamthesling1201]

Awsome... I wish you great success!!!!

[@CopenhagenAtomics]

Thank you so much!!

[@TomMcinerney-g9b]

> The reason why the U.S. boiling & pressurized reactors were built at 1 -- 1.5 GW scale, was to achieve decent output efficiency (allowing electricity at modest cost). Generally, smaller fission plants will sell electricity at more expensive rates. > Some people from MIT a decade ago were planning to use molten salt reactors, and expected that CFD might help avert damage. (perhaps modern stainless steel alloys will prove immune) > Bill Gates explicitly designed his nuclear plants to avoid opening the reactor vessel, to extent possible. I agree that constant refinement of fuel charge would improve operations. > My understanding is that efficient sequestering of the depleted fuel requires advance planning of the reactor products/byproducts. The knowledgeable American researcher concerned with long term storage of highly radioactive components (Rodney C. Ewing, of U. Michigan and Stanford), mentioned that development of small modular reactors would complicate the methods of waste storage.

[@camronrubin8599]

Large-Scale solar installations are already $10 a megawatt in some regions

[@northernouthouse]

I've seen lcoe for solar around $30 - $40. Can you direct me to some articles?

[@MyUtubeScott]

Please, go and hug a tree somewhere

[@CopenhagenAtomics]

Perhaps so, have not seen any such reports. You're welcome to direct us to the source. However, even if it is the case, that is likely to be in a few regions and when the sun is shining at its brightest. And if you want to convert that electricity to utilise in high temperature applications, it will not be that cheap.

[@camronrubin8599]

@@CopenhagenAtomics the Al Dhafra solar power plant in Abu Dhabi, offers electricity at 1.35 cents per kWh.

[@ludwigreiser4053]

Very interesting! 👍 Thanks a lot! 🍀

[@Th-233]

An underappreciated consequence of thorium being a free byproduct costing essentially nothing, is that energy production will be effectively decoupled from mining, allowing very rapid growth. Supply chains will be simple and scalable, and the one time startup fissile can be extracted from spent fuel with a simple chemical process, incidentally eliminating the waste issue without subsidy.

[@misorensen]

Well done. Great work!! - Great progress!! - Keep up all the good work. So interesting to follow.

[@backacheache]

What I think is exciting is even if you fail, all the components you have improved will have a ripple effect across many industries

[@peterjohn5834]

Just so you aware, China added by installation more solar energy last year than the entire world nuclear production of energy. Solar installations will potentially double across the world next year. I applaud your efforts especially in choosing Thorium as the reactor fuel.

[@CopenhagenAtomics]

We applaud the rate at which solar is being installed, it is a great example of why economies of scale matter. Unfortunately the rate at which we install any renewables at the moment is not large enough to accommodate the rate at which the entire energy consumption is growing, meaning we're still using more fossil fuels.

[@RainerNase-b3q]

@@CopenhagenAtomics That is due to special interest.

[@titussteenhuisen8864]

Good progress with the parts; onion core, pumps, testing etc. Final product is pushed down in time. Looking forward to a real reactor test. Original timeline is being stretched.

[@CopenhagenAtomics]

It is true, the original timeline from years ago have been stretched slightly, although not by more than a year and a half. With that said, it is still one of the most ambitious timelines in the industry, and with our work in Switzerland we are arguably also one of the closest to upholding our original timeline.

[@grilsegrils9330]

Is/ will it become reality? 😊 I'm cheering for you ♥️ from 🇸🇯

[@CopenhagenAtomics]

We are sincerely doing all in our power to make it so :) Thank you for your support

[@davidwilkie9551]

Only 10 years to wait now.

[@CopenhagenAtomics]

Not quite 10.

[@andrewjmcd919]

Kairos Power is also building a Li7 plant!

[@CopenhagenAtomics]

That's great, we're going to need more!

[@mechadense]

10:02 Is the plan to replace graphite moderators with silicon carbide? That'd make me feel so much safer.

[@CopenhagenAtomics]

We do not plan to use graphite as a moderator at all. Our moderator is heavy water. The core will eventually be made from silicon carbide.

[@mechadense]

​​​@@CopenhagenAtomics Ah! I see. Probably confused it with an other groups molten salt thorium reactor design. I feel SiC is the best (safest) choice possible if technically and financially possible. I suspect D2O water as moderator introduces the problem of high pressures again that salts alone avoid. But still so much safer than graphite in the core. I guess primary cooling loop is molten salt? I probably just need to look it up on your website …

[@RogueSecret]

Will we see you on the Stockmarked? And would that help?:) Copenhagen Atomics should team up with Norway :)

[@CopenhagenAtomics]

It is not yet sure when we will go public, it will surely not be before the test reactor.

[@henrikpedersen343]

Keep up the good work 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

[@CopenhagenAtomics]

Thanks, will do!

[@stanmitchell3375]

The main limit is uranium production and upgrading,

[@Th-233]

Uranium will impede scaling of conventional reactors, but not LFTRs (like this or the one from Flibe Energy). They can bypass the need for uranium mining and enrichment, as existing spent fuel is easily processed into a transuranic salt, and the world has enough to start several thousand gigawatts of LFTRs already. Where not available, or permission is not yet forthcoming, they can be started by feeding them LEU for a few years.

[@kenpe1455]

You should go on joe rogan

[@CopenhagenAtomics]

We wouldn't say no to that!

[@gjurasek]

Or Lex Fridman who’s podcast is more science friendly

[@BasGresnigt]

It's much cheaper to produce ammonia from wind & solar elektricity!

[@ruegen_9443]

Why does this take so long? Couldn’t this be done by mid 2025v

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

Thomas Jam Pedersen said that normal reactors are no good, too expensive. All todays proposed reactors should be put on hold. They take upto 20years to build. $6billion a GW plant. Or more. They must run 247, no room for any other generation plant for 60 years. They must have 247 cashflow for 6decades.😮😮😮😮 3kg of uranium metal fuel for 1,000MWh electricity 27 tonnes for each year. For 6decades, 60years.

[@RainerNase-b3q]

Mankind knows for long: not everything that can be done, should be done. There is a better place to invest intellect, you will also realize some time.

[@konradcomrade4845]

13:33 solar PV is still "growable" (at daytime- summers!), but windturbines are overinvested (DE, China, CA, ... on the Northern hemisphere). They already change weather patterns, the Westerlies are diminished, the "L"-ows are concentrating around GB, DE, and the North Sea; even the Northern Jetstream is affected (splitting, meandering, even figure-8-ing now, 2024!). it is more "wind change" than "climate change"; the deep ocean is a thermal buffer. All below -1800m, thermocline, about 1/2 of all ocean water is at cold 4°C. (little side note: this deep cold water makes for a superior steam turbine cooling source!) Clouds here in Germany look "noodle combed"! Why could that be? Think.

[@bartroberts1514]

ROFLOL!

[@man_at_the_end_of_time]

So the bird choppers change climate?!! How dare you Greta. We always knew you were with Chad but we couldn't put our finger on it. Or maybe the effect is more local and not global and will lessen frosts in adjacent fields. This is already done with orchard fans for vineyards.

[@bartroberts1514]

@@man_at_the_end_of_time Still stalking young girls online and using old 80's slang? Tch.

[@man_at_the_end_of_time]

@@bartroberts1514 She is all grown up and legal. And you are lucky I am not using 1950's slang. It has been claimed that I am from the year 1700. Prepare for the third Great War and the Greater Depression as one or both will befall this timeline. (Ever hear of timeline modelling?) Note the great population decline is already in its early stages and has been and is being accelerated. Let the reader use discernment.

[@frankkolmann4801]

Like Fusion reactors MSR reactors will become viable in a few years. Always licences are denied. For the past 50 years MSR fission reactors have been just a couple of years away from being viable.

[@YellowRambler]

We don’t have fusion because of the laws of physics. We don’t have TMSR because of the laws of bureaucrats.

[@bartroberts1514]

Scam. Speculative or impossible technologies. Might as well invest in warp drive, teleporters, and tractor beams. Solar PV is more economical and scalable. Wind is more economical and more scalable. Both hydroelectric and geothermal are more economical and more scalable. Storage using hydro or geothermal is more economical for constantly available power. Nuclear power's chief benefits are medical isotopes, or military.

[@stevemeisternomic]

Calling it a scam is going a bit far. Difficult to implement without a doubt. The only thing stopping us from building them on a large scale is that we need stronger materials to handle the heat and corrosion in the process of generating energy. It is many orders of magnitude less difficult than building a warp drive or teleporter. Putting them in the same group gives the impression that you have a vested interest in them not succeeding.

[@bartroberts1514]

@@stevemeisternomic You're right. 'Science fiction for money' is more accurate than 'scam'. Since building a warp drive or teleporter is impossible, let me work out the orders of magnitude of this other impossible thing.. still impossible. Can't be made commercially worthwhile outside of medical isotopes or military use. My vested interest is in kicking those bandwagon jumpers off the climate change solution bus when they get in the way of actual solutions, because if climate change doesn't get solved a lot faster than we're doing now, then bread will be $30-$40 a loaf by 2040, and my vest likes me to eat at least once a day. What's your vested interest in saying what's impossible could succeed?

[@bartroberts1514]

@@stevemeisternomic You're right. 'Science fiction for money' is more accurate. Impossible things are always difficult to implement: nuclear can't be made commercially worthwhile outside of medical isotopes or military use. My interest is in avoiding bread going to $30-$40 a loaf by 2040. What's your vested interest in saying what's impossible could succeed?

[@lancewood1410]

EU's clean energy will NEVER be affordable lol. Wishful thinking at best.

[@EmilNicolaiePerhinschi]

please not amonia

[@henrimoens8636]

Give it to Elon Musk and you‘ll get it build in 2 yrs. You are clever people but tooo nice.

[@northernouthouse]

You mean the man child that destroyed Twitter? The one who stated that robo taxis would be functional by 2020? The idiot that just gave up 40% of his profit at Tesla when trump will end the sale of environmental credits to oems? The one who said Tesla semis would start production in 2019? The one that promised SpaceX would go around the moon in 2018? The one who promised first commercial flight of starship by 2018? And while we're on the topic, are the chopsticks landing pad suppose to appear on Mars first before starship? It's a chicken and egg question. That man child?

[@CopenhagenAtomics]

Likely he could force governments to change the regulation more effectively than we could.

[@Servant_of_Christ]

I think this company is a scam, all they do is talk. They never show anything, just talk talk talk...

[@andershansen4884]

I've met the people, I've walked the factory floor. They may fail, but they are not a scam. And with respect to just Talking, these guys are one of the few that don't just produce paper designs, but actually build and test and iterate on both components and fuel production.

[@andrewjmcd919]

At about the 4min mark he shows his prototype Also Denmark is anti nuclear. In 1985 a nuclear power plants were banned by their parliament. Just recently, this year, I think, a resolution was made to even mention nuclear power in parliament.