How it Works - the Micro Modular Nuclear Reactor

[@cahoonm]

That is one of the most impressive and least advertised technologies i have ever seen in my 72 years on this planet. Bravo!!

[@TheBBoyPain]

We won`t see shit if it does not benefit governments directly :(

[@tedchandran]

Jai Hinduja. The governments must really go down to the Shidao Bay nuclear plant in Shidaowan, China to get the most updated data on the benefits of running 4th generation triso pebble reactors.

[@tedchandran]

​@@TheBBoyPainJai Hinduja. South Africa will be trying to put up their design by the end of the decade.

[@nukiepoo]

This is 1960’s tech. Look up HTGR. Peach Bottom unit 1, Ft St. Vrain, Dragon, and AVR

[@FixItStupid]

IS A LIE Give Nuclear Your Money & Your Life For 24k Years No Nuclear Melt Down HAS EVER STOPPED @ 41 CPM

[@Subgunman]

I saw this in a paper years ago. It was developed by a German university years ago but then nothing heard about it until now! They had developed a micro nuclear reactor that theoretically could be placed in an individuals home or scaled up to produce power for a factory. The ceramic coating of the fuel allows it to be self regulating preventing it from entering a runaway reaction.

[@ultrasafenuclear]

poor germans.

[@bruceg1845]

with but one big drawback: you could be INDEPENDENT !

[@ultrasafenuclear]

@@bruceg1845 need self-reliance.

[@allenbarrow4904]

Western utilities companies will not allow SMRs to develop and installed commercially. But the fact of the matter is China, Russia and India see a potential market and opportunity to make problems for the West. Upcoming players will be Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and Turkey will thrown in the scenario. I predict whomever comes up a micro nuclear reactor or battery technology first will be driver's seat for modernization for years if not decades to come!!! Hahahaha

[@GTLugo]

Sounds like something straight out of Fallout!

[@KeeganPurscelley]

I'll be honest- It would be pretty cool to have a nuclear reactor underneath a substation and have localized nuclear energy.

[@shadydealz]

@@00Tenrai00 not how that works, at all.

[@zombieshoot4318]

@@00Tenrai00 Did you watch the video? You can't have a meltdown with this design. It's 2024 and not 1954. We are more than capable of designing reactors that won't have a meltdown issue.

[@shadydealz]

​@@zombieshoot4318 you also have no idea what you're on about. Only types of gas cooled reactors, generally known as high-temperature gas-cooled reactors, such as the Japanese High Temperature Test Reactor and the United States' Very High Temperature Reactor, are inherently safe. Meaning that meltdowns and/or other types of core damage are physically impossible. Also whose "we"? Lol you ain't designing fuel rods.

[@malebolgia07]

@@shadydealz I’m sure he just meant humans in general and engineers to be specific. I think Nuclear power is safe and efficient enough to use anywhere. Even the earth made its own nuclear reactor billions of years ago in Oklo in Africa. How micro can you go? I’d like one in my backyard for upcoming events.

[@alanwatts8239]

​@@shadydealz A google search does not make you an expert in anything.

[@JoelGrant-ie4ly]

It seems almost too good to be true. Excellent sales pitch. I'd buy one.

[@jfbeam]

Indeed. So how many have they made? (not sold, but actually constructed) We have loads of theoretical designs. Even scores of research reactors. But none have made it to the point of actual - legal - viability. NuScale apparently got there, and then went bankrupt or something.

[@joedasilva38]

@@jfbeam Don’t you think that the power that be have blocked most or all of these? ijs

[@eriklondon2946]

@@jfbeam Yes the idea of financing the cost of not only a SMR but actually a factory to build SMR"s, and then start building SMR's means there is something like a 15-30 year pay back period, where in most finance things it is like 5-10 years. Sadly, I would love more people willing to fund the idea, to get it going. I think once they can turn one out per month, they will have a very efficient and inexpensive system. Otherwise I would love to suggest that perhaps the Saudi Family Fund could pay for it to be built, but I don't know if that would fly because of the NRC might not like the fact that it is a non-domestic funding source.

[@ultrasafenuclear]

@@jfbeam 0 made. 2 projects to break ground soon. this stuff takes time, alignment, and partnerships. Hope you wish us well!

[@ultrasafenuclear]

@@eriklondon2946 you're right. it's quite the valley of death. we are undeterred. keep up the support! We've been to UAE for fundraising and projects. Incredible ambition and success with their 4 new reactors. They are cautious on new tech.

[@born2fren]

Every small town needs one of these babies

[@ELCrisler]

This approach is way more practical than the HUGE power plant solutions we use today. Each community having a small independent grid that links to others offers redundancy and efficiency of design. Combine this with solar, wind, hydro and tidal to have a complete, carbon free power solution.

[@born2fren]

@@ELCrisler Agreed

[@_monti142]

@@ELCrisler for cheaper electricity you need scale, you cant have independent grids everywhere

[@waynesworldofsci-tech]

Silicon Carbide is really neat stuff used in many advanced applications in other industries. I’ve worked with it, and while it was more costly than the alternatives it was a beautiful fit for a lot of applications.

[@rgbcolor6450]

Silicon Carbine, otherwise known as sandpaper, grinding wheels, etc. It isn't a new material nor is it special.

[@waynesworldofsci-tech]

@@rgbcolor6450 Which invalidates nothing I said. The material is a good fit for many advanced applications, like diesel particulate filters, and other types of advanced filtration.

[@rgbcolor6450]

@@waynesworldofsci-tech I wasn't trying to invalidate your statement.. just pointing out that silicon carbide is a common material, not some special nuclear invention.

[@waynesworldofsci-tech]

@@rgbcolor6450 Agreed. It’s old, but oh man are the new applications exciting!

[@RusticKey]

@@rgbcolor6450 Which is even better! Since we don't have to allocate additional funds to invent some new wonder material.

[@saladamista8226]

I am a enthusiast of nuclear energy and it is a pity that this wonderful technology is so bad understood by the population in general, considering it unsafe and dangerous, while today there is a really mature and safe technology.

[@operationscomputer1478]

the pretend Greenies that are led by the nose by vested interests in the solar industry - receiving billions in grants to force roll out solar panels - these uneducated types are still parroting the solar not nuclear mantra from the 70s.

[@bobsmoot8454]

These types of reactors is the future and can be installed closer to the end user thus minimizing adverse impacts on the various grids and other consumers of this power of heat and electricity

[@ultrasafenuclear]

Yea. We want to get rid of the large scale grid long term. it's ugly and expensive, tacking on almost 50% of the cost delivered power.

[@i-love-space390]

Sounds like they have fixed the jamming problem that a pebble bed reactor reactor had by instead making the pebbles tinier and encasing them in fixed graphite fuel elements. It has key good features of the pebble bed reactor like thermal safety, but only lacks the ability to refuel while running. That was neat, but eliminating it made the reactor safer. Making the waste be self storing is also great. Seems to me they should be able to harvest the waste heat of waste fuel on a lower power level to power the reactor station. Why didn't Fukashima do that?

[@anxiousearth680]

Isn't that just normal fuel rods?

[@FirstName-nf4fx]

Optimized for a specific temp range I imagine. Once the fuel is delivering heat below a threshold it can't meet power demands so your reactor is just taking up space and not being used to its potential. More codt effective to replace the fuel than to have many reactors running at 1/4 capacity.

[@ultrasafenuclear]

We don't use pebbles. We use sesame sized TRISO particles embedded in pellets inside of big hexagonal blocks of graphite. The control rods just slide in and out.

[@zombieshoot4318]

Have to remember that Fukashima was designed and built in the 1960's and start working in 1971. The whole philosophy of design and building nuclear plants was different to today.

[@A1ex5438]

​@@ultrasafenuclearСам реактор предполагает обслуживание? Или после выработки топлива весь реактор утилизируется как контейнер с отходами?

[@dano1307]

This is what we need. I have a strong feeling oil companies will do whatever they can to stop it though.

[@mizan-mq3me]

No ,its not about oil companies Its about people. if people still used oil ,oil companies don't need to stop this project but im certainly many oil investor Will investor their money for this project to replace oil energy sector in the future Sorry if my English was bad

[@effervescentrelief]

Not at all. Oil is made into liquid fuels, and just about every single thing you use in daily life. No amount of wind turbines, solar panels, or nuclear reactors will change that. Those things only produce electricity, whereas oil produces actual physical products and low cost fuels that run the world. No matter what the talking heads say, oil will be produced for the next hundred years or more. There are too many products made from it that can't be obtained otherwise. Fuel, plastics, resins, ceramics, medications, fertilizers, solvents, cosmetics, personal care products, food additives, tangible physical things are made from oil. The world as we know it would not exist if we didn't have oil. So no, oil companies don't really care, power generation is not their primary product target.

[@brooxeyyy]

Remember, these guys do NOT have suicidal tendencies

[@twolford01]

I used to work at a nuclear power plant that used helium as a coolant, thorium rods, and graphite blocks to contain the rods. It was closed years ago and was turned into a natural gas powered plant. Was an expensive experiment that did not pan out due to the technology was beyond the machinery capabilities.

[@daniellarson3068]

How do you reprocess Triso fuel? Can Triso fuel be manufactured with Thorium? Are designs 100 percent complete and ready to be built? Is the Ultrasafe Reactor licensed in any nation? Good graphics in the video.

[@jlp1528]

Hopefully you will see this reply. I will attempt to answer your questions. Anything can be reprocessed if we want to do so. Just because TRISO fuel can never break down in a reactor does not mean we will never be able to retrieve it and break it down in a reprocessing facility. That said, Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and microreactors are meant to run with fuel of higher enrichment levels for greater lengths of time. This reduces the need for reprocessing in the first place, and greater ease of disposal also helps. Google "HALEU" (High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium) for more information. As far as I know, thorium-based TRISO fuel does not exist yet, but nothing says it never will. After all, this isn't the only upcoming reactor that will use some form of TRISO fuel. Check out the Xe-100 by X-energy for another example. It seems TRISO users also love helium as a coolant. Given the impressive, practically perfect safety of both, I'm not surprised. I would not say this or any new reactor design is "100% complete and ready to be built" until at least one has actually been built and tested. In the nuclear industry, designs get passed back and forth between companies, regulators, and other organizations, usually many times, before final approval and construction. I have included an example of this in the answer to your final question. Even after construction and activation, lessons are often learned and applied to future designs. I don't expect this to change, even as we see some reactors being mass produced in factories. Currently, the only new reactor design licenced by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of the United States is a 50 MWe SMR by NuScale. NuScale has since improved the design to increase power output to 77 MWe, but the revisions themselves will need approval. I'm not very good at keeping up with the regulatory agencies of other nations, but work is proceeding on many fronts to get numerous SMRs and microreactors licensed, tested, built, and operating around the world. Will we see SMRs and microreactors bringing commercial power to the masses by 2030? Time will tell, but I'm cautiously optimistic. There is already at least one SMR facility under construction in China. New Memorandums of Understanding, environmental assessments, and funding agreements are making headlines every month on every continent except Antarctica. The future of nuclear power is safer, more reliable, more efficient, more flexible, and more powerful than ever before.

[@obsoleteoptics]

​@@jlp1528NuScale turned out to be a scam. Now they're being sued by their investors for fraud.

[@_DZ_UR_]

For Thorium, They produce U-233 which could be used as a Nuclear fuel too

[@alexsnell8177]

Nuclear energy is making a big comeback, uranium is at an all time high; great for commodity traders.

[@alexeyhomzab]

an ethusiast of Nuclear Energy here, this is a clear explanation of your reactors, good work!

[@nibiruresearch]

This sounds very promising. I wish you success with the development.

[@akarslx545]

для зелёного перехода нужен безопасный реактор который будет работать полгода, чтобы снизить риск аварии аэс. Многие пост советские страны используют реакторы на 200% из-за этого допустили чаэс.

[@i-love-space390]

These are the kind of nuclear power units we were "sold" back in the 1950s and 60s when I was a kid. We thought everything, including cars and aircraft would be nuclear back then. But all the implementation mistakes in the ensuing decades almost screwed it out of existence. Maybe this will get nuclear back into the game. It would be PERFECT for a Lunar or Mars base!

[@mtn1793]

Those original plants were conflicted and corrupted by corporate greed. The bigger they made them the more government kickback money got involved and the harder it was to trace. Not to mention huge amounts of electricity to profit on. Every risk and responsibility was subsidized by not being regulated safely if regulated at all. Those people involved have squandered our futures, have squandered the great promises of nuclear energy. They’re criminals against humanity of the highest order and deserve prosecution.

[@ultrasafenuclear]

we hope so. our ceramic fuels resolve many of the accident consequence issues and our micro reactors unlock factory fabrication and safety. This is for all mankind!

[@mtn1793]

@@ultrasafenuclear I think municipalities can be convinced to vote in tax levies for generators in which the citizens receive the electricity back as return on their investment. A kind of socialized energy.

[@shauncb]

Or the North Pole...... like a Canadian military base up there maybe?

[@skinwalker69420]

Didn't the Soviets have little nuclear generators that they abandoned?

[@Ender987G]

Congrats on the design. I'm looking forward to hearing about a success in the news, and safe Nuclear energy for all!

[@hatsthedoggo6034]

Very informative I went ahead and purchased one for my home.

[@schmeeee840]

finally, people who are trying to make an actual difference.

[@ultrasafenuclear]

LFG

[@我在逛油管]

the problem is that this is very inefficient as the heat exchange using helium is not good at dissipating heat

[@sterlingmarshel6299]

Safety over efficiency

[@jlp1528]

The energy density of nuclear fuel (especially HALEU fuel) is so high that the efficiency of the cooling system is of little consequence to the efficiency of the reactor as a whole. Regardless, safety is the number one priority here, as it should be. While stringent regulations do cause various problems in the nuclear industry, it's worth it to keep people and the environment safe. I'd rather have a hundred safe small reactors than one big Chernobyl. That's an exaggeration of course; comparing modern and future nuclear reactors to Chernobyl is like comparing modern airliners to the Hindenburg.

[@harrymu148]

I mean it's almost at the level of refusing to buy coffee to save coffee money despite being richer than elon musk. The inefficiencies via helium can simply be minimized by the fact that Uranium is so energy dense.

[@Andromeda_GALaxy48]

We could use the heat to heat homes or we could put the reactor in a large water body. Would that work?

[@dongatello6969]

Gonna try this in my backyard, thank you!

[@marktwain5399]

Done here

[@Aaron-zu3xn]

a guy did it once the EPA got pissed they'll fine you like $10,000,000 for clean-up

[@Trome1200]

@@Aaron-zu3xn Well he was just a boyscout. I could do better.

[@blingbling2841]

Miniaturizing it even further to power a small city block or just a few houses with a fully self-sustained system within a couple dozen square feet built two or three levels underground could be quite interesting. Main challenge is ofc the cost of installation and the issue with the fuel itself being mishandled or sabotaged by third parties, and to counter that one might need a sort of monitoring system with an oversight. Like imagine a sort of lock on the container similar to ankle locks that felons have to wear during house arrest etc.

[@dodaexploda]

That is so amazingly cool!

[@CoolAidACAndRefrigeration]

Simply Amazing stuff. What is that ticker symbol? :)

[@anch5399]

A mini earth’s core generator. Magnificent

[@joedance14]

How large is the package? Power output? Lifespan? Maintenance? How is it handled at end of life? Is this the same as Small Modular Reactor(SMR)?

[@ultrasafenuclear]

Check out website for details: www.usnc.com/mmr/

[@tomrichter244]

I graduated with my engineering degree 50 years ago. At that time nuclear was the bright future, but for a lot of reasons it has never fully achieved the potential we predicted. Just think about 70 years ago they were putting nuclear power plants safely into submarines. This type of development seemed right around the corner at that time.

[@cs7th]

Sadly the anti-nuclear groups pressurised governments, who switched spending to other things, plus the media still open any discussion on nuclear power with a mushroom cloud, reinforcing deep seated fears. However, with alternatives energies now proving how difficult it is to build reliable 24/7/365 grid with intermittent power input, nuclear is now the obvious choice.

[@12pentaborane]

From what I've understood of naval reactors, they operate differently from power reactors. For the most part I think they are fast reactors.

[@toddthreess9624]

@@cs7th The reactors on submarines use weapons grade fuel - enriched to 20%. The US civilian nuclear industry uses fuel with a lower enrichment to avoid the risk of creating tons of high grade fuel that is outside the control of the military. Enriching fuel to 20% is 90% of the enrichment process, so it would be a much more tempting target for someone who wants steal themselves a nuclear bomb. And one of the byproducts of civilian nuc plants is plutonium and that became the feedstock for our weapons programs. Another reason the navy uses high grade fuel is because it's not prone to xenon poisoning. Radioactive xenon builds up in a reactor as it runs. During normal operation it's just burned up as part of the normal process. But when you shut down a civilian plant that xenon is not burned up as power drops. The left over xenon prevents the reactor from being restarted until it falls below a certain threshold. A military vessel can't afford to shut down a reactor and then have to just wait around before starting it back up again. Someone might be shooting at them.

[@iasimov5960]

@@12pentaborane No, they're not. Using highly enriched fuel, Navy reactors can be built small enough to fit inside a submarine hull. Where space is not a consideration, such in a power plant, the fuel is not enriched nearly as much. A significant portion of a large reactor's energy is derived from fast neutrons.

[@markgardner9635]

What is the cost per KWH for manufacturing and maintenance? what is the lifespan?

[@ultrasafenuclear]

We are designing the power plant for 40-year project lifetime, but fully expect that the civil works and much of the power plant will last 60-80 years and beyond. A gift for the future. the $/kWh are acceptable for many users looking for zero carbon power on-demand.

[@jlp1528]

I chuckled at the point about dissipating heat by glowing, because that's quite literally a thing: all objects lose heat via electromagnetic radiation. Fun fact: this is also how the James Webb space telescope is able to keep cool in deep space, even without anything else to conduct heat away.

[@jlp1528]

@Based_transition_Clocker "Glowing" implies light, usually visible light, but in this case infrared. Infrared radiation is harmless as long as it gets absorbed by something which can be heated without damage, i.e. concrete in this case. Even the radiation from (thermo)nuclear weapon detonations is mostly thermal. Radiation is a very general term and can refer to the entire electromagnetic spectrum. Look up ionizing vs non-ionizing radiation. The latter does not cause DNA damage, only heating at most.

[@jlp1528]

@Based_transition_Clocker What is confusing about my reply? In any case, all radiation from nuclear reactors is shielded with thick steel and concrete. Whether you're talking about the ionizing radiation, non-ionizing radiation, or neutrons, all of it is extensively monitored and none of it escapes the containment building.

[@jlp1528]

@Based_transition_Clocker Tell me how I'm wrong then.

[@ultrasafenuclear]

@Based_transition_Clocker yea trying to speak to as many people as possible. The point is the reactor temperatures remain safe and with plenty of margin without any active cooling. that's what is special.

[@00Tenrai00]

@@jlp1528non ionising radiation can still cause damage… also, how is nuclear fuel disposed off? Nuclear reactors are ticking time bombs! Never ever!!!

[@backflipsaresweet]

What do you use for vaporization for CVD? bubbler, DLI vaporizer, etc

[@Bloated_Tony_Danza]

Does this qualify as one of those high temperature gas cooled reactors? I like the lack of water cooling, seems safer this way. But still, I'm much more interested in fluid fuel reactors. I hope your design is successful!

[@jlp1528]

Precisely, and it's no secret why HTGRs are making a comeback: helium is almost everything you could want in a nuclear reactor coolant. It's already gas so it can't boil. It's physically, biologically, chemically, and radiologically inert. It's not hard to get. Even the lower efficiency can be mitigated by operating reactors at higher temperatures; the hotter something gets, the faster it can conduct and radiate heat away. Of course, helium is a very small atom, so it really likes to find leaks, but preventing leaks of anything is hardly a new or unusual challenge in the realm of nuclear power.

[@owenabrey1433]

I have been thinking of this for quite some time. Congratulations. Would appreciate a touch-base so I can learn more.

[@japanse_samurai9456]

How do you maintain it?

[@FixItStupid]

Leak & Vent Cancer How They ALL Work See The Cancer Rate Down Wind & Water Up In To The Rain Fall OUT Cancer

[@ultrasafenuclear]

Refueling. Constant monitoring and inspection. Swapping out components.

[@japanse_samurai9456]

@@ultrasafenuclear Sounds great, thank you for your answer

[@aputik2503]

Hi. This seems very interesting, but how does it generate heat to boil water? i didnt see any water exept the flooding scenario in the animation. Thank you

[@foolish_admiral]

Thank you for developing such promising technology🎉

[@jaysaini955]

I have envisioned this for 5 years and finally they pulled it off :)

[@eriklondon2946]

There is also Molten Salt Reactors, which can be used in replacement of the Helium in this situation. I personally would love to see a Small Modular Reactor (where you could have up to say 10 of them) next to each other all using a Molten Salt Reactor, so they could build up energy for large power draws from 2pm-9pm, especially during summer heat. I think it is the best and most efficient way.

[@MostlyPennyCat]

I've been watching SMR presentations for years. Until this point, I'd only seen one viable candidate, Moltex Energy. Now I've seen two, congratulations.

[@MostlyPennyCat]

Although one big question is use of nuclear approved materials, is there existing approval for all the materials? Nuclear steels, etc. What about the silicon carbide fuel matrix, will it need approval before it can be used? That's often a death trap for new nuclear.

[@ultrasafenuclear]

@@MostlyPennyCat Great points. The TRISO specification we are using has been approved, and used in multiple reactors, even some operating today. The steels, graphite, etc are all conventional nuclear materials used in reactors today.

[@MostlyPennyCat]

@@ultrasafenuclear I know TRISO pebbles has been approved, but the TRISO & Silicon Carbide matrix is also approved for nuclear use? That's excellent. All but one of the Molten Salt Reactor Designs have pumped molten nuclear fuel. They require new nuclear steels. Only Moltex Energy uses Approved Nuclear Steels, they get around this by having static molten salt fuel tubes. They're currently building one in Canada. To my eyes, only yourselves and Moltex have a dog in this race. Best of Luck, you've got some serious competition in Moltex!

[@heinz-haraldfrentzen1261]

So if you are using carbon as a neutron moderator, how does the reactor have a negative temperature feedback, (reaction slows as temperature rises) if for some reason the coolant is no longer present in the reactor.

[@markdavis8888]

Seems like a solid fuel like triso would create a lot of waste per MW/hr. It does seem safer that anything Westinghouse or GE came up with.

[@jlp1528]

At first glance, it is understandable to get this impression. However, SMRs and microreactors are meant to operate without refuelling for many more years than current reactors. Instead of swapping out fuel elements every 2 or 3 years, you're looking at 5, 7, 20, and beyond. Some designs don't call for refuelling at all, they simply run until they can't run any more, at which point the core can be decommissioned and disposed of as a whole. Reprocessing options are also possible.

[@_DZ_UR_]

What about U-233?

[@chandrachurniyogi8394]

very interested in micro modular marine reactors that can generate 11 MW - 14 MW of power either collectively or singularly . . . really curious to know if extraction of usable electric power (for marine propulsion or otherwise) is possible without the need for gas turbines . . . if so what are the other options available . . . a combination of micro modular marine reactor & direct injection marine fuel turbines instead of the traditional marine gas turbine . . . such know how is priceless even for a layman or just for the sake of knowing . . .

[@ultrasafenuclear]

We are discussing exactly this with many customers who want power for various off-shore platforms and ships. It is feasible.

[@gmhs2]

Neat idea, but I notice you did not mention one of these likely expensive reactors has the output of *3 wind turbines* (15 MW max). I'm very pro-nuclear, but holy hell that is a really piss-poor fuel density, you'd practically be coating large portions of the landscape, or large areas of underground space, in these reactors. It'd be possible yeah, but it just seems unfeasible compared to constructing a single, centralized plant that produces gigawatts of power, and possibly for less money vs energy output.

[@craggleshenanigans]

Wonder how feasible this is to be used on an industrial application, like factories or steel mills. Heard about this kind of reactor when Meralco, here in the Philippines stated they're planning to have one sometime in the future (2027-28)

[@ultrasafenuclear]

The feasibility study is nearly finished. The real test will be deriving reactors and operating them for many decades.

[@markswishereatsstuff2500]

I want one the size of a microwave oven powering my house and electric vehicles.

[@Tunzbig]

Fantastic video. Thank you for the time that you guys took to make it

[@railgap]

Where has one of these been built, tested, and operated? Anywhere? Or is it still just tenuous promises to investors at this stage?

[@obsoleteoptics]

It's another scam, just like NuScale. 👍

[@00Tenrai00]

Nuclear can never be safe… they simply left “nuclear waste disposal” ambiguous. Where do you store nuclear waste! Some poor third world country ?

[@zombieshoot4318]

@@00Tenrai00 Actually you can store it right next to the power plant. Which is where all the waste is right now.

[@nauticalfish2008]

@@00Tenrai00 Nuclear waste gets sealed into heavy, thick casks. Compared to coal and natural gas, nuclear is much safer. A grand total of 50 people have ever died to anything related to nuclear energy.

[@kaiserxion]

@@nauticalfish2008 but, but, but all the scary news stories. All the hubub around the water cooler. Are you telling me it's been blown out of proportion to an urban legend like story?

[@abhilashv2014]

The world need your voice

[@tdmmcl1532]

so I have questions: what is the expected power capability for one unit? put it in terms of kilowatt hours? The comparison to barrels of diesel for one "pellet" is not helpful. How many pellets in one MMR reactor, how much kilowatt hours of power is produced? I like the safe design...it's nice...but isn't it also true that the limiting the heat capability also works the other way? as in, there is ceiling of power that cannot be exceeded? What would be the use case for such a MMR reactor? Are we really talking about installing thousands and thousands of these across the entire continent? Or are we talking about thousands that are collocated in say 50 locations ? What would be the advantages apples to apples (kilowatt hours) to very large conventional nuclear reactors that have a much higher power rating? I'm trying to wrap my head around what this technology actually presents in terms of competitive advantage...is it just simply safety....because if it's simple safety as the metric...I could argue that conventional nuclear reactors are quite safe and with a few additional reconfigurations in the existing nuclear conventional reactors at least as safe and possibly more safe. So what is this new technology really going to do ? I am skeptical. I am skeptical because there are so many novel technologies we see that makes the news..but when you drill down there are some deep flaw and even misrepresentations ....what the US NEEDS is to stop the nonsense and start engineering that actually works and can be proven to work..and what i mean by work: please stop the nonsense with hydrogen powered fuel cell cars...the net power required to produce hydrogen exceed the power output. That has never made any economic sense. The more we look at some of these new technologies, the more they appear to be nothing more than money hauls to get grants and federal money and actually do nothing to solve "net zero" or green alternative.... about the best we have so far seems to be solar. But the problem with solar is SCALE....and there are obvious real world problems that cannot be overcome easily.

[@jlp1528]

USNC's website lists power ratings of 3.5-15 MWe and 10-45 MWth per unit. Of course there will be a tradeoff between the two, and the exact configuration will depend on what the customer needs. Electricity isn't the only thing nuclear reactors can be used for. Heat can be used directly for industrial applications. District heating in particular does not require very high temperatures, only an effective and efficient system to absorb, transfer, and release heat from a great potential variety of sources. I understand the economic concerns, but remember that renewables are only so far ahead of nuclear because they have been granted at least ten times more investment and attention for decades. The more we invest in SMRs and microreactors, the more affordable they will become. Also, remember that in 50 years a nuclear power plant is still a nuclear power plant, and it might even still be fully operational. In 50 years, heck, in 20 years, a field of solar panels is a field of toxic waste.

[@tdmmcl1532]

Very Interesting. Good Info, appreciate it. I was not even thinking about the heating application and how small scale could be used for very large manufacturing and assembly facilities. I am not opposed to nuclear energy. I think it's an optics problem with several high level mishaps, but those can be solved with better safety controls and location. Why build next to a earthquake zone or near a shoreline where tsunamis are non trivial. I do like the SMR design in this video due to the fail safes that are engineered into the design. Hopefully the US realizes that investments in this area is necessary and we don't put all our eggs in the basket of solar and wind and hydrogen, but that seems to be the current economic agenda. The renewal and safe energy paradigm must be capable of overcoming a 4 year political cycle. I worry that the US will take the german option and condemn nuclear and then wind back to square one with coal and NG gas energy facilities. It's a lack of long term strategic investment. Right now, it all seems to be a hurried short term cobbled plan that doesn't realize a determined goal. We have milestones to reach and these are stated in general terms, with few actual realistic investment strategies to achieve them. It seems the ordinary citizen believes that owning an EV car for example is going to make a difference and lacks the bigger picture that an entirely different paradigm shift must take place about HOW energy is produced. It's hard to imagine the world moving away from classic forms of energy in the current circumstances given there is no business advantages to make the transformation happen without a very long and very expensive investment to do so. SMR's can definitely play a role in this transition..@@jlp1528

[@jlp1528]

@@tdmmcl1532 These things take time. Solar, wind, and other renewables definitely have their place, but even after all this time and money, they still only provide about 11% of electricity in the US. Compare that to nuclear energy, which provides about 8% despite decades of delays, billions of dollars in budget overruns, and not nearly the same attractive image as that of renewables. What we need is a good mix of energy sources and storage solutions on a case by case basis. There is no "one size fits all" energy mix; many factors need to be considered to determine the ideal energy mix for any given scenario. USNC themselves talk much more about potential applications and energy mix options in their most recent KZbin video. It's about twice as long as this one, but well worth watching. Again, while it may sound counterintuitive, renewables are "cheap" and "attractive" only because we have invested so much in them in the first place. If we had instead invested in nuclear, we would be in a far better position, even taking all the disadvantages into account. Yet despite the relative lack of investment, the nuclear industry has solved incredible scientific and engineering challenges. Lack of public understanding and political will, on the other hand... I imagine these videos are made to help tackle such remaining issues, not just to sell new reactors. I will copy and paste the last paragraph of another comment I made so you don't have to dig for it. It's very relevant to your concerns. Will we see SMRs and microreactors bringing commercial power to the masses by 2030? Time will tell, but I'm cautiously optimistic. There is already at least one SMR facility under construction in China. New Memorandums of Understanding, environmental assessments, and funding agreements are making headlines every month on every continent except Antarctica. The future of nuclear power is safer, more reliable, more efficient, more flexible, and more powerful than ever before.

[@tdmmcl1532]

@@jlp1528 I appreciate your detailed and informed reply. I am rethinking a change in my profession from wide body commercial avionics tech to nuclear and possibly solar in the maintenance segment. I've pretty much hit my career potential in avionics and nuclear and solar seems to be a good next level step. So this is also a "selfish" interest in these two fields. Any advice on opportunities is of course 😁

[@jlp1528]

@@tdmmcl1532 I am not an expert, I just learn as much as I can from experts and attempt to share it with others. I've been fascinated, perhaps even a little obsessed with radioactivity since middle school. I'm 29 now. Don't worry, I'm sure USNC, X-energy, NuScale, and more will have plenty of opportunities in the years to come. GE/Hitachi, Westinghouse, and other more established names will have to keep up too, as will governments, mines, enrichment facilities, fuel fabs, reprocessing plants, the list goes on. Like I said, the future is bright!

[@sjuas690]

Safe enough to power commercial shipping?

[@ultrasafenuclear]

could very well be. many interested customers across the globe.

[@Beeman2892]

The Philippines and usnc just signed a deal after the 123 agreement

[@FixItStupid]

Killing EARTH

[@Beeman2892]

@@FixItStupid its safe and is actually going to save earth

[@obsoleteoptics]

​@@Beeman2892false

[@woodzyfox4735]

SO. i can have this in my basement right powering my home right? Its THAT SAFE right?

[@Piccodon]

Fission products, like Xenon gas, build up and stop the neutron flow, and are locked into the pellets? This requires "refueling", discarding the old pellets for new ones. Nuclear "waste" with actinides and other fission products, can be burned in a fast spectrum molten chloride reactor, after mild reprocessing. The cost of the fuel would be very low (as it is waste) and change a 100,000 year storage problem to a 300 year, with much smaller volume. The US has enough waste for 800 years of use at present level. TRISO fuel cost how much per MW hour?

[@FixItStupid]

See A Nuclear END One Way OR The Other @ 39 CPM Cancer Lotto

[@Helloverlord]

Does it come in red? What's available power over cost of installement?

[@chapter4travels]

One question, and the only one that matters, will this be cheaper than coal power plants?

[@mrbasfed1948]

No. It will be more expensive but with much less harm to the environment.

[@acrobatickebab5949]

It will be significantly cheaper over it's entire lifespan. It has high upfront costs though, which seems to discourage most people, but the operating, maintenance, and fuel costs are much lower than those of coal fired power plants. So over a 20 year period the total expenditure on one of these would be cheaper than the expenditure on a coal plant over the same time period.

[@clivemossmoon3611]

@@acrobatickebab5949 The point is it will have to be subsidized by the government which means central control of power more than there is today which is nightmarish.

[@ultrasafenuclear]

@@mrbasfed1948 at first yes. long term, you need to think in terms of energy density and economies of production. Have you seen the work it takes to feed a coal plant? literal trains of coal every day.

[@ultrasafenuclear]

@@clivemossmoon3611 No. We have basically no government support for our projects. Pretty unfair actually.

[@ryanwood6006]

Amazing but my only concern is the scarcity of helium. There was a massive shortage in 2021. Would any other alternatives work at safe levels?

[@FarmerDrew]

Yes! I have been waiting for these things so that my soup thermos always has steamy delicious chicken noodle soup on those chilly autumn days.

[@smouky577]

This look great !!! Definitely i will invest and buy share but is a privately held company 😮‍💨 Haw time this reactor will generate energy whit out replace or add new FCM fuel pellets ???

[@ultrastoat3298]

Just curious, has anyone every advertised their reactor design as NOT safe? I feel like every reactor that has had a catastrophic event had some marketing materials just like this that preceded it.

[@caav56]

TBF, of all failed power reactors, AFAIK, only RBMK was a "fly-by-wire" one, relying almost entirely on SKALA's PRISMA program to remain stable, due to positive void coefficient. This one seems to lack such a dangerous peculiarity.

[@jjwwqq]

How many reactors have had a catastrophic event?

[@alanwatts8239]

Well it sounds and looks great, but what are the numbers?

[@morgan40654]

or... CANDU... still perfectly safe as it always has been.

[@hermanosmayorga10]

A question here, the FLiBe can be a good alternative? (For an essay of nuclear reactors cooling)

[@rondesantis7017]

I Doubt It.

[@NNPSOrlando1991]

Nice overview. I'd love to dig in deeper. You've got my interest peaked.

[@beluapi8865]

What kind of power output can one reactor put out?

[@stephenlapointe4308]

Beautiful, build them!

[@sterlingmarshel6299]

Building 12 in central Washington by energy northwest

[@FixItStupid]

HELL NO

[@FixItStupid]

@@sterlingmarshel6299 Cancer Lotto

[@ultrasafenuclear]

@@sterlingmarshel6299 That would be X-Energy, another gas-reactor vendor. We hope it happens soon!

[@Benitos_rus]

сколько построено работающих прототипов? сколько часот тоработано в тестах? картинки и презентации все могут рисовать.

[@ultrasafenuclear]

HTTR Japan, very similar to MMR, operated many years and is being turned again now. Ft. St Vrain in Colorado operated for about a decade. HTR-PM in China is 2 pebble bed reactors with similar technology. Our team and suppliers have all the power plant systems, fuel, and components needed to make this a reality.

[@adrianthoroughgood1191]

We need reactors either using fast spectrum to burn U238 or Thorium recactors. There isnt enough available U235 to meet the worlds energy needs. This kind of reactor will get less useful output out of limited U235 reserves than a large reactor.

[@jlp1528]

I agree that we should be investing in more fast breeder reactors due to sustainability among other concerns. However, it's hard to say how long all existing and future U-235 reserves will last. Also, thermal neutron reactors can potentially be fed reprocessed fast breeder reactor fuel and vice versa. Russia already has a concept for a nuclear fuel cycle like this.

[@zbret]

Agreed - I'm also looking forward to more thorium and fast-spectrum reactors, but I think you may have confused "reserves" with actual availability. When one talks about "reserves" ie uranium, oil, gold, etc, they mean AT THE CURRENT PRICE (and with current extraction tech). As prices rise and/or tech improves, "proven reserves" increase. You also may be unaware the ocean has a lot of uranium in it, roughly 4 billion tons. This basically puts a ceiling on the price of uranium, and that's without talking about how reserves increase on land as well. Add in the thorium and U238 lying around (like in depleted uranium for example) and we have power to last through thousands or millions of years. BTW, the LFTR is a thorium-based reactor that is thermal-spectrum, so you don't HAVE to have fast-spectrum to use thorium (nothing wrong with fast-spectrum, just interesting).

[@jlp1528]

@@zbret Thank you for explaining reserves and mentioning oceanic mineral extraction. Very good points. That is one reason I said "it's hard to say" whether we have enough U235 or not for long term sustainability. OP stated we don't have enough as a matter of fact. In reality, we don't know, because there are far too many variables. I believe that's why we're seeing such a great variety of new reactor designs. Future nuclear power should be treated like an investment portfolio: diversity provides flexibility and resiliency.

[@zbret]

@@jlp1528 That is a very good way of looking at it, and thanks for replying. I was replying to your's and the OP's point but it has been great chatting with you. I like the "portfolio" analogy. This is how I view it, plus I expect the most successful one will naturally become built more and more frequently. I could easily see some sort of automation to build such reactors (barely a human in the process) once the design reaches a certain point. The next level (if needed) would be a factory that automates the building of such factories. The expansion would then become exponential in a hurry.

[@jlp1528]

@@zbret I don't think we will have any problems with availability of raw fissile and fertile materials. However, I do have concerns about HALEU enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing. The reactor is only one part of the nuclear fuel cycle. The whole cycle needs to be more robust and diversified. One can easily make the argument that an exponential increase in the adoption of nuclear power is necessary to meet growing global energy demands and make progress toward carbon neutrality within urgent timeframes. The problem is, that's only part of the huge puzzle. Without robust supporting infrastructure - enrichment capacity, reprocessing and disposal options, transportation, regulations, and so on - the nuclear renaissance will fizzle out before it has any chance to make a difference.

[@watcher5729]

Molten salt cooling with thorium feed it could be an cost effective neans for water desakination and pumping to remote areas

[@jfbeam]

One thing to keep in mind here... their definition of "micro" is not on the same scale as common vernacular. This is more on the scale of micro for an aircraft carrier, or moon. The thing is still bigger than most houses. And they show it buried, missile silo style.

[@00Tenrai00]

Yes… in case of a meltdown. Place stays radio active for a million years… 😅

[@grubstarstar]

How does the reaction stop when the coolant goes away? Can someone explain the mechanism by which that occurs? Love the idea of a passively safe reactor.

[@mineton1293]

My guess would be that the type of fuel they use has a negative feedback loop, so when it gets hotter, it releases less neutrons.

[@aaroncosier735]

Heat makes materials expand. As the nuclear fuel expands in a coolant failure, this would act to move fissile atoms ever so slightly further apart and take the reactor below criticality. Of course, once it cools, it would contract again, so some *other* mechanism has to intervene, perhaps by forcing in dampener control rods, or by drawing in a neutron absorbing "poison", perhaps one that only melted during an overtemperature event. It's not infeasible. I think the big question lies in the cost of routine operation, efficiency, and decommissioning and waste disposal. These sorts of costs have plagued other designs and concepts.

[@grubstarstar]

@@aaroncosier735 wouldn't it find an equilibrium between being in the expanded, less reactive state, and being in the cooler contracted state then?

[@aaroncosier735]

@@grubstarstar This is traditionally achieved using absorber rods, or by modulating the boron in the coolant. If the coolant is the moderator, then coolant loss takes things below criticality. *but* Delayed neutrons from all the *other* decays, not just the first fission of uranium, these contribute a large proportion of the total heat, and take time to die away. They generate enough heat to cause issues.

[@grubstarstar]

@@aaroncosier735 nice one thanks

[@receptayyip1410]

Inefficiant is the key word.

[@Im_The_Dude]

This is absolutely fantastic, if you have a garage-sized unit available I’d love to get a data sheet and installation cost plan from you guys for my property up in Maine! All kidding aside as I don’t have that kind of capital, these are awesome and leave me hopeful for the future

[@trevorabbott3907]

Could be good to send to Ukraine right now

[@1GoodDag]

Ukr will be better off when it's Russia again... Sry m8

[@romanchomenko2912]

@@1GoodDag Another pro Russian bot ,Ukraine will be prosperous country after winning the war with Russia and there's a sting to all Russians they will have to pay reparations to Ukraine for war damages. That's 208 percent down payments for loss of GDP since 2014 and a long furlough of 3 years until Ukraine's industrial complexes yep 1.3 trillion dollars owed over 25 years. The Russians could sell 250 million acres of farmland to the Chinese and you still have change ha ha .

[@daweller]

would this work as the UPS for my PC

[@dwmcever]

There is no proof whatsoever that these reactors are safe.

[@sterlingmarshel6299]

They are already operating in many countries with no incidents

[@ultrasafenuclear]

@@sterlingmarshel6299 thank you.

[@xalapang]

how many of thoes reactors are up and running and where in the world?

[@tedchandran]

Jai Hinduja. I don't know about micro reactors. but there are 2 of same type experimental 4th generation pebble reactors running in Shidao Bay nuclear plant in China.

[@sterlingmarshel6299]

China Russia and India

[@CdrmnkNathan]

There's several US companies leading in this field a couple already build similar SMR's for Nuclear subs for DOD. You have BWXT out of VA. Westinghouse is also creating a micro SMR, their new one is call eVinci. They have a long standing history of building nuclear power plants. They recently been building AP300 Mid sized SMR's in Ukraine, China and a couple in Georgia US.

[@ultrasafenuclear]

We have deployed 0 Micro Modular Reactors. We have two projects that should break ground this year. There are other similar reactors in operation right now in China and Japan. The US had a few similar reactors in the 1980s.

[@wildeninja2836]

Where do I sign!?

[@lifuranph.d.9440]

Is MMR as efficient as Thorium Liquid Salt Reactors? More cost effective?

[@ultrasafenuclear]

they are real at least. so that's something

[@karthikeyanhari7853]

Very promising. Is this already used in any country?

[@kuromomutaro]

UK,France and Japan is currently bulding there own Modular reactor this is indeed the future unless we make progress on fusion reactor which is currently under development for almost 2 decades now..

[@talesdemidioful]

what about the water source? it becomes radioactive aswell?

[@ultrasafenuclear]

there is no water source. The reactor is cooled by helium gas. The final heat rejection is made up of air cooled heat exchangers. Most coal and nuclear power plants still use water heat rejection with cooling towers. In any case, the air or water is not radioactive.

[@meandyou1914]

Can I Get One At Home Depot or Lowes ?

[@astemet]

what is the mod popular size of average power plant - coal, nuclear, gas?

[@ultrasafenuclear]

The average power plant delivers 46 MWe when averaged over the year. More info here: www.usnc.com/right-sizing-a-power-plant/

[@TisforTech]

@MKBHD has been testing this to power his studio for the last year!

[@vandalsavage6152]

Yes but how much does the electricity cost per kWh?

[@ultrasafenuclear]

Like any new tech, it will be high at first and be reduced later after we production rates go up. Many customers pay a premium

[@00Tenrai00]

@@ultrasafenucleardeath wish premium…

[@SamuelFoster666]

How often do you change control rodes?

[@ultrasafenuclear]

End of life. 40-60 years. never unless there are issues.

[@SamuelFoster666]

@@ultrasafenuclear Thanks Sounds like only Gouvernement applications with very limited and exclusive private sector applications that also with specific needs and not for commercial use. Like, emergency backup storage systems, military applications, secret facilities that needs UPS, space applications also is a possibility if you make it modular.

[@jamesrichardson1]

Where is this being used at this time?

[@SF7PAKISTAN]

Can you guys use recycled fuel in this?

[@ultrasafenuclear]

Not really. We don't like dealing making radioactive fuel as it's expensive. The TRISO particles can be made with MOX from weapons, as well as thorium

[@DU7HS]

Wie werden die Brennstäbe gewechselt?

[@cousineddie7444]

Yea, but will it charge my phone and laptop at the same time?

[@tommartens3731]

So what is the “ doesn’t need very much at all” if there is loss of power/cooling?

[@jlp1528]

I think this was just an expression meaning it doesn't need anything not already present in the core itself to remain safe. This is of course the ideal scenario for any nuclear reactor, or any machine for that matter.

[@ultrasafenuclear]

@@jlp1528 correct. most power plants will have big issues if they lose emergency cooling, emergency power generation, and the ability to control the reactor.

[@goldgeologist5320]

When is one being built?

[@ultrasafenuclear]

One at Chalk River Labs in Canada. Another at University of Illinois at Urbana Champaigne. if at least one isn't built by the end of the decade we will have failed.

[@JohnD6280]

I like it! Where, when and how much???

[@Worker225]

How eficcent is it if it the heat is just radiated and conducted into the environment?

[@ultrasafenuclear]

during normal operations, the heat is transported from the core to a heat exchanger using helium. During accidents, where there is no coolant, or the coolant is not able to circulate, the heat will radiate and conduct into the environment.

[@dantruong2582]

I am no expert, but isn't helium a bit rare and really expensive? Could this would something more abundant like nitrogen?

[@ultrasafenuclear]

Somewhat, but not in the quanitties we're looking at. Global production is 25 milllion kg. We need about 100 kg per reactor. And we use it for 40 years, and can even reusue it.

[@dantruong2582]

@ultrasafenuclear thank you for the feedback. I hope our governments in Canada would implement these.

[@Diego-we5ui]

where can I buy one

[@iamscoutstfu]

Will it fit in my honda though?

[@Hambone556]

Let's do it! Clean energy and reliable. Where do I sign up?

[@ultrasafenuclear]

your local utility. They make decisions with input from the public. Let them know!

[@patrickreilly7256]

Wow... until the end I thought it was small enough to put in my old transistor radio.

[@Ang3lUki]

How large is a unit?

[@mckutzy]

So essentially the reactor containment vessel, is it's own vessel for when it is decommissioned and sent to bed for disposal in a radioactive repository?

[@ultrasafenuclear]

no. we remove the graphite fuel blocks and stick them in dry cask storage. The vessel is reused for the next batch of fuel. It's pretty thick steel vessel (4-5cm thick) so good to keep using. like reusable rockets

[@yanis905]

How small could these units be scaled down to? Could they provide reliable energy for future moon bases, instead of relying on solar energy?

[@ultrasafenuclear]

100% We are developing the Pylon nuclear genset for exactly this purpose.