Mobile Nuclear Reactors Will Change Everything

[@atomicblender]

To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/AtomicBlender The first 200 of you will get 20% off Brilliant’s annual premium subscription.

[@bigmikeobama5314]

mobile nuclear reactors would indeed change everything, from the moment a wreck on the freeway happens and a large chunk of the interstate and surrounding woods becomes a cancer causing zone for generations

[@Human_01]

This will be the future of energy (especially for military uses). Ai (especially for maintenance and regulation) Will only further this technology. Space technology and space exploration will benefit greatly as well.

[@antispindr8613]

And think about the ways such reactors could solve the problems of the Middle East for ever!

[@stevenjbernard]

Microreactors could be used not only for electricity but also as a source of hot water for district heating, reducing the cost even further.

[@AlldaylongRock]

Cogeneration is goated be it with a big one, or a micro one

[@AlldaylongRock]

@@williamjones9662 you should check out the volume of TENORMs generated in REE mining for wind turbines and solar panels. Or the concentration of radioactive material in coal ash and fracking fluid.

[@caesarsalad1170]

@@williamjones9662 Bury it 5 miles deep

[@FixItStupid]

And Cancer For ALL

[@rambultruesdell3412]

think Iceland 🇮🇸

[@WvlfDarkfire]

So you're aware, westinghouse has a much smaller reactor, but it's classified still. This one was only recently declassified and applied to commercial applications. Government only uses them for subs and some aircraft.

[@Ikbeneengeit]

Aircraft 😳

[@unicornadrian1358]

Exactly this. Micro reactors are not new. They have been in service for decades.

[@NuclearNewsChannel]

There’s a lot more than Westinghouse haha, over 15 providers with great generation 4 designs!

[@12pentaborane]

​@@Ikbeneengeit That claim is total bs, at the most charitable they might be talking about the reactor in the NB-36. The reactor on it just output its heat to a radiator providing 0 thrust.

[@MrMax42099]

Tell me what aircraft is powered by a nuclear reactor.. 😂

[@greezyhammer764]

Heat pipes with no moving parts VS exposing fast-spinning turbine blades to a high neutron flux. Hard choice.

[@sillysad3198]

imagine a neutron turbine :)

[@jeffbenton6183]

I liked your comment, but thinking about it again, I'm not sure that this is what was actually presented. One thing that kept bothering me after re-watching the video is that we didn't see any associated turbine for the other two designs - just the reactors. If the reactor's heat isn't spinning a turbine, then it's not producing any electricity (at least, not very efficiently). So the jet-turbine blades are really comparable to the heat pipes, because they have different purpose (namely to convert the energy into electricity, rather than merely to prevent the reactor from overheating). That said, I do wonder if those blades are exposed to the neutron flux, and how big an issue that's going to be. Just looking at the way that quad-pack is configured, it looks like they're in the line of fire, but I'm just not sure.

[@dustinherk8124]

@@sillysad3198 no thank you, that would weigh a inconceivable amount. a "teaspoon" of neutrons weigh like 10 million lbs.

[@nibiruresearch]

The Norway ship owner Ulstein is building a new ice breaker and rescue ship with a molten salt reactor as energy source. It will never need to be refuelled during its life time. Small modular reactors are the future.

[@clarkkent9080]

Tell that to NuScale that just canceled their project

[@antispindr8613]

At last, some GOOD NEWS to counter all the nuke industry's well paid trolls!

[@CodeRedCollections]

I will have the pleasure of building one hopefully soon on the Westinghouse team as a welder!

[@petrstepanek673]

good luck with that!Its my dream to work on a project like that

[@bjarnenilsson80]

Not to mention data centers (esp the mega scale ones used by the larger public cloud providers). These have a major common issue when a new site is to be picked: The local power grid can't supply enough power due to insufficient transmission capacity. But if a few micro reactors can be brought in and be operational in a month instead of a decade, and run continuedly for +5 years that problem suddenly becomes a lot less complicated. Ofc now you get the NIMBY rowd that will rase loud objections to a "mini chernobyl", never mind that these reactors are many decades newer with a completely different design, even vaguely close to them, but these problems can probably be solved by throwing enugh money (ie legal staff) at them.

[@arxaaron]

Exciting developments, but I'll be holding hope for a 30year LFTR micro design. :-)

[@user-ml8dm9fz6l]

reminds me of the failed 2015 USB pocket sized fuel cell power plant by Ezelleron: the Kraftwerk

[@nixielee]

It's insane that we gave up on this tech just because of a few accidents. It's efficient, clean and powerful without a meaningful downside. Clearly this is how humanity evolve and take the next step.

[@tomizatko3138]

Bro "no meaningful downsides" are you joking. There is atleast 6-4 problems with it, but i get it you think this is a magical solution for all our energic problems. News flash! It isn't we need to diversify our infrastracture of intermidiaries batteries with geothermal, solar, wind , wave, nuclear (small, big), even biofuels and some hydrogen is important.

[@jimk8520]

It’s not a magical solution but, barring an actual unforeseen disaster, nuclear power has fewer downsides than the vast majority of other solutions you’ve listed.

[@tomizatko3138]

@@jimk8520 source of the fuel (Russia), the long long investments in building it up, no mistakes of getting rid of waste material (corporations--- do you play Fallout, then you know where the waste is going to go)

[@tomizatko3138]

Then tell me the downsides of geothermal, solar, wind and why do you think they have more downsides.

[@jimk8520]

@@tomizatko3138 I don’t need you to believe what I’ve said. I’m not here to school you and I would encourage you to do some real core reading on these subjects. In other words, do your own actual research on the topic. Better yet, go to work in the power industry and see what’s wrong with it from the bottom up (Like I did). You just might end up with a different view.

[@MuantanamoMobile]

ROSATOM's floating nuclear power plants like the Akademik Lomonosov is another interesting portable alternative. Since the reactors employed are smaller in size and power than most commercial land-based reactors, mostly derived from nuclear ship and submarine power plants, the power output is generally a fraction of a conventional nuclear power plant, usually around 100MWe, although some are planned to have as much as 800MWe. They are also working on the Shelf-M reactor, a low-power NPP (ASMM) designed for local electricity supply to facilities in remote areas with an undeveloped power grid. The planned installed capacity is up to 10MWe. The estimated service life of the station is 60 years with refuelling every eight years.

[@TheSwissGabber]

After a certain shrinkage the required security detail on site is going to cost more then reactor :D.

[@caesarsalad1170]

Nuclear safety and maintenance will have to become mandatory curriculum in schools, as early as 6th grade, science class was fun af.

[@arcanealchemist3190]

my concern is how easily these could become orphan sources. the soviet union used RTGs extensively, for somewhat similar reasons, and when they collapsed those reactors became one of the largest contributors to orphan nuclear material in history. to my knowledge, they are still out there too, not all have been located. using nuclear energy in military activities is also a concern when you consider that would make nuclear material a target for other militaries. if a military is using one nuclear reactor to power a large encampment, that's a clear target for bombings or sabotage. and a successful strike would essentially become a dirty bomb. obviously not good. I am in general pro nuclear energy. but I really don't know that going to microreactor scale is reasonable considering the risks. at scales beneath what a small modular reactor can do, I think using renewables is probably viable.

[@peterkratoska4524]

I'm also pro-nuclear as it really is practically low carbon, baseload and gigawatt scale. but I was wondering, given the more enriched uranium how does one prevent some group from getting the uranium, especially in isolated remote regions.

[@MuantanamoMobile]

@@peterkratoska4524 Carrying out such a heist would require Nation state level resources. Same reason not many heists of fighter jet planes

[@robertnewhart3547]

Maybe an earthen dam or other protective considerations. But ya, bunker busters etc. A huge target.

[@caesarsalad1170]

You can put them underground

[@Shaker626]

"Dirt bombs" are probably the worst weapon I can think of. They don't actually succeed in irradiating areas, and simple decontamination procedures render the whole thing useless. GMO anthrax is something that is far more terrifying, and accessible to the public. We need to stop worrying about these non-viable weapons of mass disruption.

[@FrankJDurante]

Just listened to this one and the SMR's .... I see both of these being appropriate for remote and distributed generation creating micro grids and pairing these with green (wind/solar), we can truly get to distributed generation close to loads

[@Zuconja]

03:32 military conflict zone is definitely not a good place for any kind of nuclear reactor. 03:40 there's already a proven solution for that, floating nuclear power plant, just like Akademik Lomonosov.

[@herptek]

Except if the military conflict zone is your home country and your enemy targets regular energy grid infrastructure and powerplants.

[@Human_01]

This will be the future of energy (especially for military uses). Ai (especially for maintenance and regulation) Will only further this technology. Space technology and space exploration will benefit greatly as well.

[@MichaelMartin-rg3if]

Yeah,OK. I like the very good idea of gravity fed water to the cooling system and the meltdown pit below the reactor. Boston Dynamics models looked good.

[@Mark_Ocain]

Nuclear reactors, even small ones, have a lot of cost involved. Not just maintenance, security and safety costs but eventual decommissioning costs at EOL can run into huge spends. The idea sounds great but the power doesn't come cheap.

[@GreenIsland38]

Agree entirely !! Bring it on !!

[@beautifulgirl219]

ALL of these designs look exciting to me. Hopefully they all come to fruition and commercial / military applications. Energy density, safety, and clean energy / no carbon energy are ALL nuclear strong points. Praying the ALL reach wide application and usage. Thanks Atomic Blender.

[@antispindr8613]

Yes these mini-reactors certainly have some extra uses. For how useful might they be to terrorist wanting to build mini-nukes? In this case, perhaps no nukes is good news?

[@beautifulgirl219]

@@antispindr8613 You ACTUALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND that nuclear REACTORS and NUCLEAR WEAPONS are entirely different things! How embarrassing for you. Delete comment and pretend you never said it. LOL. :)

[@davidjernigan7576]

Seems like this should not be hard with all the work the army and air force did on small reactors during the 60s and 70s

[@OGWhinnyBaby29]

Thank you for making videos. We love your well-done, informative content. You're spreading the beautiful good news of nuclear energy. ✊

[@musikSkool]

Wait, it "Will" change everything? Awesome, when is the release date?

[@LanceRudy]

Great video thanks 😊

[@beesod6412]

10:34 leaked footage of Nvidia RTX 98,200. :P I'm totally down with these

[@tesos2866]

FYI they are great , but if you think you can throw them on a regular truck, think again... a 5MW mocro reactor is 8ft x 30ft it weighs 660000lbs!!! Or 300 tons Not including turbine and heat exchangers. And requires concrete rooms to be built.

[@glike2]

The question is what balance of micro reactors, Solar PV, and wind turbines will be used in the Arctic.

[@factnotfiction5915]

Solar PV in the Arctic will be quite minimal, because the sun shines only a few hours, at very low angles, for the winter. And if you have a power resource that can power you during the winter, why would you pay for a 2nd resource for the summer?

[@mintakan003]

This sounds like a "killer app" for nuclear. Firm, reliable, dis-patchable power. Esp. if one can ship it in, by truck, and have the thing working in a few days. Factory manufactured. Questions might be, if in a war zone, it gets hit with bomb (or missile), what happens? Proliferation risks (if there are a lot of them)? The US needs its own HALEU supply chain.

[@copperknight4788]

I don't think this is an option for disaster relief. Puerto Rico an island of 3milion will not be helped by a handfull of 10Mw Reactors. How do you want to do risk assesments, safety, etc in a area that has just had a disaster happen. If idk if Nuclear is the only option for places like Valdeze, but it seems like a way more reasonable solution than disaster relief. The only way I see DR happening is if it is put on a ship and doesn't leave it. i.e. Town gets hit by Hurricane which destroyes powerplants. Then ship pulls into the Harbor and is connected to an improvised interconnect, and supplements the local grid. This would allow the risk management etc happen in a controlled enviroment beforehand.

[@nekomakhea9440]

how much do they cost, and how are small remote towns expected to pay for them? are they expecting rural electrification grants from the state or federal government?

[@factnotfiction5915]

These small towns in Alaska and Canada are paying between $20/$30 per gallon of diesel. Yes, PER GALLON. Basically, some are so remote they need to fly in the fuel. If they can finance the reactor, spreading the cost out, it can be cheaper over the long run. Federal loans would be great, but even a commercial loan or muni bond would be sufficient.

[@UrfriderPoro]

This good technology for containment zones. Not so much for campers.

[@thefuller]

Whether it be Micro or Small modular reactors, why couldn't we just take what they put in naval ships and adapt them for land? They easily hit 200MW and are small and probably already certified from a regulatory standpoint.

[@alifkembaraalam2487]

We can like the one in Russia, but the problem is most of country just don't want to do it 😂

[@factnotfiction5915]

Ship reactors tend to be a bit smaller, between 30-50 MW, but the other thing is they are not optimized for electricity production, but for heat production - they typically use the steam directly to power the propulsion shafts, vs generating electricity and then use that to power the propulsion shafts. Also, they tend to use very high-grade fuel, which is expensive from the civilian power perspective.

[@miepmaster25]

This was a great salespitch for whatever is is you were selling

[@MrPaparr]

Nuclear electricity is the most expensive form of energy and this Micro-reactors would be priced well over 8 million Dollars easily and if You add the maintenance costs for 30 years it will reach at least 12 million Dollars in total , and if you use this 24/7 for 30 years you can use it for 262800 hours and once you divide 8,000,000 to 262,800 = each KW/H is around 30.00USD which is extremely high

[@12pentaborane]

I guess you wouldn't really know unless you lived there, but fuel for a lot of those northern diesel generators only comes once a year by sealift or during ice road season. Ice road season is shorter than you think, it might be 4 months at best. Global warming might change that to favour nuclear reactors, but there are many cheaper solutions before then.

[@isakrynell8771]

Wouldn’t it also be possible to have multiple of these spread out across the power grid so in stead of having one big power plant in one location we have many smaller ones spread out. Just a thought.

[@antispindr8613]

Give the recent flood of pro-nuke PR, it almost seems that 'Atoms for Peace' never really went away

[@pepper77449]

Bring it on as long as it challenges conventional wisdom

[@PaintmanJohn]

ON A POSITIVE NOTE - Here is the energy source to generate HYDROGEN. JUST BOIL WATER ... On a NEGATIVE NOTE - Deploying all these nuclear reactors is a SECURITY nightmare. HOW do you keep them SECURE from people wanting to steal your fuels? OR WORSE - wanting to detonate and create a nuclear BROKEN ARROW ?

[@caesarsalad1170]

They don't explode like a bomb ya dunce.

[@khlstrkog]

are there microreactors with air-cooling ? Should be possible

[@subbdog44]

medium reactors are used by the Navy s8g and s9g produce 80 to 90 megawatts

[@jamesthompson7282]

Yup. But military needs massive power in small spaces, without refueling hassles. And military can spend $billions for an uneconomic dollar sinkhole. AND military doesn't have to adhere to any kind of environmental regulation. ALL the biggest environmental disaster sites in America (Superfund sites) are military. All similar sites in Canada are military, or nuclear. The military is an environmental catastrophe - but they can get away with it. THIS is your model for safe, cheap, reliable power generation?

[@inventor121]

The problem with micro reactors, aside from the terribly polluting practice of nuclear mining and nuclear waste disposal, is that eventually, someone somewhere will inevitably drive an overlifted pickup truck into them. As it stands with a conventional nuclear plant it is very difficult to have stray traffic crash into the reactor, but with a micro reactor it's much easier. Also we have technology that we use in the most remote of locations for reliable power, in fact quite literally as far as Mars and Jupiter. Also currently in use in arctic and remote communities and doesn't need replacement for refueling for decades. They are called solar panels and batteries. While some might say that solar is impractical a lot of northern communities are turning to solar and wind as reliable power sources specifically because they can be setup easily, last for decades, and are relatively inexpensive to maintain. I doubt microreactors will gain a lot of traction compared to new developments in solar, wind, and battery technology outside the military because nuclear power and it's logistics train is far riskier (and costly) compared to the alternatives.

[@factnotfiction5915]

Bollards are fairly effective against stray overlifted pickup trucks.

[@caesarsalad1170]

That's why it would be underground

[@jeffbenton6183]

High, huge space geek here: even for Mars, solar panels with batteries are often considered insufficiently reliable. The Curiosity and Perseverance rovers, for instance, use RTGs. The problem is giant dust storms, which could sometimes last as long as a few months. The systems you're describing also don't need much power - less than a kilowatt. These micro-reactors are *much* more capable, which is why even NASA is getting on board with the fission-hype train.

[@desking8065]

They are made small for a reason. If you have a manufacturing facility in a desert with no neighbours for a million miles you can have personal power. That is what micro is about.

[@avgjoe5969]

Liquid Salt thorium reactors are even safer and the fuel is much cheaper (once mining is initiated in bulk).

[@clarkkent9080]

Based on what actual operating Thorium MSR ????

[@jeffbenton6183]

Call me crazy, but maybe we should be assembling large powerplants out of these pipsqueak microreactors, rather than small modular reactors. They seem to be progressing along faster and could more easily benefit from mass production.

[@grahamstevenson1740]

This is so simplified beyond belief. Are we to suppose these 'microreactors' are sitting on some warehouse shelf, ready to be despatched at an hour's notice ? When they get on site they also need to be 'buried' below ground level to avoid radiating the locals ! And in a disaster, it's the local grid (the cabling infrastructure) that's damaged. Just replacing the power source does nothing useful !

[@johnmcentegart007]

Rent a mobile reactor from Rosatom. When you are done tow it away and get a new one. I guess sanctions have ruled out that option. Rosatom have a turnkey solution. This video is a talking exercise.

[@caesarsalad1170]

Nah

[@jeanlabrek8454]

__ Do they produce plutonium wastes, how to get rid of em

[@oleggold7]

FEMA and military have to order many of those

[@Signal_Glow]

It is good to see another video from you, thanks. I don't think small modular reactors are viable at the moment because they require active cooling, people controlling them at all times, regulations are another problem as is competition against "normal" reactors having ~~1GW. Microreactors look a lot more realistic due to passive cooling, maybe possibility for simple replacing of the fuel and/or parts of the reactor, etc. During the golden years of nuclear power when they made first reactors military did it, governments payed for research, ran prototypes, regulations were not as stringent. It seems we need both military and government involved in at least first plant of this kind, then pass it to civilian market or relax the regulations because they don't contain much fuel or moving parts. If possible i would like to hear more about led cooled reactors...

[@v.prestorpnrcrtlcrt2096]

Thanks for moving the sun-globe further stage L.

[@madyak222]

I would have liked to have seen Thorium Reactors mentioned, which appear to have much greater benefits over Uranium reactors, far more efficient, safer, can utilise Depleted uranium stockpiles which is a huge benefit as this eats up Nuclear waste rather than turning it into DU weapons. Thorium also can't produce weapons grade plutonium, which is why it wasn't pursued by the US Government in the 1950's and beyond, Leaving China to be the first to perfect Thorium reactors.

[@clarkkent9080]

Someone believes YT videos are where you get facts. Everything you say is 100% wrong but I will address just one point. Where do people keep coming up with this BS that Thorium was abandoned and Uranium based PWR/BWR were chosen so we could make bombs? Hanford Wa. has been making weapons material, at their 9 reactors, since 1944, 12 years before the first U.S. commercial nuclear plant became operational and their weapons production reactors are very efficient graphite moderated reactors and DO NOT produce any electrical power. Savannah River site SC. Has been making weapons material since 1955 and their 5 production reactors are very efficient low pressure heavy water moderated reactors and DO NOT produce electric power. Thorium was tried at Shippingport and Indian Point commercial reactors in the 1970s and abandoned as too costly compared to Uranium. Weapons production reactors are NOTHING like U.S. commercial PWR or BWR power reactors and commercial power reactors have NEVER been used to produce Pu239 for weapons, since there has never been a need beyond what the efficient weapons production reactors could provide.. The U.S. currently literally has hundreds of TONS of Pu239 (takes less than 20 pounds per weapon). The U.S. has so much that 34 tons of weapon grade Pu239 is being treated so it can eventually be disposed of at a cost of billions. Your comment is like saying automobiles use gas engine because the military wanted jet fighters. God help us that people base their knowledge on social media and YT videos.

[@andyvitz]

And without electricity the water pumps to give you water don't work so you don't have water by the way so it actually goes electricity water than food

[@WvlfDarkfire]

Chuck the fuel tank and the batteries, we're going to New Vegas!

[@hunter-kq2pu]

What happens if it blows up

[@sharkbait2254]

Looks like you have your PJs on.😂

[@gt_channel]

I'm not a nuclear physics but i think micro reactors have been used in submarines and aircraft carriers for about 50+ years

[@CSGATI]

Not proven yet but don't let fear start a power shortage. But think it through.

[@rambultruesdell3412]

Yikes!!! A microreactor will power a military base when the power grid is deactivated. The diesel and jet fuel supply will be exclusive to the vehicles and aircraft 😮

[@sillysad3198]

passive transfer of 10MW heat? reeeeeeeealyyyyy? why aren't those datacenters using it then??????

[@ignatiuskok1635]

England is building reactors at this moment :!!!!

[@Bluelagoonstudios]

I want one for my business, as backup for my servers, hehe (:

[@rsKayiira]

Wow. This is the best channel on Nuclear energy on youtube. Thank you so much.

[@Loudwrx]

Ah yes can't wait for my rtx4080 to be powered by a Microreactor

[@caesarsalad1170]

But can it run crysis?

[@scottrisley4467]

Nano Nuclear Energy = NNE ticker This stock is so undervalued its incredible. My advice to anyone is get in while its still this low !!

[@Seegie16]

Ive been trading it and making lots of money the past few days. However its not undervalued. Its massively overvalued. They dont even have products oput yet. Its still in concept phase. It will drop back to penyy stock then make another run run once they are actually on the market. If you are in this company please be wise and take your profit before the inevitable dump

[@yakovkosharovsky8487]

I dont believe any of the microreactors will take off. It cannot be cheaper than just drilling a geothermal shaft. Its hard for big reactor replacement, but not for such a small reactors!

[@caesarsalad1170]

Lmao geothermal is dependent on location and areas good for it are sparse

[@yakovkosharovsky8487]

@@caesarsalad1170 anywhere on earth, dig deep enough, you'll reach the temp that you want

[@commonsense4207]

This has been a Realty in the USA Since 1954 and the USA put a Micro Nuclear Reactor that was Portable in Antarctica back Between 1961 and 1972, McMurdo Station in Antarctica was home to Antarctica's first and only portable nuclear reactor, known as PM-3A. So this is VERY OLD so OLD it is Older then YOU at Atomic Blender. Get with the Times and you may get some Subscribers

[@eeledahc]

As long as they don't ever get abandoned like USSR ones.

[@LutherBlissett100]

US Naval nuke reactors same thing ?

[@atharsuhail7735]

their first test be on moon.

[@NotMyGumDropButtons.444]

This is an excellent commercial for nuclear power. Is there a reason you didn’t use the word radiation or nuclear waste? What happens if someone steals one of these things will happen if it rolls down the side of the mountain into a river?

[@factnotfiction5915]

Well, first, although it may fit in a shipping container, it may weigh more than the standard 20tons of a regular semi-load. Second, as the power goes out, and the local police notice that the alarm at the local NPP is going off, the thieves may be noticed stealing it. Third, if you are a thief - you must want to sell what you steal, so you probably won't be rolling it down a mountain into a river. If you are a terrorist, you might plan on doing that, but really so much simpler and higher visibility to blow up the airplane taking you to the city that has this NPP that why bother going to the effort?

[@mapachepataki5013]

what is the fuel?

[@Buriaku]

Regular uranium fuel, but enriched to a higher degree (20% U-235).

[@MrJoncovert]

A reactor using uranium surrounded by graphite blocks. Where have I heard that terrible design being used before?? Oh….

[@allen_tor]

Why are we being so tentative. Evey small town needs NEEDS a micro-reactor

[@MikhaelHausgeist]

Diesel generator which can produce 10 MWh of energy... If I see some I proudly can say that we overgrow dieselpunk!.. After I got contiosness from paralizing shock of it's existance.

[@MoellerEngineeringCo.]

There is nothing new here. The US army has operated these since the 50's

[@clarkkent9080]

yes the SL-1 was one of them. Look that up

[@exa_meters5383]

They had prototypes but they were never deployed on a large scale. And they were nowhere near as safe or portable

[@bot7845]

All these micro reactor no talk about steam turbines

[@johndevor5498]

Copenhagen Atomics reactor is worth a mention

[@RexBennett-w5v]

If microreactors become the normal. The only limits would be the imagination off those who have them. Power cheaply makes the world move forward at more than just a snails pace.

[@SunShine-xc6dh]

My favorite part is you say nothing about the reactors and how they work. Just all the problems they could supposedly maybe help with.

[@numodular]

Helos looks good for a Thorium revolution, but that is too far removed because of the stranglehold the fossil fuels industry has. It's far too easy for fossil fuels shareholders writing US policy in Congress, to distort issues like corrosion and nuclear bomb proliferation. Ignorance and apathy truly are the worst enemies.

[@PalimpsestProd]

these are 30 years over due considering nuclear subs have been around since the 1960s

[@jeffbenton6183]

True, but these reactors are even smaller than the ones typically found on submarines (although the one found on the NR-1 might be about the right size).

[@tasmedic]

They came sooner than you thought. Decades ago, in fact. Mostly based on Thorium. Cheap, simple, and very safe if properly maintained.

[@caesarsalad1170]

Thorium is a meme

[@sillysad3198]

i am afraid of reactors that risk accidental interruption in the coolant supply

[@bjarnenilsson80]

I was just thinking, Could these micro reactors be put on board ships, to reduce/eliminate CO2 emissions related to shipping? with the size of ship engines (and their associated fuel storage) fitting a fef container siced reactors instead should actually increase the space for payload. Ok granted you would need some rather hefty cables and electrical engines to drive the prop shaft, but surely these problems can be solved, unless I'm missing something really basic. Oh fes the drunk captain running aground and creating a mini Chernobyl, hmm obviously this is not a solution reedy for delivery NOW! No it is not my intention to spam the comment section, I just rewatched the video and thought hmm why not put these on big ships

[@clarkkent9080]

Yea, a nuclear ship for pirates or terrorists to take over. Brilliant idea !

[@justjacqueline2004]

Do satellites have a nuclear reactor onboard?

[@stevenmayhew3944]

Here is something which came to mind: a nuclear power plant is to a thermonuclear bomb only what a gasoline powered car is to hundreds of rioting protestors carrying bottles of Molotov cocktail.

[@AriefBudiman-m3b]

Is it safe from terrorist attack?

[@Skunkhunt_42]

Nuclear vehicles are def a thing

[@lenphil9875]

This is fairys at the bottom of the garden real. Puleeze. So many holes here it is not worth starting.

[@glike2]

With Holosgen and all the other concepts it really looks like everything will be tried to decarbonize power generation, military, and shipping

[@doniehurley9396]

No, it won't the environmentalists will burn the world down before they allow Nuclear power to be the solution

[@manatoa1]

I dont think microreactors would be very desireable in a peer or near peer conflict. In a war like in ukraine, I think it'd be a high priority target for a long range missile.

[@jeffbenton6183]

Not if it is as well protected as the 5 NPPs which already exist in Ukraine (and nearly every other NPP almost everywhere else). Their containment buildings can survive weeks of artillery bombardment. With reinforced concrete walls 4 feet (~1.2m) thick, they can't be penetrated by a Tomahawk cruise missile. It would be much easier (i.e., cheaper) to build one of those for a microreactor than an entire gigawatt power plant. Interestingly, a smaller structure - for the same thickness - would likely be more durable. There's a trick that tank-manufacturers have learned since World War II that a smaller armored vehicle, all else being equal, would be more resilient than a larger one because it has a lower surface area. The military is already used to building a whole bunch of structures just like this. During the Cold War, both NATO and the Warsaw Pact built dozens of hardened aircraft shelters for their fighters on each of several airbases. These structures could fit any fighter jet with room to spare. An F-16, a small fighter, is over 40 feet long, 16 feet high, and over 30 feet wide. An international shipping container (which is larger than any of these reactors) is always 20 feet long, can be anywhere from just over 4 feet to nine-and-a-half feet high and a width of 8 feet. This means that a microreactor bunker could be about half the size (or smaller) than one of those shelters. Those shelters were capable of surviving a direct hit from a 500 pound "general purpose" bomb (so not a bunker buster) - so it does need to be thicker to withstand more powerful weapons (i.e., about as thick as a nuclear containment building). All we really have to do is make the structure thicker and smaller and we're good to go. Furthermore, all that defensive structure could easily be buried underground on a miliary base. Also, it doesn't take *that* much to stop radiation, so having several feet of concrete and steel buried under several feet of earth is going to prevent it from becoming a "dirty bomb." There's also another idea I just thought of which could complicate enemy targeting. I've been reading about a new mobile missile launcher the US military has been working on which can launch Tomahawk cruise missiles and fit in a shipping container. One tactic that they were thinking of using would be to drop a whole bunch of shipping containers all over the place, with only a few actually housing missile launchers. The enemy would be forced to play shell game trying to figure out which shipping container is a real threat. They could just as easily do this with the microreactors. They could build several bunkers side-by-side (with some space in-between), lower a shipping container in each one (only one of which houses a reactor) then cover it up, having buried wires coming out of each one. Then, during peace time, you'd have nuclear engineers going in and out of each bunker so spy-sat operators can't tell which one is the legitimate target. Now remember that if you do hit the right one, you need *several* cruise missiles just to breach the container for the microreactor (or one ridiculously large gravity bunker-busting bomb which would need to be carried by a plane which would have no chance of overflying a US military base in a time of war). Of course some of those missiles are going to be shot down, so you'll need a significant swarm. I think the enemy is going to decide that it's not worth the trouble. As evidence, I present.... the Russo-Ukrainian war itself! Last winter, the Russians fired off a whole bunch of cruise and ballistic missiles together with suicide drones at Ukraine's power plants. Not *one* of the 4 NPPs still under Ukrainian control were targeted. Part of this might be because they're all in the western part of the country, meaning that the missiles have to fly farther to reach them. However, that didn't stop them from hitting quite a few targets in Lviv and other nearby areas during the electricity blitz. I consider it likely that the Russians realized that it would take too many missiles to deactivate even one reactor (the plants have 4 or more each), so they decided that it wouldn't be worth the trouble and focused their efforts elsewhere.

[@101Razgriz]

The soviets did this fifthy years ago. and noy they ddint need a truck to haul that stuff around.

[@johnpalmer5131]

If we quit being irrational about the word nuclear it is amazing what can be done.

[@clarkkent9080]

It is not nuclear that people are afraid of, it is the massive cost that is 2-3 times that of any other generation method

[@syntaxusdogmata3333]

Shut up and take my money! 💰

[@nathanbanks2354]

Micro reactors make me wonder about nuclear proliferation. If someone got a truck and stole a few microreactors, how difficult would it be to use them to produce plutonium? This is probably much less of a concern for places like Alaska than places like Afghanistan. It also sounds safer than nuclear container ships because at least they're designed to stay still most of the time and people would notice if the power went down.

[@stevenjbernard]

20% enriched uranium is not weapons-grade and cannot be used to produce bombs. To build a bomb, you'd have to enrich it to 90% or so, a process which would take time and money and a knowledge of nuclear physics.

[@LFTRnow]

The interesting thing is these (and other reactors) DO produce plutonium. BUT that plutonium can't make a bomb. When plutonium is made this way you get a mix of isotopes. Pu239 comes from U238 absorbing a neutron (U238 is the other 80% of that "20% enriched" fuel). However, with so many neutrons around, it rapidly moves to create a comparatively large amount of Pu240, '241, etc and these don't make bombs. They actually are what make the Pu239 which remains USELESS for bombs. If your next concern is what about separating out the Pu239, consider that if they can do that, it is easier to separate out U235 from U238 in the first place and skip the thieving.

[@nathanbanks2354]

​@@LFTRnow This is interesting. I forgot about other isotopes of plutonium. Since the reactors are not designed to be refueled, it would be tough to reprocess the fuel often enough to keep the Pu240 levels low. So if I were an evil Bond villain, I'd rather try to find a molten salt reactor and leave these ones powering their cities.

[@YellowRambler]

The right amount of Explosives 🧨 and got a portable dirty bomb.☢️💥☹️

[@jeffbenton6183]

@@YellowRambler Not if they're as well protected as typical nuclear reactors. The containment buildings on most active NPPs today could withstand weeks of artillery bombardment and can't be penetrated by a Tomahawk cruise missile. Also, most of the radioisotopes found in a reactor are not the sort which a purpose-built dirty bomb would use, and are quite heavy, so they likely wouldn't carry very far.

[@romanberkutov2592]

В начале марта 2017 года глава «Toshiba» С. Цунакава объявил, что его корпорация изучает вопрос о продаже «Westinghouse Electric Company», которая генерирует многомиллиардные убытки[20]. 29 марта 2017 года «Westinghouse Electric Company» объявила о начале процедуры банкротства[21]. Так, с прошлого года у компании, которая строит четыре ядерных реактора на юго-востоке США, тянутся обязательства на сумму $9,8 млрд. Расходы оказались настолько велики, что они угрожают жизнеспособности материнской японской компании Toshiba

[@atomicblender]

There are many reasons for Westinghouse's bankruptcy and its liabilities for Toshiba. The new owners seem more interested in using Westinghouse for its technology and less for its construction.

[@romanberkutov2592]

@@atomicblender вы не обращали внимание на количество последних проектов компании? Может на время строительства?

[@CharlesBrown-xq5ug]

Devices which transend the second law of thermodynamics could be better than nuclear. If so money spent on many features of nuclear will be wasted.

[@SrikarKura]

Super!

[@FixItStupid]

Super Stupid

[@Mokrator]

yea actually microreactors are faaar less efficient than real ones... its an absolute emergency solution that will mostly only fit to rare occasions like antarktica or north of russia. And than it is still the question is it neccessary to be at this remote place with a reactor. With russia they have used something likely and more than 1000 of the nuklear "reactors" have been abandonded somethere in the wild and while still not every one was recovered they tried to recover most until russia invaded ukraine and bailed out of the contract. The reactors where a more passive heatsource to generate power. Therefore the risk was not to have a meltdown but just contamination as things get old and people forget about them when they are not used. So if the company running the site goes out of business, potentially nobody will care about a old nuclear reactor until people get hurt. They just get forgotton just because they could not transport it last month and maybe not next month to nobody cares about it. Some tourisst or scrapmetal thief one time or another will tamper with that thing. This is not a theoretical problem this already happend at least twice with some nuklear devices that had been setup exactly due to the same reason. Another one was left unprotected outside where extrem cold and water / ice crushed it open after many years in the wild. These will maybe not destroy the earth but these reactory primary will create headache for the future.

[@scotts.2624]

Best not to have that in a war zone. It would be a natural target or if the tides turned quickly it could fall into your enemies hands. Were your enemies a terrorist group that could get real bad for your allied cities. Think dirty bomb.