Nuclear Microreactors Advance as US Picks Two Companies for Fueled Testing (postregister.com)
- Reference: 0178285182
- News link: https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/25/07/05/042203/nuclear-microreactors-advance-as-us-picks-two-companies-for-fueled-testing
- Source link: https://www.postregister.com/news/inl/inl-launches-dome-microreactor-tests/article_52809e10-3bc1-4e3c-a326-893cb6480d3e.html
The new facility is named DOME (an acronym for Demonstration of Microreactor Experiments), and it leverages existing "to safely house and test fueled reactor experiments, capable of producing up to 20 megawatts of thermal energy," [2]according to a local newspaper .
> [T]wo companies were competitively selected in 2023 and are currently working through a multi-phase Energy Department authorization process to support the design, fabrication, construction, and testing of each fueled reactor experiment. Both are expected to meet certain milestones throughout the process to maintain their allotted time in DOME and to ensure efficient use of the test bed, according to the release... The department estimates each DOME reactor experiment will operate up to six months, with the DOME test bed currently under construction and on track to receive its first experiment in early 2026... The next call for applications is anticipated to be in 2026.
The site Interesting Engineering calls the lab "a [3]high-stakes proving ground to accelerate the commercialization of advanced microreactors ..."
> Based in Etna, Pennsylvania, Westinghouse will test its eVinci Nuclear Test Reactor, a compact, transportable microreactor that uses advanced heat pipe technology for passive cooling. Designed to deliver 5 megawatts of electricity on sites as small as two acres, eVinci could support applications ranging from remote communities to mining operations and data centers. Meanwhile, Radiant (El Segundo, California) will test its Kaleidos Development Unit, a 1.2 megawatt electric high-temperature gas reactor aimed at replacing diesel generators. Designed to run for five years, Kaleidos is fueled by TRISO fuel particles that could offer reliable backup power for hospitals, military bases, and other critical infrastructure.
Radiant's CEO said "In short order, we will fuel, go critical, and operate, leading to the mass production of portable reactors which will jumpstart American nuclear energy dominance."
[1] https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/energy-department-announces-first-microreactor-experiments-dome-test-bed
[2] https://www.postregister.com/news/inl/inl-launches-dome-microreactor-tests/article_52809e10-3bc1-4e3c-a326-893cb6480d3e.html
[3] https://interestingengineering.com/energy/dome-microreactor-testing-westinghouse-radiant
Maybe good (Score:2)
I supported the paradigm of smaller reactors since about forever, while most people extolled the virtues of reactors for power being as big and centralized as possible.
Which makes for an irresistible target. I want my adversative to go that Big freaking reactor route - much cheaper to irradiate their land and take out as much power with as little expenditure as possible.
Now, looking at [1]https://nric.inl.gov/dome/ [inl.gov]. that thing has a strong SL-1 vibe.
Now, micro-reactor also has a mental image of a littl
[1] https://nric.inl.gov/dome/
Re: (Score:2)
Small reactors exist and have been in operation for decades - in the military.
There is a reason for that - a small reactor requires higher enrichment.
Higher enrichment is, however, verboten, because it makes you a target of B2 bombings.
So "peaceful" micro reactors on a massive scale isn't happening.
Re: (Score:2)
> I supported the paradigm of smaller reactors since about forever, while most people extolled the virtues of reactors for power being as big and centralized as possible.
That is because you are _ignorant_. The only reason nuclear reactors are large is that their relative cost gows down strongly with size. They are still not cost effective at the largest sizes we can build, though and that is with massive lying about the total cost.
Re: (Score:2)
A 10MW neighborhood scale reactor requires negligible transmission/distribution infrastructure cost which partially offsets the lower physical efficiency of the small reactor. That improves time to market, and delivered energy could be close to a large reactor, as long as operating costs are significantly lower.
Re: (Score:2)
> The one unit is claimed to have a 5 year life.
Five years is the interval between refuelings, not the total lifespan of the reactor.
I don't know if it can be refueled in situ, or whether you ship the whole thing back to the factory. Not a big deal either way, if their claims of fitting on a standard semi trailer and being up and running on a new site within 24 hours are true.
molten salt reactor (Score:2)
Note also the construction of a molten salt research reactor on the campus of Abilene Christian University in Texas. The reactor happens to sit on the playground of the elementary school I attended, which the university acquired a few years ago (the school is in a new facility at a different location). [1]https://acu.edu/research/next-... [acu.edu]
[1] https://acu.edu/research/next-lab/
My only 'gripe' with nuclear (Score:2)
Is that no state wants to take the waste. I think if Scientists had a say, the waste would be stored deep under a Mountain in Colorado, or burned up in other reactors. As it is, the waste seems to just sit next to the nuclear site where it is. It is NIMBY on steroids. Just brainstorming, but I think it could be safely flushed into an old, used up oil well.
Re: (Score:3)
If scientists had a preference we would be using breeder reactors that reduce waste and promote recycling.
Re: (Score:2)
Frustrating is it not? Scientists are demonized these days, and replaced with a bunch of buzzwords.
More Paper Reactors (Score:3)
From [1]Admiral Rickover's 1953 'Paper Reactor' memo [whatisnuclear.com], "An academic reactor or reactor plant almost always has the following basic characteristics: 1. It is simple. 2 It is cheap. 3.It is light. 4. It can be built very quickly. 5. It is very flexible in purpose (“omnibus reactor”). 6. Very little development is required. It will use mostly “off-the-shelf” components. 7. The reactor is in the study phase. It is not being built now." Time will, of course, prove the final test as to whether these "microreactor experiments" to produce a "compact, transportable microreactor" will successfully " fast-track the path from lab bench to commercial rollout" and eventually " support applications ranging from remote communities to mining operations and data centers" and "replace disel generators". But I wouldn't bet on it.
[1] https://whatisnuclear.com/rickover.html
And actual meaningful tests will be run 2035 (Score:3)
And likely even later. Nuclear is always massively delayed and massively over price.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope not, it seems almost "magical" to me that we can collect and refine atoms that give off heat. It seems like it should be cheap, and almost free. That was the dream back in the 1950's, "they" even speculated that it should be so cheap that we wouldn't even have to monitor electricity usage. Something went off the rails here, and I suspect that the Big Oil Companies have something to do with this.
Surface area to volume ratio (Score:3)
The problem with miniature reactors is the cost of operation. Basically the amount of material that becomes contaminated and needs to be replaced and or disposed of is vastly higher on a lifetime $/kwh basis. It’s like running ten thousand one horsepower motors instead of one ten thousand horsepower motor. You are going to have incessant and massive component supply and disposal demand costs compared to the single reactor. Further, the mess from ten thousand units makes for rampant pollution whereas it’s easier to pin down and hold to account a single reactor. If you have a base in the Antarctic, or a satellite, these may be an option if the total supply is highly limited. But the ease and cost of a simple generator is going to price everyone out of miniature reactors except all but the least serviceable and hospitable applications.
Re: (Score:2)
Nitpicking with your analogy, it is exactly like running a 10,000HP motor with a system of belts and pulleys because ultimately the application needs to power 10,000 small 1hp devices. It works, but it pushes cost from one place to the next.
Re: (Score:2)
> The US is going to build a nuclear reactor. They haven't in 40 years. Meanwhile, China builds two dozen a year.
And if we ever go to war with China, those Dozens of Nuclear reactors will have a lifetime of however long it takes to reach out and touch them.
Re: (Score:3)
LOL, you're not going to war with China.
It has nukes that can reach the US, and the US ruling class fears nothing more than nukes that can reach them.
Your current chieftain sold out to putin because of a telephone threat.
The Chinese reactors will be fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Biggest doesn't mean much, it is what the numbers can do that matters.
Re: (Score:2)
> china has the biggest army, navy and air force in the world and that must make the US nervous.
As I recall, Iraq had the 4th largest standing Army in the world at one point. And many thought they were going to decimate the weak lazy 'Murricans.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? I could have sworn that Saddam Hussein was removed from power and executed.
Re: (Score:2)
What you seem to have forgotten is that the "mighty US army" actually paid Saddam's generals to surrender.
[1]https://www.independent.co.uk/... [independent.co.uk]
Perhaps this happened because the US generals shared the convictions of these many that you mentioned?
[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-army-chief-says-iraqi-troops-took-bribes-to-surrender-105987.html
Re: (Score:2)
I hear the US has nukes that can reach China. Can anyone confirm this?
Re: (Score:2)
confirmed. The US can destroy the world 100x over if we want, if we have a nut crazy enough to deploy them.
Re: (Score:2)
So what? How does it alleviate the fears of the US elites?
Spoiler: it doesn't. At all. Even if they can melt the whole of China into a glass parking lot, it won't save them.
Re: (Score:2)
> LOL, you're not going to war with China.
> It has nukes that can reach the US, and the US ruling class fears nothing more than nukes that can reach them.
> Your current chieftain sold out to putin because of a telephone threat.
> The Chinese reactors will be fine.
Cheeto is not the military. But there is a non-zero chance that the US is not the cowards you think we are. We do really need to differentiate between Orange Jesus and the military.
History is full of groups who believed we are lazy indolent cowards. They LOLe'd for a bit. They started wars with us, but the war was finished by the lazy indolent cowards.
Re: (Score:2)
> Cheeto is not the military.
Yes. He is only their commander-in-chief.
> But there is a non-zero chance that the US is not the cowards you think we are.
Yep, the bravery of the trumpistan population has been quite discernable from the political developments in the last 7 months.
> History is full of groups who believed we are lazy indolent cowards
Yeah, as the song goes, "From the halls of Hochimin city to the beaches of Tikrit".
Re: (Score:2)
MAGAs seemed to have just voted themselves out of healthcare, and food. lol.
Re: (Score:2)
But on the upside, the super-rich got free 4 trillions (more like 10 in the end of this term) - imagine what amounts of trickle-down this money printing will bring.
Probably more powerful than a flash flood in Texas.