Small Nuclear Reactor

[Ben]

Westinghouse has developed a small nuclear reactor, capable of powering 300,000 homes. This is kinda in 50s scifi territory, where every homeowner has a nuclear reactor. 

I wonder if gov regulations will let them further develop, and actually implement this? It sure is a heck of a lot smaller than a solar or wind farm that would provide the same capacity.

https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/us-firm-unveils-game-changing-small-nuclear-reactor

[Jim147]

I've read about a few plans for small reactors but don't know of anyone building anything.

[BobR]

General Atomics builds small non-power reactors for use around the world for research, medical isotopes, etc. Back in the day Kodak had a small non-power reactor in Rochester, NY. It is about time the small power nukes have come about. Now if the .gov will just let them be free to research and build.

bob

[Boomhauer]

This isn’t even worth wasting time thinking about. You all know the insane environuts will file lawsuits immediately to stop anything like this.

[RoadKingLarry]

Small nuclear reactors have been in service since 1955 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Nautilus_(SSN-571) ). 68+ years of technological development and advances should have given us universal neighborhood nuclear power by now.
 

[MechAg94]

Glad someone is still working on this concept.  One day we might actually use it.

[RocketMan]

This isn’t even worth wasting time thinking about. You all know the insane environuts will file lawsuits immediately to stop anything like this.

This is very true, at least in the USA.

[Bogie]

Most of the environut stuff has grown from Europe, where the USSR bankrolled the heck out of the greenies to oppose nuclear power, with the long-term goal of cornering the market on the power generation...

[Hawkmoon]

This isn’t even worth wasting time thinking about. You all know the insane environuts will file lawsuits immediately to stop anything like this.

Of course, and they'll also sue to stop wind farms, because they might impact swallows or chickadees. And they'll protest solar farms because ___. And they'll protest new hydroelectric because of the fish. And they'll protest tidal electric because of the clams and the lobsters.

In short, they won't be happy until we're back living in the stone age.

[zahc]

Is small good?

I thought for things like power plants, economies of scale meant that bigger is better. I mean that's how it is for windmills anyway.

[Jim147]

There is a reason the smart aliens don't stop here. They had nuclear and now they are back to windmills? We get the dumb ones that think the cows run the world.

[WLJ]

This is kinda in 50s scifi territory, where every homeowner has a nuclear reactor. 

Watch a couple of Just Rolled In videos and you wouldn't want 99.9999% of the population anywhere near a nuclear reactor.

[MechAg94]

Of course, and they'll also sue to stop wind farms, because they might impact swallows or chickadees. And they'll protest solar farms because ___. And they'll protest new hydroelectric because of the fish. And they'll protest tidal electric because of the clams and the lobsters.

In short, they won't be happy until we're back living in the stone age.

They will be against something then also.  It is there nature of their personality. 

[AZRedhawk44]

I want to see the Thorium and other secondary byproduct reactors get their chance.  They don't all have to be plutonium producers.

[230RN]

Apart from the above all-too-obvious "general disruption tactic" of the Greenies and Reddies...

Small nuclear reactors have been in service since 1955 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Nautilus_(SSN-571) ). 68+ years of technological development and advances should have given us universal neighborhood nuclear power by now.
 

Yeah, I thought we even had atomic power plants in some of the satellites and hyperspace probes.  They ran on the heat of decay to power either thermopiles or high-pressure helium Stirling engines.  Standard tech.

Not sure why they were unsuitable for home use, but they had to be small and light.

I can see why the development of a small nuclear weapon ("Davy Crockett") was a bit of a challenge, but to just continuously extract heat from atomic reactions was pretty SOP.

So I'm not sure why there's a "buzz" about small reactors.  I was also told semi officially back in the seventies that there were lots of pocket nuclear power plants distributed around the country.  I won't guarantee the source validity, though.
 

So what gives?  Slow news day?

Terry, 230RN

[zxcvbob]

Is small good?

I thought for things like power plants, economies of scale meant that bigger is better. I mean that's how it is for windmills anyway.

Bigger is more efficient (economies of scale).  A network of smaller generators is more robust (redundancy).  I kinda like a combination of the two.  I am not an expert, and am speaking *very* generally here.

[230RN]

^ Like.  One of our major vulnerabilities here is the centralization of too many critical things.  Just think what life would be like if a Tallboy were dropped at the corner of Broad and Wall in Manhattan.

Or in the center of the garment district... why, we wouldn't have any more clothes !

[AZRedhawk44]

Apart from the above all-too-obvious "general disruption tactic" of the Greenies and Reddies...

Yeah, I thought we even had atomic power plants in some of the satellites and hyperspace probes.  They ran on the heat of decay to power either thermopiles or high-pressure helium Stirling engines.  Standard tech.

Not aware of any hyperspace probes... but most satellites that go to Jupiter or farther out in the solar system eschew solar panels for an RTG powerplant.  The Mars rovers also had RTG's on board.  All of these systems put out less than 500 watts, though.  Pretty anemic.  Curiosity and Perseverence on Mars can only generate 110 watts of electrical power, on top of about 2000 watts of heat energy.  The Voyager RTG's were spec'ed to put out 160 watts but are very old now and putting out far less than that today.  New Horizons and its peer satellites are running on 300 watt RTG's.

[MechAg94]

Bigger is more efficient (economies of scale).  A network of smaller generators is more robust (redundancy).  I kinda like a combination of the two.  I am not an expert, and am speaking *very* generally here.

Bigger is subjective to some extent.  The article mentioned 100 MW or 300 MW power plants.  While that is pretty big, you would still need a network of them around the country paired with natural gas or coal to handle fluctuations.

I would love to have something more like one of Heinlein's Shipstones, but it would work.

[230RN]

Not aware of any hyperspace probes... but most satellites that go to Jupiter or farther out in the solar system eschew solar panels for an RTG powerplant.  The Mars rovers also had RTG's on board.  All of these systems put out less than 500 Watts, though.  Pretty anemic.  Curiosity and Perseverence on Mars can only generate 110 Watts of electrical power, on top of about 2000 Watts of heat energy.  The Voyager RTG's were spec'ed to put out 160 Watts but are very old now and putting out far less than that today.  New Horizons and its peer satellites are running on 300 watt RTG's.

Sorry, meant "interstellar," forgetting that "hyperspace" was a Trek term.

RTF = "Radioisotope thermoelectric generator"

"Curiosity and Perseverence on Mars can only generate 110 Watts of electrical power, on top of about 2000 Watts of heat energy. "

Not clear on what you meant there: Power production was 2000 Watts, but we're only capturing 110 Watts of it?  So, 5% efficiency is not bad for something designed to be light and small, rather than efficient, i guess. If that's what you mean.

[BobR]

Or, you can get a bunch of people together or go solo and try a DIY for the house.

https://allthatsinteresting.com/david-hahn

bob

[AZRedhawk44]

Sorry, meant "interstellar," forgetting that "hyperspace" was a Trek term.

RTF = "Radioisotope thermoelectric generator"

"Curiosity and Perseverence on Mars can only generate 110 Watts of electrical power, on top of about 2000 Watts of heat energy. "

Not clear on what you meant there: Power production was 2000 Watts, but we're only capturing 110 Watts of it?  So, 5% efficiency is not bad for something designed to be light and small, rather than efficient, i guess. If that's what you mean.

My understanding is they basically produce power with no moving parts.  You have the loving soft warm glow of radioactive decay, which you surround with TECs (Thermoelectric Couplers).  TECs generate electricity as heat is transferred from one side to the other, but are not very efficient at all.  I played with TECs a few years ago when I experimented with building my own custom dimension fermentation cooler, and used TECs to cool refrigerant and expelled the waste heat through radiators and fans.  Used a lot of electricity in order to inefficiently move a little bit of heat.

The space implementations just have large radiators on the outside of the TECs rather than liquid cooled passages and pumps like my home very non-space-worthy application.  The more heat saturated a TEC gets, the less efficiently it operates.  In a thin or nonexistent atmosphere with radiation as your only means of shedding heat, heat sinks are not very efficient and TECs get heat saturated.

[Bogie]

We have opportunity for economy of scale with solar or wind, without doing giant, but strangely photogenic, solar/wind farms...
 
If they would encourage outfits with lots of roof space (factories/warehouses/retail) to do on-site installs... Plus, we've got a lot of locations that could hook in as microgenerators.
 
But politicians like BIG things. Like railroads... Fixing a pothole? Not that big... Nuclear and hydro could do a great deal of picking up nighttime/calm slack. But a single windmill, not even all that high-tech, could keep Farmer John's barn running to pump well water, etc...
 
Back before Mother Earth News went and got off the rails political, they had so many small projects...

[HankB]

Watch a couple of Just Rolled In videos and you wouldn't want 99.9999% of the population anywhere near a nuclear reactor.

In something very closely related and on-point . . . I suggest you read H. Beam Piper's story, Day of the Moron.   https://www.gutenberg.org/files/18949/18949-h/18949-h.htm

[Ben]

We have opportunity for economy of scale with solar or wind, without doing giant, but strangely photogenic, solar/wind farms...

I have always said that solar works best as distributed energy. As long as it's not through force of government, solar roofs on houses, using an existing footprint, make a ton of sense.

If the usual suspects had been pushing that instead of ginormous desert solar farms, with their energy loss through long distribution networks, you could by now probably do solar roofs for the same cost as good quality comp roofs.