5 ms·

Site isn't working now, but their GitHub is here [1]. My understanding on this is that Transatomic started as two young MIT students/grads who did some calcs on

Site isn't working now, but their GitHub is here [1]. My understanding on this is that Transatomic started as two young MIT students/grads who did some calcs on a molten salt reactor, found that they could run on high-level nuclear waste in a thermal-neutron spectrum, got really excited, and started a company. They did TED talks and everything [2] and really became this awesome story about advanced nuclear, nuclear startups, private investment in nuclear doing exciting new things, and so on. They were heavily featured in a documentary about advanced nuclear [3] that you can get on Amazon, where we all got a look in their doors. Then the trouble started. They (smartly!) asked MIT to do a design review and a few questions came up on their key claims. Turns out, there were some calculation or assumption mistakes that showed that it couldn't just run directly on nuclear waste (you traditionally need fast neutrons and/or aggressive reprocessing to do this, even in molten fuel) [4]. They adjusted their copy and moved forward with an adjusted design and new calcs. Eventually they decided to close up shop and open source their design effort as a soft closure. It's highly regular for advanced nuclear efforts to adjust their design and strategy as they move forward. In fact, I'd go so far to say it happens in 100% of efforts. The only thing Transatomic did that might be a lesson learned is that they got really hyped up early on in their effort, before they shook it down with engineering reviews and whatnot. As far as I can tell, no one is curating progress or roadmaps in the open source effort. I LOVE the idea of open-source reactor design. It gets around huge institutional barriers clogging up opportunities for collaboration and alignment in the nuclear space. Nuclear is traditionally very secretive, and all these startups promising the world in 2024 without collaboration is basically a doomed effort. The industry must team up, find overlapping tech development efforts and facilities, and work together to build a market. Once they build the market, they can worry about competing in it. Open source can also transcend traditional funding cycles, like when national labs work on a reactor for 2-4 years, make tons of exciting progress, and then drop it. If it's open, universities, international institutions, companies, etc. can all coordinate on it. Doing open source reactor design would require a lean and highly-dedicated non-profit or foundation or something with a handful of nuclear design pros in it to do the coordination. These projects don't run themselves. It would also need lots of legal resources to navigate export control space. Everything Adm. Rickover said in 1953 about academic vs. practical reactors is incredibly accurate to this day [5], and using open-source philosophy to face these facts brutally may be essential for progress in nuclear. If anyone has ideas on how to fund that kind of thing, let me know. [1] https://github.com/transatomic/reactor/ https://github.com/transatomic/reactor/ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlRhcHNJed0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlRhcHNJed0 [3] https://www.newfiremovie.com/ https://www.newfiremovie.com/ [4] https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603731/nuclear-energy-startup-transatomic-backtracks-on-key-promises/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603731/nuclear-energy-sta... [5] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover#Paper_Reactors,_Real_Reactors_(1953) https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover#Paper_Reacto...

mjewkes 7y ago
What's the best way to get in touch? I'm at username [-] google's email.
- acidburnNSA 7y ago
  Thanks, I'll hit you up.
gomox 7y ago
Could the essential aspects of a reactor design be patented so that value can be captured despite innovation being created in the open?
- acidburnNSA 7y ago
  Possibly, as long as participants can still be motivated to working within the open effort. Frankly, effective reduction to practice is required 1000x more than traditional "innovation" in nuclear. Every bright mind in the 1950s was dreaming up whacky and incredible reactor designs, and everything I've ever thought of, from spinning vortex/whirlpool fuel to giant uranium gaseous pistons already has 50-page publications from back then sitting on OSTI. What's needed is to figure out how to get nuclear technology into a practical rapid iteration process where we can shake down good ideas vs. bad ideas, and put some rigor behind cost and schedule estimates. Otherwise it's just a game of who can get investors/government most excited about their particular reactor concept, which, without actually understanding, adjusting, and improving upon what's happened in the past, will struggle mightily.
  - gomox 7y ago
    They can be motivated by acquiring stake in the success of their research and development. But the only way I can picture that working is if there is way to capture the value that is compatible with developing it in the open, hence the question.
  - nickik 7y ago
    > What's needed is to figure out how to get nuclear technology into a practical rapid iteration process where we can shake down good ideas vs. bad ideas, and put some rigor behind cost and schedule estimates. Sadly this is currently just not possible. You can not get regulatory approval for a prototype beyond a tiny research reactor (that is unsuited to test real production reactors). Thus nuclear companies are forced to directly produce to a production design, and to production regulation and not just that, but also prove operational regulation and so on. This comes with incredible cost and it is very much possible that a nuclear reactor company builds one design and works with it for 20-30 years because doing any substantial redesign would require a completely new regulatory process. Thankfully regulators in Canada and the US have been waking up to the fact that regulation as currently designed have totally crushed innovation and are trying to reform. Canada is leading in this and British, US and Canadian companies all have started to go threw the Canadian regulatory process because of this. But 40 years of fearmongering and regulation introduced right when nuclear scare was at its peak are deeply embedded both in the regulation and the culture of these agency.

mjewkes 7y ago

What's the best way to get in touch? I'm at username [-] google's email.

acidburnNSA 7y ago
Thanks, I'll hit you up.

gomox 7y ago

Could the essential aspects of a reactor design be patented so that value can be captured despite innovation being created in the open?

acidburnNSA 7y ago
Possibly, as long as participants can still be motivated to working within the open effort. Frankly, effective reduction to practice is required 1000x more than traditional "innovation" in nuclear. Every bright mind in the 1950s was dreaming up whacky and incredible reactor designs, and everything I've ever thought of, from spinning vortex/whirlpool fuel to giant uranium gaseous pistons already has 50-page publications from back then sitting on OSTI. What's needed is to figure out how to get nuclear technology into a practical rapid iteration process where we can shake down good ideas vs. bad ideas, and put some rigor behind cost and schedule estimates. Otherwise it's just a game of who can get investors/government most excited about their particular reactor concept, which, without actually understanding, adjusting, and improving upon what's happened in the past, will struggle mightily.
- gomox 7y ago
  They can be motivated by acquiring stake in the success of their research and development. But the only way I can picture that working is if there is way to capture the value that is compatible with developing it in the open, hence the question.
- nickik 7y ago
  > What's needed is to figure out how to get nuclear technology into a practical rapid iteration process where we can shake down good ideas vs. bad ideas, and put some rigor behind cost and schedule estimates. Sadly this is currently just not possible. You can not get regulatory approval for a prototype beyond a tiny research reactor (that is unsuited to test real production reactors). Thus nuclear companies are forced to directly produce to a production design, and to production regulation and not just that, but also prove operational regulation and so on. This comes with incredible cost and it is very much possible that a nuclear reactor company builds one design and works with it for 20-30 years because doing any substantial redesign would require a completely new regulatory process. Thankfully regulators in Canada and the US have been waking up to the fact that regulation as currently designed have totally crushed innovation and are trying to reform. Canada is leading in this and British, US and Canadian companies all have started to go threw the Canadian regulatory process because of this. But 40 years of fearmongering and regulation introduced right when nuclear scare was at its peak are deeply embedded both in the regulation and the culture of these agency.