5 ms·

I wish these people the best, and I really hope they get a working fusion plant soon. That said, I can't resist sharing Admiral Rickover on academic reactors vs

I wish these people the best, and I really hope they get a working fusion plant soon. That said, I can't resist sharing Admiral Rickover on academic reactors vs practical reactors: Important decisions about the future development of atomic power must frequently be made by people who do not necessarily have an intimate knowledge of the technical aspects of reactors. These people are, nonetheless, interested in what a reactor plant will do, how much it will cost, how long it will take to build and how long and how well it will operate. When they attempt to learn these things, they become aware of confusion existing in the reactor business. There appears to be unresolved conflict on almost every issue that arises. I believe that this confusion stems from a failure to distinguish between the academic and the practical. These apparent conflicts can usually be explained only when the various aspects of the issue are resolved into their academic and practical components. To aid in this resolution, it is possible to define in a general way those characteristics which distinguish the one from the other. An academic reactor or reactor plant almost always has the following basic characteristics: (1) It is simple. (2) It is small. (3) It is cheap. (4) It is light. (5) It can be built very quickly. (6) It is very flexible in purpose ("omnibus reactor"). (7) Very little development is required. It will use mostly “off-the-shelf” components. (8) The reactor is in the study phase. It is not being built now. On the other hand, a practical reactor plant can be distinguished by the following characteristics: (1) It is being built now. (2) It is behind schedule. (3) It is requiring an immense amount of development on apparently trivial items. Corrosion, in particular, is a problem. (4) It is very expensive. (5) It takes a long time to build because of the engineering development problems. (6) It is large. (7) It is heavy. (8) It is complicated. The tools of the academic-reactor designer are a piece of paper and a pencil with an eraser. If a mistake is made, it can always be erased and changed. If the practical-reactor designer errs, he wears the mistake around his neck; it cannot be erased. Everyone can see it.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
samatman 6y ago
It's a good contribution to the conversation, keeping in mind that Adm. Rickover wrote these words in 1953. Anyone could have said similar things about computers in 1953, and been just as correct. Are nuclear reactors computers? Of course not, and neither have practical reactors kept pace in development with practical computers. But neither is it inevitable that steady progress cannot grind down the latter set of characteristics into the former. Indeed, that's what I would bet on, and I think the Admiral would be disappointed in the progress we have(n't) made.
- wwweston 6y ago
  > Anyone could have said similar things about computers in 1953, and been just as correct. Many people could say similar things about software in 2020 and be just as correct. :) The good Admiral may be describing some timeless aspects of engineering, possibly related to the recently discussed observation that reality has a surprising amount of detail: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16184255 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16184255 . Though, as you say, over time engineering can grind out some of the practical into practice.
  - giblfiz 6y ago
    I, for one, never have corrosion problems on my software projects.
    - solstice 6y ago
      I take it you're not programming in Rust? /s
    - wwweston 6y ago
      You jest, but... compatibility is the corrosion of software. The environment and dependencies underlying your software are slowly oxidizing/transforming all the time and unless you pick only the stainless steel of interfaces/system calls, your software will cease to function more quickly than lots of iron objects rust through.
- sheeshkebab 6y ago
  I guess we can ask Huawei about how easy it is to build computers in 2020...
  - frequentnapper 6y ago
    with stolen blueprints and unlimited govt resources, easy as pie...
    - 6y ago
credit_guy 6y ago
Admiral Rickover was a smart dude. But none of these points are applicable here. This development here is about fusion, not fission, those who are pursuing it are not amateurs at all, they are MIT people and they are not shy to pick up a wrench and use it in a lab. One by one, the points made by Rickover against his adversaries are not relevant here: 1. It is simple: no, nobody says here that fusion is simple. 2. It is small: well, this one is small compared to ITER, but nobody's saying it's small in an absolute sense. 3. It is cheap: sure, compared to the billions and billions poured into ITER, this is dirt, dirt cheap, but still, they have secured $200MM so far, and they will need more money until they build an actual reactor. 4. It is light: really not applicable here, since nobody's thinking of putting these reactors in submarines (which is what Rickover was really talking about). 5. It can be built very quickly: sure, the time horizon is less than the perpetual 30 years of the old fusion reactor proposals, but it's not going to be "very quick", 6. It is very flexible in purpose: no, for the time being, something that just works is fine, nobody cares about flexibility, 7. Very little development is required, it will use mostly off-the-shelf components: nope, there will be plenty of very custom made components developed for just this purpose, and lots and lots of development are required. 8. The reactor is in the study phase. it is not being built now: it is both in the study phase and being built. In the end, what was Rickover's agenda: some people were competing with him for government funding for nuclear reactor R&D in general, and for naval nuclear reactors in particular. All those people were a nuisance to him, he had to go and plead for funds again and again, so he decided to write this letter to put this thing to rest once and for all. He managed. But here it's fusion. Commonwealth Fusion is privately funded, they are not looking for government funding, and they are not making inflated representations to the public. They are actually keeping a low profile in general. The message of this article is simply "this time there is a glint of hope", nothing more.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
dfsegoat 6y ago
Rickover was focused on safety, and specifically solutions that could be safely maintained and operated in a steel pipe full of men, 100' beneath the sea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover#Safety_record https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover#Safety_recor...
tootie 6y ago
This isn't an academic reactor. MIT is involved because they did the theory work, but it's venture funded with a plan to build a working reactor in a few years.
- latch 6y ago
  How isn't this an academic paper as defined by Admiral Rickover? It meets a lot of his criteria: small, cheap, built quickly and, probably most importantly, it's not being built now.
hitekker 6y ago
A solid, reality check. Here is the source link: http://ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/Rickover.pdf http://ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/Rickover.pdf
Igelau 6y ago
I hear Adm. Rickover fixed a whole toothpaste factory once with nothing but grit and an $8 electric fan. Hoo boy he made those expensive college boy consultants look like they just fell off the turnip truck.
Mvandenbergh 6y ago
Yes, that's very important but it is also important to remember that this was in a particular context and that the "pick a design and just build it" approach only works when you have a design (however imperfect) that is going to work. First, the context. Rickover needed to get a reactor designed, series built, and operated right away. In that context, he was absolutely right. Second, the PWR design works and it works very well for submarines. I don't know that there has been a better design concept for submarines (the USSR built a few liquid metal cooled reactors which caused them lots of problems). When you have a basic design that does work, then going ahead and building it is the right thing to do. We can see the consequences of what that approach does to earlier stage research programmes as well because some of Rickover's people were put in charge of Argonne's reactor research programme which they did not understand and where they caused an immense amount of trouble by trying to duplicate this approach in a context where the basic approach had not been definitively decided. This lead, for instance, to spending an enormous amount of money and time pursuing an oxide fuel fast reactor concept despite being warned that there were fundamental problems with that design and that spending more time up front on metal fuel design work would be a better idea. They didn't want to hear it - oxide fuel works (which it does - in thermal PWR and BWR reactors) - so go with that and just build it. Rickover was right of course about the principle of understanding technological predictions in the context of what we would now call Technological Readiness Levels and optimism bias but in understanding this we also have to keep in mind the other side of the coin which is not to entirely commit to premature optimisation.
pfdietz 6y ago
This point is worth noting: > (3) It is requiring an immense amount of development on apparently trivial items. Corrosion, in particular, is a problem. The design has molten fluoride salt circulating in a strong magnetic field. Molten salts, unlike molten metals, have low (but not zero) conductivity. But the motion will still induce a voltage drop across the salt. If the walls are metal, there is the possibility of galvanic corrosion due to this potential. And there's the possibility that radiation could enhance this corrosion.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

samatman 6y ago

It's a good contribution to the conversation, keeping in mind that Adm. Rickover wrote these words in 1953. Anyone could have said similar things about computers in 1953, and been just as correct. Are nuclear reactors computers? Of course not, and neither have practical reactors kept pace in development with practical computers. But neither is it inevitable that steady progress cannot grind down the latter set of characteristics into the former. Indeed, that's what I would bet on, and I think the Admiral would be disappointed in the progress we have(n't) made.

wwweston 6y ago
> Anyone could have said similar things about computers in 1953, and been just as correct. Many people could say similar things about software in 2020 and be just as correct. :) The good Admiral may be describing some timeless aspects of engineering, possibly related to the recently discussed observation that reality has a surprising amount of detail: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16184255 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16184255 . Though, as you say, over time engineering can grind out some of the practical into practice.
- giblfiz 6y ago
  I, for one, never have corrosion problems on my software projects.
  - solstice 6y ago
    I take it you're not programming in Rust? /s
  - wwweston 6y ago
    You jest, but... compatibility is the corrosion of software. The environment and dependencies underlying your software are slowly oxidizing/transforming all the time and unless you pick only the stainless steel of interfaces/system calls, your software will cease to function more quickly than lots of iron objects rust through.
sheeshkebab 6y ago
I guess we can ask Huawei about how easy it is to build computers in 2020...
- frequentnapper 6y ago
  with stolen blueprints and unlimited govt resources, easy as pie...
  - 6y ago

credit_guy 6y ago

Admiral Rickover was a smart dude. But none of these points are applicable here. This development here is about fusion, not fission, those who are pursuing it are not amateurs at all, they are MIT people and they are not shy to pick up a wrench and use it in a lab. One by one, the points made by Rickover against his adversaries are not relevant here: 1. It is simple: no, nobody says here that fusion is simple. 2. It is small: well, this one is small compared to ITER, but nobody's saying it's small in an absolute sense. 3. It is cheap: sure, compared to the billions and billions poured into ITER, this is dirt, dirt cheap, but still, they have secured $200MM so far, and they will need more money until they build an actual reactor. 4. It is light: really not applicable here, since nobody's thinking of putting these reactors in submarines (which is what Rickover was really talking about). 5. It can be built very quickly: sure, the time horizon is less than the perpetual 30 years of the old fusion reactor proposals, but it's not going to be "very quick", 6. It is very flexible in purpose: no, for the time being, something that just works is fine, nobody cares about flexibility, 7. Very little development is required, it will use mostly off-the-shelf components: nope, there will be plenty of very custom made components developed for just this purpose, and lots and lots of development are required. 8. The reactor is in the study phase. it is not being built now: it is both in the study phase and being built. In the end, what was Rickover's agenda: some people were competing with him for government funding for nuclear reactor R&D in general, and for naval nuclear reactors in particular. All those people were a nuisance to him, he had to go and plead for funds again and again, so he decided to write this letter to put this thing to rest once and for all. He managed. But here it's fusion. Commonwealth Fusion is privately funded, they are not looking for government funding, and they are not making inflated representations to the public. They are actually keeping a low profile in general. The message of this article is simply "this time there is a glint of hope", nothing more.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

dfsegoat 6y ago

Rickover was focused on safety, and specifically solutions that could be safely maintained and operated in a steel pipe full of men, 100' beneath the sea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover#Safety_record https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover#Safety_recor...

tootie 6y ago

This isn't an academic reactor. MIT is involved because they did the theory work, but it's venture funded with a plan to build a working reactor in a few years.

latch 6y ago
How isn't this an academic paper as defined by Admiral Rickover? It meets a lot of his criteria: small, cheap, built quickly and, probably most importantly, it's not being built now.

hitekker 6y ago

A solid, reality check. Here is the source link: http://ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/Rickover.pdf http://ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/Rickover.pdf

Igelau 6y ago

I hear Adm. Rickover fixed a whole toothpaste factory once with nothing but grit and an $8 electric fan. Hoo boy he made those expensive college boy consultants look like they just fell off the turnip truck.

Mvandenbergh 6y ago

Yes, that's very important but it is also important to remember that this was in a particular context and that the "pick a design and just build it" approach only works when you have a design (however imperfect) that is going to work. First, the context. Rickover needed to get a reactor designed, series built, and operated right away. In that context, he was absolutely right. Second, the PWR design works and it works very well for submarines. I don't know that there has been a better design concept for submarines (the USSR built a few liquid metal cooled reactors which caused them lots of problems). When you have a basic design that does work, then going ahead and building it is the right thing to do. We can see the consequences of what that approach does to earlier stage research programmes as well because some of Rickover's people were put in charge of Argonne's reactor research programme which they did not understand and where they caused an immense amount of trouble by trying to duplicate this approach in a context where the basic approach had not been definitively decided. This lead, for instance, to spending an enormous amount of money and time pursuing an oxide fuel fast reactor concept despite being warned that there were fundamental problems with that design and that spending more time up front on metal fuel design work would be a better idea. They didn't want to hear it - oxide fuel works (which it does - in thermal PWR and BWR reactors) - so go with that and just build it. Rickover was right of course about the principle of understanding technological predictions in the context of what we would now call Technological Readiness Levels and optimism bias but in understanding this we also have to keep in mind the other side of the coin which is not to entirely commit to premature optimisation.

pfdietz 6y ago

This point is worth noting: > (3) It is requiring an immense amount of development on apparently trivial items. Corrosion, in particular, is a problem. The design has molten fluoride salt circulating in a strong magnetic field. Molten salts, unlike molten metals, have low (but not zero) conductivity. But the motion will still induce a voltage drop across the salt. If the walls are metal, there is the possibility of galvanic corrosion due to this potential. And there's the possibility that radiation could enhance this corrosion.