3 ms·

So how many decades are we away from something like Naquadah generators? Is this something that is even possible with our current fuel sources or would it requ

So how many decades are we away from something like Naquadah generators? Is this something that is even possible with our current fuel sources or would it require some currently unavailable fuel. https://stargate.fandom.com/wiki/Naquadah_generator https://stargate.fandom.com/wiki/Naquadah_generator

azernik 5y ago
Quite far - miniaturization of nuclear reactors is generally quite hard. We haven't put much effort into miniaturizing terrestrial reactors, and naval reactors have other design concerns which limit, but space reactors are a good gauge of the state of the art. From the (production!) American SNAP reactors of the 60s and the contemporary (production!) Soviet BES-5s, to the current Kilopower design studies and prototypes, there's been basically zero progress in reducing size. Fission has some hard floors on reactor (and bomb) size, because of the logic of criticality. That design floor for power reactors is quite large - the core itself is usually on the order of 50-75cm long by 20-30cm diameter, but the heat-to-electric conversion machinery and, more importantly shielding, will quadruple or quintuple that length. And that's with the cheats enabled by space applications, where you only need to shield in the direction of the spacecraft. For general use a similar design would fill a shipping container, like the linked microreactors tend to. Fusion is maybe a more plausible route to small power sources on the order of decades, because there's a clear parameter to tweak: magnetic field. Better superconductors -> stronger magnetic field -> smaller minimum size.
- dbetteridge 5y ago
  I appreciate you taking the time to answer rather then just downvoting me :) Sounds like pretty much what I would have expected in terms of limitations, so we'd need something much more energy dense (Like fusion) and a more compact way to remove the heat and convert it to power.
  - azernik 5y ago
    Note the "more importantly" - one of the reasons the conversion machinery is bulky is because you need all that space for radiation shielding anyway, and the conversion stuff tends to serve dual purpose. Active nuclear (fission or fusion) reactors put out a lot of radiation, much more than even high-level waste.
Enginerrrd 5y ago
Quite a few... The issue isn't so much on the nuclear side as it is the size of thermal energy recovery systems. Attempts to miniaturize turbines haven't worked super well, though they have been made since a bottle of fuel has a much greater energy density than most batteries.

azernik 5y ago

Quite far - miniaturization of nuclear reactors is generally quite hard. We haven't put much effort into miniaturizing terrestrial reactors, and naval reactors have other design concerns which limit, but space reactors are a good gauge of the state of the art. From the (production!) American SNAP reactors of the 60s and the contemporary (production!) Soviet BES-5s, to the current Kilopower design studies and prototypes, there's been basically zero progress in reducing size. Fission has some hard floors on reactor (and bomb) size, because of the logic of criticality. That design floor for power reactors is quite large - the core itself is usually on the order of 50-75cm long by 20-30cm diameter, but the heat-to-electric conversion machinery and, more importantly shielding, will quadruple or quintuple that length. And that's with the cheats enabled by space applications, where you only need to shield in the direction of the spacecraft. For general use a similar design would fill a shipping container, like the linked microreactors tend to. Fusion is maybe a more plausible route to small power sources on the order of decades, because there's a clear parameter to tweak: magnetic field. Better superconductors -> stronger magnetic field -> smaller minimum size.

dbetteridge 5y ago
I appreciate you taking the time to answer rather then just downvoting me :) Sounds like pretty much what I would have expected in terms of limitations, so we'd need something much more energy dense (Like fusion) and a more compact way to remove the heat and convert it to power.
- azernik 5y ago
  Note the "more importantly" - one of the reasons the conversion machinery is bulky is because you need all that space for radiation shielding anyway, and the conversion stuff tends to serve dual purpose. Active nuclear (fission or fusion) reactors put out a lot of radiation, much more than even high-level waste.

Enginerrrd 5y ago

Quite a few... The issue isn't so much on the nuclear side as it is the size of thermal energy recovery systems. Attempts to miniaturize turbines haven't worked super well, though they have been made since a bottle of fuel has a much greater energy density than most batteries.