6 ms·
> In this particular case, what is this quote supposed to imply? I don't know that it's supposed to imply anything but rather shine a light on the different a
by eganist 4y ago
> In this particular case, what is this quote supposed to imply?
I don't know that it's supposed to imply anything but rather shine a light on the different acceptance criteria for a study reactor v. one that generates power for, in his case, mission critical needs (though power for homes and businesses would be life-critical, so it's up there).
If a study reactor breaks, even though there's a possible risk to life depending on how it fails, you can endure the downtime for a bit while bringing it back up. If a practical reactor breaks, people are far more likely to die.
- likeabbas 4y agoThat's why it's important to have a multitude of energy sources on a competitive power grid. The nice thing about SMRs is you can build enough of them to make the overall output consistent as needed, even with a higher tolerance for failure of any individual reactor.
- moloch-hai 4y agoA higher tolerance for random failure, but extreme exposure to expensive repairs for systematic failure. Anything $M you have to fix in N of them costs Nx$M.
- sandworm101 4y agoA study reactor is also designed to break. It is meant to be easily opened up and examined after a fault. It is meant to validate the core process but also explore edge case situations. So it needs to fail gracefully. That is a more complex beast than any final product.