3 ms·

A VC I'm familiar with is in two modular fission reactor ventures. I was generally skeptical about a future for fission reactors, but it behooved me to learn. A

by Zigurd 4y ago

A VC I'm familiar with is in two modular fission reactor ventures. I was generally skeptical about a future for fission reactors, but it behooved me to learn. Among the things I learned is that there is a huge distance between making a small reactor and making a reactor of any size that can run unattended or with minimal supervision. Taking a reactor out of a nuclear powered submarine just gets you the small reactor bit. Much of what new gen fission projects do is to make reactors easy and safe to operate. Submarines are run by a crew of trained specialists at all kinds of high stakes systems, including the reactor.

wongarsu 4y ago
But do we need unattended reactors for the moon? Adding a "nuclear reactor tech" person to the mission control room in Houston sounds cheap compared to R&D costs, latency to the moon is small, and for any hands-on tasks you can presumably train the astronauts (or train a couple experts as astronauts if you want to vindicate the plot of Armageddon). After all, just like a submarine a moon base would be staffed by trained specialists.
- zopa 4y ago
  Sure, but many fewer of them. There are over a hundred people on a submarine crew; it’ll be a good while before a moon base gets anywhere near that big.
- Zigurd 4y ago
  That is a good question. Even on Earth, a large number of small reactors may not be better than a small number of large reactors. Pebble bed reactors might be inherently safer and easier to operate, but the German demo reactor got its pebbles jammed and they can't figure out what to do with it. Fast reactors can consume what is otherwise high level waste, but they also have risks. On top of all that, are fission reactors compatible with VC fund liquidity horizons? I think that may be part of why some startups are focusing on operating instrumentation and software. You can patent that and sell it as a product separate from the reactor. Or worst case backstop your investors from losing their whole investment.
p1mrx 4y ago
Submarines also operate in the world's largest heatsink.

by Zigurd 4y ago

wongarsu 4y ago

But do we need unattended reactors for the moon? Adding a "nuclear reactor tech" person to the mission control room in Houston sounds cheap compared to R&D costs, latency to the moon is small, and for any hands-on tasks you can presumably train the astronauts (or train a couple experts as astronauts if you want to vindicate the plot of Armageddon). After all, just like a submarine a moon base would be staffed by trained specialists.

zopa 4y ago
Sure, but many fewer of them. There are over a hundred people on a submarine crew; it’ll be a good while before a moon base gets anywhere near that big.
Zigurd 4y ago
That is a good question. Even on Earth, a large number of small reactors may not be better than a small number of large reactors. Pebble bed reactors might be inherently safer and easier to operate, but the German demo reactor got its pebbles jammed and they can't figure out what to do with it. Fast reactors can consume what is otherwise high level waste, but they also have risks. On top of all that, are fission reactors compatible with VC fund liquidity horizons? I think that may be part of why some startups are focusing on operating instrumentation and software. You can patent that and sell it as a product separate from the reactor. Or worst case backstop your investors from losing their whole investment.

p1mrx 4y ago

Submarines also operate in the world's largest heatsink.