3 ms·

The "microreactors" page indicates 1 to 20 megawatts thermal. Electrical output isn't listed, my wild guess would be about a quarter of that figure. https://n

The "microreactors" page indicates 1 to 20 megawatts thermal. Electrical output isn't listed, my wild guess would be about a quarter of that figure. https://nanonuclearenergy.com/microreactors/ https://nanonuclearenergy.com/microreactors/

Y-bar 2y ago
> 1 to 20 megawatts The page does indeed say that. At the same time that seems like very little, it's in the range of a single large wind turbine (e.g. https://www.vestas.com/en/products/offshore/V236-15MW https://www.vestas.com/en/products/offshore/V236-15MW). I'm not convinced this will be anything but a niche application for defence or other remote outposts which for some reason cannot rely on solar+wind+storage.
- preisschild 2y ago
  You could also use the heat directly instead of converting it to electricity. Now you could retrofit towns and cities with district heating. Large companies with huge campuses could also use it for electricity + heating. Industry could also use the heat for chemical processes. There are also places with small grids, where a bigger reactor can't be easily integrated, like islands or remote villages. I think Canada wants to use their BWRX-300 SMR for remote grids.
  - aaomidi 2y ago
    The reason most places don’t do district heating isn’t “oh we don’t have nuclear power”. It’s a lot more “we don’t want to do district heating.”
  - mdorazio 2y ago
    Large companies with huge campuses have huge amounts of rooftop space that are usually perfect for solar arrays + storage. The only place this makes sense is remote areas at latitudes where solar is impractical. Or if it could be made small enough to fit on a few semi-trucks, pseudo-temporary military bases.
pfdietz 2y ago
A 1 MW thermal source corresponds to burning about $50K of natural gas per year (in the US at Henry Hub rates).

3 ms·

The "microreactors" page indicates 1 to 20 megawatts thermal. Electrical output isn't listed, my wild guess would be about a quarter of that figure. https://n

by ooterness 2y ago

Y-bar 2y ago
> 1 to 20 megawatts The page does indeed say that. At the same time that seems like very little, it's in the range of a single large wind turbine (e.g. https://www.vestas.com/en/products/offshore/V236-15MW https://www.vestas.com/en/products/offshore/V236-15MW). I'm not convinced this will be anything but a niche application for defence or other remote outposts which for some reason cannot rely on solar+wind+storage.
- preisschild 2y ago
  You could also use the heat directly instead of converting it to electricity. Now you could retrofit towns and cities with district heating. Large companies with huge campuses could also use it for electricity + heating. Industry could also use the heat for chemical processes. There are also places with small grids, where a bigger reactor can't be easily integrated, like islands or remote villages. I think Canada wants to use their BWRX-300 SMR for remote grids.
  - aaomidi 2y ago
    The reason most places don’t do district heating isn’t “oh we don’t have nuclear power”. It’s a lot more “we don’t want to do district heating.”
  - mdorazio 2y ago
    Large companies with huge campuses have huge amounts of rooftop space that are usually perfect for solar arrays + storage. The only place this makes sense is remote areas at latitudes where solar is impractical. Or if it could be made small enough to fit on a few semi-trucks, pseudo-temporary military bases.
pfdietz 2y ago
A 1 MW thermal source corresponds to burning about $50K of natural gas per year (in the US at Henry Hub rates).