5 ms·

> Bankruptcy in less than five years. Those small reactors are at best very expensive and have very limited usefulness. If I were them, I'd be talking to the (

> Bankruptcy in less than five years. Those small reactors are at best very expensive and have very limited usefulness. If I were them, I'd be talking to the (US) military. Their reactors are: > The new generation of advanced microreactors can produce between 1 and 20 megawatts of thermal energy that could be used directly as heat or converted to electric power. * https://nanonuclearenergy.com/microreactors/ https://nanonuclearenergy.com/microreactors/ Per Table A-1 (¶A-27), a sustained load (60-80%) of an Army camp is between 1.7 and 5.1 MW: * PDF: https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/MCRP%203-40D.17%20(SECURED).pdf https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/MCRP%203-40D.... You wouldn't necessary have fewer reactors (2-4?) than generators (4-8) because of redundancy, but if you don't have to regularly truck fuel to the camp, that certainly simplifies logistics. (Or perhaps as much fuel, as vehicles would still needed, though with 'excess' power perhaps going (mild) hyrbid could be possible.) I could also see applications in the energy sector (offshore, remote land locations). Not sure how many 'off grid' communities would be up for a <20 MW power source.

pjc50 2y ago
That is certainly going to be the #1 use. It was a huge problem during the occupation of Afghanistan that all electricity had to be generated from diesel that was shipped 1500+km from ports in Pakistan, through dubiously-controlled areas. That cost $2trn in total, proving the unlimited supply of money for bad ideas provided they involve killing the right people. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/08/31/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-end-of-the-war-in-afghanistan/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/20... (It's interesting to compare that with the costs of WW2 and how urgent projects were handled then. WW2 involved a real threat to US territory, so everyone was on board with rapidly developing innovative solutions. Afghanistan, by comparison, was reprisals against a landlocked country which posed no real threat, so once the occupation started everyone lost interest - but it was still heresy to question spending the money. No attempt was made to really solve the power problem, because nobody would ever question the $300m a day)
- credit_guy 2y ago
  Highly unlikely. No way the US Army will put a nuclear reactor in a place that can be overrun by insurgents. Any other piece of equipment, you can put a stick of TNT next to it and detonate it on your way out of there. Not so with a nuclear reactor.

pjc50 2y ago

That is certainly going to be the #1 use. It was a huge problem during the occupation of Afghanistan that all electricity had to be generated from diesel that was shipped 1500+km from ports in Pakistan, through dubiously-controlled areas. That cost $2trn in total, proving the unlimited supply of money for bad ideas provided they involve killing the right people. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/08/31/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-end-of-the-war-in-afghanistan/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/20... (It's interesting to compare that with the costs of WW2 and how urgent projects were handled then. WW2 involved a real threat to US territory, so everyone was on board with rapidly developing innovative solutions. Afghanistan, by comparison, was reprisals against a landlocked country which posed no real threat, so once the occupation started everyone lost interest - but it was still heresy to question spending the money. No attempt was made to really solve the power problem, because nobody would ever question the $300m a day)

credit_guy 2y ago
Highly unlikely. No way the US Army will put a nuclear reactor in a place that can be overrun by insurgents. Any other piece of equipment, you can put a stick of TNT next to it and detonate it on your way out of there. Not so with a nuclear reactor.