6 ms·

I am one of the UPower founders. The key takeaways here are that the main hindrances to novel nuclear are (1) meeting regulatory and safety necessities without

I am one of the UPower founders. The key takeaways here are that the main hindrances to novel nuclear are (1) meeting regulatory and safety necessities without huge testing costs, which also require a customer interested in purchasing, and (2) competing with the grid, (3) huge scientific/technical risks if not yet proven. UPower meets these by (1) being small enough to build a very tough, full scale emulator for testing, never before done in nuclear. (2) not competing on the grid, which gives immediate, in need customers which is also necessary for regulatory process to complete in (1). (3) using technologies and materials with decades of experience, in a new way, eliminating the huge uncertainties of many startups you see in the news.

idlewords 12y ago
I think the key-est takeaway is the need to persuade people not to be terrified of nuclear energy. That's likely to require an effort on a par with any technical advances you make.
- donttrustatoms 12y ago
  Great point. It's so true. It's exciting that having nuclear backing from groups like YC help people be less terrified (another nuclear group in YC is Helion!). Some great documentaries like Pandora's Box (on netflix) are helping. And generally, i think people are sometimes just relatively growing "less terrified" of nuclear than global pollution, climate change, ocean acidification etc.
- beefman 12y ago
  Realizing the cost advantage of fission will change minds pretty quick. Of course there's the catch-22 of being able to do it before their minds are changed. uPower's plan of trying offgrid first may be worth a shot. A little understanding of FUD psychology can help too. Today's nuclear industry flunks on that. Telling people nuclear is safe is a classic mistake. Safety is a feeling, and it's hard to feel safe about things you've never touched and can't even picture. There's virtuous feedback here too -- more reactors around, more people who see them and stop fearing them. A charismatic CEO who can stand on top of a reactor on YouTube can't hurt either.
  - donttrustatoms 12y ago
    You're absolutely right that safety is a feeling, and we are thinking like you that having a full scale prototype that people and regulators could see, hug, feel, and basically test drive will help. It's just not big and scary. In fact, the amount of heat produced by the reactor a day after shutdown would be on the order of a hundred hair dryers. Sounds cozy :) loud but cozy. Where the industry has failed in engaging new types of social media (HN, YouTube, reddit, quora, etc) people are stepping up. And honestly it's probably better this way. On a side note, people don't realize but there's no big nuclear industry really. Our founders have met and spent time with executives from nearly every domestic utility company and all of them have different types of power in their portfolio. They have no real interest in promoting nuclear over coal. The uranium miners make no money compared to coal mines because, think of it, one two-millionth of the volume of nuclear materials is needed compared to the volume of coal. You've never seen a uranium train car, because reactors don't need to burn hundreds of train cars a day and put that in our air. Compound that with the fact that anything nuclear is like sex and plane crashes for news media. :) So it's a battle to get education out, but smart people like you on HN will win the day. I really believe it. Also our charismatic CEO will do his best to stand on a reactor for you ASAP.
    - beefman 12y ago
      :)
  - idlewords 12y ago
    I would very much enjoy seeing CEOs stand on top of reactors on YouTube. There doesn't even need to be shielding.
  - the_solution 12y ago
    "cost advantage of fission" -- you state this like a fact, but it is actually a subject of much discussion.
- avz 12y ago
  I think it's very important that businesses engaged in development and application of nuclear technology pursue public education more vigorously. Public level of understanding of nuclear technology is depressing. The past fear campaigns and decades of life in fear of nuclear annihilation during the cold war have spread the knowledge of fear-inducing properties of nuclear materials like very long half-life of the waste, but kept people largely unaware of other important facts like means to reduce half-life of the waste, natural existence of background radiation, our consequent evolutionary adaptations to it or the inverse square law. This creates the perception that even properly regulated nuclear technology is a lot more dangerous than it actually is.
kiyoto 12y ago
Hey there- I am pleased to see a company like yours cropping out of YCombinator. Not for nothing but: get some help with your website. It might seem like such a frivolous thing, but having a well-designed website goes a long way (or rather, having a bad web design mars your authority and reputation undeservingly).
- donttrustatoms 12y ago
  Ouch. :) you're dead on. we've tried to be one of the companies that focus more on doing than publicizing... but it's definitely not good if it mars reputation. Thanks for comment.
  - sfk 12y ago
    The website IS well designed! It is literally the only website I've seen this year which makes me want to purchase something! Sure, more information would not hurt, but the overall style is perfect for the target audience.
donttrustatoms 12y ago
A couple side notes on TC article specifically for those interested: 1) NO reprocessing as somewhat indicated in article ("processing"). We use the low enriched used fuel from the reactor to make new fuel for the next deployment. We don't isolate dangerous parts as done in reprocessing which is the main concern with reprocessing. 2) True waste elimination- it's not just "less of a pain", which is definitely good: the reactor actually eliminates waste instead of just using it for fuel as some thermal types do (eg some startups seen in the media). Without fast neutrons, a reactor cannot burn the longest-lived parts of waste. 3) History on reactor regulatory process: Never before has a reactor been fully built and operated before licensing as somewhat indicated in final paragraph. That would cost $Bs. So, in all history of nuclear, they have built scaled models and spent hundreds of millions in scaled testing and modeling to prove that the scaled tests are accurate to what the full reactor will be like. The UPower test reactor can be built to full scale for on the order of single digit $millions, which can be said with confidence because even a national lab built a similar reactor and produced electricity with tons of red tape for $100s k. The heat transfer process has no moving parts and can be shown at full scale and tested to failure on the order of just $thousands, unlike the big boys with outrageously complicated flow loops, pumps, valves, secondary pumps, etc etc etc. This means the UPower reactor has a chance at being the first commercial reactor able to use the streamlined "license by test" process.
- DennisP 12y ago
  Similar to the Integral Fast Reactor? (I'm a fan, and friends with Tom Blees.)
  - anonymous999 12y ago
    The Integral Fast Reactor was a great project, and it ran against exactly the sort of think I'm worried will kill UPower: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2013/ph241/waisberg1/ http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2013/ph241/waisberg1/ "However, the project was hampered in 1994 after a series of controversies involving safety issues and nuclear non-proliferation policies."
- anonymous999 12y ago
ChuckMcM 12y ago
This seems like an interesting technology, especially if you can keep the moving parts to a minimum. I did a bit of research on mineral extraction. Not surprisingly the more refined your minerals the more valuable they are, and building an on-site blast furnace to convert various forms of iron ore into pig iron would allow countries like Afghanistan extract more value out of their mineral deposits. The challenge is that without infrastructure the traditional solution is build a mine, build train tracks to the mine, and then transport raw ore from the mine to the processing facility (this is being done in some of China's western provinces). Primary issue of building a refinery is a reliable source of power. One key is unattended operation. Is that something you are planning for?
- donttrustatoms 12y ago
  Great assessment and distilled description. We have literally spoken to people from lithium mines to chromium mines to remote oil or copper mines and they have explained this same predicament of difficulty of reliable power on site. As far as unattended: in sum, the technology allows it, but the regulatory structure may not be comfortable with it in the near term. It's not the deal breaker you might think in terms of economics. We are talking about more reliable power at multiples less with prices that don't require the complicated hedging and regular bulk purchases as oil and gas. Generally, we are looking at staffing structure similar to oil rigs- weeks on, weeks off. As regulators and public understand operation, we could transition to remote staff managing sites. Truth is that the technology shuts itself down in case of any bad event (see EBR for similar, really amazing) and there would be almost nothing for on site personnel to do, but there is a perceived safety blanket with having a warm body on site. Does that answer your question?
  - devicenull 12y ago
    EBR?
simonebrunozzi 12y ago
You being one of the founders, I found your HN username amusing :) I like that you're attacking a real problem. Good luck.
- donttrustatoms 12y ago
  Don't trust atoms, they make up everything. ;)
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

idlewords 12y ago

I think the key-est takeaway is the need to persuade people not to be terrified of nuclear energy. That's likely to require an effort on a par with any technical advances you make.

donttrustatoms 12y ago
Great point. It's so true. It's exciting that having nuclear backing from groups like YC help people be less terrified (another nuclear group in YC is Helion!). Some great documentaries like Pandora's Box (on netflix) are helping. And generally, i think people are sometimes just relatively growing "less terrified" of nuclear than global pollution, climate change, ocean acidification etc.
beefman 12y ago
Realizing the cost advantage of fission will change minds pretty quick. Of course there's the catch-22 of being able to do it before their minds are changed. uPower's plan of trying offgrid first may be worth a shot. A little understanding of FUD psychology can help too. Today's nuclear industry flunks on that. Telling people nuclear is safe is a classic mistake. Safety is a feeling, and it's hard to feel safe about things you've never touched and can't even picture. There's virtuous feedback here too -- more reactors around, more people who see them and stop fearing them. A charismatic CEO who can stand on top of a reactor on YouTube can't hurt either.
- donttrustatoms 12y ago
  You're absolutely right that safety is a feeling, and we are thinking like you that having a full scale prototype that people and regulators could see, hug, feel, and basically test drive will help. It's just not big and scary. In fact, the amount of heat produced by the reactor a day after shutdown would be on the order of a hundred hair dryers. Sounds cozy :) loud but cozy. Where the industry has failed in engaging new types of social media (HN, YouTube, reddit, quora, etc) people are stepping up. And honestly it's probably better this way. On a side note, people don't realize but there's no big nuclear industry really. Our founders have met and spent time with executives from nearly every domestic utility company and all of them have different types of power in their portfolio. They have no real interest in promoting nuclear over coal. The uranium miners make no money compared to coal mines because, think of it, one two-millionth of the volume of nuclear materials is needed compared to the volume of coal. You've never seen a uranium train car, because reactors don't need to burn hundreds of train cars a day and put that in our air. Compound that with the fact that anything nuclear is like sex and plane crashes for news media. :) So it's a battle to get education out, but smart people like you on HN will win the day. I really believe it. Also our charismatic CEO will do his best to stand on a reactor for you ASAP.
  - beefman 12y ago
    :)
- idlewords 12y ago
  I would very much enjoy seeing CEOs stand on top of reactors on YouTube. There doesn't even need to be shielding.
- the_solution 12y ago
  "cost advantage of fission" -- you state this like a fact, but it is actually a subject of much discussion.
avz 12y ago
I think it's very important that businesses engaged in development and application of nuclear technology pursue public education more vigorously. Public level of understanding of nuclear technology is depressing. The past fear campaigns and decades of life in fear of nuclear annihilation during the cold war have spread the knowledge of fear-inducing properties of nuclear materials like very long half-life of the waste, but kept people largely unaware of other important facts like means to reduce half-life of the waste, natural existence of background radiation, our consequent evolutionary adaptations to it or the inverse square law. This creates the perception that even properly regulated nuclear technology is a lot more dangerous than it actually is.

kiyoto 12y ago

Hey there- I am pleased to see a company like yours cropping out of YCombinator. Not for nothing but: get some help with your website. It might seem like such a frivolous thing, but having a well-designed website goes a long way (or rather, having a bad web design mars your authority and reputation undeservingly).

donttrustatoms 12y ago
Ouch. :) you're dead on. we've tried to be one of the companies that focus more on doing than publicizing... but it's definitely not good if it mars reputation. Thanks for comment.
- sfk 12y ago
  The website IS well designed! It is literally the only website I've seen this year which makes me want to purchase something! Sure, more information would not hurt, but the overall style is perfect for the target audience.

donttrustatoms 12y ago

A couple side notes on TC article specifically for those interested: 1) NO reprocessing as somewhat indicated in article ("processing"). We use the low enriched used fuel from the reactor to make new fuel for the next deployment. We don't isolate dangerous parts as done in reprocessing which is the main concern with reprocessing. 2) True waste elimination- it's not just "less of a pain", which is definitely good: the reactor actually eliminates waste instead of just using it for fuel as some thermal types do (eg some startups seen in the media). Without fast neutrons, a reactor cannot burn the longest-lived parts of waste. 3) History on reactor regulatory process: Never before has a reactor been fully built and operated before licensing as somewhat indicated in final paragraph. That would cost $Bs. So, in all history of nuclear, they have built scaled models and spent hundreds of millions in scaled testing and modeling to prove that the scaled tests are accurate to what the full reactor will be like. The UPower test reactor can be built to full scale for on the order of single digit $millions, which can be said with confidence because even a national lab built a similar reactor and produced electricity with tons of red tape for $100s k. The heat transfer process has no moving parts and can be shown at full scale and tested to failure on the order of just $thousands, unlike the big boys with outrageously complicated flow loops, pumps, valves, secondary pumps, etc etc etc. This means the UPower reactor has a chance at being the first commercial reactor able to use the streamlined "license by test" process.

DennisP 12y ago
Similar to the Integral Fast Reactor? (I'm a fan, and friends with Tom Blees.)
- anonymous999 12y ago
  The Integral Fast Reactor was a great project, and it ran against exactly the sort of think I'm worried will kill UPower: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2013/ph241/waisberg1/ http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2013/ph241/waisberg1/ "However, the project was hampered in 1994 after a series of controversies involving safety issues and nuclear non-proliferation policies."
anonymous999 12y ago

ChuckMcM 12y ago

This seems like an interesting technology, especially if you can keep the moving parts to a minimum. I did a bit of research on mineral extraction. Not surprisingly the more refined your minerals the more valuable they are, and building an on-site blast furnace to convert various forms of iron ore into pig iron would allow countries like Afghanistan extract more value out of their mineral deposits. The challenge is that without infrastructure the traditional solution is build a mine, build train tracks to the mine, and then transport raw ore from the mine to the processing facility (this is being done in some of China's western provinces). Primary issue of building a refinery is a reliable source of power. One key is unattended operation. Is that something you are planning for?

donttrustatoms 12y ago
Great assessment and distilled description. We have literally spoken to people from lithium mines to chromium mines to remote oil or copper mines and they have explained this same predicament of difficulty of reliable power on site. As far as unattended: in sum, the technology allows it, but the regulatory structure may not be comfortable with it in the near term. It's not the deal breaker you might think in terms of economics. We are talking about more reliable power at multiples less with prices that don't require the complicated hedging and regular bulk purchases as oil and gas. Generally, we are looking at staffing structure similar to oil rigs- weeks on, weeks off. As regulators and public understand operation, we could transition to remote staff managing sites. Truth is that the technology shuts itself down in case of any bad event (see EBR for similar, really amazing) and there would be almost nothing for on site personnel to do, but there is a perceived safety blanket with having a warm body on site. Does that answer your question?
- devicenull 12y ago
  EBR?

simonebrunozzi 12y ago

You being one of the founders, I found your HN username amusing :) I like that you're attacking a real problem. Good luck.

donttrustatoms 12y ago
Don't trust atoms, they make up everything. ;)

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]