4 ms·

A couple side notes on TC article specifically for those interested: 1) NO reprocessing as somewhat indicated in article ("processing"). We use the low enrich

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
Hi. First of all, best of luck with your startup. I'm all for better nuclear technology. However, I'm related to a nuclear engineer (who is currently in a senior position at IAEA, thus the anonymous account), and I understood that both steps you're currently undertaking were commonly know to be viable and efficient, BUT contravened most non-proliferation agreements (note: I'm not a nuclear engineer or physicist. Just interested). So, you're "disrupting" an industry in dire need of disruption (due to the massive amounts of red tape), but you're also walking a tightrope. I believe what you're doing is safe and needed, but if public opinion or perception turns against you (any article hinting at terrorist use, for example, or concerns over breaking the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), it might end your company. You probably have taken all of this into account, and I hope you have a strategy in place on how to deal with this :) . Once again, I wish you best of luck and I hope to use your generators in the future !! :) EDIT: I haven't talked with my relative yet, all what I wrote above is my (probably misinformed) opinion. Second edit: It seems several others have already raised most of my concerns, and better than I have. I've also See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8195589 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8195589 (regulatory concerns) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8195642 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8195642 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8196075(the https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8196075(the tech being commonly known) and, most important, the "dirty bomb" factor https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8195495 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8195495
- donttrustatoms 12y ago
  Thanks so much for the luck wishes! We will try to make the most of this luck. ;) I'm glad you brought up the dirty bomb factor again. The perpetuation of the myth of the dangers of the dirty bomb is truly sad. We all intuitively realize that the dangers of chemical warfare, biological dispersion (especially because it is transmissible long after the incident), and the dangers of bombs themselves are so much greater than some amount of radiation that decays rapidly and, by the nature of a bomb, is highly dispersed. As an example of the worst possible radiological contamination (which would not practically be achieved by a dirty bomb to scale), read about the story of the "Atomic Man". In an instant, he received 500 times the "lethal lifetime dose." He died at 75 of unrelated causes. The atopsy showed zero cancer. The chemicals were terrible. the explosion was terrible. Ultimately the radiation itself was not as bad as expected. In another example, studies showed mice fed plutonium dust had their lives expanded by 120%. See here for an overview of these types of studies and natural effects of hormesis. http://www.radpro.com/641luckey.pdf http://www.radpro.com/641luckey.pdf It's my belief this disproportionate fear is really a tragedy, a play on the fears of uneducated people (again, fed by media since anything nuclear is like sex or plane crashes) that may ultimately cheat them from peace of mind and clean, reliable energy sooner. What if people refused transportation:vehicles, trucks, and planes because gasoline is highly combustible and kills so many per year? Our economy exploded with oil at the turn of the last century. But that's a side point, sorry for digression. Could this be blown up? 1) it's underground 2) it's surrounded by concrete that has been tested to be safe to drop from hundreds of feet in the air 3) it's a solid metal block. It doesn't have dispersion capabilities like other forms. Unrelated fact since we aren't reprocessing: It's a common misconception that reprocessing is not legal in the US. It is. Also for instance, France does it and has been doing it for a while.
jackgavigan 12y ago
> ... 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. What's your source of fast neutrons? Also, is it accurate to describe your product as a nuclear battery? The TechCrunch article refers to it generating heat (as opposed to electricity), so is "nuclear reactor" a more accurate description?
- donttrustatoms 12y ago
  fission. :) it can run several fuels as described in article. Battery seemed to have stuck. it's not my favorite. I would say generator. battery apparently seems more innocuous. Battery also feels accurate because the reactor will be more or less "plug and play" like a really, really, really long lasting battery that produces the same amount of power. It can also be used in "packs" like a battery. Fundamentally, nuclear, just like coal or anything else is a source of heat. With different secondary packages, you can produce electricity or cogenerate steam.
cjslep 12y ago
#1 sounds awesome, our senior design project was on continuous pyroprocessing of HLW SNF in order to retrieve the remaining enriched Uranium while leaving the rest as proliferation-resistant waste. I'm not sure what techniques you are using (UREX?) to extract the LE uranium for reuse -- but I assume the "main concern with reprocessing" you're hinting at is the extraction of proliferation-enabling material as well. If you're doing #2 then I am wondering how much reprocessing you are really having to do at all. 2) True waste elimination - I am very curious how you are able to do so. It seems like a very big neutron poison for fast neutrons. I'm not sure if you're using a thermal/fast reactor with gas/molten salt/water as the cooling material. I will await for the NRC filings, I suppose! 3) Best of luck!

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

Hi. First of all, best of luck with your startup. I'm all for better nuclear technology. However, I'm related to a nuclear engineer (who is currently in a senior position at IAEA, thus the anonymous account), and I understood that both steps you're currently undertaking were commonly know to be viable and efficient, BUT contravened most non-proliferation agreements (note: I'm not a nuclear engineer or physicist. Just interested). So, you're "disrupting" an industry in dire need of disruption (due to the massive amounts of red tape), but you're also walking a tightrope. I believe what you're doing is safe and needed, but if public opinion or perception turns against you (any article hinting at terrorist use, for example, or concerns over breaking the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), it might end your company. You probably have taken all of this into account, and I hope you have a strategy in place on how to deal with this :) . Once again, I wish you best of luck and I hope to use your generators in the future !! :) EDIT: I haven't talked with my relative yet, all what I wrote above is my (probably misinformed) opinion. Second edit: It seems several others have already raised most of my concerns, and better than I have. I've also See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8195589 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8195589 (regulatory concerns) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8195642 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8195642 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8196075(the https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8196075(the tech being commonly known) and, most important, the "dirty bomb" factor https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8195495 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8195495

donttrustatoms 12y ago
Thanks so much for the luck wishes! We will try to make the most of this luck. ;) I'm glad you brought up the dirty bomb factor again. The perpetuation of the myth of the dangers of the dirty bomb is truly sad. We all intuitively realize that the dangers of chemical warfare, biological dispersion (especially because it is transmissible long after the incident), and the dangers of bombs themselves are so much greater than some amount of radiation that decays rapidly and, by the nature of a bomb, is highly dispersed. As an example of the worst possible radiological contamination (which would not practically be achieved by a dirty bomb to scale), read about the story of the "Atomic Man". In an instant, he received 500 times the "lethal lifetime dose." He died at 75 of unrelated causes. The atopsy showed zero cancer. The chemicals were terrible. the explosion was terrible. Ultimately the radiation itself was not as bad as expected. In another example, studies showed mice fed plutonium dust had their lives expanded by 120%. See here for an overview of these types of studies and natural effects of hormesis. http://www.radpro.com/641luckey.pdf http://www.radpro.com/641luckey.pdf It's my belief this disproportionate fear is really a tragedy, a play on the fears of uneducated people (again, fed by media since anything nuclear is like sex or plane crashes) that may ultimately cheat them from peace of mind and clean, reliable energy sooner. What if people refused transportation:vehicles, trucks, and planes because gasoline is highly combustible and kills so many per year? Our economy exploded with oil at the turn of the last century. But that's a side point, sorry for digression. Could this be blown up? 1) it's underground 2) it's surrounded by concrete that has been tested to be safe to drop from hundreds of feet in the air 3) it's a solid metal block. It doesn't have dispersion capabilities like other forms. Unrelated fact since we aren't reprocessing: It's a common misconception that reprocessing is not legal in the US. It is. Also for instance, France does it and has been doing it for a while.

jackgavigan 12y ago

> ... 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. What's your source of fast neutrons? Also, is it accurate to describe your product as a nuclear battery? The TechCrunch article refers to it generating heat (as opposed to electricity), so is "nuclear reactor" a more accurate description?

donttrustatoms 12y ago
fission. :) it can run several fuels as described in article. Battery seemed to have stuck. it's not my favorite. I would say generator. battery apparently seems more innocuous. Battery also feels accurate because the reactor will be more or less "plug and play" like a really, really, really long lasting battery that produces the same amount of power. It can also be used in "packs" like a battery. Fundamentally, nuclear, just like coal or anything else is a source of heat. With different secondary packages, you can produce electricity or cogenerate steam.

cjslep 12y ago

#1 sounds awesome, our senior design project was on continuous pyroprocessing of HLW SNF in order to retrieve the remaining enriched Uranium while leaving the rest as proliferation-resistant waste. I'm not sure what techniques you are using (UREX?) to extract the LE uranium for reuse -- but I assume the "main concern with reprocessing" you're hinting at is the extraction of proliferation-enabling material as well. If you're doing #2 then I am wondering how much reprocessing you are really having to do at all. 2) True waste elimination - I am very curious how you are able to do so. It seems like a very big neutron poison for fast neutrons. I'm not sure if you're using a thermal/fast reactor with gas/molten salt/water as the cooling material. I will await for the NRC filings, I suppose! 3) Best of luck!