Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Antares achieves criticality of Mark-0 reactor

antaresindustries.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 122 posts

Re: Antares achieves criticality of Mark-0 reactor

#21

Post by sfn42 »

usrnm wrote: post #17
sfn42 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because large scale production is generally more scalable and efficient. And you probably don't want dozens of "microreactors" scattered across cities.

> Because large scale production is generally more scalable and efficient Rooftop solar is an example of small scale decentralized energy production, maximum efficiency is not the only relevant metric. > And you probably don't want dozens of "microreactors" scattered across cities Why not? If they're considered safe and pass all inspections, what's the problem?

A nuclear reactor is generally treated as a high security facility. I don't know how this new reactor works but I thought it was safe to assume something like a terrorist attack on one might be bad. It's also a lot more work to inspect and control them when scattered.

Rooftop solar does not have these issues.

Re: Antares achieves criticality of Mark-0 reactor

#23

Post by sehansen »

Traubenfuchs wrote: post #9

I am still quite confused on the scientific consensus: Should we double down on renewable energy and solve its issues with lots of batteries or should we invest in next generation nuclear energy? Both at the same time? Does anyone know?

If your location already has a well-run nuclear energy sector (Finland, Sweden, South Korea): invest in nuclear energy.

If you don't: stick to renewables.

And it also depends on what you mean by "we". As a Dane, I don't think us Danish taxpayers should invest in nuclear energy, but I'm perfectly happy that private Danish investors invest in Seaborg/Saltfoss and Copenhagen Atomics.

Re: Antares achieves criticality of Mark-0 reactor

#24

Post by pfdietz »

ggm wrote: post #2

TRISO fuel so.. pebble bed? Is there a reluctance to market on this? The Chinese were all-in. Great to see engineering deliver on time. I wonder if Rolls Royce will also have a smooth ride. It's a PWR.

TRISO increases fuel cycle costs. It's harder to make, harder to dispose of, and (IIRC) uses higher enrichment.

Re: Antares achieves criticality of Mark-0 reactor

#25

Post by pfdietz »

Traubenfuchs wrote: post #9

I am still quite confused on the scientific consensus: Should we double down on renewable energy and solve its issues with lots of batteries or should we invest in next generation nuclear energy? Both at the same time? Does anyone know?

Nuclear partisans like to call renewables ideological, but I think this is another example of "the accusation is a confession".

The empirical evidence has nuclear being uncompetitively expensive. The current focus on variant reactor designs appears to be something of a Hail Mary attempt to get around this sad state of affairs.

You sometimes see them making an argument about energy density, which goes back to Vaclav Smil. But Smil used this argument to massively mispredict how solar would be go in the market. We don't hear him much anymore.

Nuclear advocates increasingly resort to conspiracy theoretic reasoning to explain away the failure of their technology to compete. This should be a red flag.

Re: Antares achieves criticality of Mark-0 reactor

#26

Post by pfdietz »

bevekspldnw wrote: post #14
Traubenfuchs wrote: post #9

I am still quite confused on the scientific consensus: Should we double down on renewable energy and solve its issues with lots of batteries or should we invest in next generation nuclear energy? Both at the same time? Does anyone know?

When it comes to avoiding the worst impacts of the current catastrophic path we’re on, “nothing will work, but everything might”. Do it all.

Nuclear is not on a trajectory to do more than supply a minor amount of world energy. A (say) 10% nuclear, 90% renewable world is not an easier challenge than a 100% renewable world -- the intermittency/seasonality issues aren't eased by having 10% nuclear running as baseload, and keeping it as backup makes its cost per kWh explode.

Nuclear really has to go big (supply most of the world's energy) or go home. But supplying most of the world's energy means burner reactors are inadequate -- there isn't enough cheap uranium. Burner microreactors have even worse neutron economy, so this argument applies even more so to them.

Re: Antares achieves criticality of Mark-0 reactor

#27

Post by pfdietz »

roenxi wrote: post #8
sfn42 wrote: post #7

> "The Trump administration is proud to support the rebirth of America’s nuclear industry and ensuring Americans have access to affordable, reliable and secure energy for generations to come." > "The demonstration and the licensing pathway it establishes represent a key step toward deploying electricity-producing microreactors for U.S. military installations by September 30, 2028." So which is it? Power to the people…

Why would microreactor concepts not be suitable for commercial use? History is overwhelmed with examples of large, rare and expensive tech being produced in small cheap packages and becoming massive commercial successes that make the old way look primitive.

> Why would microreactor concepts not be suitable for commercial use?

Crippling diseconomies of scale.

Re: Antares achieves criticality of Mark-0 reactor

#28

Post by krunck »

Traubenfuchs wrote: post #9

I am still quite confused on the scientific consensus: Should we double down on renewable energy and solve its issues with lots of batteries or should we invest in next generation nuclear energy? Both at the same time? Does anyone know?

next generation nuclear energy = fusion

Re: Antares achieves criticality of Mark-0 reactor

#30

Post by pfdietz »

roenxi wrote: post #20
sfn42 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because large scale production is generally more scalable and efficient. And you probably don't want dozens of "microreactors" scattered across cities.

Large scale production of commodity goods is generally more efficient. Which is why microreactors don't seem to have any inherent disadvantages. The efficiencies tend to kick in with the raw number of items produced.

> microreactors don't seem to have any inherent disadvantages

They have diseconomies of scale. Some of the costs of a nuclear power plant scale sublinearly with power. Neutron economy is improved in a larger core. Larger turbines are more efficient than smaller turbines. It doesn't take 1000x as many operators to operate a NPP with 1000x the power output.

Post reply on HN