51–60 of 123 posts
Hey HN I'm Jake, one of the co-founders of UPower. Some good discussion here. I've posted a few responses below, happy to answer some questions here. Thanks!
I see it's described as a battery -- does this mean you're focusing on keeping everything as small as possible? How small do you think the whole operation can get? Could it fit in a semi truck and be driven around?
>with some processing Weasel words. Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel introduces a MASSIVE regulatory boondoggle.
Great, great call to point out. The author very unfortunately did not understand that there is NO "reprocessing" necessary for our reactors to reuse fuel. Why, oh why, don't we get to preview what they write. Wording is so important in such a massively misunderstood space. It is a proven process utilized previously in fuel manufacture, and simply adds a little new fuel to existing used fuel. It does not involving iso…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except you just have to look at Fukushima to see that things can still go badly wrong, resulting in a meltdown of 3 reactors. And this happened in arguably one of the most tightly regulated and technologically advanced countries in the world.
Wrong, perhaps, but 'badly' wrong? Despite the accident, building Fukushima saved lives and reduced atmospheric pollution relative to other power sources. Part of the reason we haven't improved reactor designs as rapidly as we should is due to irrational fears surrounding nuclear power. In other words, such fears have to some extent been a self-fulfilling prophecy.
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 test…
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).
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 test…
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.
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 test…
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.
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 test…
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).
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 test…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Great, great call to point out. The author very unfortunately did not understand that there is NO "reprocessing" necessary for our reactors to reuse fuel. Why, oh why, don't we get to preview what they write. Wording is so important in such a massively misunderstood space. It is a proven process utilized previously in fuel manufacture, and simply adds a little new fuel to existing used fuel. It does not involving iso…
Can you be a little more descriptive here? I suspect you really are reprocessing, and shouldn't be afraid to say so.
There is a company called Gen4 Energy (formerly Hyperion Power Generation) that has been pursuing the "nuclear battery" concept for 7 or so years: http://www.gen4energy.com Regulatory approval has been elusive, and that's for a team of 30+ year nuclear industry veterans. The challenges in this industry are brutal, I hope UPower has deep enough pockets and extreme patience to shake up the industry.
They started with a good-sized design, but have scaled it up a couple times since then. They're no longer in mass-production territory.