/sci/ - Science & Math

Why would you even want one? The repair costs, the upkeep, the waste disposal? Plus, local production sources are always going to be less efficient than centralized ones

>>12705154
>The repair costs, the upkeep, the waste disposal?
it seems like a non issue in their promotional video tho
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0w01Uog4JdM

>local production sources are always going to be less efficient
economy of scale would fix that

>>12705164
>economy of scale would fix that
What economies of scale? It's local.

>>12705164
there's another design from Rolls-Royce as well
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK8KGidUnpM
it's uses PWRs from nuke subs

>>12705169
they build the whole reactor in the factory, ship it in a container, and just install it on-site

>>12705176
nuke sub PWRs do have a great track record, I'm not sure whether submarine PWRs are as safe as the fool-proof 4th gen design like Ultra Safe Nuclear's one

g-guyz?
anyone else interested in nuclear reactors?
I-Isn't this board /sci/?

>>12705180
That doesn't solve any of the complaint anon had, try reading this time.
>The repair costs, the upkeep, the waste disposal?

>>12705286
Anon I...
I'm sorry. The best thing you'll get here is maybe a nice math explanation from the anime poster in the math generals.
/sci/ is basically just a shit posting board outside the generals. I've managed to quit regularly visiting every 4chan board I went to, this is my last one.
Soon, soon I will escape.

>>12705151
by enjoying a cancer free life

>>12705363
if radiation is getting out of your reactor you aren't going to have any power anon

>>12705359
lol no

>>12705344
>The repair costs, the upkeep
we won't know what it really costs until they build one up for a trial run
but judging by the design and what they are saying(requiring minimal support and maintenance, with no on-site fuel storage, handling, or processing.), this part is unlikely to be costly

>the waste disposal
this and the manufacturing of the fuel be seems to be the weakest point in their design
they use small kernel of uranium coated with ceramic and encase these in silicon carbide pellets, which I suspect would increase manufacturing costs
and they claim this coating and casing will ensure the spent fuel to be safely disposed in an underground repository
but I think it would be preferable to reuse it in fast breeder reactors

>>12705381
soon

>>12705384
found some stuff on cost per kWh

>https://smractionplan.ca/content/ultra-safe-nuclear-corporation
>EXPECTED RESULTS
>The modular approach results in low-cost SMRs that are easy to transport and quick to erect and are scalable and adaptable.
>USNC is committed to delivering a guaranteed long term energy cost to end users of $0.15 to $0.20/kWh at moderate scale (50%+ energy cost reduction as compared to diesel).

A target of 15 cents to 20 cents per kWh at "moderate scale", idk how much "moderate scale" is, but perhaps there is room for improvement at "large scale"?

>>12705384
>requiring minimal support and maintenance
This is one of those bullshit phrases you need to see as red flags in the case of new technologies. Nine times out of ten it is complete bullshit.

>>12705462
>complete bullshit
I hope not, Hyundai is a big corporation in my country and they probably know what they are doing
And there's national institutions from the US, Canada & South Korea in on this.

>https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/usnc-collaborates-with-industry-leaders-on-new-technologies-for-advanced-micro-modular-reactor-301106512.html
>U.S.-based Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation (USNC) announces the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Hyundai Engineering (HEC) and the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI). The five-year agreement outlines goals for development of technologies that enhance the USNC Micro Modular Reactor's (MMR™) ability to produce and deliver carbon-free power, heat, and hydrogen in future MMR installations. This agreement includes investigating applications for the MMR technology in South Korea.
>https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/SMR-developer-and-engineering-firm-to-collaborate
>The MMR is in the third stage of Canadian Nuclear Laboratories' four-stage process to site a demonstration small modular reactor at the Chalk River Laboratories site in Ontario.
>https://usnc.com/idaho-national-laboratory-and-university-of-illinois-collaborate-with-ultra-safe-nuclear-corporation-on-advanced-reactor-proposal/
>University of Illinois’ Micro Reactor Will Be First Built at a U.S. Academic Institution in Nearly 30 Years – Idaho Installation Will Achieve Objective of Next Generation Nuclear Plant Program

>>12705286
I like nuclear reactors too, but I am a boomer. Millennials and zoomers don't like them, they have been brainwashed into solar.

>>12705286
I like nuclear, mate. No homo

>>12705164
What a meme

This technology plus tunnel boring equipment & infrastructure is the way to go for Mars.

It would also start up the economy almost immediately by having new colonist wire money to Martian construction crews to build an apartment to your specifications.

>>12706798

>>12705151
>tfw they live in a tiny cuckshed with a basement that goes 4 floors deep

>>12705151
I don't live in a shed.

>>12706807
It gives me the heebie jeebies knowing that threre are hundreds of tons of rock above my head just waiting for an earthquake. What can you say to reassure a fag like me?

>>12707406
Those hundreds of tons of rock are protecting you from the radiation bathing the surface. Think of it like a thick layered safety blanket that you're cozily snuggled inside.

>>12705151
>How do I even cope?
why? nobody could see this shit in your basement, if you want your own power put solar on your roof

>>12707869
That's hundreds of tons of free-weight that we don't have to send to Mars. You could build an underground house on this scale for less money than a NYC equivalent.

>Kara Swisher
>You’re an advocate of nuclear power. Besides being chairman of a board of a nuclear power startup, why do you think that’s a good idea?

>Bill Gates
>Yeah, so the only reason I got involved in nuclear is because of climate. And if we get a storage miracle of some type, then we won’t have to worry about nuclear power. But there’s a very good chance we won’t have that storage miracle. And so keeping nuclear fission where the — the, you know, per molecule energy generation is a million times better than burning hydrocarbons. If we can get the safety, convince people of the safety and improve the economics, then it could be a huge contributor to the reliability and, therefore, to a solution for climate change. Now we have to start over because today’s reactors are way too expensive. And they have high pressure, so their safety systems are very complex. So it takes a whole new generation of nuclear reactor. And that’s what — there’s a number of companies. TerraPower, the one I’m involved with, just got a big U.S. government grant to build a demonstration plant.

>>12707406
There are not earthquakes in the moon or Mars.

>>12705164
>economy of scale would fix that
anon thats his point. one big reactor for everyone is more efficient than small reactors.

>>12705154
Sounds like an argument against solar, cabron

>>12709144
>There are not earthquakes in the moon or Mars.
Have you ever heard of NASA InSight?

>>12705164
>The MMR is unable to melt because any excess heat dissipates passively to the environment
What??

>>12705154
The rights to bear reactors must not be infringed

why is nobody itt asking about cooling system

>>12705154
>state is being a jew fag
>go nuclear
>LITERALLY
>???
>profit

>>12705154
Seethecope anti-nuclear shill
https://youtu.be/7gtog_gOaGQ

>>12705151
there isn't enough uranium on earth to last us even a century of fully switching to it as a primary energy source.
>muh ocean uranium
a meme. i am willing to bet fusion reactors will be viable before uranium fishing. for now we should keep using fossil fuels and solar+wind as much as possible.
>muh CO2
let the phytoplanktons deal with it.