Yeah... Cause you completely understand nuclear designs and know how the entire setup functions.. how dare they not show some numbers.. otherwise people wouldn't believe a computer generated virtual video with a robot sounding voiceover... 🤗
@@AaronStarkLinux My brother in christ its a reference to the meme that was the joke, its the "I'm something of a scientist myself" meme originates from the 2002 film "Spider-Man," The full line is: "You know, I'm something of a scientist myself." The meme typically features an image of Norman Osborn smiling while saying the line. This meme is often used to humorously suggest that someone is boasting about their knowledge or expertise in a particular area, usually in a context where their expertise is either not particularly relevant or is being exaggerated for comedic effect. It has become a popular way to mockingly claim expertise or to make light of someone else's assertion of knowledge. OP is mocking people in the comment section that only have superficial knowledge about nuclear power as most of them here watched Chernobyl on HBO and come out with several simplistic conclusions
Did you not just watch the video? I thought they made that perfectly clear. Jesus your like Archer just watching the Excelsior video and complaining about a lady in a staticy sweater will light the blimp ablaze after the video said it was filled with NON FLAMABLE helium. LOL The mechanizism in place never allow the temps to exceed criticality. C'mon.
I kind of like these oldies. 2 years later still no product. In 2 more years when it gets recommended again we will be able to read about their bankruptcy.
If people weren't so fearful of nuclear power and Nuclear power was a bit more open and thought properly in school and even part of STEM research or as popular as computer science maybe just maybe things like these concepts here would've been standard everywhere but one could only hope not embracing nuclear power and demonizing it is probably one of humanity's greatest mistake in the last century especially with the alternatives we embraced for what we could've gotten
@@beyondfossil Your assertion that nuclear power is too expensive and slow to build is based on outdated information. Significant advancements have been made, particularly with Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and Generation IV reactors. SMRs, for instance, are designed for factory assembly and site construction, drastically reducing both time and costs. Companies like GE-Hitachi, NuScale Power, and Holtec are leading the way, with SMR designs that are scalable and can be deployed more rapidly than traditional large-scale reactors. These reactors can be built simultaneously in factories and on-site, cutting down deployment time significantly Furthermore, it's important to consider the long-term economic benefits of nuclear power. While initial costs can be high, nuclear plants have low operating costs and can run for decades, providing a stable and reliable source of low-carbon electricity. When compared to the hidden costs of fossil fuels, such as health impacts and environmental damage, nuclear power is economically competitive. Your argument that nuclear power cannot be deployed quickly enough to address climate change is shortsighted. Existing nuclear plants already provide substantial low-carbon electricity and can continue to do so with life-extension programs and technological upgrades. Countries like France, which generates about 70% of its electricity from nuclear power, illustrate how effective nuclear energy can be in reducing carbon emissions Additionally, new reactor designs are being developed to be quicker to deploy. For example, the advanced reactors being worked on by TerraPower and other companies are designed to be safer and more efficient, operating at higher temperatures and lower pressures than traditional reactors. These innovations will enable faster and safer deployment of nuclear power. While geopolitical risks are a concern, they are not unique to nuclear power. Critical infrastructure, whether it’s oil refineries, hydroelectric dams, or large-scale solar farms, can all become targets during conflicts. What’s crucial is implementing robust security measures and international cooperation to safeguard these assets. Nuclear power, by reducing reliance on imported fossil fuels, can actually enhance national security by providing energy independence you can go ask China right now why energy independence is important The fear of long-term disasters from nuclear power is largely based on outdated technologies and past accidents. Modern reactor designs, such as those of Generation IV reactors, incorporate advanced safety features that prevent catastrophic failures. For example, many new designs use alternative coolants like molten salt and liquid metals, which operate at lower pressures and higher safety margins and furthermore the nuclear industry has also significantly improved its safety protocols and emergency response strategies. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has updated its regulatory framework to better address the unique characteristics of advanced reactors and microreactors, ensuring a higher level of safety and reliability Renewables are indeed essential, but they have limitations that nuclear power can help address. The intermittent nature of solar and wind power requires reliable backup sources to ensure a stable energy supply. Nuclear power provides a consistent baseload power that complements the variability of renewables, creating a more resilient and reliable energy grid. Moreover, advancements in hydrogen production using nuclear energy, such as those demonstrated at the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, highlight the versatile applications of nuclear power in supporting a broader decarbonization strategy Your arguments against nuclear power overlook the significant advancements and the evolving nature of technology. Modern nuclear reactors are safer, more efficient, and quicker to deploy. Contrary to what most believe, the global average is actually just around 7 years, with some outlier long builds. Currently Korea and China churn them out consistently around 5-6 years while Japan holds the record in the past of an average of just 3-4 years per unit. I would add that those numbers directly reflect the scale of nuclear construction in those countries. It has been decades since a plant was built in the US. It would be the first plant for most of the workforce and, unfortunately, a learning experience. Subsequent plants could be completed much more in line with what countries that have not allowed their human capital to atrophy.
@@notnetflix5691 my brother in christ you just wrote the bloody bible XD If I may add my 2 cents the construction of the World's first grid scale nuclear power station - Calder Hall in North East England - was commenced by Taylor Woodrow Construction in 1953 and was officially opened on 17 October 1956, using 1950s engineering and construction techniques.. Originally designed for a life of 20 years from respectively 1956-1959, the plant was after 40 years until July 1996 granted an operation licence for a further ten years. The station was closed on 31 March 2003, the first reactor having been in use for nearly 47 years. Seems to me we have gone backwards.
@@saumyacow4435 True in a sense where regulatory barriers exponentially increase costs, the US dollar requires oil to survive and planned obsolesce is they key to power generation. The reality is, Nuclear power plants only exist to create by products for military use. If this wasn't the case MSR research would have received billions.
@@saumyacow4435 While it's true that economic factors are a major hurdle for nuclear power in the U.S., attributing the decline solely to economics ignores the broader context. Decades of political indecision and public fear, exacerbated by incidents like Three Mile Island, have stifled nuclear development. This stagnation allowed countries like Russia and China to leap ahead by continuously investing in and exporting nuclear technology. Despite the impressive safety record of nuclear power in North America and its green credentials, the U.S. has been bogged down by a byzantine regulatory process that inflates costs and delays projects significantly. The average environmental impact statement for a new reactor takes over three years just to generate, followed by more years of public hearings and Nuclear Regulatory Commission approvals. This bureaucratic quagmire, often hijacked by private interests and environmental extremists, has made building new reactors prohibitively expensive and slow, forcing the U.S. to rely more on coal and natural gas instead of clean nuclear energy. While emerging technologies like Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) promise lower costs and faster build times, investment and political will lag far behind what’s needed to compete globally. The Biden administration's recent efforts to reinvigorate the nuclear sector with $6 billion in aid are a step in the right direction, but they pale in comparison to the $62 billion allocated to renewables. To catch up, the U.S. needs to streamline its permitting processes, invest significantly more in nuclear technology, and rebuild its domestic uranium enrichment capabilities to reduce dependence on imports from geopolitical rivals like Russia. Without these changes, no amount of temporary subsidies will overcome the entrenched obstacles that have left the U.S. trailing in the nuclear energy race.
Very interesting compact solution with rotating control geometry. I have two questions: 1. Biological shielding not included and is to be built by the client? 2. How is passive self shutdown achieved? Are control surfaces spring loaded to snap into shutting down the reactor in case of power loss?
Biological shielding isn't needed. The structure of the reactor itself functions as shielding, and the previously dangerous radiation risks due to catastrophic failure or meltdown basically don't exist nowadays. We've made the actual process of generating nuclear power very, VERY clean. Even Fukushima, as terrible as it was, didn't actually release much radiation. Also of note: since these designs are smaller and meant to be self-contained, the risk of malfunction due to natural events is orders of magnitude lower than at any existing large-scale nuclear powerplant.
Who says we have? Nobody has come close to designing a financially viable micro reactor, let alone building even a prototype. The above is all hypothetical marketing hype. Every independent investigation has said small nuclear is a massive lemon long before it starts. Renewables + Storage are already significantly cheaper without any subsidies and without the unmitigated, potentially planet-ending horrors of the nuclear fuel cycle.
@@lptf5441 I... truly recommend you to watch some Kyle Hill videos about nuclear power. "potentially planet-ending horrors" is a very big give away that you don't know much about nuclear power.
@@lptf5441 @lptf5441, your assertion that no financially viable microreactor has been designed or prototyped ignores significant advancements in this field. Radiant's Kaleidos microreactor, for example, has moved beyond the hypothetical stage with substantial investment and rigorous testing. The company has secured $40 million in funding to build a full-scale prototype, with plans for a demonstration at Idaho National Laboratory by 2026 and commercial availability by 2028. Your argument about the "potentially planet-ending horrors of the nuclear fuel cycle" is alarmist and ignores the significant advancements in nuclear technology and successful implementations worldwide. Radiant's Kaleidos microreactor, with substantial funding and a clear development timeline, exemplifies the tangible progress in this field, countering your claim of mere marketing hype. Furthermore, the assertion that every independent investigation condemns small nuclear as a failure overlooks the efficiencies gained from modular construction and factory assembly, which drastically cut costs and build times, setting these projects apart from traditional nuclear ventures. The U.S. Department of Energy, for instance, has heavily invested in Small Modular Reactor (SMR) technology, recognizing its potential to provide safe, reliable, and cost-effective power. This support, along with advancements in manufacturing and design, significantly challenges the notion that small nuclear is inherently unviable. Moreover, your belief that renewables plus storage are the ultimate solution overlooks the critical issue of intermittency and the unmatched continuous power supply that microreactors can provide, especially in remote or disaster-stricken areas where grid reliability is crucial, there are countries all over like Canada that are actively exploring SMRs to power remote northern communities, demonstrating the practical and immediate application of this technology. And on top of that the UK is advancing its nuclear program with the Hinkley Point C project, and Japan is restarting its nuclear plants with enhanced safety protocols post-Fukushima, showcasing modern nuclear technology's safety and reliability this was shown in 2023 and 2024 they've actually kickstarted their reliance on nuclear energy again, their nuclear consumption has been going up since 2017 and has reduced their reliance on LNG slowly.
@@ZeroABrVideos How you doing fellow brother good to see another here, I think people here believe we're arguing on behalf of the company we're not arguing on behalf of the company we're arguing about Nuclear in general as a lot of people here seem to watch Chernobyl and three mile Island and they come to the conclusion "oh nuclear power bad", "1000 year radiation because people believe that a nuclear generator is being held together by string and twine and it's like an active nuclear bomb when the reality couldn't be further from the truth
@@lptf5441 Lmao no, renewables and energy storage are expensive, short sighted and extremely reliant on mining rare resources that contribute to toxic waste. Nuclear is a big investment and dirt cheap to operate. This is a pretty simple combination of proven technologies proposed in a new form factor. The risks of the nuclear fuel cycle are tiny, and negligible compared to the amount of unrecyclable waste that comes from solar, wind, and high density batteries.
This is a Modular High-Temperature Gas Reactor. Helium is an inert gas that does not get radioactive unlike liquid sodium, deuterium (heavy water) or water.
@@3nityC Has some moderation potential and does get radioactive. However, it's great for power conversion, which is why Kaleidos uses supercritical CO2-driven turbogenerators.
Super cool project. Just curious on what something like this would cost? And if energy companies here in AZ like SRP would purchase this? Or maybe be used in disaster relief. Could definitely see for military application. This is awesome and definitely the future I’m glad it’s coming in my lifetime!
What I hate about Musk is how he's spending 40 billion on twitter when with a single tweet Musk could have these modular reactor manufactures arrange to send teams of engineers to the SpaceX HQ. For 40 billion dollars Musk could have a fleet of Micro reactors, and the equipment required to refurbish the reactors such as refueling them in a underground facility. They would all be interested in developing a martian reactor infrastructure because that would push a lot of people off the edge of the fence in support of nuclear power. A lot of people are sick of these renewable solutions such as massive battery energy storage banks or fly wheel battery storage. These people want a solution for global warming and be done with fussing.
@n/a n/a if I’m not mistaken, a few of the founders actually came directly from spaceX and I believe they are still involved with spaceX with funding/manufacturing (don’t quote me though do your own research) Elon is one of the great minds of this era of technology. It’s not right that one man can put out a tweet and the stock market will fluctuate or crypto will skyrocket or plummet, and it’s up for debate if you should be able to buy twitter. But He has had done a lot for this country and more than what we realize. I this project actually succeeds you can bet your sweet bippies it’s going to mars to power the beginning cities.
@@jmd1743 your obsession with Elon musk is tiring. He doesn’t even have that much money relative to where the real power is. For example Putin is much richer than Elon. Also you are complaining about a guy who has 200 billion which he has worked 50 years for while the US government spends trillions of out tax dollars. The US military spends 800 billion a year alone 🤦♂️ its gotta be ignorance because your obsession is not justified
🔌🔌I would call this 1.2MW a pico-reactor and Gate's TerrPower 345MW a micro-reactor. Presently an EPA Tier 4 Diesel 1.5MW outdoor genset with 24 hr subbase fuel tank would cost roughly $2.3M with an 88-week delivery. I'm a big advocate of nuclear and over time the added upfront cost of the reactor would pay for itself using its low-cost clean fuel versus dirty diesel still producing NOx and CO2. 🔌🔌
@NocommentsuwuA nuclear meltdown is not the same as a nuclear bomb. Reactors can meltdown not blow up a city. Also its fusion resctor vs fission reactor, both are nuclear.
@@Blackhearts60Maybe a fission reactor won't blow up like a hydrogen bomb, but in case of a meltdown it can irradiate a very large area and make it unsafe for humans for centuie, like Chernobyl
a ultra compact variant of the Kaleidoscope portable modular reactor (if devised) & generating somewhere around 8.2 MW - 13.3 MW would be great for large displacement naval surface combatants . . .
@@caav56Concur. I am not aware of a military design that used this particular core or cooling system design. US and Canadian navies pioneered using Pressurized LWR and HWR designs, respectively, so water has been a go-to for military microdesigns because it can be readily procured in an operational theater. Helium, notsomuch.
@HuntingTarg the Canadian CANDU design is the classic heavy-water reactor... but it has nothing to do with the navy. The Canadian Navy has never had nuclear propulsion; CANDU was developed by Atomic Energy Canada Limited (AECL), Ontario Hydro and CGE (and other companies) for public utility electrical power generation.
What happens if the reactor vessel is ruptured and the helium leaks out? What happens if the actuators fail and cannot move the neutron absorber into position? This is probably safer than a high pressure water cooled reactor but it is still a high pressure cooled reactor. I like the low pressure liquid salt type reactor. If anything happens physics causes it to shutdown safely. This thing still requires active controls to shut it down and keep it cool.
They can rig something up to use gravity and plain physics to shut down the reactor if needed, maybe just with gravity and a few push rods to actuate the neutron absorbers, maybe even a physical fuse similar to the salt plug for those other reactors, but yeah; the present design definitely needs that change.
@king6530I don't see a single bitflip in a physics simulation leading to misoperation. I'm more concerned about cumulative error compounding, or ionizing radiation damaging the simulator CPU.
I don't like molten salt designs because of the inherent chemical hazards if air gets into the primary cooling loop - salt-metal corrosion can become a runaway reaction if a leak lasts longer than a few minutes. This design is far from inherently safe though, simulative self-correction nothwithstanding.
@@vadimmakarov6811lol thank u for saying it, I'm reading these comments like "are u guys presenting problems w/ extremely obvious solutions on purpose or are u actually incapable of the most basic problem solving?"
Nuclear reactors are not like computers. The size of a computer has no physical relationship to its function, but there are very real physical reasons for the size of a reactor.
I’d be interested in learning more about how laws of physics/thermodynamics limit size reduction. I’d also be interested in seeing the strongest manmade force challenge these head-on (market forces/yacht babe fantasy driven investments/whatever you need to call it)
@@tropicaljupiter As a physicist, I am eager to initiate a debate and spearhead the next era of technology in this field. Are you or any participants ready to join the discussion?
Question? What is the total cost of 1 Portable Micro reactor. How long does it take to make 1 Portable Micro reactor? Who is going to monitor/ operate 1 of these? Are there any that are up in running as of the moment? Is this a start up? Any long term studies?
I love this design. It looks even more compact than the Megapower reactor design. From reading around, the initial idea was developing a small self-contained reactor that could be carried to the moon or Mars. If it's design is based around a 40 foot intermodal container, which it appears to be, it can't weight more than 30 tons. A pair of these could power a Sabatier reactor to produce 3 tons of methalox propellant per day, requiring 400 days to refuel a Starship (1 ton of methalox requires 17 MWh of energy to produce, assume the other 6 MWh is used for other purposes, such as cooling the propellants and running the air compressors drawing in Martian CO2). Assuming a cargo load of 100 tons, you would have 40 tons left over for the processing plant and a couple of excavator rovers to dig up permafrost to supply the thing with ice. Waste heat from the reactors could be used to melt the ice and distill the water for processing.
The container size does not imply the weight - it could exceed the standard allowed container weight, and still be packaged in a container. A better indication is the three-axle trailer behind the tandem-drive tractor shown on the website - that does suggest around 30 tons.
Where does the air in the air jacket mentioned at 2.17 come from? If the air is used to cool the reactor where does it go? Will it be dissipating 1 megawat tof thermal energy or will the reactor be making close to 3 megawatts of thermal to produce 1 megawatt of electricity? What does the narrator mean by "false scenarios" in this part of the video?
When the simulator gets into a state that does not closely reflect the physical/reactivity state of the reaction vessel itself. The air gap means that heat will be pulled off of the pressure vessel and not transferred to the containing structure.
The 1.2 MW quoted is maximum electrical output, so the reactor's thermal output will be much higher, with the difference being dissipated to the ambient air through the radiators behind the externally visible grills. The Radiant website claims 1.9 MW of waste heat flow, so the reactor output must be 3.1 MW... your estimate is correct.
Video has most emphasis on its analytics and modelling software, talking about its safety features. 1MW power generation can supply about a million US homes (~1.2kW) instantaneous power demand). Looking at the graph on bottom left, the efficiency seems to be around 35% thermal to electric. Seems to be a really nice solution to centralized power generation- could solve issues relating to long-distance power delivery by its small size and scalability.
Hope they make them small enough for single home use and affordable for the average American. We really need to move to nuclear as the power grids are constantly over stressed and having a power source at every house would mean no more blackouts and dependence on a power system that is outdated and aging more everyday.
Интересно, а топливо ты где будете покупать? Менять будете сами в подвале? А как утилизировать отработанные элементы? А как справляться будете с избыточным тепловыделением в жару?
@@sigmamale4147 nuclear is INCREDIBLY safe. It has been for 50 years. Self-contained reactors are less likely to fail over a period of decades than any other kind of power plant.
Has been for a long time, but the powers at be don’t want us knowing how safe nuclear really is when its maintained and handled properly. The U.S. should’ve went fully nuclear power 50 years ago and they definitely could have but decided greed and corruption to be more important than what’s better for the people.
@@infantryrecon101st I absolutely agree also there is a problem of atrophy in terms in nuclear engineering as I'm afraid because the US hasn't taken on continuous nuclear projects in the past the skill set isn't there as it used to be, pity with the direction they were heading 50 years ago it would've made us and even greater super power. Wind won't have been able to stand a chance against Nuclear power.
@@infantryrecon101st Also if I may add something, the Netflix dramatization of the three-mile incident, it actually demonstrated what happens when the US is effective in containing a disaster almost like a complete inverse as to what happened at Chernobyl. But some would say it was still a disaster and Netflix placed it as a documentary, fellas its Netflix will they really come out and say look at this disaster actually it wasn't a big deal but still watch it. I would disagree Netflix doesn't do proper documentaries most of the time as I like to call them Drama entries rather than documentaries
This is pretty cool. The only downside(and one of the reasons companies don't get into nuclear) is once you buy a generator, you won't need to buy another one for a very, very long time.
this is fucking AWESOME. id be interested to see a firm/start-up use heavy nitrogen as a coolant which should be able to move even greater amounts of heat for higher efficiencies. you could build the reactor vessel out of silicon nitride and wrap it with a steel body for added tensile strength. if you enrich the nitrogen using ammonia it shouldn’t be ~too~ expensive given scale. love me some gas reactors.
@@Kino_shorts970 Neither TES-3, nor Pamir were like this. TES-3 was a simple water-cooled reactor on several vehicles (not something bad, aside fom the time it takes to set it up for power production), Pamir was N2O4-cooled monstrosity (because N2O4 is bad enough _before_ you run it through a nuclear reactor).
The video shows the TRISO fuel pellets, and expands one for a sectioned view. Their website says "Meltdown-proof TRISO fuel, ceramic coated uranium particles". According to the Wikipedia nuclear fuel article: "Tristructural-isotropic (TRISO) fuel is a type of micro-particle fuel. A particle consists of a kernel of UOX fuel (sometimes UC or UCO), which has been coated with four layers of three isotropic materials deposited through fluidized chemical vapor deposition (FCVD)." So, uranium.
This like a remake of the 1976 General Electric portable power supplies. I do know the GE power units failed to get government approval to be installed in America.
I'm curious what the max temp is if the control blades all get stuck in the full power position and there's a loss of coolant. Also, He is not very dense. I'm REALLY curious what that helium flow rate is. My back of the envelop calc for a 1 MW plant says it's gotta be about 3 million gallons per minute (180,000 liter/second). That pump gonna be screaming.
2MW is around 200 homes at 10 KW each. How much to buy one and run it per year for a neighborhood? How about a cluster of them for a microchip fab, pharma plant, hosptial, or other blackout and glitch sensitive 24/7 operation? Nice that it doesn't need water cooling, that's the next big problem for thermal power plants, low water and high temps triggering environmental restrictions on warm water discharge.
Nice advertisement. Studies have shown that these fancy small modular reactors always become much more expensive than first announced. They also take much longer to build than they claim.
@@HonchHeado He wasn't saying micro reactor don't work. He was talking about cost and build time which has always been nuclear power's two Achille's heels. That said, military budgets for national security are several leagues above any commercial operation.
Looks great! How will helium loop servicing & replenishment be accomplished? What measures will be in place to protect the simulator unit from ionizing radiation-induced errors and damage?
@@screech2730 No it’s not. Trust me, I love nuclear. But it isn’t much safer on this small a scale, and it’s not cost effective at wll. Can’t you see? This is a grift.
The USAF experimented with small reactors on B-36 bombers in the 1950s. The amount of radiation shielding needed was enormous, and the airforce decided that a crash with a nuclear reactor on board was a really, really bad thing.
Imagine a truck hauling one of these gets into a wreck and flies off into a ditch. Imagine the phone call with the Insurance companies. Imagine filing a claim because you slammed into the back of a nuclear reactor.
So what ? It's not as if the fuel is some toxic gas or sludge that will escape and poison everyone. If it falls into a ditch with sufficient force to expose the fuel then it will just be collected and salvaged, it wouldnt be under operation in that situation either, so no fission would be happening. Same thing will a crash.
If the reactor doesn't scram, the core will exceed 900 degrees, which is why they need special fuel that keeps its integrity up to 1600 degrees. At a high enough temperature, the reactor can't sustain criticality. To obtain passive safety, they need a special design that naturally removes the residual heat faster than it is produced in the reactor without reaching temperatures that damage the fuel.
One fail safe design could be making the active side heavier than the back side then tilting the cylinder axis slightly inwards at the bottom so that in case of total loss of power all the cylinders would rotate to the safe position by gravity alone. This has many caviats and is sensitive to the tilt of the reactor core but it all can be addressed. For example a heavy metal layer can melt at a designed temperature and make the hot reactor float in a horizontal position.
@@sonacphotos Or have an electromagnetic clutch linking the actuator to the spring-loaded drum. As soon as power is lost, the clutch disengages and drum rotates to the "scram" position.
I'm dubious. How long until it needs to be refueled or replaced from old age? This will probably cost more (even including fuel) and last a shorter period of time than a comparable diesel generator.
The Radiant website says "After 5 or more years of operation the fuel is depleted, and the entire container can be shipped back for refueling", and "Back at the factory, Kaleidos can be fueled a total of 4 times for a 20-year product lifetime" That is not a very long life, and refuelling will be both expensive and logistically difficult (because a replacement unit will need to be swapped in each time).
I’m more concerned about cost of purchase, idle-upkeep and operations, people use diesel generators for a reason, I can only see some edge-cases where the power of a nuclear reactor is the most practical solution
single point of failure plus moving parts, a no-no, besides the reputation issues already makes it a handful, do not worry about on demand and on location, small independent continuous processes storing energy in magnetically levitated flywheels
@@Triffgits I just realized how important it is to not skimp out on boron man. Its not precognition if you build a bomb and dress it up as a reactor :V
4:36 I want to believe that a portable fission reactor is far more safer than the traditional nuclear reactor that is housed in massive buildings or structures. I believe that it is easier to contain or control if the fission reactor fails in comparison to the massive traditional ones. And such a smaller nuclear reactor design will be easier to dispose of, when the life of the reactor has ended. I would like to know the safety procedures to contain this fission reactor if it fails. 😎💯💪🏾👍🏾
The problem with using helium as the heat transfer fluid is that there’s already a shortage of helium. Helium comes from certain natural gas fields in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. If we stop needing natural gas, we'll stop getting new helium. Helium forms a tiny molecule. It leaks out through steel tanks, right through the walls. Once it escapes into the atmosphere, it's gone forever.
The problem with helium is that it's used where it's not needed such as in party baloons, we won't run out of helium for reactors and all other scientific equipment anytime soon though.
Helium wells are also not actively being developed, and helium is constantly slowly produced in the Earth's core (hence why we extract it from wells) due to the production of alpha particles from the decay of radioactive elements.
@@CCP-Dissident So could the same contractors that replenish Helium for magnetimetric rlement cooling in MRI machines do helium loop replenishment on this design? Whether being used or stored, the Helium will diffuse through any containment material over time.
@@lepidoptera9337 Here's an exercise for you. Go look up the amount of lithium needed to build battery farms sufficient to store 3 days electricity consumption for North America & Europe, we'll ignore Asia, Africa, Central & South America for the moment. Now look up the amount of lithium in known reserves in the world. Then go calculate the cost of such farms (ignoring the inevitable boom in lithium price). Let me know what you come up with.
"There is no nuclear waste or they denial it" This what all pro nuclear people will say. To be honest there is no reliable really long time Nuclear waste solution
The Radiant website says "After 5 or more years of operation the fuel is depleted, and the entire container can be shipped back for refueling", and "Back at the factory, Kaleidos can be fueled a total of 4 times for a 20-year product lifetime" I didn't see any mention of spent fuel disposal on the website.
Do graphite-moderated cores have a positive temp coefficient of reactivity? If so, this is just an accident waiting to happen regardless of protective features or emergency cooling. Graphite would expand at higher temperatures, thermalizing neutrons much more effectively thus creating more energy which creates more heat, which causes more fissions, which creates more energy, which creates more heat, and so on. The design is inherently unstable if it has a positive temperature coefficient of reactivity.
One can easily make self-limiting reactors. NASA and DOE have a project of that kind and it works really, really well. It doesn't matter what these guys are using in their powerpoints, by the way. This is simply a scam that wants to attract the money of hapless investors. They will never deliver. They just want to take the money and run. There is a million of these things out there at all times.
What kind of mechanical tolerance is on the safety features? Anything mechanical can fail, valves and floats get stuck. Transducers and gauges can give false readings. How much redundancy is too much? What kind of critical failure can be profitably be insured against? How many people can suffer without impacting the shareholders?
it's in the pre-application phase. I'd be surprised if there was a functional build yet. None of these "micro reactor" technologies ever pan out or have only very specialized usage
The only issue here would be the rotating drums not being passively safe. You can't SCRAM the reactor with the help of gravity in the case of a mechanical malfunction.
Did you know nuclear power is safer per KWh than ever other form of energy ever created? (Even including Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island, and all other nuclear power incidents.) Nuclear power is the safest form of energy in human history and we should be 100% behind it.
@brianb-p6586 portal power is needed just don't like Graphite in the reactor the chance of Unabated acceleration is two high in my mind bit there's a cost to build them
I really appreciate that you showed us the actual numbers and simulation results. It gives me much more confidence in your design.
Still take everything with a pinch of salt, hope for the best prepare for the worse
I am talking about the company not the Micro reactor here
@@notnetflix5691access to fissile material will be the hardest thing after the design. It’s very tightly controlled.
Yeah... Cause you completely understand nuclear designs and know how the entire setup functions.. how dare they not show some numbers.. otherwise people wouldn't believe a computer generated virtual video with a robot sounding voiceover... 🤗
@@ORANDOMMbro, they literally did show the numbers
Anything on Nuclear posts*
People who watch HBO Chernobyl and Three-mile Island: You know I'm something of a Nuclear engineer myself
Everyone here got their information from the University of Reddit and University of Binge watching Chernobyl f**k me
@@notnetflix5691 nah they got their information from the university of Netflix and TIK TOK XD
@@AaronStarkLinux My brother in christ its a reference to the meme that was the joke, its the "I'm something of a scientist myself" meme originates from the 2002 film "Spider-Man," The full line is: "You know, I'm something of a scientist myself." The meme typically features an image of Norman Osborn smiling while saying the line.
This meme is often used to humorously suggest that someone is boasting about their knowledge or expertise in a particular area, usually in a context where their expertise is either not particularly relevant or is being exaggerated for comedic effect. It has become a popular way to mockingly claim expertise or to make light of someone else's assertion of knowledge. OP is mocking people in the comment section that only have superficial knowledge about nuclear power as most of them here watched Chernobyl on HBO and come out with several simplistic conclusions
@@ledgerwardanimeclips00you gave him way too much effort lol
@@wesdiego08 🤣Yeah I'll say. I mean he is thorough, he probably googled most of it and just pasted it
Wife: Honey, what is this new machine in the basement.
Me: Uhh, it's just a deep freeze for my beer
:')
Y not? Better than a cheap Chinese lithium battery.
Nice try, Vault-Tec
lol
At least they don't pretend its fusion
Amazing! The HOA will be pissed when i make chernobyl in my backyard.
Sensible chuckle on that one :)
no you can't
What they don’t know won’t hurt them😂
Did you not just watch the video? I thought they made that perfectly clear. Jesus your like Archer just watching the Excelsior video and complaining about a lady in a staticy sweater will light the blimp ablaze after the video said it was filled with NON FLAMABLE helium. LOL The mechanizism in place never allow the temps to exceed criticality. C'mon.
HOA will be fiiiiine. Just have them watch the same video. ;)
I see the YT algorithm doing it's magic again.
I kind of like these oldies. 2 years later still no product. In 2 more years when it gets recommended again we will be able to read about their bankruptcy.
@@billschannel1116 nope - they're actually on track! Their design was approved just a few days ago and testing begins next year I think.
its*
If people weren't so fearful of nuclear power and Nuclear power was a bit more open and thought properly in school and even part of STEM research or as popular as computer science maybe just maybe things like these concepts here would've been standard everywhere but one could only hope not embracing nuclear power and demonizing it is probably one of humanity's greatest mistake in the last century especially with the alternatives we embraced for what we could've gotten
@@beyondfossil Your assertion that nuclear power is too expensive and slow to build is based on outdated information. Significant advancements have been made, particularly with Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and Generation IV reactors. SMRs, for instance, are designed for factory assembly and site construction, drastically reducing both time and costs. Companies like GE-Hitachi, NuScale Power, and Holtec are leading the way, with SMR designs that are scalable and can be deployed more rapidly than traditional large-scale reactors. These reactors can be built simultaneously in factories and on-site, cutting down deployment time significantly
Furthermore, it's important to consider the long-term economic benefits of nuclear power. While initial costs can be high, nuclear plants have low operating costs and can run for decades, providing a stable and reliable source of low-carbon electricity. When compared to the hidden costs of fossil fuels, such as health impacts and environmental damage, nuclear power is economically competitive.
Your argument that nuclear power cannot be deployed quickly enough to address climate change is shortsighted. Existing nuclear plants already provide substantial low-carbon electricity and can continue to do so with life-extension programs and technological upgrades. Countries like France, which generates about 70% of its electricity from nuclear power, illustrate how effective nuclear energy can be in reducing carbon emissions
Additionally, new reactor designs are being developed to be quicker to deploy. For example, the advanced reactors being worked on by TerraPower and other companies are designed to be safer and more efficient, operating at higher temperatures and lower pressures than traditional reactors. These innovations will enable faster and safer deployment of nuclear power.
While geopolitical risks are a concern, they are not unique to nuclear power. Critical infrastructure, whether it’s oil refineries, hydroelectric dams, or large-scale solar farms, can all become targets during conflicts. What’s crucial is implementing robust security measures and international cooperation to safeguard these assets. Nuclear power, by reducing reliance on imported fossil fuels, can actually enhance national security by providing energy independence you can go ask China right now why energy independence is important
The fear of long-term disasters from nuclear power is largely based on outdated technologies and past accidents. Modern reactor designs, such as those of Generation IV reactors, incorporate advanced safety features that prevent catastrophic failures. For example, many new designs use alternative coolants like molten salt and liquid metals, which operate at lower pressures and higher safety margins and furthermore the nuclear industry has also significantly improved its safety protocols and emergency response strategies. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has updated its regulatory framework to better address the unique characteristics of advanced reactors and microreactors, ensuring a higher level of safety and reliability
Renewables are indeed essential, but they have limitations that nuclear power can help address. The intermittent nature of solar and wind power requires reliable backup sources to ensure a stable energy supply. Nuclear power provides a consistent baseload power that complements the variability of renewables, creating a more resilient and reliable energy grid. Moreover, advancements in hydrogen production using nuclear energy, such as those demonstrated at the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, highlight the versatile applications of nuclear power in supporting a broader decarbonization strategy
Your arguments against nuclear power overlook the significant advancements and the evolving nature of technology. Modern nuclear reactors are safer, more efficient, and quicker to deploy. Contrary to what most believe, the global average is actually just around 7 years, with some outlier long builds. Currently Korea and China churn them out consistently around 5-6 years while Japan holds the record in the past of an average of just 3-4 years per unit. I would add that those numbers directly reflect the scale of nuclear construction in those countries. It has been decades since a plant was built in the US. It would be the first plant for most of the workforce and, unfortunately, a learning experience. Subsequent plants could be completed much more in line with what countries that have not allowed their human capital to atrophy.
@@notnetflix5691 my brother in christ you just wrote the bloody bible XD
If I may add my 2 cents the construction of the World's first grid scale nuclear power station - Calder Hall in North East England - was commenced by Taylor Woodrow Construction in 1953 and was officially opened on 17 October 1956, using 1950s engineering and construction techniques..
Originally designed for a life of 20 years from respectively 1956-1959, the plant was after 40 years until July 1996 granted an operation licence for a further ten years.
The station was closed on 31 March 2003, the first reactor having been in use for nearly 47 years.
Seems to me we have gone backwards.
Safety is not the issue. Economics is.
@@saumyacow4435 True in a sense where regulatory barriers exponentially increase costs, the US dollar requires oil to survive and planned obsolesce is they key to power generation. The reality is, Nuclear power plants only exist to create by products for military use. If this wasn't the case MSR research would have received billions.
@@saumyacow4435 While it's true that economic factors are a major hurdle for nuclear power in the U.S., attributing the decline solely to economics ignores the broader context. Decades of political indecision and public fear, exacerbated by incidents like Three Mile Island, have stifled nuclear development.
This stagnation allowed countries like Russia and China to leap ahead by continuously investing in and exporting nuclear technology. Despite the impressive safety record of nuclear power in North America and its green credentials, the U.S. has been bogged down by a byzantine regulatory process that inflates costs and delays projects significantly.
The average environmental impact statement for a new reactor takes over three years just to generate, followed by more years of public hearings and Nuclear Regulatory Commission approvals.
This bureaucratic quagmire, often hijacked by private interests and environmental extremists, has made building new reactors prohibitively expensive and slow, forcing the U.S. to rely more on coal and natural gas instead of clean nuclear energy. While emerging technologies like Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) promise lower costs and faster build times, investment and political will lag far behind what’s needed to compete globally. The Biden administration's recent efforts to reinvigorate the nuclear sector with $6 billion in aid are a step in the right direction, but they pale in comparison to the $62 billion allocated to renewables.
To catch up, the U.S. needs to streamline its permitting processes, invest significantly more in nuclear technology, and rebuild its domestic uranium enrichment capabilities to reduce dependence on imports from geopolitical rivals like Russia. Without these changes, no amount of temporary subsidies will overcome the entrenched obstacles that have left the U.S. trailing in the nuclear energy race.
Very interesting compact solution with rotating control geometry. I have two questions:
1. Biological shielding not included and is to be built by the client?
2. How is passive self shutdown achieved? Are control surfaces spring loaded to snap into shutting down the reactor in case of power loss?
Answers: 1. The clients wear thick concrete clothing that measures at 3m in thickness. 2. The user takes the nuclear fuel out of the machine.
Biological shielding isn't needed. The structure of the reactor itself functions as shielding, and the previously dangerous radiation risks due to catastrophic failure or meltdown basically don't exist nowadays. We've made the actual process of generating nuclear power very, VERY clean. Even Fukushima, as terrible as it was, didn't actually release much radiation. Also of note: since these designs are smaller and meant to be self-contained, the risk of malfunction due to natural events is orders of magnitude lower than at any existing large-scale nuclear powerplant.
@@lewishall9786So I only have to encase myself in an unmovable concrete block and then use telekinesis to swap fuel. Got it!
@@Data2.0Do not make mockery out of this. Countless hours and money have been thrown on these obscure but promising practices from the Pentagon 😅
@@Data2.0 I can't tell if you knew I was joking or not lmao
I'd be worried if it was the sixties, I'm glad we progressed to a point of feasibility.
Who says we have? Nobody has come close to designing a financially viable micro reactor, let alone building even a prototype. The above is all hypothetical marketing hype. Every independent investigation has said small nuclear is a massive lemon long before it starts. Renewables + Storage are already significantly cheaper without any subsidies and without the unmitigated, potentially planet-ending horrors of the nuclear fuel cycle.
@@lptf5441 I... truly recommend you to watch some Kyle Hill videos about nuclear power. "potentially planet-ending horrors" is a very big give away that you don't know much about nuclear power.
@@lptf5441 @lptf5441, your assertion that no financially viable microreactor has been designed or prototyped ignores significant advancements in this field. Radiant's Kaleidos microreactor, for example, has moved beyond the hypothetical stage with substantial investment and rigorous testing. The company has secured $40 million in funding to build a full-scale prototype, with plans for a demonstration at Idaho National Laboratory by 2026 and commercial availability by 2028.
Your argument about the "potentially planet-ending horrors of the nuclear fuel cycle" is alarmist and ignores the significant advancements in nuclear technology and successful implementations worldwide. Radiant's Kaleidos microreactor, with substantial funding and a clear development timeline, exemplifies the tangible progress in this field, countering your claim of mere marketing hype.
Furthermore, the assertion that every independent investigation condemns small nuclear as a failure overlooks the efficiencies gained from modular construction and factory assembly, which drastically cut costs and build times, setting these projects apart from traditional nuclear ventures. The U.S. Department of Energy, for instance, has heavily invested in Small Modular Reactor (SMR) technology, recognizing its potential to provide safe, reliable, and cost-effective power. This support, along with advancements in manufacturing and design, significantly challenges the notion that small nuclear is inherently unviable.
Moreover, your belief that renewables plus storage are the ultimate solution overlooks the critical issue of intermittency and the unmatched continuous power supply that microreactors can provide, especially in remote or disaster-stricken areas where grid reliability is crucial, there are countries all over like Canada that are actively exploring SMRs to power remote northern communities, demonstrating the practical and immediate application of this technology. And on top of that the UK is advancing its nuclear program with the Hinkley Point C project, and Japan is restarting its nuclear plants with enhanced safety protocols post-Fukushima, showcasing modern nuclear technology's safety and reliability this was shown in 2023 and 2024 they've actually kickstarted their reliance on nuclear energy again, their nuclear consumption has been going up since 2017 and has reduced their reliance on LNG slowly.
@@ZeroABrVideos How you doing fellow brother good to see another here, I think people here believe we're arguing on behalf of the company we're not arguing on behalf of the company we're arguing about Nuclear in general as a lot of people here seem to watch Chernobyl and three mile Island and they come to the conclusion "oh nuclear power bad", "1000 year radiation because people believe that a nuclear generator is being held together by string and twine and it's like an active nuclear bomb when the reality couldn't be further from the truth
@@lptf5441 Lmao no, renewables and energy storage are expensive, short sighted and extremely reliant on mining rare resources that contribute to toxic waste. Nuclear is a big investment and dirt cheap to operate. This is a pretty simple combination of proven technologies proposed in a new form factor. The risks of the nuclear fuel cycle are tiny, and negligible compared to the amount of unrecyclable waste that comes from solar, wind, and high density batteries.
This is a Modular High-Temperature Gas Reactor. Helium is an inert gas that does not get radioactive unlike liquid sodium, deuterium (heavy water) or water.
I just use COW FARTS
How about CO2
@@3nityC Has some moderation potential and does get radioactive. However, it's great for power conversion, which is why Kaleidos uses supercritical CO2-driven turbogenerators.
@@caav56 Thank you for the info ✨
There's nothing "modular" about this - it's just small.
perfect! I am ordering 1 right now!
Super cool project. Just curious on what something like this would cost? And if energy companies here in AZ like SRP would purchase this? Or maybe be used in disaster relief. Could definitely see for military application. This is awesome and definitely the future I’m glad it’s coming in my lifetime!
What I hate about Musk is how he's spending 40 billion on twitter when with a single tweet Musk could have these modular reactor manufactures arrange to send teams of engineers to the SpaceX HQ. For 40 billion dollars Musk could have a fleet of Micro reactors, and the equipment required to refurbish the reactors such as refueling them in a underground facility.
They would all be interested in developing a martian reactor infrastructure because that would push a lot of people off the edge of the fence in support of nuclear power. A lot of people are sick of these renewable solutions such as massive battery energy storage banks or fly wheel battery storage. These people want a solution for global warming and be done with fussing.
@n/a n/a if I’m not mistaken, a few of the founders actually came directly from spaceX and I believe they are still involved with spaceX with funding/manufacturing (don’t quote me though do your own research)
Elon is one of the great minds of this era of technology. It’s not right that one man can put out a tweet and the stock market will fluctuate or crypto will skyrocket or plummet, and it’s up for debate if you should be able to buy twitter. But He has had done a lot for this country and more than what we realize. I this project actually succeeds you can bet your sweet bippies it’s going to mars to power the beginning cities.
@@jmd1743 your obsession with Elon musk is tiring. He doesn’t even have that much money relative to where the real power is. For example Putin is much richer than Elon. Also you are complaining about a guy who has 200 billion which he has worked 50 years for while the US government spends trillions of out tax dollars. The US military spends 800 billion a year alone 🤦♂️ its gotta be ignorance because your obsession is not justified
🔌🔌I would call this 1.2MW a pico-reactor and Gate's TerrPower 345MW a micro-reactor. Presently an EPA Tier 4 Diesel 1.5MW outdoor genset with 24 hr subbase fuel tank would cost roughly $2.3M with an 88-week delivery. I'm a big advocate of nuclear and over time the added upfront cost of the reactor would pay for itself using its low-cost clean fuel versus dirty diesel still producing NOx and CO2. 🔌🔌
@@jmd1743 nobody owes you or anyone anything.
Sound amazing and scary at the same time, I want one for my backyard! :D
@Nocommentsuwu you were top of the class in physics right?
@Nocommentsuwu not really lol
@Nocommentsuwu yeah but yo have a bomb you have to enrich the fuel, it's totally different
@NocommentsuwuA nuclear meltdown is not the same as a nuclear bomb. Reactors can meltdown not blow up a city. Also its fusion resctor vs fission reactor, both are nuclear.
@@Blackhearts60Maybe a fission reactor won't blow up like a hydrogen bomb, but in case of a meltdown it can irradiate a very large area and make it unsafe for humans for centuie, like Chernobyl
1:02 "Each containing an arch of neutron poison" - Also called neutron absorber.
a ultra compact variant of the Kaleidoscope portable modular reactor (if devised) & generating somewhere around 8.2 MW - 13.3 MW would be great for large displacement naval surface combatants . . .
This sounds very promising. I wish you success with the development.
This seems like it works GREAT in theory. Let's wait for it to be released though...
This is the future we were all promised. Abundant, energy-dense, low-cost energy and electricity. THIS is the future of a low-carbon emission society!
This is off the shelf technology that’s been used for years by the military
@@glass1258 Not really. Military still used pressurized water reactors. The closest thing to Kaleidos would be civlian Dragon reactor.
@@caav56Concur. I am not aware of a military design that used this particular core or cooling system design. US and Canadian navies pioneered using Pressurized LWR and HWR designs, respectively, so water has been a go-to for military microdesigns because it can be readily procured in an operational theater. Helium, notsomuch.
@@HuntingTarg Yeah. There was also nitrogen-cooled water-moderated ML-1, but that one went nowhere.
@HuntingTarg the Canadian CANDU design is the classic heavy-water reactor... but it has nothing to do with the navy. The Canadian Navy has never had nuclear propulsion; CANDU was developed by Atomic Energy Canada Limited (AECL), Ontario Hydro and CGE (and other companies) for public utility electrical power generation.
What happens if the reactor vessel is ruptured and the helium leaks out? What happens if the actuators fail and cannot move the neutron absorber into position? This is probably safer than a high pressure water cooled reactor but it is still a high pressure cooled reactor. I like the low pressure liquid salt type reactor. If anything happens physics causes it to shutdown safely. This thing still requires active controls to shut it down and keep it cool.
They can rig something up to use gravity and plain physics to shut down the reactor if needed, maybe just with gravity and a few push rods to actuate the neutron absorbers, maybe even a physical fuse similar to the salt plug for those other reactors, but yeah; the present design definitely needs that change.
@king6530I don't see a single bitflip in a physics simulation leading to misoperation. I'm more concerned about cumulative error compounding, or ionizing radiation damaging the simulator CPU.
I don't like molten salt designs because of the inherent chemical hazards if air gets into the primary cooling loop - salt-metal corrosion can become a runaway reaction if a leak lasts longer than a few minutes.
This design is far from inherently safe though, simulative self-correction nothwithstanding.
Use actuators with a spring that returns them to a safe position when they lose electrical power?
@@vadimmakarov6811lol thank u for saying it, I'm reading these comments like "are u guys presenting problems w/ extremely obvious solutions on purpose or are u actually incapable of the most basic problem solving?"
0:29 The ENIAC kinda vibes, Let's see how small this gets withing the next 20 years. Thanks for sharing and caring!
Nuclear reactors are not like computers. The size of a computer has no physical relationship to its function, but there are very real physical reasons for the size of a reactor.
I’d be interested in learning more about how laws of physics/thermodynamics limit size reduction. I’d also be interested in seeing the strongest manmade force challenge these head-on (market forces/yacht babe fantasy driven investments/whatever you need to call it)
@@tropicaljupiter As a physicist, I am eager to initiate a debate and spearhead the next era of technology in this field. Are you or any participants ready to join the discussion?
China has a tablet size nuclear battery that works for 50 years
It can't get smaller, it needs a certain critical mass to sustain the fission reaction
Nice to see development of viable energy production. Good luck!
Ok. I need one of this in my garden
where's the shielding
Relax. It is a simulation. Vaporware (from what I could tell anyway).
That's for the end user to supply.
this would absolutely change the game in space, awesome
hey i placed an order for one of these and i havent heard anything about my order. Its been 2 weeks and not even an order confirmation email
Question?
What is the total cost of 1 Portable Micro reactor.
How long does it take to make 1 Portable Micro reactor?
Who is going to monitor/ operate 1 of these?
Are there any that are up in running as of the moment?
Is this a start up?
Any long term studies?
Shit, this is TWO YEARS OLD, I was like this is new
This would be perfect for charging the Tesla Semi which pulls 1.2MW when fast charging (recovering 70% of 500 miles range in 30min)
FYI, I'm not sure if you guys intended this or know about this, but there are ads playing on this video.
This is awesome. Love to see one near my future location ☺
Great you can go to deep space with this nuclear poison, not Earth, the Moon, Mars or any other planet we will inhabit in the future!
Why did this hit the algorithm again? Its 2 years old. Which is weird, the whole thing sounds AI
You can Google the company
These CGI reactors are brilliant! Shame they're not real!
I love this design. It looks even more compact than the Megapower reactor design. From reading around, the initial idea was developing a small self-contained reactor that could be carried to the moon or Mars. If it's design is based around a 40 foot intermodal container, which it appears to be, it can't weight more than 30 tons.
A pair of these could power a Sabatier reactor to produce 3 tons of methalox propellant per day, requiring 400 days to refuel a Starship (1 ton of methalox requires 17 MWh of energy to produce, assume the other 6 MWh is used for other purposes, such as cooling the propellants and running the air compressors drawing in Martian CO2). Assuming a cargo load of 100 tons, you would have 40 tons left over for the processing plant and a couple of excavator rovers to dig up permafrost to supply the thing with ice.
Waste heat from the reactors could be used to melt the ice and distill the water for processing.
Waste heat from the vessel or primary loop could also be diverted to a thermocouple array.
The container size does not imply the weight - it could exceed the standard allowed container weight, and still be packaged in a container. A better indication is the three-axle trailer behind the tandem-drive tractor shown on the website - that does suggest around 30 tons.
Just small enough to fit on a semi trailer. How neat.
it's the best project I've seen so far.
Where does the air in the air jacket mentioned at 2.17 come from? If the air is used to cool the reactor where does it go? Will it be dissipating 1 megawat tof thermal energy or will the reactor be making close to 3 megawatts of thermal to produce 1 megawatt of electricity? What does the narrator mean by "false scenarios" in this part of the video?
When the simulator gets into a state that does not closely reflect the physical/reactivity state of the reaction vessel itself. The air gap means that heat will be pulled off of the pressure vessel and not transferred to the containing structure.
The 1.2 MW quoted is maximum electrical output, so the reactor's thermal output will be much higher, with the difference being dissipated to the ambient air through the radiators behind the externally visible grills. The Radiant website claims 1.9 MW of waste heat flow, so the reactor output must be 3.1 MW... your estimate is correct.
Will have to dump about 2/3 of the thermal energy to the environment. I believe they said "fault scenario" not "false"
Video has most emphasis on its analytics and modelling software, talking about its safety features.
1MW power generation can supply about a million US homes (~1.2kW) instantaneous power demand). Looking at the graph on bottom left, the efficiency seems to be around 35% thermal to electric.
Seems to be a really nice solution to centralized power generation- could solve issues relating to long-distance power delivery by its small size and scalability.
The guestion arises, why is there suddenly a market for nuclear mid-crisis power generation?
Hope they make them small enough for single home use and affordable for the average American. We really need to move to nuclear as the power grids are constantly over stressed and having a power source at every house would mean no more blackouts and dependence on a power system that is outdated and aging more everyday.
What a silly thought 😂
@@ForageGardener it's brilliant. Microreactors in every home - say 10kW - could easily be placed in the basement of a house.
Интересно, а топливо ты где будете покупать? Менять будете сами в подвале? А как утилизировать отработанные элементы? А как справляться будете с избыточным тепловыделением в жару?
@@spdcrzy yes so we can have radiation poisoning and accidents all over the country ! Amazing
@@sigmamale4147 nuclear is INCREDIBLY safe. It has been for 50 years. Self-contained reactors are less likely to fail over a period of decades than any other kind of power plant.
Impressive !!!! Nuclear tech improving in safety and function all the time .. Outstanding.... Clean and abundant with respect to it's danger ..
Has been for a long time, but the powers at be don’t want us knowing how safe nuclear really is when its maintained and handled properly. The U.S. should’ve went fully nuclear power 50 years ago and they definitely could have but decided greed and corruption to be more important than what’s better for the people.
@@infantryrecon101st I absolutely agree also there is a problem of atrophy in terms in nuclear engineering as I'm afraid because the US hasn't taken on continuous nuclear projects in the past the skill set isn't there as it used to be, pity with the direction they were heading 50 years ago it would've made us and even greater super power. Wind won't have been able to stand a chance against Nuclear power.
@@infantryrecon101st Also if I may add something, the Netflix dramatization of the three-mile incident, it actually demonstrated what happens when the US is effective in containing a disaster almost like a complete inverse as to what happened at Chernobyl. But some would say it was still a disaster and Netflix placed it as a documentary, fellas its Netflix will they really come out and say look at this disaster actually it wasn't a big deal but still watch it. I would disagree Netflix doesn't do proper documentaries most of the time as I like to call them Drama entries rather than documentaries
Hello i need one to install in my garden, how much it cost?
Man, your "peeing boy fountain" is going to get some epic distance.
Can I get one through Amazon? 😊
This is pretty cool.
The only downside(and one of the reasons companies don't get into nuclear) is once you buy a generator, you won't need to buy another one for a very, very long time.
Maybe not, but you will be stuck with a government cleanup bill for $15 million for the removal of 40kg of highly radioactive material. ;-)
This could be a game changer for use during natural disasters.
Good luck Radiant
this is fucking AWESOME.
id be interested to see a firm/start-up use heavy nitrogen as a coolant which should be able to move even greater amounts of heat for higher efficiencies. you could build the reactor vessel out of silicon nitride and wrap it with a steel body for added tensile strength. if you enrich the nitrogen using ammonia it shouldn’t be ~too~ expensive given scale. love me some gas reactors.
@@Kino_shorts970 Neither TES-3, nor Pamir were like this. TES-3 was a simple water-cooled reactor on several vehicles (not something bad, aside fom the time it takes to set it up for power production), Pamir was N2O4-cooled monstrosity (because N2O4 is bad enough _before_ you run it through a nuclear reactor).
Does HP supply the refill cartridges?
Hahaha 😂
Strange No mention of the Fuel Source ?
The preferable Thorium or the more dangerous Uranium ??
Also any update on the Chinese SMR ?
The video shows the TRISO fuel pellets, and expands one for a sectioned view.
Their website says "Meltdown-proof TRISO fuel, ceramic coated uranium particles".
According to the Wikipedia nuclear fuel article:
"Tristructural-isotropic (TRISO) fuel is a type of micro-particle fuel. A particle consists of a kernel of UOX fuel (sometimes UC or UCO), which has been coated with four layers of three isotropic materials deposited through fluidized chemical vapor deposition (FCVD)."
So, uranium.
Curious about DoE policy and regs for transport, deployment and operation of such a system.
This like a remake of the 1976 General Electric portable power supplies. I do know the GE power units failed to get government approval to be installed in America.
Can I join the waiting list? Power bills pretty high lately!
key points for future presentation: fuel used, fuel management!!!
I'm curious what the max temp is if the control blades all get stuck in the full power position and there's a loss of coolant.
Also, He is not very dense. I'm REALLY curious what that helium flow rate is. My back of the envelop calc for a 1 MW plant says it's gotta be about 3 million gallons per minute (180,000 liter/second). That pump gonna be screaming.
Is it possible to buy ?
2MW is around 200 homes at 10 KW each. How much to buy one and run it per year for a neighborhood? How about a cluster of them for a microchip fab, pharma plant, hosptial, or other blackout and glitch sensitive 24/7 operation?
Nice that it doesn't need water cooling, that's the next big problem for thermal power plants, low water and high temps triggering environmental restrictions on warm water discharge.
Nice advertisement. Studies have shown that these fancy small modular reactors always become much more expensive than first announced. They also take much longer to build than they claim.
What like the ones in Nuclear subs? Which are even smaller? That have been in operation forever?
@@HonchHeado He wasn't saying micro reactor don't work. He was talking about cost and build time which has always been nuclear power's two Achille's heels. That said, military budgets for national security are several leagues above any commercial operation.
@@HonchHeado The cost overrun on those was in the region of 600%, so you're proving his point
@@OutsiderLabs Thanks Pal ✌
How are you changing fuel?
What happens if EMI goes off nearby?
I want one. Would be great for off grid living. Can use this in combination with a well to eliminate the need for any sort of utility connection.
So it’s been two years, where are these deployed?
Looks great!
How will helium loop servicing & replenishment be accomplished?
What measures will be in place to protect the simulator unit from ionizing radiation-induced errors and damage?
Can you clarify, “fuel demonstration in Idaho in 2026”? (that’s what CC displayed). Thank you!
how could this ever become cheaper to run than diesel at this scale 😭😭
legit tho... I love nuclear, but I wish we could just stop doing dumb grifts
It only needs to be fueled once.
@@Dave_the_Dave it's not worth it.
@@MAL1GNANTit is worth it. Much safer, more efficient, and much more cost effective for how much power it makes.
@@screech2730 No it’s not. Trust me, I love nuclear. But it isn’t much safer on this small a scale, and it’s not cost effective at wll. Can’t you see? This is a grift.
Picked one up from Home Depot this morning. Need it for the storms lately.
I have no idea what I just watched and I don't why I like it.
Micro reactors are really the only thing that can save us.
1. You can’t put batteries in planes, ships and so on.
So yeah this will save so much.
The USAF experimented with small reactors on B-36 bombers in the 1950s. The amount of radiation shielding needed was enormous, and the airforce decided that a crash with a nuclear reactor on board was a really, really bad thing.
Very Cool!....Who's got the over under on when the Feds shut them down?
I noticed walk away safe was never mentioned
You can test against extreme heat, cold, etc here in India
'The day I can strap one to my chest to power all my exskeleton toys', is finally not a sci-fi joke any more.
Imagine a truck hauling one of these gets into a wreck and flies off into a ditch. Imagine the phone call with the Insurance companies. Imagine filing a claim because you slammed into the back of a nuclear reactor.
So what ? It's not as if the fuel is some toxic gas or sludge that will escape and poison everyone. If it falls into a ditch with sufficient force to expose the fuel then it will just be collected and salvaged, it wouldnt be under operation in that situation either, so no fission would be happening. Same thing will a crash.
I doubt the fuel would be shipped inside the reactor lol. It'd still be a very funny insurance call though.
Umm…, so you know a nuclear reactor?
Insurance: uhh yes we do?
Now imaging a portable one on a truck
Ins: ok
I rammed my car into that shit
Btw was that funny? No?
Where exactly are you gonna source the helium from?
What if control drums fail to rotate to scram position?
If the reactor doesn't scram, the core will exceed 900 degrees, which is why they need special fuel that keeps its integrity up to 1600 degrees. At a high enough temperature, the reactor can't sustain criticality. To obtain passive safety, they need a special design that naturally removes the residual heat faster than it is produced in the reactor without reaching temperatures that damage the fuel.
One fail safe design could be making the active side heavier than the back side then tilting the cylinder axis slightly inwards at the bottom so that in case of total loss of power all the cylinders would rotate to the safe position by gravity alone.
This has many caviats and is sensitive to the tilt of the reactor core but it all can be addressed. For example a heavy metal layer can melt at a designed temperature and make the hot reactor float in a horizontal position.
What if helium don't radiat then make porous fuel temp will not exeed ...
@@sonacphotos Or have an electromagnetic clutch linking the actuator to the spring-loaded drum. As soon as power is lost, the clutch disengages and drum rotates to the "scram" position.
@@halnineooo136 hear about springs before? would even work in space
How is a power failure or other failure resulting in limited controllability of the shields handled though?
And that magic word. Low cost. Referring to insulation no less.
I'm dubious. How long until it needs to be refueled or replaced from old age? This will probably cost more (even including fuel) and last a shorter period of time than a comparable diesel generator.
The Radiant website says
"After 5 or more years of operation the fuel is depleted, and the entire container can be shipped back for refueling", and
"Back at the factory, Kaleidos can be fueled a total of 4 times for a 20-year product lifetime"
That is not a very long life, and refuelling will be both expensive and logistically difficult (because a replacement unit will need to be swapped in each time).
I’m more concerned about cost of purchase, idle-upkeep and operations, people use diesel generators for a reason, I can only see some edge-cases where the power of a nuclear reactor is the most practical solution
Are the drums spring loaded so that in the event of a motor failure they revert back to their closed state to stop fission?
single point of failure plus moving parts, a no-no, besides the reputation issues already makes it a handful, do not worry about on demand and on location, small independent continuous processes storing energy in magnetically levitated flywheels
Graphite moderated, are the tips made of that too?
everyone thinks they're a nuclear disaster precog ever since HBO's meme drama dropped
@@Triffgits I just realized how important it is to not skimp out on boron man. Its not precognition if you build a bomb and dress it up as a reactor :V
4:36 I want to believe that a portable fission reactor is far more safer than the traditional nuclear reactor that is housed in massive buildings or structures. I believe that it is easier to contain or control if the fission reactor fails in comparison to the massive traditional ones. And such a smaller nuclear reactor design will be easier to dispose of, when the life of the reactor has ended. I would like to know the safety procedures to contain this fission reactor if it fails. 😎💯💪🏾👍🏾
The problem with using helium as the heat transfer fluid is that there’s already a shortage of helium. Helium comes from certain natural gas fields in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. If we stop needing natural gas, we'll stop getting new helium. Helium forms a tiny molecule. It leaks out through steel tanks, right through the walls. Once it escapes into the atmosphere, it's gone forever.
How they keeping it in balloons tho.
The problem with helium is that it's used where it's not needed such as in party baloons, we won't run out of helium for reactors and all other scientific equipment anytime soon though.
Helium wells are also not actively being developed, and helium is constantly slowly produced in the Earth's core (hence why we extract it from wells) due to the production of alpha particles from the decay of radioactive elements.
Not really, balloons only use 7% of Helium usage in the world. Many helium are used to make liquid helium used for MRI machines
@@CCP-Dissident
So could the same contractors that replenish Helium for magnetimetric rlement cooling in MRI machines do helium loop replenishment on this design? Whether being used or stored, the Helium will diffuse through any containment material over time.
We need great products like this.
This powers 200 average homes right?
So do solar panels for a tiny fraction of the price of this bullshit. ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337 Except when the sun doesn't shine, of course.
@@darkgalaxy5548 That's what they invented batteries for. :-)
@@lepidoptera9337 Here's an exercise for you. Go look up the amount of lithium needed to build battery farms sufficient to store 3 days electricity consumption for North America & Europe, we'll ignore Asia, Africa, Central & South America for the moment. Now look up the amount of lithium in known reserves in the world. Then go calculate the cost of such farms (ignoring the inevitable boom in lithium price). Let me know what you come up with.
What are you doing against Encoder failure?
Buenas ya se sabe que costo va a tener este microreactor?
What’s if the rotators break and cannot shut down the reactor?
A new invention called springs
... how are you handling refueling/disposal of spent nuclear fuel?
"There is no nuclear waste or they denial it" This what all pro nuclear people will say. To be honest there is no reliable really long time Nuclear waste solution
The Radiant website says
"After 5 or more years of operation the fuel is depleted, and the entire container can be shipped back for refueling", and
"Back at the factory, Kaleidos can be fueled a total of 4 times for a 20-year product lifetime"
I didn't see any mention of spent fuel disposal on the website.
what happens if the drums fail to rotate? Is there a failsafe in place to rotate them back or otherwise release neutrons away from the fuel?
Do graphite-moderated cores have a positive temp coefficient of reactivity? If so, this is just an accident waiting to happen regardless of protective features or emergency cooling. Graphite would expand at higher temperatures, thermalizing neutrons much more effectively thus creating more energy which creates more heat, which causes more fissions, which creates more energy, which creates more heat, and so on. The design is inherently unstable if it has a positive temperature coefficient of reactivity.
One can easily make self-limiting reactors. NASA and DOE have a project of that kind and it works really, really well. It doesn't matter what these guys are using in their powerpoints, by the way. This is simply a scam that wants to attract the money of hapless investors. They will never deliver. They just want to take the money and run. There is a million of these things out there at all times.
Is this to run the latest Nvidia GPU for gaming? :D
Yes, but was there graphite on the ground?
What kind of mechanical tolerance is on the safety features? Anything mechanical can fail, valves and floats get stuck. Transducers and gauges can give false readings. How much redundancy is too much?
What kind of critical failure can be profitably be insured against? How many people can suffer without impacting the shareholders?
What do you do with spent fuel?
Give it back to the earth it came from
Is this available for the public or do I need to create a Corporation to order this?
it's in the pre-application phase. I'd be surprised if there was a functional build yet. None of these "micro reactor" technologies ever pan out or have only very specialized usage
The only issue here would be the rotating drums not being passively safe. You can't SCRAM the reactor with the help of gravity in the case of a mechanical malfunction.
They can be spring-loaded and connected to servos via electromagnetic clutches.
No power - clutches release - springs rotate drums to scram position
How much? I’ll take a dozen. 😅
omg we're in the future!! 😯
As far as I can tell, it is just a simulation. The device seems to be total vaporware. And we clicked.
Did you know nuclear power is safer per KWh than ever other form of energy ever created? (Even including Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island, and all other nuclear power incidents.)
Nuclear power is the safest form of energy in human history and we should be 100% behind it.
So do any of these actually exist, or is it nothing but a " concept" that is " just around the corner " like "cold fusion" ?
No, it does not exist in reality; however, it is far closer to reality than cold fusion, or any type of fusion system.
@brianb-p6586 portal power is needed just don't like Graphite in the reactor the chance of Unabated acceleration is two high in my mind bit there's a cost to build them
Can a miniature version be built to power cars?
These could definitely power a small lunar, or Mars outpost. Elon Musk needs to know about this.