[HN Gopher] EVinci nuclear microreactor moves towards commercial...
___________________________________________________________________
EVinci nuclear microreactor moves towards commercialization
Author : peutetre
Score : 22 points
Date : 2024-09-26 14:39 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (newatlas.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (newatlas.com)
| atomic128 wrote:
| Reactors like this (and like Bill Gates' Natrium reactor) use
| HALEU (high-assay low-enriched uranium) which is above 19%
| fissile (U-235), compared to the usual 5% or 6% in a large
| pressurized water reactor (e.g.,
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000).
|
| For comparison, a nuclear bomb or military microreactor (on a
| submarine, for example) uses fuel that's 90%+ fissile. This
| difference in fissile concentration is the reason why non-
| military nuclear reactors can never explode like a nuclear bomb.
|
| The bottleneck for nuclear energy is the yellowcake. This is the
| uranium that comes out of the ground, which is 0.7% fissile and
| must be enriched. A pound of HALEU requires many pounds of
| yellowcake. Conversion and enrichment are also in short supply
| today, but the centrifuges can be built.
|
| There is a profound near-term undersupply of this natural uranium
| due to the fact that the mining companies were allowed to die
| after Fukushima. The mining companies died due to low uranium
| prices: $16 per pound at the market bottom.
|
| The two big miners that survived (Cameco and Kazatomprom) are
| together unable to increase supply to match demand. Big new
| mines, like NexGen's, are years away, and the supply they provide
| will not close the supply/demand gap. Mining uranium is slow and
| difficult, even if you have access to good ore.
|
| Alternative sources of uranium are even more expensive to exploit
| (seawater, phosphate deposits, etc.).
|
| If you want to benefit (monetarily) from nuclear energy, and
| you're willing to suffer through the EXTREME volatility of owning
| a niche commodity, one way is through the Sprott Physical Uranium
| Trust (ticker: SRUUF) which owns 65 million pounds of uranium
| oxide and purchases more whenever it trades above Net Asset
| Value. WARNING: this is not an investment for the faint of heart.
| YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.
|
| You can watch the spot uranium market (intra-day bid/ask) here:
| https://numerco.com/NSet/aCNSet.html
|
| You can see the uranium long-term contract price (and spot
| uranium price) monthly history at Cameco's website here:
| https://www.cameco.com/invest/markets/uranium-price
| killingtime74 wrote:
| Given the extensive security requirements for nuclear and the
| cost of this reactor itself, I struggle to see how it can be cost
| effective compared to renewables or even a diesel generator.
| Discussions on hacker News, which is very pro nuclear always tend
| to emphasise the technical advantages and neglect economic
| considerations.
| atomic128 wrote:
| Hacker News tends to be pro-solar, pro-wind, and anti-nuclear.
|
| Discussions on Hacker News tend to overlook the unreliable
| nature of intermittent solar and wind power sources.
|
| The hidden costs of solar and wind are also overlooked: cost of
| land, cost of transmission infrastructure, cost of battery
| storage, short lifespan of the hardware, the requirement for
| fossil fuel backup generators, etc.
|
| Here's Yann LeCun (Vice-President, Chief AI Scientist at Meta)
| describing the advantages of nuclear versus solar/wind in a
| different, larger-scale context: AI datacenters
| will be built next to energy production sites that can produce
| gigawatt-scale, low-cost, low-emission electricity
| continuously. Basically, next to nuclear power
| plants. The advantage is that there is no need for
| expensive and wasteful long-distance distribution
| infrastructure. Note: yes, solar and wind are nice
| and all, but they require lots of land and massive-scale
| energy storage systems for when there is too little sun
| and/or wind. Neither simple nor cheap.
|
| Link to LeCun's comment on X here, along with a discussion of
| why solar/wind aren't enough:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41621097
|
| The same is true on smaller scales.
| foxyv wrote:
| Most of the security around nuclear reactors is to prevent
| disruption of critical power infrastructure and barring access
| to spent fuel rods. This design would need far less security
| since it is sealed and not a huge plant that would cut power to
| half the USA if destroyed.
|
| Stealing one of these would be pretty pointless. It would be
| far easier to get much more dangerous isotopes from one of the
| thousands of hospitals that use such things or a laboratory.
| The 20% enrichment is not enough to produce viable weapons
| either. Uranium enrichment has just gotten way too easy with
| new centrifuge designs.
|
| Applications are mostly stuff like Antarctic research projects
| and remote oil fields. Also, if it is approved for such uses,
| it could power a container ship saving huge amounts of money on
| diesel fuel which is about half their operating cost.
| throwawayffffas wrote:
| You could have multiple reactors at the same site. Like 100 for
| example.
| BMc2020 wrote:
| Can someone knowledgeable tell me what happens if you blow it up?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-09-26 23:02 UTC)