6 ms·
Antares achieves criticality of Mark-0 reactor
- ggm 3mo agoTRISO fuel so.. pebble bed? Is there a reluctance to market on this? The Chinese were all-in. Great to see engineering deliver on time. I wonder if Rolls Royce will also have a smooth ride. It's a PWR.
- chickenbig 3mo agoPrismatic (or cylindrical) TRISO also makes sense. There are lots of potential problems using pebble beds (circulation, grinding), whereas doing regular refuelling cycles avoids them, in exchange for down-time to refuel.
- pfdietz 3mo agoTRISO increases fuel cycle costs. It's harder to make, harder to dispose of, and (IIRC) uses higher enrichment.
- ggm 3mo agoThe positive schpiels say it gets higher utilisaton ("burn") of the fuel inside the micropellets, so it may be HEU, but there's more taken out so less made overall. I'm unsure where the H in HEU comes from, probably nasty sources, and probably nasty radiochemistry.
- boznz 3mo agoThe Rolls Royce modular reactor update page [1] leaves me scratching my head as to where they are, it seems they've passed some really hard UK regulation though, maybe the official source is not the best: [1] https://www.rolls-royce-smr.com/our-progress https://www.rolls-royce-smr.com/our-progress
- seanhunter 3mo agoCongrats to everyone involved. This is a pretty awesome milestone
- mDyJzDPmBdG 3mo agoTo add a bit of context there were 11 companies participating in program and only 2 achieved critiality, and the deadline included in "DOE Reactor Pilot Program" was "July 4, 2026", and Aalo Atomics is the only one that might also make it in time.
- netsharc 3mo agoSigh, everything is being done for political purposes, now Dear Leader Donny can proclaim on the quartermillenial celebrations that "we achieved a nuclear milestone!". And maybe add that this is possible because of his nuclear physics genius abilities. I wouldn't even be surprised if the achievements are like "Full-Self Driving", announced hastily with boasts and then slowly revealed to be full of Elon.
- Gud 3mo agoHonestly these political rants contribute very little, no offence.
- bigbadfeline 3mo ago> Honestly these political rants contribute very little, no offence. What do the other comments contribute? Do they solve inflation, wars, monopolization? Small-picture comments have small audience, like, how many people have access to nuclear materials and gear to make use of the information provided here? In other words "political rants" have their place and in many cases they are more valuable than the rest.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- sfn42 3mo ago> "The Trump administration is proud to support the rebirth of America’s nuclear industry and ensuring Americans have access to affordable, reliable and secure energy for generations to come." > "The demonstration and the licensing pathway it establishes represent a key step toward deploying electricity-producing microreactors for U.S. military installations by September 30, 2028." So which is it? Power to the people or power to the military? This microreactor concept doesn't seem very well suited for commercial use.
- roenxi 3mo agoWhy would microreactor concepts not be suitable for commercial use? History is overwhelmed with examples of large, rare and expensive tech being produced in small cheap packages and becoming massive commercial successes that make the old way look primitive.
- pfdietz 3mo ago> Why would microreactor concepts not be suitable for commercial use? Crippling diseconomies of scale.
- sfn42 3mo agoBecause large scale production is generally more scalable and efficient. And you probably don't want dozens of "microreactors" scattered across cities.
- usrnm 3mo ago> Because large scale production is generally more scalable and efficient Rooftop solar is an example of small scale decentralized energy production, maximum efficiency is not the only relevant metric. > And you probably don't want dozens of "microreactors" scattered across cities Why not? If they're considered safe and pass all inspections, what's the problem?
- sfn42 3mo agoA nuclear reactor is generally treated as a high security facility. I don't know how this new reactor works but I thought it was safe to assume something like a terrorist attack on one might be bad. It's also a lot more work to inspect and control them when scattered. Rooftop solar does not have these issues.
- Traubenfuchs 3mo agoI am still quite confused on the scientific consensus: Should we double down on renewable energy and solve its issues with lots of batteries or should we invest in next generation nuclear energy? Both at the same time? Does anyone know?
- datakan 3mo agoBoth at the same time. I don't see how putting all our eggs in a single basket benefits us.
- preisschild 3mo agoGovernment should tax / provide incentives based on negative externalities such as environmental impact and let the free market decide https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/LCA_3_FINAL%20March%202022.pdf https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/LCA_3_FINAL%20... I think a low carbon mix will result in the cheapest, most reliable and cleanest energy grid.
- bevekspldnw 3mo agoWhen it comes to avoiding the worst impacts of the current catastrophic path we’re on, “nothing will work, but everything might”. Do it all.
- pfdietz 3mo agoNuclear is not on a trajectory to do more than supply a minor amount of world energy. A (say) 10% nuclear, 90% renewable world is not an easier challenge than a 100% renewable world -- the intermittency/seasonality issues aren't eased by having 10% nuclear running as baseload, and keeping it as backup makes its cost per kWh explode. Nuclear really has to go big (supply most of the world's energy) or go home. But supplying most of the world's energy means burner reactors are inadequate -- there isn't enough cheap uranium. Burner microreactors have even worse neutron economy, so this argument applies even more so to them.
- fssys 3mo ago
- coldtea 3mo agoThat's just what we needed! Nuclear autotune.
- cadamsdotcom 3mo agoWe need progress, not a decade per step. That distinction matters because nuclear. Let that sink in for a moment.
- kibibu 3mo ago(psst autotune is made by a company called Antares)
- dang 3mo agoCan you please roll back the snark and flamebait in your comments? It has been upticking again for quite a while, to the point where notice I'm bracing myself when I see your username in threads. Since you've adjusted this in the past, I'm sure you can do so again, and we'd appreciate it. We like that you're here, but need you to stay within the guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- coldtea 3mo agoSure. I never do flamebait and rarely do snark tho (usually only after several increasingly futile exchanges). Flippant comments (like the autotune one) and/or sincerely held even if unpopular opinions, I'll stoop to, yes.
- dang 3mo agoThanks! Yes, translated into your terms it sounds like the flippant ones I was referring to. Unpopular opinions are fine in principle - we definitely want to hear minority views on HN. But it's super common for people to pre-emptively load their unpopular-opinion comments with sarcastic or aggressive language, no doubt as a defensive against the anticipated negative reacction from the majority (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20minority%20view&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). That never works well. But I'm just speaking generally - I don't know if it applies to your posts.
- api 3mo agoIs anyone working in the US on a waste solution that isn’t a big hole with a straight out of cyberpunk sci-fi warning plaque? The French reprocess and recycle fissile material but that’s kind of a gnarly industrial process. Still they do it and it works. The long term solution is to create a second kind of reactor that has a higher burn fraction which means a more fuel efficient fast reactor. Those would be, ideally, the big base load plants if we did this rationally.
- pfdietz 3mo agoIMO, the long term solution will be to simply launch the waste into space. With low enough launch costs the extra mass needed to armor the waste against accidents becomes tolerable.
- jampekka 3mo agoCan't wait for one of those launch rockets to explode in the atmosphere!
- api 3mo agoEconomically absurd, much more expensive than reprocessing or fast waste burning reactors.
- pfdietz 3mo agoI don't think that's the case, if launch costs are low enough. The options you describe there are quite expensive. Reprocessing costs somewhere in the neighborhood of $1000/kg. Even fast reactor have trouble disposing of the seven very long lived fission products. A fully reusable launcher might get costs down to $10/kg to LEO. Even if one had to wrap the waste in 10x its mass in launch armor this could be much cheaper than reprocessing.
- tech_ken 3mo agoFrom the article: > We said criticality in 2026, electricity production in 2027, and power to the warfighter in 2028. Are there any other examples of land-based militaries using nuclear power? Seems kind of like since they can't talk about the energy transition or w/e this has to be a military thing instead.
- actionfromafar 3mo ago"Stalin is proud to support the rebirth of Soviet Russia’s nuclear industry and ensuring soviets have access to affordable, reliable and secure energy for generations to come". Always mention the fearless leader.
- lenerdenator 3mo agoThat's originally what the SL-1 reactor was meant for. It was also developed at Idaho Falls. Instead of parking diesel generators up at Arctic radar stations (and other remote locations), we'd use a nuclear reactor, which is a logical choice. The problems were: 1) one control rod could send the entire reactor prompt critical 2) rods could get stuck, requiring that they be "exercised" very carefully as to prevent them from making #1 happen 3) this maintenance was being done by a man in his early 20s who had been sleep deprived and received a phone call before his shift from his wife asking for a divorce The result was the only immediately-fatal reactor accident in American history. Glad to see that we're getting over this and moving forward with the concept. Only took us 60+ years...
- NoGravitas 3mo agoOther than "not light-water", what type of reactor is it?
- philipkglass 3mo agoGraphite-moderated core, passively cooled with sodium filled heat pipes: https://antaresindustries.com/ https://antaresindustries.com/ It also uses a Brayton cycle generator with nitrogen instead of steam. (See 03, 04, 06 in their schematic outline.)
- e9 3mo agoAntares were the first ones: https://www.energy.gov/articles/department-energy-celebrates-first-advanced-reactor-criticality https://www.energy.gov/articles/department-energy-celebrates... And closely followed by Valar Atomics two weeks later: https://www.energy.gov/articles/department-energy-celebrates-second-advanced-reactor-achieving-criticality https://www.energy.gov/articles/department-energy-celebrates...
- pseudohadamard 3mo agoActually this guy achieved criticality before either of them: https://i.imgflip.com/a0w01q.png https://i.imgflip.com/a0w01q.png