[HN Gopher] Nuclear Power at McMurdo Station, Antarctica ___________________________________________________________________ Nuclear Power at McMurdo Station, Antarctica Author : aww_dang Score : 199 points Date : 2021-06-18 12:05 UTC (10 hours ago) (HTM) web link (large.stanford.edu) (TXT) w3m dump (large.stanford.edu) | mattr47 wrote: | We have been running small nuclear reactors for decades now on | USN carriers and submarines with an incredible safety record. | mattr47 wrote: | Icebreakers are included in this as well. Wow. | | https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nucl... | nickelpro wrote: | Yes, but they're far less cost efficient than diesel. That's | why the nuclear cruisers were retired. For the carriers and | especially the subs the nuclear plants provide operational | capacity that diesel can't match. For a research station that's | not a concern. | ComputerGuru wrote: | Because the "cost of diesel" doesn't factor in any | externalities whatsoever, of which there are many. | nickelpro wrote: | Of course, but those externalities are for more | expensive/less cost efficient when discussing uranium and | nuclear power than anything involving diesel. Personnel | training, fuel production, equipment maintenance, pick an | angle to inspect and you'll find the nuclear solution is | far more expensive than traditional power plants. | Manuel_D wrote: | Cost of operation isn't an externality. Externalities are | costs we don't directly pay for, like carbon emissions | causing global warming. Fossil fuels have incalculably | higher externalities in this regard. | ComputerGuru wrote: | You are talking about direct costs that _are_ priced in, | and I actually disagree about including personnel and | training costs in this specific instance because they are | all - to an extent - fungible in the military or navy, as | there is no shortage of souls and people will be trained | for _something_ for some duration of time. | ncmncm wrote: | "Incredible" is exactly the right word. | | We have only non-classified information to suggest their safety | record is spotless. Considering the experiences on Antarctica | and Greenland with naval-inspired designs, an entire lack of | reported failures really indicates lack of reports, not lack of | failures. | slipframe wrote: | When it comes to reactor accidents, there is a limit to what | can be covered up. And nuclear accidents from other branches | of the military are publicly known; particularly, the US Army | blew up a test reactor (SL-1), the USAF has lost some nuclear | bombs. Either the USN is uniquely effective at covering up | their fuckups, or they really do have an exemplary safety | record. My money is on the later. | ncmncm wrote: | Losing an actual bomb is quite a lot different from having | and fixing a coolant leak. | | An exemplary safety record accommodates quite a large | number of adequately-contained failures. | beders wrote: | "While reactor accidents have not sunk any U.S. Navy ships or | submarines, two nuclear-powered submarines, USS Thresher and | USS Scorpion were lost at sea. The condition of these reactors | has not been publicly released" | | And | | https://apnews.com/article/559da885ca7c3f6252d67e400e92a846 | | So not exactly an "incredible" safety record, more like an | incredibly secret record. | ArcturianDeath wrote: | Nothing about the 33 Million Year Old Octagon and the dead aliens | as the real reason they are there | ncmncm wrote: | This project was a disaster, no matter how you slice it. It is | very lucky that it failed only as much as it did. That it was | down so much of the time made it worse than useless: expensive to | build, expensive to operate, expensive to maintain, ruinously | expensive to clean up after, and didn't even provide reliable | baseload power. | | The experience does not suggest that small-format nukes are | simpler to operate and maintain than big ones. | | There is no plausible scenario where small-format nukes are a | better investment than a solar + wind + storage system, | terrestrially. On Mars or the moon, leaks might not matter so | much, although the catastrophic failure likely to follow would | leave users without power. | | Even with insolation on Mars much reduced, solar remains the | overwhelmingly better choice by any measure. | | On the moon, dark for two weeks at a stretch calls for more | clever engineering. An 11,000 km equatorial superconducting | transmission line with distributed solar panels could power quite | a lot of activity. Even a 5500 km system would be immediately | useful, given a vertically-oriented array at each end. But solar | and storage would probably be cheaper. A flywheel constructed | above-ground, hundreds of meters across (dumbell style, at first) | would store quite a lot of energy. Structure could be just a | cable on top of a tower; when stopped, the counterweights hang | vertically, and swing out as it spins up. | | https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/powering-the-l... | Xophmeister wrote: | I believe the USSR installed nuclear reactors in unmanned | lighthouses along its remote northern coast. I don't know if | that's as far north as McMurdo station is south. I also suppose, | with them being unmanned, they may have had less strict safety | requirements. | jackdeansmith wrote: | Those are RTGs that harvest a couple hundred watts of decay | heat for really remote applications. Often used in space | probes, etc... Bit of a different safety profile since they're | low power and generally don't have any moving parts. | lightgreen wrote: | > since they're low power and generally don't have any moving | parts | | Rather since they don't have a critical mass/configuration | which makes them impossible to explode. | MurMan wrote: | I was a nuclear power plant operator on a submarine during this | period. Wanting another challenge (young & crazy ...), I applied | for duty at McMurdo Station in 1971. My request was not approved | and I was told that the Navy had a shortage of qualified | submarine nuc's. Sounds like the Navy had already decided to | decommission it. | | I've always regretted not going to Antarctica, but this article | makes me think that I dodged a bullet. This plant was a | maintenance nightmare. Plus, operating a reactor with a mix of | personnel sounds bad. We certainly had our personnel issues on | subs, but at least all of us in Engineering had the shared | experiences of nuclear power school, prototype training, and sub | qualification. | [deleted] | TameAntelope wrote: | That's amazing and specific experience, very cool! | | One thing I noticed at the top of the article was that they | used the steam as a source of fresh water as well, did subs do | this too, when you worked on them? | nielsbot wrote: | You might find this series from Smarter Every Day | interesting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3Ud6mHdhlQ I | didn't find a bit about how they make drinking water, but | here's an episode about how they regenerate their oxygen on a | nuclear sub. | MurMan wrote: | Yes. Subs use low-pressure steam to desalinate sea water. | Having lots of fresh water for showers was a huge benefit of | nuc boats over diesel boats. | Zenst wrote: | Handy, also for oxygen production. Did you ever have to | light the candle? | MurMan wrote: | Oxygen generators use electricity (electrolysis), not | steam. | | Thankfully, we never had to use oxygen candles. Candles | are effective only in a small closed space. That would | have been a serious emergency. | Zenst wrote: | Ah yes, was referring to the excess drinking water aspect | knowing electrolysis upon sea water will produce chlorine | due to the salt, which really would be an emergency in | itself. | | Glad to hear you didn't have a situation to use one and | does seem a very rare situation, but neat that there is a | solid backup. | qrybam wrote: | For anyone else wondering what "light the candle" means | in this context: | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_oxygen_generator | Zenst wrote: | If you want too see one in action: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3Ud6mHdhlQ around 10:19 | onwards shows the candle being put into action. | stainforth wrote: | Every 2 hours in 2 parts of the ship? That seems like a | lot of labor. | jshmrsn wrote: | I knew exactly what video you were going to link :) I | love when the internet feels small for a moment. | throwawaybutwhy wrote: | How many times did you get to talk with Rickover? And yes, | thank you for your service. | MurMan wrote: | Just once, briefly when he did an inspection of our boat in | Guam. My last memory of him was standing next to the ladder | as he left. His pants raised as his ankle reached my eye | level exposing a leg that was smaller than my wrist. To me, | this was a perfect example of Rickover: a giant in many | respects, but small and petty in others. | seanf wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover Fascinating | read, sounds like Robert Moses of the Navy | cturner wrote: | Interesting people come to hacker news. (I'd give another | upvote for your username if I could.) What is the essential set | of skills/foundation knowledge for a nuclear power plant | operator of the sort that you get on a submarine? | | What do you think of the submarine systems that were designed | for you to interact with? Context - I have been thinking | recently about submarines and wondering how crew size could be | reduced through automation. (I am aware that a lot of work went | into this on the Independence class ships, but my working | assumption is that this was let down by poor structuring of the | design team, rather than that automation is a fundamentally bad | idea) | | Did you have to manage boredom when you were on-shift but did | not have much to do? Or is there plenty to do? Or are you | allowed to study when there is not much in the way of active | responsibilities? | krisoft wrote: | > I have been thinking recently about submarines and | wondering how crew size could be reduced through automation. | | I believe the Alfa class submarines went this exact route. | According to Sutton it had a crew complement of 32: | http://www.hisutton.com/Alfa_Class_Submarine.html | | Much more modern plans along similar design thinking is the | SHELF reactor. It is designed to operates in an underwater, | sealed capsule that is monitored and controlled remotely. | Source: https://aris.iaea.org/Publications/smr-status- | sep-2012.pdf | MurMan wrote: | You're right about HN. Experts in all domains. | | My experience is from the Vietnam era and doesn't apply | today. I was drafted mid-way through an EE program when I got | behind in units. Virtually all of us had similar backgrounds. | The Navy had a knack for teaching nuclear physics & math to | bright people with a high school education. | | The S5W plant that I operated had virtually no automation. | Just safety interlocks and a few automatic shutdowns. | Everything was analog. The electrical controls used mag-amps: | dumb and inefficient, but reliable as hell. Safety was | achieved by detailed operating procedures and highly trained | crews. We studied and drilled constantly. Most over-qualified | group of people I've known. | | There's no way that I could describe what it was like at sea | in a few lines here. It might make for an interesting HN | thread as there are other nuc's here. :-) | tnorthcutt wrote: | I for one would enjoy reading such a thread! | | You might enjoy Destin Sandlin's recent series of videos | made on board a nuclear submarine: https://www.youtube.com/ | playlist?list=PLjHf9jaFs8XWoGULb2HQR... | [deleted] | siliconunit wrote: | When one considers the whole loop from incredibly polluting | mining to disposing and keeping everything decontaminated in the | process, fission nuclear should only be seen as a last resort | option, as much as I see the great progress that has been made of | course. I would have gone geothermal in Antarctica... with modern | super depth drilling tech, and hot water as side effect, looks | like a promising choice. | gedy wrote: | > When one considers the whole loop from incredibly polluting | mining to disposing and keeping everything decontaminated in | the process | | You could make the same comment about modern battery tech and | solar though. | Accujack wrote: | Update your knowledge of nuclear power. Mining can be done | cleanly or not at all, and nuclear power plants generate very | little waste - most of the waste that exists is from bomb | making. | | Newer fission tech has a lot of promise... if people who are | convinced they already know all about nuclear energy can be | troubled to learn about it. | ncmncm wrote: | What we know about it is that it is the most expensive | alternative. Building, operating, and maintaining a new solar | installation is cheaper than just operating and maintaining a | nuke steam generator, ignoring the huge construction and | decommissioning costs. | | We finally got the ramshackle Indian Point and Diablo Canyon | contraptions shut down, after decades of constant effort, and | now it will cost a billion dollars and a decade or two to | take them apart. | beders wrote: | Update your knowledge of nuclear power. | | The economics don't pan out. The opportunity costs alone are | staggering. | | https://www.leonardodicaprio.org/the-7-reasons-why- | nuclear-e... | | https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/Nucl. | .. | roywiggins wrote: | We have enough "waste" nuclear material that could be burned | again in advanced reactors that mining doesn't _have_ to be a | thing if we really got our act together. | | Also, the question really is about carbon emissions vs other | types of environmental impact. Batteries and solar panels | require great gobs of mining infrastructure too. | wumpus wrote: | Here's an early example of a low-maintenance low-crew small | reactor: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph241/berrios1/ | eigenhombre wrote: | I deployed to South Pole ten times from 1997 to 2011, each time | passing through McMurdo both southbound and northbound. Of course | I knew about the reactor, and walked around that area several | times, but it is fascinating now to read a more detailed history. | Especially fascinating is the notion that the reactor had to fit | in an LC-130, in order to be used at the Pole. I definitely would | have been less than excited to be at the Pole if that reactor had | been the main power source. (Not sure how jazzed I would have | been to be a passenger on said LC-130, either.) | | That being said, I wonder if some of the compact reactor designs | being generated today[1] would actually wind up being a good fit | for remote sites like the Pole. The current power plant runs on | AN8 jet fuel and spews smoke/steam into the air 24/7. Clean power | generation there is difficult because of lack of consistent wind | and sun energy (pilot programs were in place at various times | when I was there). | | Parenthetically, the Pole's Clean Air facility there has some of | the cleanest air in the world (upwind of the power plant). Their | continuous CO2 measurements, graphed prominently on one wall when | I visited, were sobering indeed to contemplate. | | [1] e.g., https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27133196 [2] | https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/South_Pol... | wpietri wrote: | This reminds me of a lot of technology work. "It seemed like a | really promising idea, but when we got into it the practical | details made it not very practical." I'll leave it to others to | name examples, but there are reasons I'm a member: | http://boringtechnology.club/ | Clewza313 wrote: | There's been talk of shipping a nuclear reactor to power a base | on Mars. The Antarctic experience indicates pretty clearly that | from a reliability point of view, we're almost certainly better | off with solar panels, wind turbines and batteries. | tyingq wrote: | Is an experience with a reactor designed and built in the very | early 1960's really relevant? Would you also use experiences | with early solar cells to vet out their viability today? | elsonrodriguez wrote: | From a reliability point of view, you're better off with | constant power to keep humans alive, instead of fluctuating | power that can cause humans to die. | merpnderp wrote: | Wind turbines? We're going to ship 30 meter blades to Mars so | we can barely power a microwave and a few lightbulbs? A 1MW | installation in a good location on Earth will average ~300kW. | On Mars that will likely be 1% because of the air density | difference, or 3kW. | nicoburns wrote: | And this is one if many, many reasons why Mars is and always | will be orders of magnitude harder to habitate than earth. | xyzzyz wrote: | Solar power on Mars would also give you around half the | energy you get on Earth, per unit area. It's basically like | running solar panels on earth well beyond Arctic circle. | [deleted] | ncmncm wrote: | Given the different conditions, you would use a different | design on Mars: probably a no-moving-parts ion-release | system. | slipframe wrote: | There simply isn't much energy in that wind, no matter how | you plan to harvest it. It's like trying to get water from | a stone (possible, but you won't get much.) | ncmncm wrote: | You just need to process a great deal more of it. But | there is no upper limit to the size of an ionizing grid, | and the mass is negligible. | mncharity wrote: | > On Mars that will likely be 1% because of the air density | difference, | | Power goes as v^3, so a few x wind speed compensates for | density. There are design sketches for a couple of kW at 10 | m/s, ~10 kW at 25 m/s. Getting those speeds does require | prioritizing it in site selection. IIRC, turbine mass is | competitive with solar under dust storms. | | I'd link to recent work, but sci-hub doesn't have it. :/ | godelski wrote: | 30m sounds small. Also, not only is the atmosphere thinner, | but sand particles are 4x smaller. Have fun repairing those | moving parts with that erosion. | andyxor wrote: | Are you talking about the Kilopower project | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilopower | | it's completely different design from conventional "pressurized | water" reactors with drastically reduced complexity, using heat | pipes and solid core, it's more like a battery really, and | we've been sending nuclear batteries to space for many decades | londons_explore wrote: | Nuclear power requires serious amounts of cooling... | | Without easy-access to water and evaporative cooling on Mars, I | can imagine you'd be needing super big radiators pointing at | the sky to make even modest amounts of electrical power. Solar | might work out better... | robbiep wrote: | No, it indicates exactly nothing. You're talking about 1970e | technology (ie when the computing power on Apollo was roughly a | pocket calculator) vs how we will actually get there, a period | during which nuclear reactor designs have also evolved, and the | navy in particular has learned a huge amount. | | How does one article on the third portable reactor built tell | us clearly anything at all about how we should power a | hypothetical Mars base more than 60 years later | Clewza313 wrote: | We've made great leaps in safety measures since then. I'm not | convinced we've made much in the way of progress in terms of | miniaturization, simplicity or cost of operation though, as | you can see from the ludicrous cost overruns seen for | basically all recent reactors. | Manuel_D wrote: | Miniaturization is not desirable for nuclear power because | of regulation. Each nuclear power plant is required to pay | 375 million dollars in insurance, regardless of size. So | this incentivizes building plants as large as possible. | | Even without regulation, things like surface area to volume | ratio still make larger reactors more efficient. | nipponese wrote: | I feel like nuclear power is the only tech that people perceive | to be static in development. Isn't it like saying we should | have stopped using computers in the 40s because they were big, | expensive, slow, and we're only frequently used to kill people? | Gravityloss wrote: | Nuclear power was great until 1986. Then it was bad. Then it | was getting a bit better until 2011. Then it was bad again. | Now it's a getting bit better again. | andredz wrote: | Why? Could you source your statement? Not that I'm doubting | you, but I would like to learn more. :) | gnulinux wrote: | Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011 was among the worst | nuclear disasters in history; not only because its human | toll was so high, but also because it was the "final | straw" -- so to say -- in public opinion in Western | countries that made people scared of nuclear energy. | Nuclear energy remains the safest, cleanest way to | produce energy but Chernobyl and Fukushima significantly | reduced the funding going into this kind of research, | because public opinion was very much against nuclear | power. It is getting better recently, but if history | shows anything in the next 20 to 30 years we will have | another disaster that will change public opinion again. | beerandt wrote: | >not only because its human toll was so high | | 1 radiation death and 18 injuries? (Only 2 of which | involved possible radiation exposure.) | | The "overly-conservative" decision to evacuate such a | large area killed more people than if they hadn't | evacuated at all. | | Even Chernobyl only killed ~30 people, with maybe another | 30 cases of cancer that workers had since then. | gnulinux wrote: | Sorry I phrased it wrong. I meant to say "not because". | That "only" is extraneous. | imagine99 wrote: | 1986: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Nu | clear_deb... | | 2011: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuc | lear_disa... and in the aftermath for example | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase- | out#German... | saganus wrote: | It's a reference to the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 and | Fukushima in 2011 | grayfaced wrote: | 1986 is chernobyl, 2011 is fukushima. His comment isn't | on safety, but perception of safety. | Accujack wrote: | ...and up until today, we're still using reactor technology | from 70 years ago. | fastball wrote: | Which to me indicates that it is a fantastic technology | if they're still around after 70 years. | | Nobody is building new reactors with 70 year old designs | though. | DannyB2 wrote: | You forgot about 1979. | enkid wrote: | Are wind turbines really viable with Mars's atmosphere? | qayxc wrote: | Let's do a simple calculation, shall we? | | Wind power is calculated by A * v3 * r * e | | A is the area, e.g. p/2 * r2 for horizontal axis designs, r | is the air density and e is the total system efficiency | (limited to <59% and safe to assume to be >0.4 for modern | systems) and v is the wind speed. | | Mars' atmosphere is about 1% of Earth's atmosphere in | density. Given a wind speed of 7 m/s2 (the optimal wind speed | for most modern wind turbines), on Mars we'd get only 1% of | the power we'd get on Earth. | | A 100m installation (~2.6MW on Earth) would deliver only 21kW | on Mars. The average wind speed during a year is slightly | higher on Mars, though, at 10 m/s2 [0]. The average power | output thus would be about 61kW. | | The most important time, however, would be dust storms, which | render solar useless. Wind speeds have been recorded to | exceed 30 m/s2 during dust storms. Assuming we can | efficiently shield the generator from the dust, the power | output would peak at 1.7MW. | | A more conservative 17 m/s2 for dust storms still yields | about 308kW. | | 100m class wind turbines, while rare on Earth (e.g. GE | Haliade-X [1]) would be easier to build on Mars given the | significantly lower gravity. | | Wind turbines would work on Mars and have great synergy with | solar - when solar doesn't work (e.g. during dust storms), | wind turbines would be most efficient. | | Wind power wouldn't be the first choice for powering a Mars | station, though. As can be seen above, installations would | have to be pretty significant in size to deliver noteworthy | amounts of power. | | [0] https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/marsfact. | htm... | | [1] https://www.ge.com/renewableenergy/wind-energy/offshore- | wind... | Denvercoder9 wrote: | I don't think 100m wind turbines on Mars are feasible | anytime soon. Even Starship has only a 18m high cargo area, | so even if we assume that blades are assembled out of two | parts in-place, you get only a 40m radius. That reduces the | average power to just 10 kW. | | Furthermore, I think your average 10 m/s is an | overestimation -- the source gives it as the high limit | outside of dust storms. | qayxc wrote: | > I think your average 10 m/s is an overestimation -- the | source gives it as the high limit outside of dust storms. | | You misread the source then - peaks during sandstorms are | 17 - 30 m/s2 with 10 m/s2 being the annual average. | | > I don't think 100m wind turbines on Mars are feasible | anytime soon. | | Manufacturing of the wind turbine is assumed to entirely | take place on-site. Wind power is not something for a | "starter station/settlement". The question was about | general viability and given local manufacturing | capabilities, wind power isn't completely useless on | Mars. | Denvercoder9 wrote: | _> You misread the source then - peaks during sandstorms | are 17 - 30 m /s2 with 10 m/s2 being the annual average._ | | Where on the page? The only wind speed related data I can | see is this: | | _> Wind speeds: 2-7 m /s (summer), 5-10 m/s (fall), | 17-30 m/s (dust storm) (Viking Lander sites)_ | | Also m/s2 isn't the correct unit for wind speed, since | it's a unit of acceleration, not speed. | dylan604 wrote: | >Given a wind speed of 7 m/s2 | | Isn't speed m/s and acceleration m/s/s? | qayxc wrote: | Yep it is - typo on my part. | HPsquared wrote: | A 100m wind turbine would require a lot of material and/or | energy to construct, though - some of the materials would | have to be processed locally, I wonder what the embodied | energy of such a structure would be, and how long it would | take to be net energy positive. | godelski wrote: | > would be easier to build on Mars given the significantly | lower gravity. | | In one sense yes, but in another sense no. Consider | erosion. It is the bane of existence for any system near | the ocean. Mars has a similar problem with dust, which is | smaller than what we see on Earth. This shreds electronics | and other instruments on Mars. Sealing becomes far more | important, but also more difficult. The other thing we need | to recognize is that on Mars there's no electric ground. | | So yeah, on surface things look easier but there's a reason | why including domain experts in the conversation is | necessary. This is a classic example of napkin modeling | being representative of how things will work in reality. | | So look to the domain experts. They've used solar and | nuclear for a reason. Maybe dig into why those were the | choices made. | ncmncm wrote: | What does it mean to say "there is no electric ground" on | Mars? You would not be willing to drive a spike deep into | the ground, as is done on Earth? Or are you saying that | without ground moisture, the ground would not be | conductive enough? | godelski wrote: | It has to actually do with the magnetosphere. It's not | about will to put a spike of metal into the ground but | that doing so doesn't create an electric ground like it | does on Earth because there is not this electromagnetic | differential. | ncmncm wrote: | That makes no sense. | | What has a planetary magnetosphere got to do with | electrical ground? The planet itself is a spherical | conductor. There probably is an ionosphere, although I | would not be surprised to find that it is much nearer | ground level than ours. | qayxc wrote: | There are solutions for that problem which involve a tiny | source of alpha radiation and the atmosphere. Basically a | modified lightning rod. | godelski wrote: | Source? I'm not quite sure what you're saying and I | haven't heard of it myself. | qayxc wrote: | Sure thing. Here you go: Safe on Mars | Precursor Measurements Necessary to Support Human | Operations on the Martian Surface (2002) Ch.3 | Physical Environmental Hazards, Pg. 21 | | > A combination of technologies might also be considered, | such as point-discharge, needlelike devices or even small | radiation sources to prevent charge buildup. [0] | | The small radiation sources refer to weak sources of | alpha radiation (think smoke detectors), whose low-energy | alpha particles collide with the atmosphere, ionizing it | in the process. The now conductive atmosphere in the | vicinity of the rod-device would then be able to | neutralize excess charge. | | [0] https://www.nap.edu/catalog/10360/safe-on-mars- | precursor-mea... | | The PDF version is available free of charge. The book can | also be read online for free. | moreati wrote: | > on Mars there's no electric ground. | | I'm intrigued. Is it due to much drier conditions? Grain | size? Mineral composition? Combinations? Anywhere I could | read a bit more? | godelski wrote: | It's because Mars's magnetic core isn't spinning, which | is also why there's no magnetosphere. | | As a quick intro that isn't doesn't have much detail but | has links I'd go with[0]. But if you pick up any book on | Martian engineering or read any report (NASA reports are | public) you'll find mentions of this. This is also | discussed deeply in most astrophysics textbooks. | | [0] https://hackaday.com/2017/08/17/living-on-mars-the- | stuff-you... | ceejayoz wrote: | Not very. | | https://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/releases/2001/01_72AR. | .. | | > "Only during dust storms on Mars is there enough wind | energy to operate a wind turbine," said Michael Flynn, | another NASA Ames scientist. On Earth about 10 meters (33 | feet) per second wind speed is needed to make electricity | with wind turbines; on Mars about 30 meters (98 feet) is | needed because of the extremely thin air, according to | Bubenheim. | qayxc wrote: | Incidentally, though, during storms is when power is needed | most, as solar won't work very well during that time. | ceejayoz wrote: | Sure, but a nuclear plant solves that issue _without_ | sitting around being useless 90% of the time. | qayxc wrote: | But do you have the necessary infrastructure to maintain | a nuclear reactor on Mars? | | As the article points out, the device required | significant manpower, had reliability issues and wasn't | cost effective. | | While it'd be relatively simple to build wind power | locally once infrastructure is in place, the same cannot | be said for nuclear power on Mars. | | Autonomy and self-reliance are critical factors for | outposts on Mars - a point that cannot be overstated. | fastball wrote: | We've made a lot of improvements to nuclear reactor | design since the 60s, and potentially we'll have working | fusion by the time we have a colony on Mars, which would | probably be the best solution (can easily get H from | water and then would have He which is useful). | | I can't imagine a viable self-sufficient Mars colony that | doesn't involve a lot of manpower anyway (I'm talking | thousands of people). | qayxc wrote: | Well a working fusion reactor would render any current | power source obsolete anyway. | | I wasn't necessarily thinking about complete self- | sufficiency, just the fact that it might take up to 21/2 | years to get replacement parts. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | We have since deployed many nuclear reactors in space, | with totally different reliability, so those should be | used as reference. They can be packed on a rocket, | launched, turned on and work for years unattended ( they | powered societ radar satellites) | | Cost is dominated by weight in space, and a large wind | turbine needs hundreds to thousands of tons of concrete | for foundations - are those going to be brought from | Earth? Can you make concrete on Mars? | [deleted] | petre wrote: | Pray that the rocket doesn't blow up spreading nuclear | fuel all over the place. Here is a Soviet "success story" | involving a nuclear reactor on a sat. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos_954 | | Concrete would need cement made with limestone and | massive amounts of heat and water which is scrace on | Mars. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | Nuclear fuel that has never been "fired up" in a reactor | is almost hamless - its just uranium. You could have it | under your bed and you'd be fine, just don't eat it. | | In this case the reactor would only be started once it | arrives on mars. | petre wrote: | I know, that's why I did not say radioactive waste. | [deleted] | erk__ wrote: | The US did a similar thing at Camp Century [1] on Greenland. They | installed a PM-2A nuclear reactor there, as far as I know they | relayed very sparse information to the Danish goverment during | the time, especially about the secret Project Iceworm [2]. | | There was a danish article about it with some good pictures of | the camp including one which looks like a part of the reactor [3] | | [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Century | | [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Iceworm | | [3]: https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/webfeature/century | psanford wrote: | The was also the B-52 crash out side of the Thule air force | base in Greenland, which was carrying a nuclear warhead[0]. | This, in an area designated as a nuclear-free zone by the | Danish government. | | The cleanup project was unofficially referred to as "Dr | Freezelove" by the Americans involved, which is a bit | disturbing when you think about how Dr. Strangelove ends. | | [0]: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_crash | acidburnNSA wrote: | And there's a great 30 minute video about it as well! [1] | | [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28NYczAuXl4 | MomoXenosaga wrote: | I have no doubt the Danish government knew exactly what was | going on just not in an official capacity that would allow them | to answer any questions in parliament. The Japanse use the same | sophistry when asked about nuclear weapons on US bases (in | violation of the Japanse constitution). | dukeofdoom wrote: | My Dad was telling me some story how there's a secret military | base in volcano in Antartica built by by Nazis. I'm convinced he | was retelling a movie plot line. Anyone see a movie like this? | ClumsyPilot wrote: | >"it was plagued with problems which ultimately forced its early | retirement in 1972" | | We really need a small reactor witha well tested design, where | all the bugs and terthing problems have beeen worked out. It | would be so usefull for situatioms like this. | | "223 reports of abnormal levels of radiation were recorded" Yeah, | I would not want to stay at that base. | hkai wrote: | Here's an idea that Russians did. Put it on the boat! | Transportable, plenty of coolant. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_pow... | kilroy123 wrote: | That's a damn good idea actually. Though, not so practical in | Arctic waters. | acidburnNSA wrote: | Shipyard constructed floating nuclear power stations are a | truly excellent idea. You get economies of mass production | and scale in the factory to reduce costs and speed up | timelines, and you get extra safety from being in coolant, | decoupled from earthquakes, and in deep enough water to not | have tsunamis. You have more weather to worry about, and | piracy, but in the balance shipyard nuclear is one of the | most intriguing ways to really decarbonize the planet at | scale quickly. | | In the US, Offshore Power Systems tried this in the 1970s. | They hired 1000 people, formed a joint venture with Newport | News, bought and installed the world's largest gantry crane | at their construction yard in Jacksonville, FL, and got a | license to construct 8 gigawatt scale floating reactors from | the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Wild story [1]. | | [1] https://whatisnuclear.com/blog/2020-01-26-offshore-power- | sys... | Krasnol wrote: | Why are they an excellent idea? Where would it justify the | cost of construction and operation? | Robotbeat wrote: | We should do this in Newport News (near the existing | nuclear shipyard), actually. Great use of the coal terminal | area once we retire those. | julienchastang wrote: | Whats more: "In addition to problems with the drinking water | and environmental contamination, there were several recorded | instances of crew radiation exposure, some resulting in injury. | [7] During the plant operation, 223 reports of abnormal levels | of radiation were recorded. [7] Of these cases, 14 resulted in | injury and 123 resulted in exposure in the amount of 0.350 rem | over a period of 7 days." | | What was the nature of these injuries? | tantalor wrote: | terthing? | unwind wrote: | *Teething, for sure. | dekhn wrote: | I think other folks are saying this but the navy solved this | problem decades ago. | freeflight wrote: | That's just not really true. | | If that'd be the case then such small nuclear reactors would | be powering US military bases and outposts all over the | planet. | | This ain't a thing for a myriad of reasons, starting from | cooling (not much ocean in the middle of the east), to | profileration risks (navy designs using weapons grade | uranium). | dekhn wrote: | I'm sorry, I should have said the Army: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Iceworm shows that we | were definitely experimenting with nuclear power for remote | military bases. They struggled with air-cooling. I consider | reactors with weapons grade uranium to be an acceptable | risk, but I don't think it's required for the army reactor | style. | tkojames wrote: | Army is defacto banned to work on anything involving | nuclear energy or weapons for awhile now. Rumor is the | government does not trust. Pretty interesting. USAF is | well quite scary with how bad they manage our nukes.. | p_l wrote: | USAF, or specifically SAC, put priority on nuking as many | civilian areas in as short amount of time as possible. | Safety was a distant concern in that mindset, and led to | fun stuff like first generation PADs (which controlled | arming process of the warhead) being commonly (iirc, up | to 50%?) configured to accept _all zeroes_ as arming | code. | | USN at the same time considered PADs to be undue slowdown | in the same mission _and_ had enough power to just not | have them mounted, afaik. | JackFr wrote: | I would say it must be a cost issue. The US Navy now has 65 | years of experience running portable, robust, self-contained | nuclear reactors, yet because of cost (and presumably safety) | they only put them in submarines and aircraft carriers, where | there are compelling use cases that can't be satisfied by | fossil fuel power plants. | duxup wrote: | Nuclear powered submarine has a highly trained crew, many are | busy monitoring / servicing the reactor. | | And the reactor brings itself home for service if needed. | | That seems way different than what you'd want in Antarctica. | devoutsalsa wrote: | We can build small reactors if we really want them. Here's a | recent by the Illinois Energy Prof explaining one such case: | | "SMR - Small Module Nuclear Reactors -- Gas Cooled" => | https://youtu.be/TYnqJ4VnRM8 | Animats wrote: | Hopefully better than last time. | | - Fort St. Vrain, US[1]. High temperature gas cooled | reactor. Operated for 12 years. Corrosion problems. | Converted to natural gas. | | - AVR reactor, Germany.[2] Pebble bed reactor. Had a pebble | jam. Not repairable. Most fuel removed. Pressure vessel | remains on site, with hope of full decommissioning in a | century or so. | | There's a small reactor of this design working at a | university in China, and a medium sized one one (200MW | electrical output) is supposed to come on line this year. | We'll see how that works out. | | Boring old boiling water and pressurized water reactors | have simplicity in the radioactive part, and water is easy | to handle. Designs that involve moving pellets or chemical | processing of radioactive fluids add much complexity to a | system that is very hard if not impossible to repair. The | track record of such reactors is not good. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_St._Vrain_Generating | _Stat... | | [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVR_reactor | p_l wrote: | Boring old water cooled reactors (both boiling and | pressured) are comparatively dangerous compared to quite | well tested lead-bismuth cooled small modular reactors, | which not only loadable on train car as self-contained | part that needs no internal access, but _are self-sealing | in case of failure_. | | Of course it's not as exotic as pebble bed reactor, or | helium-cooled uranium-thorium reactor. | xoa wrote: | For the USN (and other military's) ones at least there are | many other differing issues and design goals that are | divergent enough from civilian usage that it's definitely | more then just cost. For example on the most basic issue of | fuel, the A4W reactors (found on current USN super carriers) | run on highly enriched U235, designed around 93% and as high | as 97%. In other words, the fuel is flat out weapons grade by | itself. A typical civilian plant is more like 3-5%. Very high | enrichment allows more density and very long times between | refueling, they can go something like 10 years vs 1-2 years | for civilian. But obviously that would be a big proliferation | concern even ignoring cost, nor are there many places to get | that kind of fuel. For the military that is irrelevant, it's | not a limiting problem since the vessels these reactors live | on tend to also carry literal nuclear weapons. But it means | it won't just transfer to other usage. There are plenty of | other differences in naval reactors, like they also formulate | with high burn up fuels (metal ceramics, u-al/u-zr) rather | then uranium dioxide. | | Military vessels also have ample trained personnel to throw | at maintenance and operations, they can make tradeoffs for | things that are more finicky but provide higher performance. | They're anything but "self-contained" really, and even the | Navy wanted to simplify that. A major goal for the new A1B | reactor in the Gerald R. Ford-class supercarriers, as well as | normal stuff like "more power, weighs less" was to cut the | number of people needed to run the reactors and propulsion. | | I mean, yeah, all this certainly does add to the cost too. | But it's not just about the cost, or rather the design goals | and missions are divergent enough that they _necessitate_ | costs for military reactors that would be a waste, dangerous, | or both elsewhere. Where the Naval reactors might well carry | over to I think would be future space usage, a lot of what | the navy is worried about with sending a reactor out on a | carrier or sub for years seems to overlap with challenges and | goals faced by a reactor on a spaceship sent to the outer | solar system. | nickelpro wrote: | Can't put a traditional naval reactor or anything that | resembles one on a spacecraft. | | 1) If it explodes on takeoff you're fucked | | 2) Naval reactors (and all reactors) require massive | heatsinks to dissipate entropy. There's no ocean in space. | | Space-based nuclear energy is all based around RTGs, | reactors have no place in space | deeviant wrote: | > Space-based nuclear energy is all based around RTGs, | reactors have no place in space | | It is true that RTGs are the only type of nuclear power | used in space now, but that is more to do with type of | craft we send to space rather than practical limitation | of nuclear power in space. | | A large spacecraft will have enough surface area mount | enough radiative heatsinks to dissipate the heat from a | nuclear reactor. Designs exist that have the math worked | out for this since the 50s. | marcinzm wrote: | The soviets launched a bunch of reactors (not RTGs) into | space. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOPAZ_nuclear_reactor | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BES-5 | acidburnNSA wrote: | Almost all space reactor concepts have fresh fuel at | takeoff and then start-up once they're launched. You can | hold fresh nuclear fuel in your hand with very little | hazard. It's only once you start splitting atoms that the | radiation levels get high. So you launch the fresh and | mostly inert reactor to avoid this risk. | | RTGs, on the other hand, are radioactive from the get-go, | but are usually quite small. | | The USA did run a reactor in space (SNAP-10A) and the | Soviets did a few dozen. | nickelpro wrote: | SNAP was a scaled up RTG, as are the soviet examples. You | can call these reactors if you want but then we're just | playing a semantics game. I tried to head this off by | saying "traditional naval reactor or anything that | resembles one". | | Also the problem isn't running the reactor on the launch | pad, the problem is if the launch vessel explodes and the | fuel load gets spread out over your launch area. The | enriched uranium used in naval-style propulsion is | absolutely not "safe to hold in your hand" and the weight | requirements for using natural uranium, which is safe, | would be prohibitive for use in space. | cameldrv wrote: | The odd numbered SNAPs were RTGs. The Even numbered ones | were reactors. SNAP-10A was the only reactor from that | program to fly. | acidburnNSA wrote: | Most SNAPs were RTGs but SNAP-10A was an honest to | goodness fissioning nuclear reactor [1]. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNAP-10A | | Highly enriched uranium is still barely radioactive, very | similar to natural uranium. The half-life of U-235 is 703 | million years. As half-life approaches infinity, atoms | approach stability. The dose rate of holding navy nuclear | fuel is modest compared to the hazards of fission | products. | djcapelis wrote: | I don't disagree that in comparison to many other nasty | byproducts of the U235 chain, most Uranium isotopes are | not that "hot" but the danger of HEU comes partly from | the increased presence of the U234 isotope, not just | U235. So that isotope solely is not the right half life | to do math around. While U235 is about as stable as U238, | most purification techniques result in selecting the | lower weight isotopes, which selects the hotter U234 as | well. And while there is less of it, if I recall | correctly eventually U234 dominates in terms of radiation | output. | nickelpro wrote: | Again this is a semantics game, SNAP 10A was still | driving a thermo electric converter, thus "scaled up | RTG", nothing resembling a traditional naval reactor. | | The on-contact for a HEU billet is over 10mrem/hour. You | and I have very different ideas about nuclear safety | apparently and I presume you haven't worked | professionally in the field with that attitude. | mumblemumble wrote: | Frankly, it seems to me that you're the one trying to | make it a semantics game, by trying to define what is and | is not a nuclear reactor based on how you collect power | from the device. | | According to that Wikipedia article, SNAP 10A was | centered on a device that created and maintained a | controlled, sustained nuclear fission reaction. I would | call that a "nuclear reactor" even if no attempt were | made to harvest the power. I think that the rest of the | world is probably with me on this. The Chicago Pile 1 is | widely regarded as the first nuclear reactor, and nobody | particularly cares how it generated electricity. What | they care about is that it demonstrated a controlled, | sustained nuclear fission reaction. | [deleted] | ClumsyPilot wrote: | >"Again this is a semantics game, SNAP 10A was still | driving a thermo electric converter, thus "scaled up | RTG"" | | You are getting the absolute basics wrong, so you have no | standing to question the OP's atittude. | | Nuclear reactor runs a nuclear chain reaction, hence the | name, RTG does not. There is no scope for debate here. | The difference is night and day and is obvious if you | look at fuel, power to weight ratio, or do physics 101. | | RTGs run on decay heat and use plutonium 238, they cant | be turned off, their power slowly drops off over decades. | Reactors use U235, have active control and starting/stop | procedure and 10-100x higher power to weight | Retric wrote: | The issue is these designs are ~3% efficient like RTGs | and have few moving parts unlike ~35% efficient nuclear | reactors on earth. While they sidestep most of the | complications of traditional nuclear reactors like | radiation shielding, they really aren't useful designs | having low energy output, terrible energy density, | relatively short lifespans, and extreme cost. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | They have same radiation shielding and powet output as | any other reactor, electricity generation is a separate | concern that should not be confused with the reactor | itself. | | The same reactor couod be hooked up to a 20% efficient | stirling engine to keep it low maintenance, to a >50% | efficient convined cycle or have 0% electricity output | and be used for heat or water desalination. | Retric wrote: | Nuclear reactors aren't plug and play, and you can sell | they skipped a lot of radiation shielding simply from the | weight of these systems. | | By comparison SL-1 a 400kw thermal design so 4x power | used a 12,000 kg pressure vessel including shielding. | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1 | mumblemumble wrote: | According to https://www.etec.energy.gov/Operations/Major | _Operations/Majo... it's even worse than that; 1.83%. | | That said, it seems like, all by itself, conversion | efficiency is a tricky measure of the usefulness of a | design for spaceflight purposes. Wouldn't it be more | useful to consider the total cost to deliver a given | energy production capacity to space? In that case, rocket | fuel itself, and the tyranny of the rocket equation, | becomes a major consideration. If an efficiency gain | comes at the cost of increasing the weight of the energy | generation system in some way, then perhaps it doesn't | end up being a net win over the less efficient design. | Retric wrote: | Efficiency is a big deal in part because you need to | radiate out all that thermal energy. A radiator that's | dumping 100kw of thermal energy for 1.3kw of electricity | is much heavier than a 1.3kw solar panel anywhere near | earth. Add 50kg for fuel and and things look even worse. | | By comparison the voyager probe RTG used ~1/10th the fuel | for a little over 1/10th the power. | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MHW-RTG So the only | advantage was cheaper fuel. | ceejayoz wrote: | 10 mrem/hour seems to confirm the "barely radioactive" | argument; the CDC says | (https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/air_travel.html) that | a cross-country flight exposes you to 3.5 mrem. No one's | saying you should hold said uranium in your hand for | weeks at a time; they're saying the risk of chucking some | around after a (very rare) spacecraft crash is pretty | minor, especially as it'll be launched over water. | discordance wrote: | Except for the sun | wpietri wrote: | This is the kind of comment that keeps me coming back to | HN. Thoughtful, nuanced, and full of information from a | field I know very little about. Thanks! | anon_tor_12345 wrote: | On the other hand this is the kind of comment that keeps | me away from HN. Full of self-congratulatory fawning. | Thanks! | jabl wrote: | Except for the USN and RN (which uses US-derived designs), | other navies using nuclear propulsion don't use such highly | enriched fuel. Russia AFAIK uses somewhere around 30-40%, | which is still classified as HEU, so problematic for | civilian use, but most likely not directly usable in a | bomb. | | France runs on 7% enriched UO2 (although using plate-based | 'caramel' fuel rather than cylindrical pellets in rods like | typical civilian nuclear fuel). This requires them to | refuel every 10 years rather than having life-of-ship | reactors like the latest generation US submarine reactors, | but OTOH French law requires reactors to be defueled and | inspected every 10 years anyway. | | As for space usage, launch weight restrictions make LWR | style reactors impractical. Look at something like the NASA | Kilopower as an example of what a (very small) space-based | power reactor might look like. For nuclear propulsion like | a nuclear thermal rocket, that's again a different kind of | reactor pretty different from both LWR's and Kilopower. | xoa wrote: | > _As for space usage, launch weight restrictions make | LWR style reactors impractical._ | | OK, so this is a reply to both you and @nickelpro (your | comment is newer but also higher), who wrote: | | > _Space-based nuclear energy is all based around RTGs, | reactors have no place in space_ | | You both seem to have an image in your heads regarding | future long duration deep space vehicles (I explicitly | mentioned "outer solar system") here that is a mixture of | old space assembly and soft science-fiction, wherein | industrial capacity is all terrestrial and any ship is | built entirely on Earth, launched and off it goes. All- | in-one. Even SpaceX with its use of pure chemical rockets | to Mars and terrestrial construction plans to break with | that: in-orbit refueling is an absolutely key part. And | for going farther then that (and as Starship and | successors/competitors kick starts a new era of space | economics and industry) the clear and _necessary_ next | step will be in-space assembly (be it in LEO or a | Lagrange point dock or whatever ends up being most | practical at a given time). | | In the same way we don't expect our ships to somehow be | built hundreds of miles inland and then make their way to | the ocean or fit entirely on a single semitruck, stay | indefinitely on what can be launched out of Earth's | atmosphere makes no sense either. The important aspects | are all at cross purposes. Aerodynamic considerations are | a waste in vacuum and constrict design in very important | ways. Engines to get out of a strong gravity well need | high thrust, whereas for long distances in space one | really wants very high ISP. A torch drive that can do | both necessarily bears a striking resemblance to a high | energy weapon system to whatever happens to be facing the | business end of it, and all known practical models | (nuclear salt water, thermonuclear pulse) are ludicrously | polluting. And outer solar system ships will need strong | variable electric sources with high power/mass too | despite solar being entirely impractical. RTGs won't cut | it. | | So sure I don't think we'll ever see one launch off | Earth's surface (I hope not anyway, if humanity is | willing to light one of those off here it means we're | facing a threat big enough that trashing our home is | considered worth it). But that's a-ok, because what we'll | do is built empty reactors, or reactor components, and | launch those separately from fuel, and put it all | together in space. Or for that matter far enough down the | road maybe we build that stuff on the moon or in the | asteroids or who knows. It obviously wouldn't be a | copy/paste, but to the extent that USN reactor designs | will get used outside of the military that's where I see | it making sense. | m4rtink wrote: | In some cases you want sorta aerodynamic vehicles even if | they are space only, as you then can do aerocapture and | aerobreaking, possibly reducing quite a bit the delta-v | needed for a flight. | | Also high thrust engines if you can get them can make use | of the Oberhausen effect & some maneuvers, like specific | orbit captures or crewed radiation belt transits need | them as well. | | Still no problem to build that thing in space if you can | pull it off. :) | perl4ever wrote: | >So sure I don't think we'll ever see one launch off | Earth's surface | | Are you saying you don't think a nuclear reactor powered | spacecraft will ever be launched into space on a chemical | rocket in the forseeable future, or that you don't think | nuclear powered rockets will ever be used to get from | ground to orbit? | | You're probably aware, but nuclear power in space has not | been limited to plutonium powered RTGs that output a few | hundred watts. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US-A | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BES-5 | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOPAZ_nuclear_reactor | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-0410 | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_space | jabl wrote: | My point is that the requirements on a space reactor are | sufficiently different than a naval reactor that I'd | think you're better off looking for inspiration at things | like Kilopower than the PWR's currently used in naval | vessels. Yes, if you build the thing in space weight | isn't such a critical factor as if you're launching it | from Earth's gravity well, but weight still matters as | it's mass you have to accelerate and decelerate as you | zip around the solar system. A PWR is inevitably | extremely heavy due to having to withstand the 15 MPa | pressure (assuming naval PWR's have about the same | pressure as civilian ones, I suppose they could be | somewhat lower). Further, a critical issue for a space | reactor is how to cool it. Radiative cooling in space is | very bad compared what we can do down here. Thus to | minimize the size of your radiators you want a reactor | that operates at high temperature. Also in this respect a | PWR is a very poor choice. | briffle wrote: | With an almost unlimited heat-sink available right next to | the reactor, plus, nuclear technician training in the Navy is | very, very difficult to pass. | tbihl wrote: | >nuclear technician training in the Navy is very, very | difficult to pass. | | Rigorous, yes, but not "very, very difficult to pass". The | Navy needs a consistent stream of replacement operators, | and their preferred way of getting them is to take | reasonably capable volunteers and tutor/coach/remediate as | many people as needed once they're in that group. | indymike wrote: | As someone who was a reactor opreator in the US Navy I'm | laughing my ass off at this: "very, very difficult to | pass". 90% of the people I started training with were | gone in the first two years! | MurMan wrote: | > 90% of the people I started training with were gone in | the first two years! | | My experience too. Do you remember the "skyhook"? We'd | return to the barracks after class and find that the guy | next to you had vanished without a trace. | merpnderp wrote: | A lot of the cost is regulatory. Starting a project where | 3/4ths of your time will be your construction crews idling | while waiting on your army of lawyers to get injunctions | lifted, makes the idea incredibly unattractive to investors. | Which is the whole point of people who use the court system | as a strategic barrier to new construction, even when they | realize they'll likely ultimately lose. | njarboe wrote: | The problem is that it is insanely costly and cumbersome to | get regularly approval to build an experimental reactor in | the US (and elsewhere I presume) so nuclear tech is stuck in | the 1970's, just 20 years after the first commercial reactor | was built. Imagine still using cars, or trains, or computers | after only 20 years of development. | | One has to design the whole reactor on paper before building | it and get it approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission | (NRC). If, when you build it, you find you need to make | changes to the design that are above a certain threshold, you | have to recertify (not sure of the details. Can't find a good | link about this). Imagine trying to build something as | complicated as a nuclear reactor and you can't make iterative | improvements. NuScales design approval process, the approval | to be able to build the first reactor, cost $500 million | dollars, took 2 million man hours, included over 2 million | pages of documents, and after submitting in Jan of 2017 did | not get approval until around 4 years later in August of | 2020[1]. This is just to be able to build the first design. | No wonder nuclear power has seen no progress in the last 50 | years. | | Fortunately this company did persevere and now is planning to | build the first power plant in Utah, hoping to be operational | in 2030. The people/governments stating that climate change | is a crisis, and I do believe there is way too much CO2 in | the atmosphere, should be fast tracking this approved tech | with as much money as usable to build thousands of these | reactors as quickly as possible. | | [1]https://www.nuscalepower.com/technology/licensing | beisner wrote: | There should be pretty strict regulation for fission | reactor development, simply because radioactive materials | in runaway reactions can have totally uncontrollable, | millennia-spanning consequences. Very few other | technologies have this potential - even a regular chemical | explosion poses little risk to future generations in a | large radius. Certain materials (plutonium, for instance) | can reach criticality very quickly and in tiny quantities, | and plutonium is a byproduct of fission. (I'm not a nuclear | physicist, so my understanding of the real potential here | might be wrong, because I have no sense of the quantities | that might be experienced). | | This isn't a defense of the current regulatory process. The | time frames, in particular, sound pretty egregious (4 years | to approve a prototype, and 2m pages of documentation feels | like a lot, too, but again I don't know how these things | are designed). But I would be extremely uncomfortable with | lax regulatory oversight, given that nuclear accidents have | permanent, irreversible impacts on society and geography. | | Now, small-scale reactors may be a different beast | entirely. If the quantity of materials is pretty much | guaranteed not to have potential to cause problems for | anyone but the operators for a short period of time.... | Then there certainly seems to be a case for a shorter | regulatory cycle. But I would be shocked if scale isn't | already taken into account for the current regulatory | burden. | njarboe wrote: | The US should set up a special zone for companies that | wish to work with nuclear material and provide well | designed containment labs to work in. I would nominate | the nuclear test site in Nevada. That area was already | used to test devices that purposely went super-critical | and spread their nuclear material into the environment | with the most powerful explosions man has ever created. | cycomanic wrote: | Those numbers are completely meaningless without comparison | to how long it takes to get approval for other power | plants. I could not find definite answers but this report | [1] for Australia says it can take up to 15 years between | original prospecting and operation of a windfarm. I found | another source that said it takes on average 3.1 years for | approval in Sweden (it was not clear if that applied to | windfarm only). Several other sources talk about multi year | time frames as well. Considering the comparable impact of | nuclear vs e.g. wind 4 years is quite short. Also this also | disproves that nuclear is 3xpensive because of regulation, | other energy sources face similar regulation delays. | | [1] https://www.nwfc.gov.au/observations-and- | recommendations/cha... | njarboe wrote: | What I am talking about is the approval to build the | first version of the reactor. The demo reactor. Imagine | if one had to wait four years and spend half a billion | dollars to get approval of your design of a windmill (not | windmill farm) before you could even build the first one | to see how well it would work. Progress on windmill | design would be slow. | | Actually building the power plant with the reactor at a | specific location is a different problem. | wyldfire wrote: | > "223 reports of abnormal levels of radiation were recorded" | Yeah, I would not want to stay at that base | | That's nothing, you should've seen what the local wildlife did | to the Norwegian and US bases down there. | perihelions wrote: | I'm not familiar with this subject, what incident are you | referring to? | coolsunglasses wrote: | It's probably a wry reference to John Carpenter's The | Thing. | redler wrote: | That particular wildlife was actually not local. | wyldfire wrote: | Oh I dunno about that. IIRC it had been there for far far | longer than the first human settlements on Antarctica. | | Who's the invasive species? The creature minding its own | business for 100k years or the humans who start stirring | Things up as soon as they get there? ;) | Denvercoder9 wrote: | _> We really need a small reactor witha well tested design, | where all the bugs and terthing problems have beeen worked | out._ | | NASA's Kilopower is sort-of aiming to be this, though it has a | long way to go to get there. | Robotbeat wrote: | Kinda too small, though. Those are just 1-10kWe each and | extremely expensive. | godmode2019 wrote: | Was this public knowledge? That base is located on New Zealand | territory and they are nuclear free by law. | thewopr wrote: | It was public knowledge. Further, there is no such thing as New | Zealand territory (or anyone's territory for that matter) in | Antarctica. There are existing territorial claims, but they are | overlapping and basically nullified by the Antarctic Treaty. | | https://www.antarctica.gov.au/about-antarctica/law-and-treat... | nuccy wrote: | Moreover the New Zealand nuclear-free zone was established | only in the 80s [1]. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_nuclear- | free_zone | MattGaiser wrote: | It is not really recognized as NZ territory as Antarctic claims | are not recognized by most nations. | andylynch wrote: | This predates the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone created in 1984 | and in any case this is not New Zealand territory. _But_ land- | based nuclear power is perfectly legal in New Zealand, just | unpopular & undeveloped, in favour of oil, gas, hydroelectric, | and more recently wind. One unusual barrier to NZ nuclear power | is that the common designs would be too big to maintain a | balanced grid; a single 1GW commercial reactor could supply 1/7 | of NZ's electricity. | mprovost wrote: | While legally allowed it would be politically and culturally | impossible at this point to build a nuclear power plant in | NZ. The population has a strong Nuclear Free identity. For | example, when you fly into Wellington, the sign on the way | out of the airport says "Welcome to Wellington, Capital of | Nuclear Free New Zealand". | justin66 wrote: | I didn't downvote you but it takes about 30 seconds to discover | that the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms | Control Act was passed in 1987, well after the reactor | discussed in the article was decommissioned. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-06-18 23:01 UTC)