Teenager designes nuclear reactor
Discussion
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM...
Article said:
Eighteen-year-old Taylor Wilson has designed a compact nuclear reactor that could one day burn waste from old atomic weapons to power anything from homes and factories to space colonies.
The American teen, who gained fame four years ago after designing a fusion reactor he planned to build in the garage of his family's home, shared his latest endeavor at a TED Conference in southern California on Thursday.
"It's about bringing something old, fission, into the 21st Century," Wilson said. "I think this has huge potential to change the world."
He has designed a small reactor capable of generating 50-100 megawatts of electricity, enough to power as many as 100,000 homes.
The reactor can be made assembly-line style and powered by molten radioactive material from nuclear weapons, Wilson said. The relatively small, modular reactor can be shipped sealed with enough fuel to last for 30 years.
If it could be done, and could have approval it would be amazing.The American teen, who gained fame four years ago after designing a fusion reactor he planned to build in the garage of his family's home, shared his latest endeavor at a TED Conference in southern California on Thursday.
"It's about bringing something old, fission, into the 21st Century," Wilson said. "I think this has huge potential to change the world."
He has designed a small reactor capable of generating 50-100 megawatts of electricity, enough to power as many as 100,000 homes.
The reactor can be made assembly-line style and powered by molten radioactive material from nuclear weapons, Wilson said. The relatively small, modular reactor can be shipped sealed with enough fuel to last for 30 years.
Neat idea
What could be simpler than a can full of molten uranium sitting in a corner for 30 years?
This guy did it first....
http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/radscout.html
What could be simpler than a can full of molten uranium sitting in a corner for 30 years?This guy did it first....
http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/radscout.html
V88Dicky said:
LFTR is where it's at.
Shame the Americans never followed up on promising early results in the 60s.
Double shame that the Chinese have 'borrowed' LFTR technology and are aiming for mainstream production soon.
Thorium is an amazing bit of PR and political persuasion. They don't solve the only real issue with nuclear power which is that plant itself is very expensive to build. Going to a new design which uses high temperatures and corrosive working fluids will not help this. Shame the Americans never followed up on promising early results in the 60s.
Double shame that the Chinese have 'borrowed' LFTR technology and are aiming for mainstream production soon.
The Chinese have done some minimal experiments on liquid core reactors, they are also building a small test reactor of just about every different type of reactor similar to what the west did in the 50s and 60s. They will probably come to the same conclusion that the billions of investment for marginal potential gains is not worth it.
They are however building or planning to build dozens of pressurised water reactors with power outputs of 1GW or more. PWR is the winner for the near and medium term, as for the longer term if you want to nuclear up the world sodium fast reactors using the U235-U238-Pu239 cycle are the most mature option.
This quote is pertinent to Thorium or SMR reactors design in someone's bedroom.
Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, U.S. Navy "Father of the Nuclear Navy"
Paper Reactors, Real Reactors (1953)
An academic reactor or reactor plant almost always has the following basic characteristics:
(1) It is simple.
(2) It is small.
(3) It is cheap.
(4) It is light.
(5) It can be built very quickly.
(6) It is very flexible in purpose.
(7) Very little development will be required. It will use off-the-shelf components.
(8) The reactor is in the study phase. It is not being built now.
On the other hand a practical reactor can be distinguished by the following characteristics:
(1) It is being built now.
(2) It is behind schedule.
(3) It requires an immense amount of development on apparently trivial items.
(4) It is very expensive.
(5) It takes a long time to build because of its engineering development problems.
(6) It is large.
(7) It is heavy.
(8) It is complicated.
The tools of the academic designer are a piece of paper and a pencil with an eraser. If a mistake is made, it can always be erased and changed. If the practical-reactor designer errs, he wears the mistake around his neck; it cannot be erased. Everyone sees it.
The academic-reactor designer is a dilettante. He has not had to assume any real responsibility in connection with his projects. He is free to luxuriate in elegant ideas, the practical shortcomings of which can be relegated to the category of "mere technical details." The practical-reactor designer must live with these same technical details. Although recalcitrant and awkward, they must be solved and cannot be put off until tomorrow. Their solution requires manpower, time and money.
Unfortunately for those who must make far-reaching decision without the benefit of an intimate knowledge of reactor technology, and unfortunately for the interested public, it is much easier to get the academic side of an issue than the practical side. For a large part those involved with the academic reactors have more inclination and time to present their ideas in reports and orally to those who will listen. Since they are innocently unaware of the real but hidden difficulties of their plans, they speak with great facility and confidence. Those involved with practical reactors, humbled by their experiences, speak less and worry more.
Edited by Talksteer on Sunday 10th March 17:34
intrepid44 said:
Would be interesting to see his analysis of it all.
People can't be seriously accepting this as a realistic design, are they?
No, but if anyone is I can sell them an amazing product that will make their car go faster and use less fuel, make them more attractive to women and solve global warming. Oh, if more than 100 PHers sign up I'll also guarantee world peace. People can't be seriously accepting this as a realistic design, are they?
PM me for my paypal details.
I could "design" you a reactor in ten minutes.
Getting a prototype working reliably with the degree of inbuilt safety required to get the thing licenced might take a bit longer.
Working out how to build it economically viably then safely and cheaply decommission it and dispose of spent fuel...
Getting a prototype working reliably with the degree of inbuilt safety required to get the thing licenced might take a bit longer.
Working out how to build it economically viably then safely and cheaply decommission it and dispose of spent fuel...
GadgeS3C said:
intrepid44 said:
Would be interesting to see his analysis of it all.
People can't be seriously accepting this as a realistic design, are they?
No, but if anyone is I can sell them an amazing product that will make their car go faster and use less fuel, make them more attractive to women and solve global warming. Oh, if more than 100 PHers sign up I'll also guarantee world peace. People can't be seriously accepting this as a realistic design, are they?
PM me for my paypal details.
A few Universities have offered to bank roll him, but at the end of the day the Uni will then want the money back if it is a success.
elster said:
GadgeS3C said:
intrepid44 said:
Would be interesting to see his analysis of it all.
People can't be seriously accepting this as a realistic design, are they?
No, but if anyone is I can sell them an amazing product that will make their car go faster and use less fuel, make them more attractive to women and solve global warming. Oh, if more than 100 PHers sign up I'll also guarantee world peace. People can't be seriously accepting this as a realistic design, are they?
PM me for my paypal details.
A few Universities have offered to bank roll him, but at the end of the day the Uni will then want the money back if it is a success.
But as others have posted there is a massive difference between having a great idea and converting it into a functioning, viable and safe product.
I've spent most of my career converting ideas into commercialised products - it's not a trivial challenge. Just getting the appropriate safety approvals for a mini-reactor is going to cost millions and take years.
But long may he continue to create, we need more kids like him!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff