@@WJV9 yes, but shorter daylight during winter is made up by longer daylight during summer. How does latitude affect solar insolation? Generally, the higher the latitude, the greater the range (difference between maximum and minimum) in solar radiation received over the year and the greater the difference from season to season. Water vapor, humidity and cloud cover are bigger factors on annual solar production.
I'd love to see these powering the ConEd steam pipes in New York City. Of course! Replacing the fossil fuel burning power plants in Manhattan is easier said than done. The engineering I should be secondary to the political issue. But I would have no problem with having one of these in the plant across the street from me, provided a nice rebate on electric power.😅 It hit over 90° today and I am more than a little worried about power going out over the next few days
I would love for this to work but molten salt is hell on pipes. I want to hear how you are going to deal with that problem because over a number of years it is going to be a problem.
Multiple similar reactors have been built in China, @caav56, Japan, Germany, and the US. Russia is even starting a similar program. We're ahead for now.
It will vary depending on the country and site. In the US, the US DOE is mandated to do this. Ordinarily, the used fuel is stored on-site in dry casks storage. Eventually, the DOE will relocate it to a consolidate repository and then a permanent repository. Same as current reactors. Can potentially be improved.
Waste storage is not an issue. The used fuel can be used to power fast reactors which will reduce the waste by 99.9% with the last portion becoming harmless in 300 years. We are talking about 20 grams of waste for the total lifetime per person energy use. Less than a US penny. This is not a substantial amount to worry about.
@@Unknown15916 fast reactors have the ability to destroy weapons grade nuclear material. It is true breeder reactors can produce plutonium but these reactors have to be designed to do this and operated on such a way as to not produce Pt isotopes that will denatured the usefulness of the Pt for making bombs. Fast reactors can also be designed such that weapons grade Pt can not be produced and in some cases destroy this material. To shorten, fast reactors can be designed not to produce weapons grade material.
@@Unknown15916 this is not a fast reactor. it is a thermal reactor, and the spent fuel is TRISO, which is basically impossible to reprocess. It would be easier to create an enrichment facility by several orders of magnitude.
it gives you power, but even in places like BC where i live, where we get 90% of our power from renewable energy (we got lots of lakes and rivers, so hydro in this case) the company that supplies this form of power is still gonna gouge ya, because they know you'll pay long after the infrastructure is paid for
Hopefully, local utilities will gain power and each city controls its own MMR units and therefore the price. Also less transmission cost, which is often more than half the cost of power.
That's because city officials quietly privatize the resources we pay for with taxes, they sell them off to private investors who then in return charge us all for the infrastructure and resources we paid with taxes to build and supply to ourselves. The only way to stop this is to bring light to their manipulations. For instance please look up how water plants are being bought by private owners from the local government sometimes within days of initial offers while only going through at most 2 or 3 people and never reaching public attention sometimes even after the purchase. This isn't a problem with the source of energy production it's a problem with both a lack of investment (not of money, but attention and concern) from private citizens and also corruption within the government and institutions that are in bed with said government.
Not that we'd design or certify it for just sitting there, but I don't see why you coudn't leave it there for decades. It's all ceramcis and metals in highly controlled environments. There are some subsystems with plastics, electronics, and water cooling. Those would not fare too well for very long with inspection/maint
We have built 0 units. We have 2 projects that will have shovels in the ground soon. Similar technology has been demoed and is operating in China and Japan. Must accelerate.
So at the end of the project lifetime, say in 40-80 years, you're going to want to shut down the site. the site needs to be returned to green field, which means removing any activated materials and structure, and even industrial materials and structures at the site. Unlike other industries, we create a fund of approximately 15% of the initial CAPEX to execute the decommissioning process.
MMR's sound good. Whether or not climate change will end the planet in 10 years or whatever the alarmists are saying at any given time, why not come up with better ways to produce the energy needed now and in the future? Just in case?
We want to engage in mass production as well licensing to other manufactures in late 2020s. Need as much support as possible. Tell your friends. This is for all mankind.
Coal plants don't have any plans on waste storage, in fact they just pump their radioactive materials right into the water and air. NUCLEAR FOR THE WIN!!!
Concept is amazing since there's not much new in the field of energy production, but out of all important benefits versus other sources you state WEF forced "zero-carbon" agenda! Come on!
gotta flow with the times. Personally, reducing CO2 emissions from power and heat is just an excuse to reduce the other pollutants and ultimately reduce the cost of power for humanity.
"In any system of energy, Control is what consumes energy the most. Time taken in stocking energy to build an energy system, adding to it the time taken in building the system will always be longer than the entire useful lifetime of the system. No energy store holds enough energy to extract an amount of energy equal to the total energy it stores. No system of energy can deliver sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it. This universal truth applies to all systems. Energy, like time, flows from past to future".
You're half right. Of course the laws of thermodynamics hold true. The difference when you're dealing with nuclear energy is that you're dealing with a unique fuel source, one that stores energy as mass itself. And through E = mc², that's the most dense energy "storage" you can get. The amount of energy just waiting to be extracted from uranium, thorium, and so on is unfathomably large. Of course you still can't break the laws of thermodynamics, but annihilating mass itself to produce energy is the next best thing, whether from the fission of today and tomorrow or the fusion of the hopefully not too distant future.
@@jlp1528The constant speed of light cannot be increased, yet alone - squared. Math is unsuitable language for Physics when it comes to discovering the Laws of Nature.
@@jlp1528Karl Marx, Nikola Tesla, Einstein, Huxley, Orwell, Turing, Susskind and 20th Century Physics - should be forgiven for thinking their systems can last forever - finite fossil fuels are dangerously hypnotic to humans and their mental capacity. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-yLOHdW7dLug.html
@@JNJNRobin1337 You can get your city and local utility to commit to projects. Need as much support as possible. Tell your friends. This is for all mankind.
Fifty years of anti-nuclear propaganda is going to be the most difficult impediment to this thing. The way things are going I bet we see this on Mars before I see it down the street.
@@ultrasafenuclear Stop trying and just do it. Oh yea nuclear is harder than making a YT video......and BTW if telling more people about your dream is you plan, it is already a failure
@@clarkkent9080 Every action begins a chain of causality that results in a reactant product. But this process only occurs from a activation attempt. In essence what I am saying is that you ALWAYS just TRY and something HAPPENS there is no such thing as "doing" something. You can't skip right to the end.
@@user-mc6dg6qe8l I guess that I am somewhat frustrated by all the nuclear startups that have no experience in building anything nuclear and only have a power point, YT video and hand out for government and investor money. There has never been economies of small scale in any generation method and the idea of micro reactors makes no sense. Making a reactor 1/2 the size of a standard 1 Gw PWR will cost much more than 1/2 of the PWR operating cost. If anyone is going to succeed in nuclear it will be the well established nuclear companies.
@@ultrasafenuclear Reminds me of lucky strikes marketing, they refused to say they were the safest ciggie because it drew too much attention to the dangers of ciggies. No one cares if a ciggie is safe, because anyone smoking is already okay with the idea of a ciggie being dangerous. So they just marketed the lucky strikes on things like where they were grown or their taste (which was medicore and the same as other brands) but because no other cig manufacture marketed those basics they dominated with the idea that they were the only ones or at least the first ones to popularize a industry standard. Let me also draw your attention to how washing machines were popularized. Husbands thought they were useless and silly "just another thing to buy" but the manufactures of washing machines didn't try to appeal to them. Instead they marketed how much extra time it would save house wives and how clean it could get their clothes. Husbands effectually gave into their wives and were forced to buy the machines even if they initially were skeptical. As you say start from the bottom showcase how cheap you could make people's electric bills, simply debunk any crazy claims about safety and focus on the goal. I would personally go with "are you going to really let these guys burn coal, give you cancer, and then take half you pay check for energy" angle to get nuclear fast tracked. Micro designs specifically could help defeat the NIMBY effect which has killed many other similar nuclear projects.
There is no such thing as economies of SMALL scale. Even with $2 billion in taxpayer welfare, NuScale finally canceled their SMR project that was clearly not cost effective as all of these startups will eventually learn. The only thing these companies are building is their bank accounts with government handouts.
do you have idea that solar panels used to be REALLY expensive (& it didn't go bust)? like it was $115.28/Watt back in 1975 & $2.15/Watt in 2010, nowadays it's below $0.5/Watt & it's because of mass-production thus it means lots of solar panel supply I believe SMRs of right now are like solar panels of the past, it's very expensive at 1st but overtime the cost will go down, patience is a virtue.
@@HSstudio.Ytchnnl Do you realize that the U.S. over the last 70 years has designed, built, and tested every type of reactor known including SMRs and MSRs? Did you know that the first (Shippingport) commercial reactor was a micro (60 Mw output) reactor and the next 10 or so were SMR output capacity and every one was shutdown early since there is and never has been economies of SMALL scale? Did you know that VC Summer and Vogtle tried the build a module in a factory and ship it to the site and overall it cost more that site builds and cost $$ and build delays?
Thanks for the comment. Of course there are economies of small scale - it's called economies of production and factory fabrication. going to this small size means we produce the reactors and modules in a factory, not as a one-off mega project. To deliver the same 1GW of electric power, we have produce about 50 units in our factory with plenty of automation and specialization. The quality will be better, the cost will be lower. Practice makes perfect. Learning reduces costs.
