1) NO reprocessing as somewhat indicated in article ("processing"). We use the low enriched used fuel from the reactor to make new fuel for the next deployment. We don't isolate dangerous parts as done in reprocessing which is the main concern with reprocessing.
2) True waste elimination- it's not just "less of a pain", which is definitely good: the reactor actually eliminates waste instead of just using it for fuel as some thermal types do (eg some startups seen in the media). Without fast neutrons, a reactor cannot burn the longest-lived parts of waste.
3) History on reactor regulatory process: Never before has a reactor been fully built and operated before licensing as somewhat indicated in final paragraph. That would cost $Bs. So, in all history of nuclear, they have built scaled models and spent hundreds of millions in scaled testing and modeling to prove that the scaled tests are accurate to what the full reactor will be like.
The UPower test reactor can be built to full scale for on the order of single digit $millions, which can be said with confidence because even a national lab built a similar reactor and produced electricity with tons of red tape for $100s k.
The heat transfer process has no moving parts and can be shown at full scale and tested to failure on the order of just $thousands, unlike the big boys with outrageously complicated flow loops, pumps, valves, secondary pumps, etc etc etc.
This means the UPower reactor has a chance at being the first commercial reactor able to use the streamlined "license by test" process.
2) True waste elimination - I am very curious how you are able to do so. It seems like a very big neutron poison for fast neutrons. I'm not sure if you're using a thermal/fast reactor with gas/molten salt/water as the cooling material. I will await for the NRC filings, I suppose!
3) Best of luck!
However, I'm related to a nuclear engineer (who is currently in a senior position at IAEA, thus the anonymous account), and I understood that both steps you're currently undertaking were commonly know to be viable and efficient, BUT contravened most non-proliferation agreements (note: I'm not a nuclear engineer or physicist. Just interested).
So, you're "disrupting" an industry in dire need of disruption (due to the massive amounts of red tape), but you're also walking a tightrope.
I believe what you're doing is safe and needed, but if public opinion or perception turns against you (any article hinting at terrorist use, for example, or concerns over breaking the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), it might end your company.
You probably have taken all of this into account, and I hope you have a strategy in place on how to deal with this :) .
Once again, I wish you best of luck and I hope to use your generators in the future !! :)
EDIT: I haven't talked with my relative yet, all what I wrote above is my (probably misinformed) opinion.
Second edit: It seems several others have already raised most of my concerns, and better than I have. I've also
See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8195589 (regulatory concerns)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8195642 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8196075(the tech being commonly known)
and, most important, the "dirty bomb" factor
I'm glad you brought up the dirty bomb factor again.
The perpetuation of the myth of the dangers of the dirty bomb is truly sad. We all intuitively realize that the dangers of chemical warfare, biological dispersion (especially because it is transmissible long after the incident), and the dangers of bombs themselves are so much greater than some amount of radiation that decays rapidly and, by the nature of a bomb, is highly dispersed.
As an example of the worst possible radiological contamination (which would not practically be achieved by a dirty bomb to scale), read about the story of the "Atomic Man". In an instant, he received 500 times the "lethal lifetime dose." He died at 75 of unrelated causes. The atopsy showed zero cancer. The chemicals were terrible. the explosion was terrible. Ultimately the radiation itself was not as bad as expected.
In another example, studies showed mice fed plutonium dust had their lives expanded by 120%. See here for an overview of these types of studies and natural effects of hormesis. http://www.radpro.com/641luckey.pdf
It's my belief this disproportionate fear is really a tragedy, a play on the fears of uneducated people (again, fed by media since anything nuclear is like sex or plane crashes) that may ultimately cheat them from peace of mind and clean, reliable energy sooner. What if people refused transportation:vehicles, trucks, and planes because gasoline is highly combustible and kills so many per year? Our economy exploded with oil at the turn of the last century.
But that's a side point, sorry for digression.
Could this be blown up? 1) it's underground 2) it's surrounded by concrete that has been tested to be safe to drop from hundreds of feet in the air 3) it's a solid metal block. It doesn't have dispersion capabilities like other forms.
Unrelated fact since we aren't reprocessing: It's a common misconception that reprocessing is not legal in the US. It is. Also for instance, France does it and has been doing it for a while.
It is not me who you have to convince! :) It's the general public (and fighting decades of propaganda).
Maybe a YouTube viral video or something, I don't know :)
I wouldn't go showing the plutonium dust article. Reminds me too much of Alexander Litvinenko.
And your point about reprocessing in France actually reinforces my point: it required multiple inter-governmental agreements at the highest diplomatic levels, and complying with EURATOM, very especially (as it applies to you) the 2001 Joint Convention, OSPAR (?) and I'm sure plenty more of red tape (source: IAEA publications).
Being U.S. based is obviously a benefit to you, since they're the most likely to shrug international oversight (and you say you're not reprocessing anyways).
Plus, France is the most pro-nuclear country in Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Convention_on_the_Safety_...
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/1997/inf...
I saw the diagrams on your website, it does look like a very unlikely target for being blown up, but the likelihood doesn't enter the equation when irrational fears are bandied around (they might say you're lying, etc..).
I just want you to be very aware of the stigma and irrationa l fears, and the regulatory hazards, because I very much want you to succeed.
I've talked to politicians (outside the U.S.), and they tell me that pushing a nuclear agenda, while economically sound, is political suicide. Some countries have a "stealth" approach (simply by not calling attention to media and quietly "expanding" current facilities), while others, like Germany, caved in to public pressure.
One thing we could use a favor from you. So, so so many people are saying "I support nuclear but I'm the only one"... you aren't! Believe me you're in the majority (70% in US support, although nuclear especially needs people like you, in the top of that group in knowledge/education to speak out and help educate) and that even this is changing... and just come out of the closet already. :)
What's your source of fast neutrons?
Also, is it accurate to describe your product as a nuclear battery? The TechCrunch article refers to it generating heat (as opposed to electricity), so is "nuclear reactor" a more accurate description?
Battery seemed to have stuck. it's not my favorite. I would say generator. battery apparently seems more innocuous.
Battery also feels accurate because the reactor will be more or less "plug and play" like a really, really, really long lasting battery that produces the same amount of power. It can also be used in "packs" like a battery.
Fundamentally, nuclear, just like coal or anything else is a source of heat. With different secondary packages, you can produce electricity or cogenerate steam.
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2013/ph241/waisberg1/
"However, the project was hampered in 1994 after a series of controversies involving safety issues and nuclear non-proliferation policies."
As far as unattended: in sum, the technology allows it, but the regulatory structure may not be comfortable with it in the near term. It's not the deal breaker you might think in terms of economics. We are talking about more reliable power at multiples less with prices that don't require the complicated hedging and regular bulk purchases as oil and gas. Generally, we are looking at staffing structure similar to oil rigs- weeks on, weeks off. As regulators and public understand operation, we could transition to remote staff managing sites. Truth is that the technology shuts itself down in case of any bad event (see EBR for similar, really amazing) and there would be almost nothing for on site personnel to do, but there is a perceived safety blanket with having a warm body on site.
Does that answer your question?
Where the industry has failed in engaging new types of social media (HN, YouTube, reddit, quora, etc) people are stepping up. And honestly it's probably better this way.
On a side note, people don't realize but there's no big nuclear industry really. Our founders have met and spent time with executives from nearly every domestic utility company and all of them have different types of power in their portfolio. They have no real interest in promoting nuclear over coal. The uranium miners make no money compared to coal mines because, think of it, one two-millionth of the volume of nuclear materials is needed compared to the volume of coal. You've never seen a uranium train car, because reactors don't need to burn hundreds of train cars a day and put that in our air.
Compound that with the fact that anything nuclear is like sex and plane crashes for news media. :)
So it's a battle to get education out, but smart people like you on HN will win the day. I really believe it.
Also our charismatic CEO will do his best to stand on a reactor for you ASAP.
Public level of understanding of nuclear technology is depressing. The past fear campaigns and decades of life in fear of nuclear annihilation during the cold war have spread the knowledge of fear-inducing properties of nuclear materials like very long half-life of the waste, but kept people largely unaware of other important facts like means to reduce half-life of the waste, natural existence of background radiation, our consequent evolutionary adaptations to it or the inverse square law. This creates the perception that even properly regulated nuclear technology is a lot more dangerous than it actually is.
I like that you're attacking a real problem. Good luck.
I am pleased to see a company like yours cropping out of YCombinator. Not for nothing but: get some help with your website. It might seem like such a frivolous thing, but having a well-designed website goes a long way (or rather, having a bad web design mars your authority and reputation undeservingly).
Sure, more information would not hurt, but the overall style is perfect for the target audience.
UPower meets these by (1) being small enough to build a very tough, full scale emulator for testing, never before done in nuclear. (2) not competing on the grid, which gives immediate, in need customers which is also necessary for regulatory process to complete in (1). (3) using technologies and materials with decades of experience, in a new way, eliminating the huge uncertainties of many startups you see in the news.