NANO Nuclear is a startup that has raised over $8 million to develop micro nuclear fission reactors with up to 2 megawatts of power. They will be transported by Semi Trucks.
They plan to sell 1,000 microreactors on a yearly basis for a trillion-dollar industry. Nuclear currently supplies some 18% of US power needs off 95GW of installed capacity, according to the Energy Information Agency (EIA). The Department of Energy (DoE) forecasts the country will need around 200GW of new nuclear capacity to reach net-zero by 2050.
The products are ZEUS which is a solid core battery reactor and ODIN, a low-pressure coolant reactor, each representing advanced developments in portable, on-demand capable.
The Zeus nuclear microreactor is engineered for safe operation in remote locations. Its ‘walk-away safe’ feature ensures stability and safety, minimizing risks in varied environments. This aspect is critical for ensuring consistent operation without the need for active intervention.
Portability and Adaptability: The modular components fit within standard shipping containers, facilitating transportation to remote sites. This feature enhances its utility in areas where traditional energy infrastructure is not feasible.
The second Advanced Nuclear Reactor (ANR) design in development at NANO Nuclear, ODIN aims to diversify its technology portfolio. The ODIN design will utilize conventional fuel form with up to 20% enrichment, helping to minimize the required development and testing program schedule and costs. The proprietary reactor design ODIN will usee low pressure coolant to minimize the stress on structural components, improve their reliability and service life. It will also use a unique reactivity control system design, aiming to have high reliability and robustness through minimizing the number of moving parts.
The reactor will operate at higher than conventional water-cooled reactor temperatures, which will allow resilient operation and high-power conversion efficiency in generating electricity. The ODIN design will aim to take maximum advantage of natural convection of coolant for heat transfer to the power conversion cycle at full power and for decay heat removal during reactor shutdown, operational transients, and off-normal conditions.
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
Wind turbines have been getting larger and larger with the theory that bigger is better. But as the author points out, the cost of repairs and decommissioning is enormous. It takes about a decade of running to repay the fossil fuel cost of building a turbine. So if it has a 20 year lifespan you get a 2 to 1 payback. However if there is a major repair, this cost advantage disappears.
With traditional solar on silicone wafers this is also the case. Taking half of the 20 year lifespan to repay the fossil fuel cost of manufacturing and installation. Plus being devilishly hard to recycle after. Most of that energy was coal power in China so not great for the environment in the first place.
New thin film solar cells are different. Very cheap to make lightweight to install and a breeze to recycle. These can be paired with cheap battery storage to give peak power pulses at required times.
In addition inexpensive recomductoring of existing transmission corridors can update the US grid and allow solar in areas not possible on the current grid.
Micro nuclear will become very important for example at arctic army or air bases where diesel generators currently provide power.
The waste heat can be used to run Stirling engine generators and to heat community buildings
GE has developed a micro turbine generator that runs on liquid CO2. This would be ideal to pair with a micro nuclear power reactor.
[ e.g. a popular onshore Enercon E-82 (~2-3MW nom. power, height ~490ft 150m, pub. energy return numbers ~30-50) having ~2900MWh on primary energy investment for initial installation on a mid-height concrete tower including 20yrs energy for general tasks&maintenance, can feed to grid
~(1300h*2MW)*~1.12yrs =~ 2900MWh (1:1)
~(1300h*2MW)*~2.25yrs =~ 5800MWh (1:2)
~(1300h*2MW)*~20yrs =~ 78000MWh (1:17)
~(2700h*3MW)*~0.36yrs =~ 2900MWh (1:1)
~(2700h*3MW)*~25yrs =~ 202500MWh (1:69)
(nearshore ~3200hrs)
solar electricity, initial installation, roof top systems, low 20yrs ~1:4-7(-10&) ]
The good thing about NetZero rubbish and wind/solar/battery rubbish is that the only option is nuclear. And presumably our liberal friends will OK nuclear because they need to charge their EVs of an evening.
Yes!, it ‘s sad that we have to go through their nutty emotional garbage. The no nukes , and a Senator from Arkansas , Dale Bumpers, stopped our reprocessing of waste in breeder reactors. 3 mile Island scare, The China Syndrome movie, put us out of business. The Grand Gulf Reactor built for Entergy went financially critical and scared more people. The LWRs should have been a short experiment. The sodium cooled reactor type would have been gold, and reprocessing , and vitrified waste in stainless containers as France has done for decades would have taken us to a new grid with reasonable costs.
The oil cos were putting out a lot of bs propaganda. They created the carbon dioxide boondogle.
Climate became the hiding place for Maoist/ Marxist/ Fascists.
Today, we are on the verge of making power a boutique luxury due to the WEF, the regime wants us turned off, buttoned up.
Oh? It used to be if “our liberal friends” supported nuclear power, they we’re not “green enough”. NetZero “rubbish”? Wind&Solar have made tremendous strides. So actually has nuclear power (IMO). Learn what’s “actually happening” in these fields before you so quickly dismiss what you know nothing about. Ask questions, and learn stuff…
The article states it runs at higher temps than normal reactors yet lower pressures. So the coolant is not water.
And where is the steam turbine generator and associated condensing and cooling equipment?
Well, like nearly all startups, there is a complete lack of detail here. So, assuming they mean 20 megawatts of electricity, these trucks would need to reject something north of 40 megawatts or 137+ million btu of heat. There is no apparent cooling system shown in the renderings. A conventional air to water heat exchanger (like that used on large generators) would need something like 2000ft2 of surface area to reject that much heat. The reactor might fit on a truck, but the cooling system won’t (at least one anyway).
How are the blades decommissioned?
[ cost for nuclear electricity (aside from small mobile reactors?, capacity factor CF ~94%? )
‘https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#/media/File:3-Learning-curves-for-electricity-prices.png ‘ ]
[ a most diverse overview of regulations for FITs (feed-in tariffs for renewables) and an extended and load dependent variation at California – Los Angeles
‘https://www.pv-magazine.com/features/archive/solar-incentives-and-fits/feed-in-tariffs-in-america/#california ‘
It might occur interest, what are most useful rules for grid&demand stabilization (from electricity generation POV, not load side restrictions) and for sufficient renewables construction progress (altogether a probably huge and controversial task, with global POV)? ]
This is suitable for off-grid, near grid, and commercial naval. It has a strong business case.
Recycling, fuel, waste. We will see. This has more to do with the national standards set in many places. Also the transport requirements for post operated/post critical reactor assemblies.
Wind Turbines. Yeah, $195k, also $75 to $150 a KWe of nameplate capacity to decommission.
Which is fine. The real issue is how remote is the operator of Turbines. Also what is the climate like. In some cases in Canada the Turbines have had a life span as short as 7 years (Some still make it to 20 and beyond).
A major factor is the cost to maintain and repair them when they do run into trouble. In many parts of the world the Turbines are getting oversized for the installation where they are going. This is a result of fighting for every last percentage of capacity, and availability factor (two different things). So they build them taller to reach more unobstructed wind. Which is fine for the most during initial construction.
Now the major issue is here is that if you need to carry out a blade change, you need a very large crane. Well if your generator only makes 2.5MWe nameplate and has a 44% nameplate capacity (I’m being generous), and you’re getting $10MW/hr. You are receiving $96,360 a year in a good scenario.
You want to haul a stacked crane, and crew, and other support items out there to change a blade you have a seal failure, or delamination, etc. It is going to be well over $500k for a couple of days. Maybe that works out…maybe it does not. That is basically four years revenue just to rent the crane and crew prior to consumables(parts).
I pay $0.23kw/hr at the meter here so assuming we paid the Wind Turbine operator the same price the customer was paying at the meter $230MWhr. (You still need T+D, and local power companies).
So they were getting maybe $2.2M a year… Maybe it’s worth it then, but bear in mind this is a big operation. So you let the turbine sit fallow until maybe a couple more need maintenance so you can split the cost between two our three turbines. You get outside 10 years, a couple more need work. But you’re losing that 2.5MWe at 44% capacity factor (Which is VERY generous) on the poles that are not running. You’re taking a gamble that you will have enough others require maintenance in the period to justify a crane crew.
The slope gets slippery quickly. (Also I think I’m being generous at $500k for a scaffold crane deployment). From an environmental standpoint, the turbine may also leak hydraulic fluid and delaminate fiberglass and carbon fiber.
Please don’t think I’m anti-wind. I’m pro wind, pro solar, pro hydro, and pro nuclear. We’re going to need them all.
I am however pro sustainability, and part of that is the business case. In many parts of the world yeah, you can have Turbine poles that are 5MWe and taller than skyscrapers.
It works out, in many, many other parts of the world. That you need a repair crew, and crane crew that will have to expect to drive more than a day, set up, carry out repairs, stay multiple nights, and drive back. All of these energy workers are also highly specialized, and unionized. They are not cheap.
Hopefully each turbine only needs one major repair such as a blade change in it’s 20 year lifetime. Then we talk about decommissioning…Which is why you see abandoned wind farms.
So Wind is not a panacea for all things energy. It does however have a place.
As long as a crew with hand tools and a pick-up truck can do the maintenance. Then you have looked after your scale issue. The argument that works here in the immediate sense is thermal/carbon displacement until we get efficient and long lived grid level storage ( a long way off). If you are an existing thermal generator, and you get a $40, or $50MWhr carbon penalty, then maybe you want to buy and operate your own wind farm to displace some of the cost on your existing thermal plant.
However, if you are more than two days drive from a scaffold crane rental. Then the argument needs to be made that maybe you need to scale down to 20KWe turbines, and set them up in a manner that does not require a crane. (I picked 20KWe because it was slightly larger than the most recent “crane free” turbine product that I saw.).
The biggest problem with most non-dispatchable renewables, is that they are often being guaranteed ridiculous floor prices for their power. Or, being offered huge grants or other subsidies that make them unworkable in the long run.
Again if you can’t make a business case, you can’t argue sustainability.
“Please don’t think I’m anti-wind. I’m pro wind, pro solar, pro hydro, and pro nuclear. We’re going to need them all.”
Actually, we don’t need them all. We might as well use the solar because it is very passive and cheap enough, but wind power is silly.
Reactors don’t stop producing power when the wind stops or the sun is behind clouds. In any case it’s going to need to be tested for a long time to build up confidence in it’s safety.
“We might as well use the solar because it is very passive and cheap enough, but wind power is silly.”
Some amount of wind power is nearly as passive and cheap as solar, but it’s not *reliable*.
And honestly, neither is solar in a large majority of places. The same kind of analysis that Jay Harris did for wind can be done for solar, and the results aren’t much better.
The thing we are missing is better power *storage*. Until that happens, solar and wind are both (mostly) more pipedream and than useful.
With better energy storage, they both become quite useful. Until then…. meh. At best.
Even getting over the absurd unsustainability of solar what do you propose doing the other 2/3rds of the day when the sun is either low or down so you get no electricity?
How much wind at night? How much solar? Do you want to rethink your comment?
Renderings look pretty. There are scarce details available – I first heard of this group several weeks ago. Considering the limited ways to skin the fission cat, I find it suspect that they don’t mention 1) what the coolant is 2) what the power conversion system consists of. Maybe they’ll share that information after they raise another $30M (like a teaser). These folks should use go-fund-me.
I am more interested in a microreactor that can fit in a Starship cargo bay. You need nuclear power once you pass the asteroid belt. Orbiters for the outer planets will need nuclear power.
And, despite what someone said, wind turbines do not cause cancer
Wind turbines keep you feed if you eat dead birds. Otherwise they cost more money than a wife, and divorce is expensive.
Reactors don’t need to fit in a truck. They do need to be cost competetive.
I disagree. If they fit in a truck they fit in a Starship 😉
If they fit in a truck they can be used for naval propulsion. That’s a big market.
If you can fit them in a naval vessel, you don’t need to worry about waste heat. You can put most of that heat to use, and dissipate the rest in the ocean.
If they fit in a truck they can be factory assembled instead of built on-site.
What’s the path to regulatory approvals or identified market where approvals are possible?
What is the purchase price?
What is the cost to decommission the reactor?
I ask because the cost to decommission a windmill is more than the value of the electricity it produces over a lifetime.
Decommissioning costs typically range from $114,000 to $195,000 per turbine [source: WINDExchange (.gov)].
Wind turbines can generate electricity for over 20 years.
The electricity produced by a turbine can be worth millions of dollars over its lifespan.
While decommissioning does add a cost, it’s a fraction of the electricity a wind turbine generates.
Here’s some additional info:
Some decommissioning costs can be offset by recycling materials from the turbine.
Newer regulations often require setting aside funds for decommissioning during the wind farm’s operation.
So, while decommissioning isn’t free, it’s a manageable cost compared to the electricity a windmill produces.
[ average wind turbine power ~2.8MW from that data and capable of grid supply with roughly ~150GWh for ~20(-25)yrs onshore (what’s ~2500h/yr on nominal power, offshore up to ~4500h/yr )
150k MWh * ~25$/MWh_grid =~ 3.5M$ for supplied electricity within ~20yrs, initial investment each 1MW of setup power ~1.5M$ (project data: gt Pathfinder, Iowa, 2022)
Wind power (~10.2%), US 2023, eia.gov , almost double than hydro power (~5.7%) and photovoltaics (~3.9%), biomass (~1.1%), nuclear (~18.6%) on a total of 4178 billion kWh (TWh) electricity generation,
‘fossil’ (or longterm renewable on geologic time scale) sources ~60%, ‘renewables’ ~21.4% ]
No, the decommissioning cost is not higher than the value of the electricity produced.
The cost varies, but a quick search identifies that it is equivalent to 2-3% of the total value produced.