Does it still use water like a normal reactor or does it use helium as a medium. I've seen a design that uses helium and it increases the velocity of the gas through a steam nozzle to cool it down so it can continue to extract heat from the reactor and turn a steam turbine for power. It would be a sealed self contained unit, I believe that's how the airborne reactor that was finished in 1961 worked before the project was cancelled by Kennedy.
Did you read the introduction? It says "Microreactors are not defined by their fuel form or coolant." The airborne reactor of the _Aircraft Reactor Experiment_ did not use a steam turbine; water was used only in the test installation, and could not have been part of the nuclear-powered aircraft engine. Any nuclear-heated steam turbine system would be far too heavy to aircraft propulsion. For details, see the Wikipedia pages for "Aircraft Reactor Experiment" and "Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion", and sources referenced there.
It depends on the model. Scaling down Pressurized water reactor doesn't make much sense. So alternatives include salt coolant, solid fuel types in essence like past breeder reactors. Others are Gas cooled filled with helium or nitrogen potentially.
Just imagine, politicians around the world talking about nuclear energy and there aren't even 20k views or more than 25 comments on this video. If you do research into nuclear reactors, don't just repeat age old stories. Small reactors could be build much quicker than "conventional" water boilers, but the only reason we never focused on building them was our big dreams... of global catastrophe aka fossil fuels and warfare.
Useless video, but what did we expect from the DOE. Start thinking outside the box already. Make them even smaller to power a city home, or city block. It's not rocket science thinking.
@@ylexot007 the plutonium content in this nations used fuel makes it tough. But i am sure your aware of the details of what reactors and fuels and such are easier to manage. Just not in america it seems.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 84 วันนี้!! คู่เอก "ก้องศึก vs เมืองไทย"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3kuzsAIDf1c/mqdefault.jpg)
It will be a game-changer...❤
Love from India.
This would work wonders for the Antarctic base.
real shit
Now make one using Thorium
Would love to read more info about this
Alright, how much are we talking? $399? $3,999? $39,999? Give me some numbers.
$39,999,999 might buy a single unit, without installation.
Does it still use water like a normal reactor or does it use helium as a medium. I've seen a design that uses helium and it increases the velocity of the gas through a steam nozzle to cool it down so it can continue to extract heat from the reactor and turn a steam turbine for power. It would be a sealed self contained unit, I believe that's how the airborne reactor that was finished in 1961 worked before the project was cancelled by Kennedy.
Did you read the introduction? It says "Microreactors are not defined by their fuel form or coolant."
The airborne reactor of the _Aircraft Reactor Experiment_ did not use a steam turbine; water was used only in the test installation, and could not have been part of the nuclear-powered aircraft engine. Any nuclear-heated steam turbine system would be far too heavy to aircraft propulsion. For details, see the Wikipedia pages for "Aircraft Reactor Experiment" and "Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion", and sources referenced there.
It depends on the model.
Scaling down Pressurized water reactor doesn't make much sense.
So alternatives include salt coolant, solid fuel types in essence like past breeder reactors.
Others are Gas cooled filled with helium or nitrogen potentially.
🤔Our current fleet of reactors?
Maybe, it could power yachts.
well nuclear energy is already powering aircraft carriers & submarines
Just imagine, politicians around the world talking about nuclear energy and there aren't even 20k views or more than 25 comments on this video.
If you do research into nuclear reactors, don't just repeat age old stories.
Small reactors could be build much quicker than "conventional" water boilers, but the only reason we never focused on building them was our big dreams... of global catastrophe aka fossil fuels and warfare.
I am more interested in a single house power generator.
Could you imagine?
The guy that doesn't cut his grass has a nuclear reactor?
It exists ON PAPER
Micoreactor > Microreactor
"Micro"
Now it's easy to carry a nuclear bomb around City's like bane did in batman movie
you have NO idea of what you are talking about
Useless video, but what did we expect from the DOE. Start thinking outside the box already. Make them even smaller to power a city home, or city block. It's not rocket science thinking.
Watch the video again, the smallest size is 1 Megawatt and that is enough for 500 homes, so about 5 to 10 residential tower blocks?
These are not new and you ignore the waste.
You waited for a generation to die off before trying too sell these nasty things again.
WHY?
Recycle it. www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/10/01/why-doesnt-u-s-recycle-nuclear-fuel/?sh=1bde343c390f
@@ylexot007 that question is decades old now, the answer is it is too expensive. We should stop making the stuff. Now
@@qzh00k it was "decided" incorrectly. Many other countries do it.
@@ylexot007 the plutonium content in this nations used fuel makes it tough. But i am sure your aware of the details of what reactors and fuels and such are easier to manage. Just not in america it seems.
There is no waste, just inputs to larger fusor-fission hybrid reactors. Your knowledge is a generation out of date.