Wouldn’t it be cheaper and more feasible to build and try experimental reactors 10x smaller for research and development purposes and _then_ built the proper size when they are proven to be efficient?
In: 2
The problem is that the process doesn’t scale down easily. You need a sufficient amount of fuel and equipment that produces strong enough magnetic fields to get that fuel into the right place for fusion to happen. Basically… It’s easier to build big in this case than to build small.
The problem is that the process doesn’t scale down easily. You need a sufficient amount of fuel and equipment that produces strong enough magnetic fields to get that fuel into the right place for fusion to happen. Basically… It’s easier to build big in this case than to build small.
The physics they work with does not scale that way. The research reactors are already as small as we can make them to still create the conditions required for the physics to work. The matter undergoing fission in a normal research reactor is only a few kilograms. The rest of the structure is all the moderators, reflectors, cooling systems, radiation shielding, control systems, etc. For just such little fission material this still takes up a building. Even if you half the amount of fission material you still need the exact same structure around it, in fact you probably need more neutron reflectors to get enough neutron density to get fission. The same with fusion reactors, the amount of matter undergoing fusion is just a few grams. The rest of the reactor is just the support structure needed to get the reaction going and to make sure the reactor does not explode.
The research reactors are actually very tiny compared to the commercial reactors. Because they are so small they do not produce much energy and there is no need for huge power generation and cooling structures. Even the reactor vessel itself tends to be less then half the size of a typical commercial reactor. So a research reactor can be built in the basement of a wing of the university while a commercial reactor takes up the entire campus.
The physics they work with does not scale that way. The research reactors are already as small as we can make them to still create the conditions required for the physics to work. The matter undergoing fission in a normal research reactor is only a few kilograms. The rest of the structure is all the moderators, reflectors, cooling systems, radiation shielding, control systems, etc. For just such little fission material this still takes up a building. Even if you half the amount of fission material you still need the exact same structure around it, in fact you probably need more neutron reflectors to get enough neutron density to get fission. The same with fusion reactors, the amount of matter undergoing fusion is just a few grams. The rest of the reactor is just the support structure needed to get the reaction going and to make sure the reactor does not explode.
The research reactors are actually very tiny compared to the commercial reactors. Because they are so small they do not produce much energy and there is no need for huge power generation and cooling structures. Even the reactor vessel itself tends to be less then half the size of a typical commercial reactor. So a research reactor can be built in the basement of a wing of the university while a commercial reactor takes up the entire campus.
They do:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-350_reactor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-600_reactor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-1200_reactor
They do:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-350_reactor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-600_reactor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-1200_reactor
Fission and specially fusion become more efficient and more capable of maintaining a chain reaction when they are bigger. Both require to have at least a minimum size to maintain any sort of chain reaction. What you propose is exactly what scientists are doing, building smaller reactors first for research; but for fusion specifically we haven’t ever built a reactor big enough to keep a chain reaction going, due to mostly lack of funding.
Fission and specially fusion become more efficient and more capable of maintaining a chain reaction when they are bigger. Both require to have at least a minimum size to maintain any sort of chain reaction. What you propose is exactly what scientists are doing, building smaller reactors first for research; but for fusion specifically we haven’t ever built a reactor big enough to keep a chain reaction going, due to mostly lack of funding.
What is this? A reactor for ants??
What is this? A reactor for ants??
Latest Answers