Robin,
You and I shared similar hybrid design thoughts on a modular
mass-produced sub-critical reactor 15 years ago... but the basis of the
Apollo design goes back before "cold fusion" and is still not very smart
IMO -- since it depends on 3He and extremely expensive magnets. It is
DOA even after 28 years of planning since it retains most of the
disadvantages of fusion. Here is some history.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261511370_Apollo_-_An_advanced_fuel_fusion_power_reactor_for_the_21st_century
The main goal for lowest net cost nuclear power from U - and this has
been obvious for 40 years to almost everyone in the industry - is to to
avoid the huge problem where 30% and up of the net cost of new plant
goes to bankers. Instead of one-off, there needs to be a single modular
design, smaller in capacity for use as multiple units, built on a batch
flow (aircraft style) production line at a rate of many per month.
Financiers sometimes get more than half of the net cost in the USA,
since the reactor itself takes 10 years to complete and they want to
drag it out. A modular design can be rail mounted and actually removed
at the end of service.
The next obvious design goal is go subcritical - use natural U fuel with
no enrichment and use multiple small makeup sources of neutrons to avoid
the extreme cost of a reactor built to contain a meltdown. The "tabletop
accelerator" was never fully developed for mass production, but it would
work in multiples as neutron generators in a subcritcal design that
benefits from overlapping neutron multiplication ratios - and is
especially suitable as a thermionic topper.
[email protected] wrote:
In reply to Jack Cole's message:
Hi,
[snip]
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a25922/apollo-fusion-startup-googler-nuclear-power/
Not much on the company website. I wonder if they are going to implement the
model I suggested here on vortex a little while back? ;)
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
