

UPower (YC S14) Is Building Nuclear Batteries - sama
http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/18/yc-backed-upower-is-building-nuclear-batteries/

======
donttrustatoms
I am one of the UPower founders. The key takeaways here are that the main
hindrances to novel nuclear are (1) meeting regulatory and safety necessities
without huge testing costs, which also require a customer interested in
purchasing, and (2) competing with the grid, (3) huge scientific/technical
risks if not yet proven.

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.

~~~
donttrustatoms
A couple side notes on TC article specifically for those interested:

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.

~~~
anonymous999
Hi. First of all, best of luck with your startup. I'm all for better nuclear
technology.

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](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8195589)
(regulatory concerns)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8195642](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8195642)
and
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8196075(the](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8196075\(the)
tech being commonly known)

and, most important, the "dirty bomb" factor

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8195495](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8195495)

~~~
donttrustatoms
Thanks so much for the luck wishes! We will try to make the most of this luck.
;)

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](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.

~~~
anonymous999
Thank you :)

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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Convention_on_the_Safety_of_Spent_Fuel_Management_and_on_the_Safety_of_Radioactive_Waste_Management)

[http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/1997/inf...](http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/1997/infcirc546.pdf)

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.

~~~
donttrustatoms
Absolutely. We talked to German energy heads that said they would invest but
wouldn't tell anyone. :)

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. :)

------
dadiomov
I studied energy at Stanford and joined the team that spun TerraPower
(www.terrapower.com) out of Intellectual Ventures with Bill Gates' backing. I
spent a lot of time looking at these nuclear batteries and economically it's
very hard to see them working out as anything close to competitive to natural
gas, coal, or wind. The amount of security, containment, etc. that you need
for a large plant vs. a small plant doesn't vary much, so the costs per kWh
don't scale down as you move down in total plant size, they scale up - and the
idea as the techcrunch article suggests that you could sell just a "thermal"
battery and let the utility or whoever add the actual steam-to-electric
conversion on their own is laughable. Utilities don't do anything on their
own.

I do hope these guys figured out something novel about the economics -- and I
certainly applaud YC for going into energy.

~~~
pjscott
They're aiming at niches where they won't be competing directly with more
conventional power plants. Their web site claims [1] that it's intended "for
remote and distributed generation where energy costs can exceed 30 cents/kWh,
and power is needed 24/7".

[1]
[http://www.upowertech.com/p/technology.html](http://www.upowertech.com/p/technology.html)

~~~
jddw
Precisely right. Traditional utilities want something with a long operating
track record, something hard for new designs to do off the bat. But going
where the reactor is 5x cheaper than the next best option changes that. Plus
many of these places want combined heat and power, so the design needs to be
flexible on the thermal end.

~~~
dadiomov
there's definitely an opportunity in providing thermal at factories. lots of
remote sites in India and China have their own purpose-built coal plants that
could potentially use something like that...I have a harder time seeing the
financing line up for serving remote villages that can't afford any power
today. In those cases finance will always flow to smaller increment
technologies, even if they're higher $/kWh, like solar + battery or diesel

------
chrissnell
Are size and efficiency the most pressing issues to solve in nuclear power? I
don't know a thing about nuclear issues but from the layperson's perspective,
it seems like security is the biggest problem that keeps nuclear power from
being used everywhere. These containers are essentially dirty bombs without
detonators and must be protected as such. This might work for the military,
where you could secure one on a restricted section of a FOB, but how would
this work for a small town in Alaska, as the article suggests? Securing the
site is only half of the problem, too. You also have to secure the supply
chain for the nuclear material, as well as the disposal. The cost of disposal
is another challenge. Imagine the difficulties of transporting the spent fuel
from the Alaskan village.

These guys have a big challenge ahead of them but it would be quite awesome if
they can pull it off. Prime power generation and the supply chain issues that
its fuel entails is a huge and extremely expensive problem for the military.
If you could safely build this in a CONEX, that would be impressive.

~~~
ekianjo
> essentially dirty bombs without detonators and must be protected as such.

No, it's completely wrong. That's not how a nuclear plant works. And as you
can see, a nuclear plant does not "explode" when it goes amok. The chain
reaction is very tightly controlled and there are multiples redundancies in
case things don't work as expected.

~~~
damian2000
Except you just have to look at Fukushima to see that things can still go
badly wrong, resulting in a meltdown of 3 reactors. And this happened in
arguably one of the most tightly regulated and technologically advanced
countries in the world.

~~~
ekianjo
I live in Japan and I don't consider that the outcome was as catastrophic as
the media said it was (they are always ready to jump on the apocalyptic
trigger). Everything went wrong (even the backup generators as they were blown
away by the tsunami) and it was still reasonably contained and the levels of
ambient contamination are nowhere as high as they initially predicted.

EDIT: > most tightly regulated and technologically advanced countries in the
world.

Let's drop this kind of argument here, there are many things which are not
technologically advanced at all in Japan. Like the fact you can't even use a
credit card to pay in most places. This is really old.

~~~
XorNot
Also if there's any lesson here, it's that government intransigence is the
real threat here. They don't want to build new reactors, they don't want to
shut down old ones, but they still need electricity too.

And of course consider the scale - something like 8,000 people died from that
tsunami. Oil refineries burned for hours (how much heavy metal got dumped into
the ocean and soil?)...how many people did Fukushima actually kill?

~~~
ekianjo
> how many people did Fukushima actually kill?

Hey, we already know the answer. No-one. Not even the guys who went and
exposed themselves to high doses of radiation to keep the reactor under
control. And people who may have been contaminated are being strictly followed
for potential leukemia and other cancers. Following the events, I'd say the
risks regarding the nuclear power were relatively well managed.

------
TheHoffman
\- Nuclear-powered electricity source

\- Touted as a "battery"

\- Solid state

\- Can be cooled by heatpipes and ambient air

\- Can use multiple fuels

\- Cheap

\- Small

I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that they're commercializing a Radioisotope
Thermoelectric Generator (or multiple connected in a series), like the ones
sitting abandoned all over the former Soviet Union (and occasionally spewing
radiation when some fool disassembles them for scrap metal)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_gen...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator)

Note that it's also touted as "Always On", probably whether you like it or
not, because you can't switch radioactive decay on and off.

~~~
beefman
It's a reactor, not an RTG. One reason I don't like the term "nuclear
battery". The term is also annoying here because it's clearly an attempt at
spin. The cultural situation with nuclear is beyond spin, and requires direct
confrontation.

~~~
pjscott
The term "nuclear battery" here refers to the operational model: the modules
are shipped out from a factory, hooked up on-site, run with minimal
intervention, and then shipped back after several years for refurbishing and
refueling. This centralizes construction and maintenance, which is important
when the reactors themselves are so small.

~~~
beefman
I know. I'm arguing against this use of terminology. Nuclear batteries are
things, and nuclear reactors are things. Describing your (excellent)
operational model should be straightforward and should not require calling a
reactor a battery. What you are really doing is demurring from confronting
misunderstandings about nuclear energy.

------
chaostheory
I really think it's awesome that all the latest YC backed start ups seem like
they can make this world a better place, as opposed to being some electronic
variant of "Bread and Circus"
([http://jolieodell.wordpress.com/2010/10/07/bread-and-
circuse...](http://jolieodell.wordpress.com/2010/10/07/bread-and-circuses-the-
state-of-web-app-startups/))

------
jddw
Hey HN I'm Jake, one of the co-founders of UPower. Some good discussion here.
I've posted a few responses below, happy to answer some questions here.
Thanks!

~~~
clarkm
Hey Jake, congrats on S14!

I see it's described as a battery -- does this mean you're focusing on keeping
everything as small as possible? How small do you think the whole operation
can get? Could it fit in a semi truck and be driven around?

------
ihnorton
Details are scarce on the website and in the articles I've found, but this
seems similar to the 4S project Toshiba has been working on for over a decade
[1,2]. Between the full-size plants they've built in Japan, and their
acquisition of Westinghouse, Toshiba owns a respectable chunk of the nuclear
engineering talent and experience on the planet. It doesn't seem to have gone
much further [3] than the last time I read about it.

What is UPower going to do differently?

Nuclear engineering strikes me as one of those areas where exuberant
inexperience and simulation prowess are not selling points. Youngsters work ok
for software because (1) business inexperience can be offset by deep technical
experience, and then rapid product iterations - both made possible by low
entry barriers; and (2) screwing up (most) software has negligible negative
externalities. Neither of those apply to nuclear engineering.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S)
[2]
[http://www.toshiba.com/tane/products_4s.jsp](http://www.toshiba.com/tane/products_4s.jsp)
[3]
[http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/advanced/4s.html](http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/advanced/4s.html)

~~~
donttrustatoms
The 4S is an order of magnitude larger, uses complicated flow, and has
significant materials issues left to prove out.

You're absolutely right- this is completely different than high school
dropouts coding.

How can a startup disrupt a large, established, stodgy industry?

For example, I studied automotive engineering before MIT nuclear grad school
and worked in marketing for almost every auto manufacturer: how did Tesla do
what the Big guys didn't?

It always starts with a simple, proven product and a niche market in
need/willing to pay a premium.

That being said our team does have wide ranging experience. Our CEO worked at
GE on their revolutionary reactor they more or less shelved years ago and are
now restarting. He served on the board of directors of the American Nuclear
Society and has a PhD from MIT. He has seen and worked in the industry from
operations of a real reactor to fuel sales to weapons design at national labs
to naval reactor design to big industry since high school.

The other good news is that the old dudes approve. We will probably soon
publish our advisory board including retired regulatory high ups, industry
folk who have successfully licensed, and retired high ranking army energy
people. We are leveraging the decades of experience of fuel makers and
materials experts... It's fun to see the gleam in their eye when they get
excited to really build something.

Ultimately the question of why hasn't this been done before and wasnt possible
before has several clear answers, but no answers for those convinced only
large, established, old companies can be in these big spaces ripe for
disruption. Maybe they are right, maybe not us, maybe not now. It's not easy
but it seems inevitable at some point.

------
dredmorbius
First off: I'm very pleased to see that YC are backing startup concepts
_other_ than an endless stream of privacy-invading "social" surveilices,
games, and new forms of intrusive and annoying advertising. I'd posted
something of a rant on that subject about 7 months ago which didn't go over
hugely at the time:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7063690](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7063690)

Secondly: this is actually what I'd consider a "Big Problems" start-up, a
field which has been notoriously hard to crack. Kleiner Perkins' failure in
cleantech over the past 7 year or so has been humbling.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6906635](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6906635)

But that said: nuclear's got quite a few issues with it, most particularly the
abundance of fuel, and long-term safety.

Outside a 6-80 year window in which existing reserves would last (the low-end
estimate is "run everything on nuclear", the high is "continue with modest
growth at present levels of energy output"), where and/or whether there's
enough uranium, plutonium, or thorium to provide energy over the long term is
a very real concern.

Even beyond that is the safety profile in a world in which a large fraction of
human energy production is derived from nuclear power. If _present_ electrical
generation needs were to be met, the number of reactors required would grow
from the present TK to over 15,000. With a lifetime of 40 years, plus ten
years for construction, and 20 for decommissioning, you're looking at
_bringing a new reactor online, and an old reactor offline, every day._ At any
given time there would be 3,750 rectors under construction and another 7,500
being decommissioned. Given the US NRC's estimates of 125 paramilitary
security personnel per nuclear plant, you'd nave an army, literally, of
1,875,000 security personnel (all highly vetted) worldwide. Not to mention
your supply of nuclear engineers and other highly skilled staffing
requirements.

See Derek Abbott's "Is Nuclear Power Globally Scalable":
[http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?reload=true&arnum...](http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?reload=true&arnumber=06021978)

SG Collins, "Nuke Skeptic"
[http://fixyt.com/watch?v=IHYpYB2vUjM](http://fixyt.com/watch?v=IHYpYB2vUjM)

The video makes a few points, but the primary one is this: Nuclear proponents
are, in their beliefs, not essentially more scientific than nuke skeptics.
That they're also influenced by ideals and desires, and even persuasion.
Discussions of benefits and risks are usually scoped locally: here and now.
The civilization that we have right now. That's short-sighted.

I'm not fully opposed to nuclear power. But I'm _exceptionally_ skeptical that
it will serve us well in the long run.

[http://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2awjj2/thoughts...](http://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2awjj2/thoughts_on_nuclear_energy/)

~~~
donttrustatoms
I love that you bring up the global scale. It's in the global scale things
sound daunting. But it's in the global scale that what is really important
becomes clear.

Maybe the most important fact it all boils down to is energy density. Nuclear
is literally _millions of times more energy dense_ than any other energy
source. Practically, that means millions of times less waste. (See let's talk
about physics baby
[http://www.thingsworsethannuclearpower.com/2013/02/energyden...](http://www.thingsworsethannuclearpower.com/2013/02/energydensityphysicsbaby.html)
)

Envision a world powered entirely by coal. Not pretty. Entirely by solar?
Appealing PR, but besides being not at all possible it has it's own immense
ewaste issues and those _never_ decay away and that waste certainly cannot
produce energy. Entirely by hydro? That means destruction of perhaps the
largest swaths of ecosystems in the world. Etc. Take any qualms about a globe
powered by nuclear and then multiply it almost by millions of times for the
other sources.

Land use is another huge factor. See this graphic for comparison.
[http://newenergyandfuel.com/wp-
content/uploads/2010/06/LandU...](http://newenergyandfuel.com/wp-
content/uploads/2010/06/LandUseforEnergy-ClintonAndrews.jpg)

As far as security forces, etc, it wouldn't likely scale like that but let's
assume it does. Are numbers like a million well paying jobs spread worldwide
actually daunting? How many military folk end their service time in the US
alone each year? I was an intern in the Office of the Secretary of Defense for
Economics and Manpower so I should remember but I looked it up. There are
hundreds of thousands of former service members looking for jobs each year. (
[http://www.civilianjobs.com/careeradvice/related.aspx](http://www.civilianjobs.com/careeradvice/related.aspx))
Thats leaving out more than 6 billion in other people.

~~~
TheLoneWolfling
Something to take note of.

Different types of energy production are useful for different roles.

Nuclear tends to fall into the category of base load - it costs (close enough
to) just as much to run it at 5% capacity as at 100%.

Most traditional fossil-fuel steam turbines (coal, oil) have spin-up times on
the order of several hours to a day. As such, they tend to be used to
compensate for longer-timescale variations, but cannot really cope with very
short term spikes.

There are fossil-fuel power stations with shorter lag times, but they tend to
be relatively inefficient, and as such only get used for unexpected high
loads.

Hydro is really good in a lot of ways, at least where hydro power stations can
be built. The biggest reason is that it can be adjusted on really short
timescales. Read: minutes or less. Longer lag time for larger power stations -
the biggest limitation tends to be preventing cavitation and water hammer.

Solar and wind are both extremely variable, and unpredictably so (you can
predict, but there is enough inaccuracy in the predictions that you cannot
trust them). As such, they are practically useless without at least one of
power storage, fast-responding power generation, or fast-acting power usage
cuts when necessary. (Read: hydro or paying aluminum smelters to only run in
the back shifts. (First thing that came to mind))

As there is no efficient and decently long-lasting power storage at grid
scales (Vanadium-redox batteries are good, but have issues. Molten-salt
storage leaks heat quickly. Etc.), effectively: you can forget about solar and
wind for grid-scale power without hydro.

Nuclear power for everything is a waste unless society changes. And good luck
with that.

~~~
dredmorbius
Quite.

Hydro, hydro pumped storage, tidal impounds (essentially low-head but large-
area reservoirs), and geothermal (wet field) are all highly dispatchable.

Solar thermal is expensive but among its benefits it has is a built-in storage
capability. For most present plants that's only a few hours, but several days
worth of banked heat might be viable.

There are a number of storage options, of which the prospect of synfuels, in
particular seawater-based Fischer-Tropsch fuel synthesis, which as been
studied by Brookhaven National Labs, MIT, and the US Naval Research Lab for
over 50 years, looks fairly promising. It starts with hydrogen electrolysis,
to which CO2 is added, sourced from seawater. Outputs are analogs of present
day diesel, gasoline, natural gas, or other hydrocarbons. Most of the energy
cost is in the electrolysis. Net energy return in terms of fuel is about
50-60%, round-trip net of generation would be fairly low (~20%), but the
energy storage is _very_ long-term stable, and dense by weight or volume (for
liquids). We've got a lot of experience burning hydrocarbons, and these are
carbon-neutral (the source CO2 comes from the present biosphere).

[http://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/28nqoz/electric...](http://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/28nqoz/electrical_fuel_synthesis_from_seawater_older/)

[http://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/22k71x/us_navy_...](http://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/22k71x/us_navy_electricitytofuel_synthesis_papers_and/)

There's also work by some (including a recent video by Amory Lovins)
suggesting that there are relatively modest requirements for dispatchable
generation, though I suspect those are a tad optimistic.

[http://www.engineering.com/ElectronicsDesign/ElectronicsDesi...](http://www.engineering.com/ElectronicsDesign/ElectronicsDesignArticles/ArticleID/8272/Is-
Storage-Necessary-for-Renewable-Energy.aspx?ENGCOM=)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsgrahFln0s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsgrahFln0s)

~~~
TheLoneWolfling
Dispatchable. That's the term. Thanks.

The thing is, by the time you talk about the design lifetime power output of
wind in particular, and couple in the 20% figure you quote for the round trip,
one has to wonder if it is worth it.

It's a lot of metal (and in particular the "weirder" metals - rare-earths and
the like) to smelt and move around to get a relatively small amount of power.
And the increased power losses due to having to put them where the wind is.
And the power cost of building the storage capability.

Synfuels are indeed interesting, for bunches of reasons, chief among them that
they are the most power-dense storage solution we've got. Personally, it's
about the best option for personal vehicles. Yeah, electric vehicles are neat,
but they suffer from short ranges and long recharge times, as well as using
bunches of relatively rare elements (and elements that are mined using
techniques that are abysmal in environmental terms).

~~~
dredmorbius
There are a few people who've done calculations of the EROEI (energy returned
on energy input) of various renewable energy technologies, most notably the
guy who came up with the term, Charles A.S. Hall. I've had a few discussions
with him on this.

Wind power has a modestly high EROEI, around 18. For solar PV, his numbers are
_far_ lower -- around 2.6. The problem comes in when you account for whether
there's a minimum EROEI necessary to sustain an advanced civilization, and
just what that might be. Hall's view is that it's around 6-10, after which you
pretty much fall off a cliff -- you've got to get a sufficient return on your
energy investment to make _other_ economic activity possible.

For the synfuel path I discussed, the point is that there are a few things for
which having hydrocarbons (liquid or gas) is really, really useful, and as
I've noted elsewhere in this discussion, there's simply not enough net
biological productivity ("photosynthetic ceiling" to use Jared Diamond's term,
or HANNP, human appropriation of net primary productivity, another
formulation) to provide fuels in the quantities humans are presently
accustomed to -- some of the acreage requirement estimates get stunningly
large and rapidly:

[http://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2cvap7/the_intr...](http://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2cvap7/the_intractable_problem_of_biomass_for_fuels_is/)

In particular (the table on that page is a bit prettier than it will appear
here on HN):

    
    
        Crop        Yield (gal/acre-yr)     Acres required (millions)
        soybeans    50      5,670
        canola      100     2,835
        canola      300     945
        algae       1000    283
        algae (high est)    10,000  28
    

Note that total arable land in the US is about 410 million acres, and total
_land_ area of the US is 2.4 billion acres. You'd have to overplant the US
_twice_ to get enough fuel-from-crops via soybeans.

Note that "rare earths" aren't actually all that rare, though there are plenty
of minerals which are limited in abundance:

[http://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/267901/global_r...](http://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/267901/global_resources_stock_check_bbc_june_2012/)

As for synfuels: since you're converting _surplus_ generating capacity, your
marginal energy cost is nil. Even assuming you're building capacity specific
to the need, what you're trading is a non-storable, non-mobile, non-
dispatchable form of energy for one which has all of those properties. That
can be a good trade.

The fact that it's a drop-in replacement for the existing energy system is an
added bonus.

Will it work? I really don't know, though the answer to that question's been
occupying me for some time.

~~~
TheLoneWolfling
Thanks for the detailed response!

If you're talking about an EROEI on wind of 18, and a 20% storage efficiency,
that brings down the EROEI to 3.6. Probably more, as not all energy will pass
through the storage. Still well below replacement. Or is that already factored
into the EROEI? Does that include the unmetered power usage of windmills? If
so: how? Does that factor in increased power-line losses, and the cost of
building and maintaining those power lines? What are the details of the
windmills measured? Is that real-world data, or simulations? If real-world,
where?

I agree that current foodstuffs are _not_ suitable for biodiesel. And raises
food prices. But two things. One, I was talking about synthetic production.
And two, that's assuming current plants. Personally, we shouldn't be looking
at land-based solutions anyways. We already have space issues, at least at
that scale. Look at sea-based ideas instead. Algae farming on megascales, that
sort of thing. Much more efficient, much more land available, and can be
situated closer to the equator.

I knew I shouldn't have just said "rare-earths and the like". I am aware that
rare earths are a misnomer in general. Although... Neodymium isn't rare, but
the bulk of the world's production thereof is in China. Has that energy cost
been factored in? Much less the other costs? (Amount of radioactive release,
etc.)

> As for synfuels: since you're converting _surplus_ generating capacity, your
> marginal energy cost is nil.

Wrong. Your marginal energy cost is the cost of building and maintaining the
plant and supporting infrastructure. And even just that may be less than unity
overall. It may be useful, but I'd want to see the numbers.

As for the trade you mention ("Even assuming you're building capacity specific
to the need, what you're trading is a non-storable, non-mobile, non-
dispatchable form of energy for one which has all of those properties"), I
agree partly, but the question remains: what energy input should we use? Is it
worth it to build wind generators or solar power stations? Should we stick to
nuclear? Or what?

Fundamentally, we currently have a couple of different energy _sources_.
Geothermal, direct solar, indirect solar (wind, hydro), tidal, "biological
solar", nuclear energy, and potentially fusion. Everything else is just energy
storage. (Well, to be pedantic, so is fission and fusion, but by the time
we're worrying about those running out we'll have worse issues.)

Current biological solar solutions are not exactly efficient. Your figures
show direct solar isn't either. Wind is iffy for various reasons - maybe not
insurmountable, but still. Geothermal is great, but only in limited areas.
Same with hydro and tidal. Nuclear is great, but the political climate is
rather iffy to put it mildly.

~~~
dredmorbius
Taking a look at the full-cycle EROEI is something I'd like to do, but
haven't. It's _not_ necessary for any given element of a power cycle to be
EROEI-positive. In fact _any_ given energy transform will represent a net
energy _loss_. But _for the total effective cycle_ you've got to get more than
you give. Note that at present agriculture in the US represents a 10:1 energy
_cost_ \-- you get 1 unit of energy for every _ten_ units of fossil-fuel
energy you input. In Europe it's about a 1:5 ratio. Again, _negative_ EROEI.
The saving grace is that fossil fuel energy has such a high EROEI.

On marginal cost of energy: if the alternative is to discard the generating
potential entirely, then the marginal cost _is_ zero. If you're building
excess capacity specifically to provide fuel synthesis capabilities, you _do_
have real costs. The US Naval Research Lab's estimate is $3-6/gallon for
aviation fuel, though I'm not sure if they assume a gratis reactor. I've
specced out $9/gallon with solar input. Not cheap, but a long-term stable
price, vs. constantly rising fossil fuel costs.

As for input energy: my assumption is generally for solar + wind -- they're
simply the largest available long-term sustainable energy sources we've got
(I've got my doubts on how long nuclear fuel will last, and terrestrial
fusion's still unproven). The initial scheme for large-scale F-T synthesis was
based on a presumption of nuclear energy input. M. King Hubbert proposed this
in 1964, and the idea was picked up by Meyer Steinberg of BNL pretty much
immediately. The initial proposal was that CO2 come from, e.g., limestone, but
seawater was identified as a reservoir pretty early on. Steinberg's a nuclear
engineer, and most of his work assumes nuclear power supplying electricity.

Incidentally: in a nuclear economy, you'd _still_ need liquid fuels, though
most proposals focus on hydrogen alone. Given difficulties with its chemistry,
I doubt this will prove effective.

Compared with alternatives, I really see solar as the backbone of any future
energy system. The only questions are how large the supported population will
be, and how advanced its technology. Solar energy is what humans relied on
_before_ finding fossil fuels. And there's no assurance that we'll retain our
present tech levels.

Nuclear's problems are not merely political, though that's a significant
hurdle of its own.

------
Mvandenbergh
Three advantages of building very small reactors:

1) Because heat output scales with the cube of the size and passive thermal
dissipation scales with the square, small units can be more easily designed to
stay within thermal bounds when active cooling fails.

2) One of the biggest cost for nuclear construction is interest costs during
the construction process, reducing that time makes a big difference.

3) When you build 20 small units you get 20 chances to make small enhancements
and 20 chances to get better and faster at building them. When you build one
large unit (which is almost definitely more cost effective on paper) you get
one chance to do it and it takes so long that even if you build more than one
of the same design, you'll never have the same team building multiple units.

------
beefman
I almost pitched a similar reactor in the last YC round, since they asked for
energy. I assumed they'd never fund fission because of the crazy regulatory
risk, and anyway I wanted to wait until I got a simulation working.

I'm glad uPower pitched and succeeded. With the possible exception of
Radix/Dunedin, they're the only folks working on appropriate-size reactors
today.

However, I doubt they'll get 28% thermal efficiency with heat pipes, and I
doubt they'll get a 12-year core with pragmatic enrichments.

------
guiomie
It's really nice to see non web based startups.

~~~
dredmorbius
Agreed. I'd written something of a rant on that about seven months back which
wasn't particularly well-received at the time:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7063690](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7063690)

I do hope to see more Big Problem startups. Even if I'm not much of a fan of
nuclear.

------
rjdagost
There is a company called Gen4 Energy (formerly Hyperion Power Generation)
that has been pursuing the "nuclear battery" concept for 7 or so years:
[http://www.gen4energy.com](http://www.gen4energy.com) Regulatory approval has
been elusive, and that's for a team of 30+ year nuclear industry veterans. The
challenges in this industry are brutal, I hope UPower has deep enough pockets
and extreme patience to shake up the industry.

~~~
beefman
They started with a good-sized design, but have scaled it up a couple times
since then. They're no longer in mass-production territory.

~~~
rjdagost
So Gen4 Energy started with a similar sized "nuclear battery" concept. After
burning through many millions of dollars of investment and years of hard work
from a highly skilled team, they decide that prospects are better for larger
scale reactors. That ought to give these guys food for thought. I hope these
guys know something the Gen4 team doesn't, but the basic trajectory UPower on
has been followed before without paying dividends.

------
svasan
As soon as I saw "nuclear", I was put off. Not because I have anything against
nuclear power (in fact I am fully convinced of its potential), but because of
the way people perceive the word nuclear. Whenever "nuclear" is mentioned,
people get negatively predisposed.

Case in point - Magnetic Resonance Imaging was initially called Nuclear
Magnetic Resonance Imaging. The word nuclear was causing anxiety amongst the
patients. The healthcare practitioners dropped nuclear and patients did not
mind undergoing the MRI scan.

I think a massive rebranding exercise needs to be undertaken while pitching
nuclear technologies. It could be atomic technology, it could be some other
words that "click" with people as opposed to scaring them off. Unless the
psychological battle is won, I am of the opinion that no amount of tech
progress would convince people. Perception greatly matters with humans more
than the merits of the product/service/technology/initiative.

edit - Not sure why this was downvoted. I was against the use of word
"nuclear". Not anything else.

------
sargun
This is super exciting. Highly-reliable, off-grid power is amazing. Today,
datacenters have to buy massive diesel generators, and ensure they have diesel
supplies in case of grid power failure. This infrastructure is surprisingly
difficult to maintain.

It sounds like UPower's devices are always-on, and although they're not
directly competitive with grid power, it sounds significantly simpler to power
your datacenter off of N+1 of these devices, and then potentially pump power
back into the grid during high-demand, and use the grid during outages of the
UPower system, and to bridge periods of maintenance.

There are many datacenters that are in not very populated towns. These sound
like great places to put generators.

Datacenters are everywhere, even in countries with less regulation than the
US. I don't know what the export laws are around these "nuclear batteries"
(small scale reactors), but I for one am very excited!

------
the_solution
From the website: "waste products that have to be buried for hundreds of
years"

Wow, that is... inaccurate. Let's have a look.

(EDIT: to clarify, format is substance (% present in used fuel): half life

U238 (~94% of used nuclear fuel): ~4.5 billion years

Pu (~1% of used nuclear fuel): 24 000 years

Sources:

[http://www.techniklexikon.net/d/abgebrannte_brennelemente/ab...](http://www.techniklexikon.net/d/abgebrannte_brennelemente/abgebrannte_brennelemente.htm)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium)

[http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Isotope/7._Periode#92...](http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Isotope/7._Periode#92_Uran)

~~~
cjslep
Just because it is a long-lived radioactive isotope does not mean it is
dangerous. I'm referring to U238. It decays by alpha radiation, so unless you
are literally eating it or inhaling it, those alpha particles will not
penetrate your skin. Additionally, U238's long half life is why it remains as
the most plentiful naturally occurring (on Earth) radioactive isotope. I'm
tired of people trying to fear-monger radiation by throwing big numbers
around. It would be instead be helpful discussing how to get roughly 4 alpha
particles to decay per day inside them someone needs to eat roughly
1,000,000,000,000g of pure U238 that day.

~~~
the_solution
U238 decays to (among others) Polonium which will kill your very fast from
inside you body.

I think your estimate is off by a few orders of magnitude.

Edit: "pure U238" is another point where you go wrong. There is no such thing
in nuclear waste, nor will there ever be when it decays. So if i grant you
that pure U238 on it's own is not that dangerous, that does absolutely not
make nuclear waste less dangerous. The U238 decays to other radioactive
substances, then those decay and so on. The long half life of the U238
guarantees that you have a very toxic mix for tens of thousands of years.

~~~
cjslep
That's what I get trying to balance rough numbers in my head. I was using
roughly the number of atoms, not grams. Here's the math laid bare:

    
    
        Frac Remain In 1 Day = 0.5 ^ ((1/365)/4,500,000,000 years)
        Frac Remain In 1 Day = 0.999999999999578
        
        Frac Decay In 1 Day = 1 - Frac Remain In 1 Day
        Frac Decay In 1 Day = 4.22 * 10^-13
        
        Have 4 Decays In 1 Day = Total U238 * Frac Decay In 1 Day
        4 = Total U238 * 4.22 * 10^-13
        4 / (4.22 * 10^-13) = Total U238
        Total U238 = 9.48 * 10 ^ 12 atoms
    

I stand corrected, thanks for catching that.

------
LAMike
So in 5 years it will be possible to buy a nuclear box that can power 2,000
homes?

I bet there will be "startup cities" made from scratch using these containers
that will power a small community and help people live off the grid. Sounds
like something I'd be down to try out

~~~
mkempe
Think our next frontier -- Martian colonies.

------
the_solution
Quote from
[http://www.upowertech.com/p/technology.html](http://www.upowertech.com/p/technology.html):
"carbon-free and emission-free"

You're telling me that you get enriched fuel, plant production, transport and
waste management (plant and fuel) emission free?!? How do people fall for
things like this? "I doesn't produce emissions if you only count the parts
that don't produce emissions". Brilliant.

And don't even get me started about the super secret "nano-nuclear" tech they
claim to have or the cooling using "proprietary technology".

~~~
donttrustatoms
nuclear fuel is 2 million times more energy dense than any other fuel (even
more energy dense than that for solar or wind), and this reactor is 30 times
more efficient than conventional reactors.

that means roughly 2 million times less transportation, less land use and less
waste. (Land use comparisons: [http://newenergyandfuel.com/wp-
content/uploads/2010/06/LandU...](http://newenergyandfuel.com/wp-
content/uploads/2010/06/LandUseforEnergy-ClintonAndrews.jpg))

How can we factor in the amount of CO2 removal lost by removal of millions of
trees for wind farms?
([http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10546071/Millions-o...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10546071/Millions-
of-trees-chopped-down-to-make-way-for-Scottish-wind-farms.html)) Or millions
less train use in transport of coal?

It's a good point though. We should count not just that the reactor itself
saves 200,000 tons of CO2 during operation, but also the frequently 10x that
of fuel burnt to transport that diesel in conventional generators. So each
reactor deployment may save 2 million tons of CO2.

Nuclear facilities are also much longer lived than many. Eg solar panel life
degrades significantly after a decade. Wind turbines generally have a life of
15 years of so. So that's less concrete, construction, etc.

You're right it's tough or impossible to quanitfy. Intuitively, it all comes
back to the energy density number. 2 million times more energy dense, no
emissions or pollution in operation, and the "waste" is actually useful fuel
which produces energy.

~~~
the_solution
Chopping down trees to make room for wind farms is certainly dumb. If you take
a closer look that is yet another story about the dangers of subsidies.

"nuclear fuel is 2 million times more energy dense than any other fuel"

Citation needed. Also i don't think energy densitiy is what we are looking for
here. Remember the thorium car? A drop of water (in principle) also contains
all the energy needed to power a car for years. Now if you could just get the
H-atoms to fuse... The point is, it matters how much energy you can
(efficiently, at all, ...) get out of it.

"How can we factor in" \- Calculate it.

"We should count not just (...) CO2 during operation, but also (...)"

Yes, PLEASE make a complete calculation based on solid numbers taking every
aspect of the whole lifecycle of a power plant into account INCLUDING fuel
production, fuel transportation and waste management. The publish it please.

------
HarryHirsch
_Are size and efficiency the most pressing issues to solve in nuclear power?_

You'd think the greatest problem facing a potential buyer is getting planning
permission and insurance. Who wants a nuclear reactor down the road, even if
it's a scaled-up TRIGA design? From what thin details are there in the
Techcrunch writeup ("spent fuel from it can be reused in another reactor with
some processing") it could almost be a pulse reactor, the design is well-
understood.

Another worry is getting rid of the used fuel rods. With all the 70-odd TRIGAs
operating around the world, the United States will take them back, but who can
tell with a startup?

------
omegaworks
>with some processing

Weasel words. Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel introduces a MASSIVE regulatory
boondoggle.

~~~
donttrustatoms
Great, great call to point out.

The author very unfortunately did not understand that there is NO
"reprocessing" necessary for our reactors to _reuse_ fuel. Why, oh why, don't
we get to preview what they write. Wording is so important in such a massively
misunderstood space.

It is a proven process utilized previously in fuel manufacture, and simply
adds a little new fuel to existing used fuel. It does not involving isolating
any portions of the fuel as done in reprocessing (which is the main
"proliferation hazard" of reprocessing).

-COO UPower

~~~
beefman
Can you be a little more descriptive here? I suspect you really are
reprocessing, and shouldn't be afraid to say so.

~~~
donttrustatoms
In the fuel manufacture for redeployment, it's more or less as simple as
melting down and recasting. The distinction is reprocessing is generally way
more complicated, frequently involves chemicals, and could separate out
plutonium which gets people worried.

------
legulere
I wonder why nuclear radiation can only be harnessed indirectly through heat.
Couldn't things like the photoelectric effect be used for something similar to
photovoltaic cells?

------
dredmorbius
Is there more detail on just how the energy is being generated here? All I see
is "battery" and intimations that there are no working fluids.

------
tim333
Hmm. 2MW/reactor means you'd need 500 of the things knocking about the country
to equal one regular power station. Not that great for keeping things secure.

~~~
jddw
Right, the goal is to start very small, and off grid. Then we scale and grow
to grid size.

~~~
msandford
And there's nothing that would preclude you guys from simulating geothermal
with them.

1\. Dig down 50-100 feet

2\. Make a foundation and catch pan

3\. Put in an elevated platform to hold containers

4\. Lower 5-50 containers onto elevated platforms

5\. Install first order heat exchangers downstairs

6\. Put "roof" on

7\. Cover with 30 (or more) feet of dirt or whatever you prefer

Perhaps install a bridge crane and a shaft to the surface so that you can swap
power units out without digging down again. Just make incredibly massive
covers (like 10ft thick concrete) without cranes on-site at the surface so
that terrorists wouldn't be able to hijack stuff once they made it through the
front gate.

It might look something like this:
[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/10/google_data_center_v...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/10/google_data_center_video/)

The idea of simulating geothermal is that you'll have a bunch of power
generation equipment on the surface that runs on heat. It just happens that
it's not a "natural" geothermal well but a man-made one.

------
kelvin0
The idea of a start-up that does not try to re-invent Twitter/Facebook/Flappy
Bird is amazing ... I would love to be involved in such an endeavor.

