imagine mass producing 1MW test reactors at a price point that makes them attractive for use as heat generators, not just research. The demand would be so high that production could be scaled up to reduce unit costs even further. This would change the world. HUmanity would become wealthier by orders of magnitude while REDUCING environmental impact.
We will not mass manufacture 1 MW reactors. We will mass manufacture 100MW reactors from 2030. We plan to install one every day. It is not very difficult to make the production line. It is VERY difficult to get enough reactors installed and approve this fast. We must install many at the same sites and we MUST get a type approval and focus on a few countries only. Thus small countries are less interesting.
@@CopenhagenAtomics if you can get a working prototype and sell your RX for $100M or less, you will never be able to keep up with demand. Your customers themselves will move heaven and earth to get the get the site permits. $1/Watt will displace fossil fuels and change the world.
I like the emphasis on the iterative testing process on small scale, but scalable, systems, not because it's the tesla style marketing hype about the machine that builds the machine - that's gone too far, but because it helps people who would be very wary of nuclear (most people) to appreciate that this is safe enough to do so. There's a human and more manageable scale to it, and that makes the idea that it can be controlled easier to believe. I'm professionally interested in this sized system to provide a form of distributed thermal energy for long range more neutral temperature heat networks. The waste heat at 60-80 degrees produced after generating power from a Stirling engine gets thermodynamic efficiencies extremely high. If anyone knows whether this has been considered, I'd be interested in knowing.
Well, as far as Musk companies go I'd primarily compare it to SpaceX, where going hardware rich absolutely seems to have sped up their development progress compared to the traditional style in aerospace. The important bit in avoiding delays is to build institutional knowledge not just with simulators, but having a critical mass of people who can tell what is practical and what isn't because they've already tried something similar in person. The learning process for that is relatively incompressible and the best way to get progress is to start doing hands on work as soon as possible. If all you do is CAD modelling you're going to end up with a powerpoint rocket or reactor, and you don't actually build that much institutional knowledge relevant to the step where you actually have to build the thing, and you'll hit unpredictable delays one after the other.
The statistics are out there. Less than 1 our of 10 hardware startup companies survive 5 years and get cashflow positive. One would expect that with MSRs it is less than 1 our of 10. But we don't have enough data yet. It is more difficult to start a hardware tech start-up company, than a software start-up company. Thus many more software start-ups start. But also a large number of them fail before they are 5 year cashflow positive. Copenhagen Atomics have our 8 years birthday next month. We already have revenue, but still far away from 5 year cashflow positive. But I believe we understand the risk in this industry really well.
"When the going gets tough, the tough get going" in a world drowning in FUD when not burning out from untruth. Thanks for someone reasonable and rational still working on this.
In future, documentaries will be shown to millions of people about why this technology was put on the shelf for 50+ years. Also, why arent people like Elon Musk investing unlimited amount of money in you guys or Seaborg Technology?
Copenhagen Atomics technolgy is very different than Seaborg. Copenhagen Atomics is in a category of our own, with a thermal breeder reactor based on thorium and it can also burn nuclear waste. - And we build stuff unlike most of the other companies in this space and we can deliver stuff at very low cost when we start mass manufacturing. - And we are already leading globally in several technical fields: Pure salt production, pump manufacturing, test loop manufacturing, reactor testing, simulation software, electronics, sensors, etc.
Good luck with that. I'll be long gone by the time you actually have anything. If someone thought this was a viable solution, you'd have more money coming in than you know what to do with. The schedule would be cut by a factor.
The only thing "unviable" about it, is the profit streams that would be threatened, in using an energy source a million times more energy dense than hydrocarbons, at nearly 100% higher efficiency than the current 0.5% of embodied energy used before solid fuel requires shut down of the reactor and new or reprocessed fuel put in.
@@orcoastgreenman again... If it was so good, it would already be in place. The proof is in the pudding. I have made several investments over the years that sound just as promising as this one... That basically fizzle out upon impact when they implode! Just don't bet your bottom dollar on this.
@@delinquense - Oh I'm not advocating anyone invest in it, other than the government. And they will have to get out of their own way first, and defy the interests of all the existing nuclear and non nuclear, energy industry players, who want to make sure a safe and clean nuclear, that uses the fuel at 99%+ efficiency, and doesn't require solid uranium fuel, never sees the light of day, just like they did with the WASH report, that incorrectly stated it was unviable.
@@delinquense - China or some other country will benefit before the US, and no, I'm not giving investment advice, one way or the other. An MSR ran for about 6000 hours at Oak Ridge, in the decade before I was born. It generated heat that could boil water just as well as the giant pressure cooker designs, without the pressure, and with zero risk of meltdown, as melted down, is the safe operating state. It was killed by a political decision, and can and will be revived. Whether you or I choose to invest in this or any other manufacturer's version of it, has nothing to do with the "viability" of the proven working system from the early 1960's, or the ability of intelligent folks like these guys, to make it work as an even better system, with modern technological, process, materials and manufacturing abilities.
I'll pass on investing, thanks. I looked at it a couple years back when it first caught my attention.. A few years from now, you'll hear about government policies, project underfunding, technical issues, ESG. I'm not throwing my money in the ring to placate a bunch of PhDs.
Wonderful to see an update on MSR engineering!
Thanks.
love this company
Thanks!
I love you guys stay strong 💪
Connecting a loop-test device to the cloud one thing, but a nuclear reactor would make me nervous having it connected to the cloud, air-gap please🙏.
I have a dream. A dream of a Spacecraft built by Copenhagen (Sub)Orbitals, with a energy pack built by Copenhagen Atomics.
Great dream. Not impossible, but also not right around the corner.
God speed. This is the way to go!
Thanks.
imagine mass producing 1MW test reactors at a price point that makes them attractive for use as heat generators, not just research. The demand would be so high that production could be scaled up to reduce unit costs even further. This would change the world. HUmanity would become wealthier by orders of magnitude while REDUCING environmental impact.
We will not mass manufacture 1 MW reactors. We will mass manufacture 100MW reactors from 2030. We plan to install one every day. It is not very difficult to make the production line. It is VERY difficult to get enough reactors installed and approve this fast. We must install many at the same sites and we MUST get a type approval and focus on a few countries only. Thus small countries are less interesting.
@@CopenhagenAtomics if you can get a working prototype and sell your RX for $100M or less, you will never be able to keep up with demand. Your customers themselves will move heaven and earth to get the get the site permits. $1/Watt will displace fossil fuels and change the world.
This is seriously exciting stuff. Are you hiring software engineers for developing the loop unit monitoring application?
www.copenhagenatomics.com/jobs.php
Yes we are hiring many types of engineers: www.copenhagenatomics.com/careers/
Exciting!
I like the emphasis on the iterative testing process on small scale, but scalable, systems, not because it's the tesla style marketing hype about the machine that builds the machine - that's gone too far, but because it helps people who would be very wary of nuclear (most people) to appreciate that this is safe enough to do so. There's a human and more manageable scale to it, and that makes the idea that it can be controlled easier to believe.
I'm professionally interested in this sized system to provide a form of distributed thermal energy for long range more neutral temperature heat networks. The waste heat at 60-80 degrees produced after generating power from a Stirling engine gets thermodynamic efficiencies extremely high.
If anyone knows whether this has been considered, I'd be interested in knowing.
Well, as far as Musk companies go I'd primarily compare it to SpaceX, where going hardware rich absolutely seems to have sped up their development progress compared to the traditional style in aerospace.
The important bit in avoiding delays is to build institutional knowledge not just with simulators, but having a critical mass of people who can tell what is practical and what isn't because they've already tried something similar in person. The learning process for that is relatively incompressible and the best way to get progress is to start doing hands on work as soon as possible.
If all you do is CAD modelling you're going to end up with a powerpoint rocket or reactor, and you don't actually build that much institutional knowledge relevant to the step where you actually have to build the thing, and you'll hit unpredictable delays one after the other.
The statistics are out there. Less than 1 our of 10 hardware startup companies survive 5 years and get cashflow positive. One would expect that with MSRs it is less than 1 our of 10. But we don't have enough data yet. It is more difficult to start a hardware tech start-up company, than a software start-up company. Thus many more software start-ups start. But also a large number of them fail before they are 5 year cashflow positive. Copenhagen Atomics have our 8 years birthday next month. We already have revenue, but still far away from 5 year cashflow positive. But I believe we understand the risk in this industry really well.
Rock on!
"When the going gets tough, the tough get going" in a world drowning in FUD when not burning out from untruth.
Thanks for someone reasonable and rational still working on this.
In future, documentaries will be shown to millions of people about why this technology was put on the shelf for 50+ years.
Also, why arent people like Elon Musk investing unlimited amount of money in you guys or Seaborg Technology?
Copenhagen Atomics technolgy is very different than Seaborg. Copenhagen Atomics is in a category of our own, with a thermal breeder reactor based on thorium and it can also burn nuclear waste. - And we build stuff unlike most of the other companies in this space and we can deliver stuff at very low cost when we start mass manufacturing. - And we are already leading globally in several technical fields: Pure salt production, pump manufacturing, test loop manufacturing, reactor testing, simulation software, electronics, sensors, etc.
@@CopenhagenAtomics Why isnt people like Elon Musk supporting you?
Good luck with that. I'll be long gone by the time you actually have anything. If someone thought this was a viable solution, you'd have more money coming in than you know what to do with. The schedule would be cut by a factor.
The only thing "unviable" about it, is the profit streams that would be threatened, in using an energy source a million times more energy dense than hydrocarbons, at nearly 100% higher efficiency than the current 0.5% of embodied energy used before solid fuel requires shut down of the reactor and new or reprocessed fuel put in.
@@orcoastgreenman again... If it was so good, it would already be in place. The proof is in the pudding.
I have made several investments over the years that sound just as promising as this one... That basically fizzle out upon impact when they implode! Just don't bet your bottom dollar on this.
@@delinquense - Oh I'm not advocating anyone invest in it, other than the government. And they will have to get out of their own way first, and defy the interests of all the existing nuclear and non nuclear, energy industry players, who want to make sure a safe and clean nuclear, that uses the fuel at 99%+ efficiency, and doesn't require solid uranium fuel, never sees the light of day, just like they did with the WASH report, that incorrectly stated it was unviable.
@@orcoastgreenman then, if I understand you correctly.... You are saying that I shouldn't sell my oil stocks any time soon! 😊
@@delinquense - China or some other country will benefit before the US, and no, I'm not giving investment advice, one way or the other.
An MSR ran for about 6000 hours at Oak Ridge, in the decade before I was born. It generated heat that could boil water just as well as the giant pressure cooker designs, without the pressure, and with zero risk of meltdown, as melted down, is the safe operating state. It was killed by a political decision, and can and will be revived. Whether you or I choose to invest in this or any other manufacturer's version of it, has nothing to do with the "viability" of the proven working system from the early 1960's, or the ability of intelligent folks like these guys, to make it work as an even better system, with modern technological, process, materials and manufacturing abilities.
I'll pass on investing, thanks. I looked at it a couple years back when it first caught my attention.. A few years from now, you'll hear about government policies, project underfunding, technical issues, ESG. I'm not throwing my money in the ring to placate a bunch of PhDs.
Seems very through
thorough, too!