Russia plans to put a nuclear power plant on the moon in the next decade to supply its lunar space programme and a joint Russian-Chinese research station
Wouldn't it be cheaper to use solar panels?
What if a meltdown occured?
1
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ - 20hr
I imagine that SMR is much more compact than equivalent solar panels you'd need to ferry to the moon to get the same amount of energy. Meanwhile, there are designs like molten salt reactors which use liquid fuel and completely bypass the meltdown issue. Broadly for other Gen IV designs and newer LWR designs, passive safety systems and inherent reactivity feedbacks are the main drivers of making meltdowns basically impossible along with newer fuel types like TRISO being meltdown proof.
A metal fueled SFR for example has an extremely strong negative temperature coefficient for reactivity, essentially if the coolant temperature goes up, the nature of the fuel causes the reactor power to naturally drop without any operator intervention. This concept was proven by EBR-II back in the day.
Designs like that also have passive air cooling systems that rely only on natural circulation. No fans/blowers, valves, or other active components are needed to drive airflow. The temperature difference between the air inlet and outlet will naturally drive air through the system, again without any input from operators.
2
Banzai51 @midwest.social - 9hr
The problem with molten salt designs is they eat the pipes transporting the molten salt. They require lots of maintenance to replace those pipes. That's why no one has made an economicly viable molten salt reactor yet.
1
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ - 8hr
China's been operating a reactor for a while now, and making it economically viable is only a matter of time. At the end of the day it's a materials problem.
yogthos in space @lemmy.ml
Russia plans to put a nuclear power plant on the moon in the next decade to supply its lunar space programme and a joint Russian-Chinese research station
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/russia-plans-nuclear-power-plant-moon-within-decade-2025-12-24/Wouldn't it be cheaper to use solar panels?
What if a meltdown occured?
I imagine that SMR is much more compact than equivalent solar panels you'd need to ferry to the moon to get the same amount of energy. Meanwhile, there are designs like molten salt reactors which use liquid fuel and completely bypass the meltdown issue. Broadly for other Gen IV designs and newer LWR designs, passive safety systems and inherent reactivity feedbacks are the main drivers of making meltdowns basically impossible along with newer fuel types like TRISO being meltdown proof.
A metal fueled SFR for example has an extremely strong negative temperature coefficient for reactivity, essentially if the coolant temperature goes up, the nature of the fuel causes the reactor power to naturally drop without any operator intervention. This concept was proven by EBR-II back in the day.
Designs like that also have passive air cooling systems that rely only on natural circulation. No fans/blowers, valves, or other active components are needed to drive airflow. The temperature difference between the air inlet and outlet will naturally drive air through the system, again without any input from operators.
The problem with molten salt designs is they eat the pipes transporting the molten salt. They require lots of maintenance to replace those pipes. That's why no one has made an economicly viable molten salt reactor yet.
China's been operating a reactor for a while now, and making it economically viable is only a matter of time. At the end of the day it's a materials problem.
https://www.powermag.com/chinas-molten-salt-reactor-reaches-thorium-uranium-conversion-milestone/