This is pretty cool and seems much more practical than the fusion confusion.
A truck with a reactor on it's back moves into a city and starts powering it up.
One of the safety parts seems to be a non-water cooled system so that there's no meltdown.
Lots more to it though here's the article:

eVinci: US firm’s milestone 5MW nuclear microreactor ready for 2026 testing (msn.com)

 

Hello again,

I am surprised nobody had anything to say about this. This may be one of the most important developments in energy production that actually stands a chance of actually happening.

 

I'll believe it when they actually produce it. Until then, they might as well tell us about how it can be used to power the flying cars that everyone will be using in another ten years. They've been telling us that microreactors will be everyone in the next few years -- and have been telling us that for several decades.

While I believe Westinghouse is legit on this, that doesn't mean that it will actually come to pass, or at least not on the time scale they predict. Those predictions tend to be incredibly rosy in the vast majority of cases for new technologies -- and the news media and the public continue to fall for it hook, line, and sinker.

 

There are close to ~700 Patents that are due to be released,
having to do with Free, locally-generated-Energy,
and there's more ..........

No more pharmaceuticals,
they will all be replaced with natural-remedies and "Med-Beds" that work with Frequencies and Light.

Replicators that can duplicate anything.

Anti-Gravity machines and Anti-Gravity vehicles that fly.

But it's all just speculation and click-bait at this time,
but they are all definitely coming, plus more, its just that nobody knows when.

My best guess, from the most reliable sources I can find, is that it will be
~1 to ~2 years from now for most of these technologies to be fully announced.

Some of these things are already here, but not announced by the Military just yet.

The new Monetary-System will be announced before anything else.

There will be no "Bullets and Bombs" Wars, only distractions and made-up FEAR-PORN.

You are watching a carefully-orchestrated-Movie, literally, it's all fake BS.

Stop watching the TV, and start studying.

Everything that You think that You "know", is either, only partially true, or an outright Lie.
And No, the Earth is not Flat,
but the Moon isn't what You think it is, ( notice it's completely wacky "orbit" lately ),
and, You and everyone You know is actually an Alien,
( zero pun intended, I'm dead serious, most Aliens look just like You and Me ).

Start getting used to these ideas now so that it will be less shocking later.

There is absolutely no need for fear of any kind.

We are receiving "Outside-Friendly-Help".

The only way any or all of this could be successfully pulled-off is by using the Military.
We have been under "partial" Martial-Law since before ~2012.

The fake "U.S." Corporation, ( not the USA ), was dissolved and declared bankrupt before ~2016.

Guantanamo-Bay-Cuba is way over-capacity, even with it's new multi-million-Dollar-expansion.

I'm purposefully leaving-out the truly shocking stuff, and bad-stuff ........ You can find out for yourself.
.
.
.

 

It’s existing technology. Rolls-Royce’s version is developed from the ones they use in nuclear submarines.

 

It’s existing technology. Rolls-Royce’s version is developed from the ones they use in nuclear submarines.

Which are a little better protected against terrorism than one you drive around on a flatbed.

 

Which are a little better protected against terrorism than one you drive around on a flatbed.

But a bit of an obvious target if it comes to real warfare.

 

Which are a little better protected against terrorism than one you drive around on a flatbed.

Hi,

So what is the difference between the small ones and the really big ones? Here's what I think.

If you can hit a small one, you can hit a big one. If you hit a big one, it's a big problem, if you hit a small one it's a smaller problem. You'd have to hit a lot of smaller ones to equal hitting one big target. That's one reason I am all for it.

Besides that, we need a more local source of energy now with the demand ever increasing. That could be enough reason in itself. It's starting to look very problematic to 'transport' energy from one place to another over fairly long distances over heavy conductors that are always wasting precious energy. Not even counting the wasted energy, the installation or rather the upgrading process is time consuming and very expensive. I've seen this over the past few years in my area where a lot of new wire was being run into town. It takes a lot of time and it's expensive, and it's only going to work for so long with the increase in new multiple residences going up all the time. One building alone may house 50 or more independent dwelling units, and they put up a lot of them over the past 5 years or so. They all need air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter. That makes me wonder how ONE set of new power lines can cope with this much 'progress'.

It would be very nice if a new source of energy could just roll right up and start delivering more power in a short time. This is not just my idea though it shows up in the reduced government regulations now. The timelier licensing procedure is aimed at getting more energy in a shorter time. Hopefully everything works out.

 

The big ones on land can take a jet crash on the pressure dome on a typical commercial nuclear reactor The big ones on and under the sea are very well protected.

https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/crashed-jet-nuclear-reactor-test
Crashing a jet into a nuclear reactor helped officials prepare for the worst

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0029549313001519
Nuclear containment structure subjected to commercial and fighter aircraft crash

Conclusions
The response of the outer containment of BWR Mark-III type nuclear power plant has been studied against commercial and fighter aircraft crash. The location of impact was considered at the mid height of the containment and the angle of incidence normal to the surface.

The maximum local deformation in the containment wall was found to be 998 mm, 99 mm, 92 mm, 89 mm and 74 mm against Boeing 747-400, Phantom F4, Boeing 767, Boeing 707-320 and Airbus A-320 aircrafts respectively.

 

The big ones on land can take a jet crash on the pressure dome on a typical commercial nuclear reactor The big ones on and under the sea are very well protected.

https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/crashed-jet-nuclear-reactor-test
Crashing a jet into a nuclear reactor helped officials prepare for the worst

Checking whether a plane would survive crashing into the sides could help protect against a nuclear meltdown...

Hard to understand why the question of whether the plane would survive has any relevance to protecting against a nuclear meltdown.

The jet was traveling so fast upon impact; it shatterd (sic) into millions of tiny pieces.

Guess that answers that question.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0029549313001519
Nuclear containment structure subjected to commercial and fighter aircraft crash

Conclusions
The response of the outer containment of BWR Mark-III type nuclear power plant has been studied against commercial and fighter aircraft crash. The location of impact was considered at the mid height of the containment and the angle of incidence normal to the surface.

The maximum local deformation in the containment wall was found to be 998 mm, 99 mm, 92 mm, 89 mm and 74 mm against Boeing 747-400, Phantom F4, Boeing 767, Boeing 707-320 and Airbus A-320 aircrafts respectively.

Uh... let's not leave out the rather important line immediately before this:

The containment could not sustain the impact of Boeing 747-400 and Boeing 767-400 aircrafts and suffered rupture of concrete around the impact region leading to global failure.

Also, while the first was an actual test with an actual F-4 Phantom II aircraft, the second report was a computer simulation.

 

Hard to understand why the question of whether the plane would survive has any relevance to protecting against a nuclear meltdown.



Guess that answers that question.



Uh... let's not leave out the rather important line immediately before this:



Also, while the first was an actual test with an actual F-4 Phantom II aircraft, the second report was a computer simulation.

Didn't get left it out, as it's right there is the report and the F-4 actual results are a bit of a sanity check for the computer simulation. IMO don't think you will need a Boeing 747-400 and Boeing 767-400 aircraft to breach the defenses of a Micro Nuclear Reactor on flatbed or typical industrial site

 

But your intro remarks and the conclusions as you quoted them leave the strong impression the containment on a commercial reactor can withstand a jet crash on the pressure dome, when the report clearly indicates that this is not the case with a large airliner.

The report had nothing to do with a micro nuclear reactors, so nothing can be said one way or the other about it (well, if the containment on the tested reactor would have been breached, it's reasonable to surmise that the containment on the micro one would have, too). I do wonder what testing (either real or simulated) was/will be done on any micro nuclear reactor design to evaluate its ability to maintain containment under worst-case plausible situations, ranging from accidents (a train hitting a truck transporting one of them), to natural disasters (tornado, earthquake, wildfire, building collapse), to intentional acts, either on site or what can be done if one is purchased or stolen and the bad guys have lots of time to make something bad happen.

 

But your intro remarks and the conclusions as you quoted them leave the strong impression the containment on a commercial reactor can withstand a jet crash on the pressure dome, when the report clearly indicates that this is not the case with a large airliner.

The report had nothing to do with a micro nuclear reactors, so nothing can be said one way or the other about it (well, if the containment on the tested reactor would have been breached, it's reasonable to surmise that the containment on the micro one would have, too). I do wonder what testing (either real or simulated) was/will be done on any micro nuclear reactor design to evaluate its ability to maintain containment under worst-case plausible situations, ranging from accidents (a train hitting a truck transporting one of them), to natural disasters (tornado, earthquake, wildfire, building collapse), to intentional acts, either on site or what can be done if one is purchased or stolen and the bad guys have lots of time to make something bad happen.

That's entirely your impression, not my intention (are you insinuating anything other) as the data was right there in black and white as you easily saw by actually reading the paper as I did.

 

That's entirely your impression, not my intention (are you insinuating anything other) as the data was right there in black and white as you easily saw by actually reading the paper as I did.

No, I don't think it was intentional. My impression was that you probably missed that point (it wouldn't be hard to skim over it) and didn't realize that your summary was at odds with what the paper actually said. Since most people are not going to go read the report, it's always nice with the provided summary reflects it accurately. Otherwise, why provide any summary at all? Just provide a bare link and force readers to actually go an read it if they are to take anything from it.

 

No, I don't think it was intentional. My impression was that you probably missed that point (it wouldn't be hard to skim over it) and didn't realize that your summary was at odds with what the paper actually said. Since most people are not going to go read the report, it's always nice with the provided summary reflects it accurately. Otherwise, why provide any summary at all? Just provide a bare link and force readers to actually go an read it if they are to take anything from it.

Wise words but just providing a bare link is not a way to get people to read something these days. My post text summery didn't have any conclusions on what size jet can penetrate the protection containment, only this:
The maximum local deformation in the containment wall was found to be 998 mm, 99 mm, 92 mm, 89 mm and 74 mm against Boeing 747-400, Phantom F4, Boeing 767, Boeing 707-320 and Airbus A-320 aircrafts respectively.

 

This is pretty cool and seems much more practical than the fusion confusion.
A truck with a reactor on it's back moves into a city and starts powering it up.
One of the safety parts seems to be a non-water cooled system so that there's no meltdown.
Lots more to it though here's the article:

eVinci: US firm’s milestone 5MW nuclear microreactor ready for 2026 testing (msn.com)

They should add a couple of hundred pounds of lithium ion batteries just in case.

 

Wise words but just providing a bare link is not a way to get people to read something these days. My post text summery didn't have any conclusions on what size jet can penetrate the protection containment, only this:
The maximum local deformation in the containment wall was found to be 998 mm, 99 mm, 92 mm, 89 mm and 74 mm against Boeing 747-400, Phantom F4, Boeing 767, Boeing 707-320 and Airbus A-320 aircrafts respectively.

Prefaced by, " The big ones on land can take a jet crash on the pressure dome on a typical commercial nuclear reactor The big ones on and under the sea are very well protected. "

How many people are NOT going to reasonably conclude that the claim being made is that a typical commercial nuclear reactor can take a crash from a Boeing 747-400 with only a maximum local deformation in the containment wall of just 998 mm?

 

Prefaced by, " The big ones on land can take a jet crash on the pressure dome on a typical commercial nuclear reactor The big ones on and under the sea are very well protected. "

How many people are NOT going to reasonably conclude that the claim being made is that a typical commercial nuclear reactor can take a crash from a Boeing 747-400 with only a maximum local deformation in the containment wall of just 998 mm?

I would say that's on them for making that unfounded from facts conclusion and they should read the paper like we both did before making a conclusion on what types of jets.

It is curious that the 'flying brick' F-4 lives up to the namesake in the simulation.

 

I would say that's on them for making that unfounded from facts conclusion and they should read the paper like we both did before making a conclusion on what types of jets.

So, in other words, it's okay to make misleading claims about something as long you provide a link to it so that people can go find out that the claim is misleading for themselves.

I'll try to keep that always in mind when looking at your posts in the future.

 

So, in other words, it's okay to make misleading claims about something as long you provide a link to it so that people can go find out that the claim is misleading for themselves.

I'll try to keep that always in mind when looking at your posts in the future.

Now you're being IMO unfair. What was misleading? I made a quick and dirty response to a previous question talking about a jet, not all jets and provided a demo of a jet being tested. The jet was one of may fav's the F-4 so that's what I looked for in the paper. You're right I didn't try to make the point about any jet, it was only about my F-4 fixation because I'd seen the power-sled video before.

By your standard all post are misleading unless they cover all possible test cases with exceptions noted. That's a impossible requirement IMO.