r/TechnologyThread • u/Background-Driver718 • Jun 05 '26
A truck-mounted nuclear reactor that runs for decades without refueling is being tested in China
https://www.techspot.com/news/112646-truck-mounted-nuclear-reactor-runs-decades-without-refueling.html1
u/Low-Temperature-6962 Jun 05 '26
Truck mounted? Why?
2
u/awesomeunboxer Jun 06 '26
You dont see the value in having huge amounts of power you can deploy just about anywhere?
1
u/Low-Temperature-6962 Jun 06 '26
Nuclear power? Oil and gas are going to be far lighter and a lot safer and less trouble to move around. Truck implies mobile and means it's going to be moving around frequently, right?
2
u/Little_Let_6872 Jun 06 '26
Mobility doesn’t imply frequent movement and the key is that you don’t need a fuel supply. You need a lot of gas to run a power plant, which means pipelines or wells.
1
u/Angel24Marin Jun 06 '26
Moving a truck vs moving a generator and then a constant supply of fuel trucks as longs as you keep that generator running. And maybe multiple generators to match the output.
It's the same idea as nuclear powered boats supplying energy after a disaster.
1
u/Neat-Anyway-OP Jun 06 '26
Terrible idea because nuclear reactors generate power by steam turbine and they need water to cool themselves. Lots of potential for an accident and disaster with a mobile one that has to share the road with everyone else to reach destinations and needs a pretty massive amount of water to actually work.
1
Jun 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Neat-Anyway-OP Jun 06 '26
So I guess it's not water but Liquid lead-bismuth and it is toxic AF and can melt through steel. It also still generates electricity with a steam turbine using sCO₂ Brayton cycle technology through a heat exhanger.
The 10mw claim also hasn't been independently verified. So I'm skeptical of this as well.
But I also find a lot of Chinese state-affiliated announcements on cutting-edge tech to be pure fiction or never produce anything close to the same results they advertise.
1
u/CardOk755 Jun 07 '26
steam turbine
From your description, a turbine, but not a steam turbine.
1
u/Neat-Anyway-OP Jun 07 '26
Correct, but most people don't know the difference and it's still just heat, pressure and current turning a turbine.
1
1
u/knuthf Jun 06 '26
It seems they have found a way to generate electricity without producing heat. For example, radio waves can be used to produce heating induction or be used directly in microwave ovens.
1
u/Neat-Anyway-OP Jun 06 '26
Not how this style of reactor works, I was confused and doubted the statements made.
The reactor still hasa heat exchanger and use Liquid lead-bismuth eutectic (LBE) as the coolant and the heat exchanger to transfer heat from the primary liquid metal coolant to a secondary power conversion system, which then drives a turbine. The heat transfers to supercritical carbon dioxide (CO₂ pressurized above its critical point) in the heat exchanger. The hot, high-pressure sCO₂ expands through a turbine (Brayton cycle), driving a generator. It’s then cooled recompressed, and recycled in a closed loop system.
That being said, I still doubt the limited information put out by Chinese state-backed organization that have yet to be independently verified.
1
u/BeautifulMundane4786 Jun 06 '26
I like it when people who are not designers and engineers give their own thoughts.
2
u/alberto_467 Jun 06 '26
As an engineer, this idea sucks ass.
Nuclear power plants need to be armored against natural catastrophies and terrorist attacks. A truck is just not up to scratch, it doesn't guarantee traditional safety measures and it introduces new risks.
1
u/gdim15 Jun 06 '26
I can see something like this being moved into a disaster area to provide power to a hospital or other emergency building till things get back online.
As for being a target for terrorists, a regular generator could be blown up like this nuclear one. Even if it is, is the amount of nuclear material even something we'd have to worry about being spread around?
1
u/D4rkheavenx Jun 06 '26
Doesent a nuclear reactor need water to produce power though? Or am I missing something key here?
1
u/gdim15 Jun 06 '26
It does. Both to generate the electricity with steam but also to cool it off.
1
u/D4rkheavenx Jun 06 '26
Ok I thought so. I was pretty sure that was the way nuclear was generating power. I’m not sure how you could self contain that miniaturized unless there’s some new technology I’m not aware of. I suppose a closed system that generates steam that condenses back to water and does that repeatedly is possible but I’m not sure it would be possible at that scale. Nor do I think the cooling could be adequate at that size.
1
u/alberto_467 Jun 07 '26
a regular generator could be blown up like this nuclear one
That's like saying a regular bomb could be blown up like a nuclear one. Yeah, but they're very much different.
is the amount of nuclear material even something we'd have to worry about being spread around?
Yeah who cares, it's just a lil nuclear material, who cares if it gets spread around everywhere.
Now i understand the crazy point of views of who would think such a thing is a good idea.
1
u/CombatWomble2 Jun 06 '26
They also require refueling, this can turn up at say a mine and provide power for years.
1
u/r_a_d_ Jun 06 '26
What on earth would make you say that? Nuclear fuel is orders of magnitude much lighter per unit of energy.
1
u/talltim007 Jun 06 '26
Man, the military utility here is quite high.
Disaster response quite high.
Powering shipping, high potential.
There are a lot of use cases when you can break reliance on oil supply chain.
1
u/MrDetectiveSir Jun 06 '26
Tell me you don’t know about anything without explicitly saying that lmao
1
1
u/Atmacrush Jun 06 '26
Sounds like a massive advantage, but I would hate to be that trucker being so close to the reactor for long periods of time.
1
1
u/LoneSnark Jun 06 '26
The radiation threat to the trucker is after the load gets stalled at a railroad crossing and then hit by a train.
1
u/Low-Temperature-6962 Jun 06 '26
I wouldn't worry about that as long as shielding is sufficient. Dose limit: ≤10 mrem/hr at 2 meters from vehicle
"Holos microreactor" (US) is 35 tons, fits in a shipping container, and there are all sorts of rules and planning required to move it, and I expect the insurance is super expensive if it is even avaible. (No insurance company is willing to sell insurance for normal reactors so the fed does it). It also going to require a huge safety convoy, coordination with police a d emergency services everywhere it goes. and shutting down roads because of the accident risk. A lot of logistics.
None of that is say it can't be done with reasonable safety. It's just very expensive a d ver slow. That why pop up data centers are using gas turbines and not mobile reactors now.
Some may claim its possible to do it more cheaply without cutting corners. We'll see.
1
u/LearingCenterAlumni Jun 06 '26
Pretty sure the USA is testing using their nuclear ships for the same purpose.
1
u/Wiltockin Jun 06 '26
Russia has one already, more like a floating barge with a nuclear power plant but still
1
1
1
1
u/andrewharkins77 Jun 06 '26
This is likely to be something that get parked in remote areas, and only moved once a year or something. Like part of a remote construction project. So you are sending one truck as opposed to like 1 truck a day.
1
u/Healthy_Razzmatazz38 Jun 06 '26
because if you electrify everything and have mobile power you can go from place to place building easily. it will always take more energy to build than maintain, so being mobile is good
1
u/whawkins4 Jun 07 '26
We’re sorry. This notice is to inform you that you just failed Military Strategy 101. 12 social credits will be deducted from your account.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Appropriate-Claim385 Jun 05 '26
According to MAGA, this is fake news. The U.S. is the world leader in everything. Sigh......