UK Backs Rolls-Royce Project To Build a Nuclear Reactor On the Moon (cnbc.com) 72
The UK Space Agency said Friday it would back research by Rolls-Royce looking at the use of nuclear power on the moon. CNBC reports: In a statement, the government agency said researchers from Rolls-Royce had been working on a Micro-Reactor program "to develop technology that will provide power needed for humans to live and work on the Moon." The UKSA will now provide [around $3.52 million] of funding for the project, which it said would "deliver an initial demonstration of a UK lunar modular nuclear reactor."
Rolls-Royce is set to work with a range of organizations on the project, including the University of Sheffield's Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre and Nuclear AMRC, and the University of Oxford. "Developing space nuclear power offers a unique chance to support innovative technologies and grow our nuclear, science and space engineering skills base," Paul Bate, chief executive of the UK Space Agency, said. Bate added that Rolls-Royce's research "could lay the groundwork for powering continuous human presence on the Moon, while enhancing the wider UK space sector, creating jobs and generating further investment." According to the UKSA, Rolls-Royce [...] is aiming "to have a reactor ready to send to the Moon by 2029."
Rolls-Royce is set to work with a range of organizations on the project, including the University of Sheffield's Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre and Nuclear AMRC, and the University of Oxford. "Developing space nuclear power offers a unique chance to support innovative technologies and grow our nuclear, science and space engineering skills base," Paul Bate, chief executive of the UK Space Agency, said. Bate added that Rolls-Royce's research "could lay the groundwork for powering continuous human presence on the Moon, while enhancing the wider UK space sector, creating jobs and generating further investment." According to the UKSA, Rolls-Royce [...] is aiming "to have a reactor ready to send to the Moon by 2029."
Hmmm (Score:5, Funny)
Do you want Space: 1999? Because that's how you get Space: 1999.
Going too far (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Going too far (Score:3)
And scaled back to be a rector on top of mount Snowdon.
Re: Going too far (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think that would be taking Brexit a bit too far. leaving the EU was one thing, leaving the solar system is just too much.
As a European, I think this wouldn't be far enough, if anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Nah, you get Space 1999 by cancelling UFO: "How the Cancelled UFO Series 2 Became Space:1999" https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
The most amazing thing about all of this is Gillian Anderson playing in X-Files, which was all about UFOs, is not related to Gerry and Sylvia Andersons producers of original UFO (and Space:1999).
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
My mum keeps getting her confused with Pamela Anderson. It's kinda embarrassing.
Re: (Score:2)
September 13th, 1999... a day that will live in infamy.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you want Space: 1999? Because that's how you get Space: 1999.
And about time too.
F*ck the moon (Score:3, Insightful)
How about building some nuclear plant back down here where we need it?
Re: (Score:1)
These people are definitely gonna.
Re:F*ck the moon (Score:5, Insightful)
We still have plenty for you to play with at Chernbyl, Fukishima etc. Do not worry though, this is why we are getting so much stupid propaganda
Speaking of stupid propaganda... Chernobyl type plants have never been build and have always been wildly illegal in every western country. Whether or not the UK chooses to build nuclear plants has literally zero bearing on whether some idiot in a different country decides to do something astoundingly stupid with a power plant. Bringing up Chernobyl on a thread about UK nuclear power is stupid propaganda.
And... when do you think the last tsunami in the UK was?
stupid propaganda about how wonderful EVs are
Not dumping pollution right where people live is generally considered a "good idea". You have to be be some sort of far out wingnut to be an air pollution science denialist.
with them the ability to make loads of lovely bombs.
And speaking again of stupid propaganda. This is fractally not-even-wrong.
1. The UK and US developed nuclear bombs before they developed nuclear power. Also, Israel has no nuclear power yet almost certainly nuclear weapons
2. Good nuclear power plants make poor plutonium producers because they fission as much as they can to maximise energy yields.
3. Far more countries have nuclear power than nuclear weapons (even excluding Japan...)
4. Some states have nuclear power, but have nuclear weapons produced by a different state entirely
5. The UK already has nuclear weapons and as you now know, has done since before it had nuclear power plants. Not building more nuclear power is not going to reduce the UK weapons stockpile.
6. The countries with nuclear weapons mostly already have more than they can already deal with. Russia can't even afford to maintain the tyres on it's military logistics trucks.
7. You can also power EVs from renewable energy and they're almost the perfect candidate because only a tiny fraction need power immediately at any point.
Re: F*ck the moon (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not going to get into tge usually idiocy of electric cars
It seems that would be best.
but the biggest thing seemingly being missed is the lack of an atmosphere on the moon. The moon effectively sweeps up a lot of astroids. These are a small but important danger as we settle more and more on the moon. The earth burns a lot of them up. That won't be the case on the moon.
That is a good point, pretty much anything we build on the moon has to be buried.
Re: (Score:2)
The new reactor at Hinkley Point C is up to 33 billion GBP already. Original estimate was 17 billion. From planning to generating the first electricity will be around 20 years, which is what EDF is quoting for new nuclear plants these days.
Regardless of how good or bad the technology is, what the risk of disaster is, the fact it's so expensive and so slow it just can't be part of our net zero solution. We have to use renewable, and we have to make them work. And we will.
As for reactors on the Moon, I'm not
Re: (Score:2)
It appears to me that the problem is not with nuclear power but with how UK has managed it. We saw nuclear power reactors built in about 8 years in UAE, so we know it doesn't take 20 years to complete them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Why has the new reactor at Hinkley Point gone so far beyond budget and schedule? There's plenty of contributing factors. Why focus on Hinkley Point when there's many other nuclear power projects all over the world? The build time for the nuclear reactors in UAE is ac
Re: (Score:2)
The UAE doesn't have human rights, uses what amounts to slave labour to build stuff, and doesn't really care about the environmental impact.
Perhaps more importantly, the UAE can afford to pay for nuclear power. The UK can't, which is why it had to get Chinese investment to get Hinkley off the ground. We probably don't want our critical energy infrastructure to be owned by the French, who are building and operating it, let alone the Chinese.
It's not just the UK by the way. 20 years is what EDF quotes for all
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't make anything the GP said right or anything I said wrong.
The new reactor at Hinkley Point C is up to 33 billion GBP already.
Cost overruns plague projects here, out political classes simply do not value science and engineering and this creates an environment where big projects are doomed to this kind of thing. We do know for a fact that one can install two EPR reactors for around £10 billion, because that's been done.
As for reactors on the Moon, I'm not sure we will ever want them.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, I'm not saying the GP was right.
Whatever the reason, nuclear is extremely expensive in Europe, and that is very unlikely to change. The main issue is the liability. Governments can't just scrap all the nuclear safety regs, because they exist for a legal reason.
Re: (Score:2)
We have to use renewable, and we have to make them work. And we will.
Spoken like a true believer.
From planning to generating the first electricity will be around 20 years
I don't know where you got your facts. Here are actual ones:
- Hinkley Point C project was launched in 2012
- Construction started in 2018
- Commercial operation is planned for 2027
By the way, a good part of the delay was because people like you kept complaining, and unfortunately, in our civilized world it takes time to debunk your fake arguments. This is the equivalent of someone actively puncturing the tires of a car, and then saying "haha, you see! This car can't go fast!". They
Re: (Score:2)
Hinkley Point C was announced in 2010. Nuclear licence granted in 2012, fast tracked because it is an existing nuclear site and operator.
Commercial operation has been delayed again, won't be ready for 2027.
And there hasn't been a reactor built in the UK in the last 20 years.
Irrelevant. EDF, a French company, is building it. They have build similar reactors in China, and there is one other under construction in Europe (also delayed and massively over budget). That's just how long it takes in Europe, even when it gets fast-tracked and built on an existing site.
Hinkley Point C should generate between £100bn and £160bn of revenue in cash terms for EDF and CGN over 35 years
That's not a goo
Re: (Score:2)
fast tracked because it is an existing nuclear site and operator.
Made up fact. Something that is fast-tracked doesn't get a 6 years delay (or even 8 years if you use the 2010 date, which is just the date people were contemplating building it, and not the actual official "launch" of the project which was indeed in 2012).
Most of the delay before the start of the construction was because of civil recourses and lawsuits by welsh opponents. As I said in my previous post, it unfortunately takes time to debunk myths spread by people who don't understand how science works. Somet
Re: (Score:2)
The delay was because EDF is a basket case. For a while its liabilities were greater than the total value of its business, and it ended up being nationalized by the French government. It's nuclear liabilities are a major part of that. Ageing plants in France that need a lot of maintenance to keep going, and new builds that are not going according to plan because they keep finding new flaws in their reactor design.
I don't have a current price for Hinkley Point C, but it was 92GBP/MWh when it was announced in
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know where you got your facts. Here are actual ones:
- Hinkley Point C project was launched in 2012
- Construction started in 2018
- Commercial operation is planned for 2027
That isn't a counterpoint. A project not finished is a date not confirmed, especially in an industry that has shown *EVERY SINGLE WESTERN PROJECT* to suffer multi-year long delays in the last minute.
Flammeville 3 was supposed to go online in 2012, but in 2010 they announced it will be delayed. And in 2012 they announced again, and again, and again. But it should be online sometimes in the middle of this year.
Oh wait no, December 2022 they announced another delay. Maybe next year.
What is "planned" in the nuc
Re: (Score:2)
We should absolutely build nuclear plants. They need to form a part of a future grid baseload strategy. But you need to let go of the fantasy that it will play a part of any climate goal we currently have set.
The first part is where we agree. I am not against renewables, I just find people who want to bet their future, or actually, the future of their kids, on an all-in bet on it. If you read some of my other answers, you will see my current diagnosis of the situation is that low-carbon power sources (nuclear, wind/solar, hydro) are all part of the solution.
The second part of your assertion is where I disagree. We should build nuclear so that it is ready in 10 years, and can replace and extend the current nuclea
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless of how good or bad the technology is, what the risk of disaster is, the fact it's so expensive and so slow it just can't be part of our net zero solution.
It is part of China's solution. They have built 50 reactors in the last 30 years. It is only not part of our solution because we are apparently incompetent.
Re: F*ck the moon (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only parts permanently in shade are craters near the poles.
Why would you need power at night if nobody is there? Apart from some automated stuff that can manage with batteries or which will have their own RTGs, you aren't going to be using a lot of power at night. Nobody is going to bother visiting at night, landing in the dark, reliant on electricity for all lighting.
As for cost of lifting mass to the Moon, you don't want to take batteries, but you are fine taking digging equipment large enough to bury
Re: F*ck the moon (Score:2)
Re: F*ck the moon (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know how big a VW bug is?
I'm any case, RR have shown plans for their SMR and, unsurprisingly, it's not that size or shape. There are limits to how much smaller it can get, and it will need to be fairly long rather than car shaped.
Also if you want to use the ground as a heatsink you need a pretty deep hole, or a pretty long trench.
Re: F*ck the moon (Score:2)
Once you get down to 2 meters under the surface of the Moon, the temperature remains fairly constant, probably around -30 to -40 degrees C
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the temperature that is the issue, it's the size of the pipe you need to radiate a useful amount of heat. If you want a borehole type arrangement it needs to be very deep to accommodate a long pipe. If you want a trench it needs to be very long.
Re: F*ck the moon (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, Chernobyl, for all it is the End Of Life As We Know It, deaths from Chernobyl are still lower than average Rush Hour DAILY deaths.
Yes, most every day, more people die in traffic than have died as a result of Chernobyl from 1986 to present.
Re: (Score:1)
How about building some nuclear plant back down here where we need it?
After the Hinkley debacle, it may be a while before UK taxpayers are ready to pay for another nuke.
Re: (Score:2)
After the Hinkley debacle, it may be a while before UK taxpayers are ready to pay for another nuke.
Except that taxpayers are not bearing the cost for Hinkley Point C. EDF / CGN are, through a negotiated fixed price on the MWh for the first 35 years of operation (£92/MWh if my memory serves well, feel free to double check).
If you want actual numbers, not made up from thin airs:
- 10,300 jobs
- £1.67 billion spent with companies in the region
- £119 million of community investments
You can download the socio-economic impact report here [edfenergy.com]. It's 20 pages long, but I am sure you can manage.
Re: (Score:2)
- 10,300 jobs
- £1.67 billion spent with companies in the region
- £119 million of community investments
I love your logic: "Hinkley had decades of delays and massive cost overruns, but that's a GOOD THING because that money went into other people's pockets."
Re: (Score:2)
Nice example of straw man fallacy [wikipedia.org].
I will reiterate my argument:
- taxpayers don't bear the cost for Hinkley Point C increased costs (refuting your argument, please see the sources in the previous post)
- the socio-economic impact of Hinkley Point C (unrelated to the increased costs) on actual people (or taxpayers if you prefer) is positive: 10300 jobs, £1.67 billion spent with companies in the region, £119 million of community investments
I will add one more advantage for Hinkley Point C, again unr
Re: (Score:2)
Any research of nuke energy, regardless for moon, saturn or middle of nowhere, possibly has some beneficial research for earthly nuke energy as well.
So I will consider it as a net positive for nuke energy here.
Re: F*ck the moon (Score:2)
Ze Germanz would never allow it, since Chernobyl and Fukushima struck deep in the hearts and minds of all Germanz.
So better back to burning coal like it is the 60s! Even on the moon!!
Re: (Score:1)
The UK legally has the right to possess nuclear weapons openly. Also, that UN Security Council see, that goes a long way in standing in the world. Take that for what you will regarding being a "small" player.
Heat sink? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's either that or radiation into space, which would take a vast amount of surface area, so a ground loop is a good bet. But that isn't going to be small, either...
Re: (Score:2)
A radiator may be the way to go.
The lunar night sky is -130C (-208F).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Problem with that idea is that you need to dig a fairly deep hole, or long trench. Lunar dust hasn't been eroded by wind and wave, so it has very sharp edges that quickly destroy digging equipment.
I haven't done any calculations, but I bet that heat dissipates more slowly in lunar regolith and bedrock because of lower moisture content. Regoith and rock are not particularly good conductors of heat.
Re: Heat sink? (Score:2)
To the moon! (Score:2)
Britain is a house of cards in the process of collapsing, but is still shooting for the moon.
This won't end well.
I have sown the corn that will grow a cob from which i shall make my popcorn.
Brought to you... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One thing is sure about that (Score:2)
Lots of people are not there.
Not Nimbys, bananas nor cavemen.
BANANA: Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything
CAVEmen: Citizens Against Virtually Everything
massively expensive (Score:2)
I assume the 'nuclear power' will be in the form of a small modular reactor (SMR), which Rolls has been trying to make for terrestrial deployment as well.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/a... [forbes.com]
Surely it is too heavy to launch in one piece, which means multiple very expensive shipments to the moon and some manual assembly there. In the near term using solar arrays and batteries on bases at the lunar poles seems a lot more doable for way less money.
Re: (Score:2)
I assume the reactor to be more like NASA's Kilopower: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The NASA prototype weighs 134 kg, with 28kg being the highly enriched uranium core. Perhaps we assume the UK doesn't want to use HEU fuel. Further assume the power plant needs some auxiliary systems to produce power on the moon, as well as survive the trip. Both will add mass. So, just how much mass can we get to the moon? We could look to the Apollo lunar module for guidance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The m
Re: (Score:2)
That will be fine if it's only intended for short-term use, or by a very small number of people. Sooner or later, there's going to be a long-term facility up there, away from the poles. Maybe not a true colony, with families, but at least a research station with a crew there all through the lunar cycle, and they're going to need a power source that doesn't depend on having the Sun ab
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, some day there will be all kinds of things on the moon. Small modular nuke plants as well perhaps. Meanwhile you can get a whole bunch of existing solar panels and batteries to the moon relatively easily now. The Moon is tidally locked to the Earth so the poles are always illuminated by the sun.
"Americans will return to the Moon in 2024. Following this 2024 landing, we will develop a sustained, strategic presence at the lunar South Pole called the Artemis Base Camp."
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/def... [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"backside of the Moon" can be just over the horizon at the poles. On the Moon that isn't very far.
Re: (Score:2)
Cool (Score:1)
How would it get there? (Score:3)
Who would bring this nuclear reactor to the moon for the UK?
Was England planning on starting their own space program?
I certainly can't imagine that anyone other than maybe the Russians (for enough money and eventually good faith) would be willing to launch a nuclear reactor to the moon for England.