no comments (yet)

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
there doesn't seem to be anything here
7 comments in c/hardware@lemmy.world view that post
[–] [S] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

the eVinci is designed to only produce 5 megawatts, and the Kaleidos is limited to just 1.2 megawatts of electrical power output.

Why would you even develop nuclear solutions with such a low output? There is no way people are going to be OK with casually moving these trailers (e.g. to a datacentre). If you're using nuclear, you might as well go big and develop gigawatts of power.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    I guess the idea is to stack them up together to get required power. While at the same time they are safer and cheaper.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 9 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    With that in mind, the DoE hopes microreactors could be used to power small, remote sites, with an eVinci described as a possible power source for a remote datacenter. The Radiant Kaleidos, meanwhile, is described as an alternative to a diesel generator, being a similar tractor-trailer-mounted size while being able to operate for five years without needing refueling.

    Alternative to diesel generator does not inspire confidence.

    I support nuclear power, but not litering the landscape with random small scale reactors that may or may not be well contained.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments