Patenting Next Gen Reactors: Is It Worth It?

  • Thread starter west_cost
  • Start date
In summary: The NuScale design has no valves in the primary circuit, no pumps either, so no water hammer. The head is sufficient to drive natural convection. Bouyancy of the vessel is not an issue, especially with the core intact. The reactor is inside (surrounded by) water in order to remove LOCA as a concern, or at least minimize it.The ABWR has pumps in the RPV, but the motors are external to the RPV.The AP1000 has hot and cold legs, and external steam generators (SGs) like a conventional PWR.
  • #1
west_cost
7
0
Out of curiosity why do reactor companies patent next generation reactors, while there is more than 20 years to build next generation reactors, the time which patents are expired? Are they wasting money?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #2
Which generation? Generation IV? Most of those are being developed by DOE. The reactors themselves are not patented, but certain unique aspects would be at some point.

Normally the fine details are not disclosed in the public domain, but rather, the details are trade secrets. Trade secrets do not generally appear in patents.
 
  • #3
Astronuc said:
Which generation? Generation IV? Most of those are being developed by DOE. The reactors themselves are not patented, but certain unique aspects would be at some point.

Normally the fine details are not disclosed in the public domain, but rather, the details are trade secrets. Trade secrets do not generally appear in patents.

For example, all the new small reactors such as IRIS, are in a pressure vessel, that water comes from the side (down comer) and pushed up through the reactor, then turn into steam. Nuscale is also designing a same thing almost. This concept of natural circulation can be copied by anyone since it almost looks like BWR. And they don't have to pay a penalty...
 
  • #4
west_cost said:
For example, all the new small reactors such as IRIS, are in a pressure vessel, that water comes from the side (down comer) and pushed up through the reactor, then turn into steam. Nuscale is also designing a same thing almost. This concept of natural circulation can be copied by anyone since it almost looks like BWR. And they don't have to pay a penalty...
IRIS has pumps internal to the RPV. So does mpower's system.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/advanced/iris.html

http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/Our_Company/Research_&_Technology/research_areas.shtm (note the research on SiC, in addition to IRIS)

Natural circulation is not as simple it seems. The crud formation potential is an issue, particularly as it affects the hot channel.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
Astronuc said:
Natural circulation is not as simple it seems. The crud formation potential is an issue, particularly as it affects the hot channel.

Thats is true if you are producing a lot of power but what if you don't choose to produce 1000 MW of power?
Also I don't know why Nuscale puts the reactor inside water. (Bouncy effect and a lot of stress on the pressure vessel). Do they count the fact that water hammer might happened inside the pressure vessel?
 
Last edited:
  • #6
west_cost said:
Thats is true if you are producing a lot of power but what if you don't choose to produce 1000 MW of power?
Either one uses forced convection, or natural convection. Most designs, even small modular reactors, use forced convection. The exact configuration of the pumps and placement in the RPV varies considerably among the various designs.
Also I don't know why Nuscale puts the reactor inside water. (Bouncy [sic] effect and a lot of stress on the pressure vessel). Do they count the fact that water hammer might happened inside the pressure vessel?
The NuScale design has no valves in the primary circuit, no pumps either, so no water hammer. The head is sufficient to drive natural convection. Bouyancy of the vessel is not an issue, especially with the core intact. The reactor is inside (surrounded by) water in order to remove LOCA as a concern, or at least minimize it.
 
  • #7
Astronuc said:
The exact configuration of the pumps and placement in the RPV varies considerably among the various designs.

Do they install a pump inside the RPV?
 
  • #8
west_cost said:
Do they install a pump inside the RPV?
Who?

The ABWR has pumps in the RPV, but the motors are external to the RPV.

The AP1000 has hot and cold legs, and external steam generators (SGs) like a conventional PWR.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/ap1000.html

The IRIS has a special type of motor installed within a chamber in the upper head of the RPV
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/advanced/advanced-files/iris.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:

1. What are the benefits of patenting next generation reactors?

There are several potential benefits to patenting next generation reactors. Patents can provide legal protection for your invention, allowing you to control who can use, make, or sell it. This can help you to monetize your invention and recoup any research and development costs. Additionally, patents can also incentivize further research and development by providing a competitive advantage to the patent holder.

2. What is the patenting process for next generation reactors?

The patenting process for next generation reactors involves conducting a thorough search to ensure that your invention is novel and non-obvious, drafting a patent application, and submitting it to the appropriate patent office for review. The process can take several years and may require the assistance of a patent attorney or agent.

3. What are some potential challenges of patenting next generation reactors?

One potential challenge of patenting next generation reactors is the cost involved in obtaining and maintaining a patent. This can be particularly difficult for smaller companies or individual inventors. Additionally, the patenting process can be lengthy and complex, requiring significant time and resources. Another challenge is the risk of your patent being challenged or invalidated by others, which can lead to costly legal battles.

4. Are there any alternative options to patenting next generation reactors?

Yes, there are alternative options to patenting next generation reactors, such as trade secrets or open-source licensing. Trade secrets involve keeping your invention confidential and can be a less expensive option than obtaining a patent. Open-source licensing allows for the sharing and collaboration of ideas, but may not provide the same level of legal protection as a patent.

5. How do patents impact the development and adoption of next generation reactors?

Patents can both positively and negatively impact the development and adoption of next generation reactors. On one hand, patents can incentivize research and development by providing a competitive advantage and potential financial gain. On the other hand, patents can also create barriers for others who want to use or build upon the patented technology, potentially hindering innovation and progress. Additionally, the cost of obtaining and enforcing patents can also impact the affordability and accessibility of next generation reactors.

Similar threads

  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
425
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
26
Views
5K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
25
Views
5K
Back
Top