> What makes you think the setting is unrealistic?
No one in their right mind builds a structure containing a nuclear facility right next to a fully grown tree, for example. If the tree is a spruce, for example, it'd likely be a shallow root tree, meaning not only would the roots penetrate the foundation, it'd also be prone to windthrow - a serious security risk considering the building is housing a nuclear facility.
There's also no security measures to be seen in any of the renderings (apart maybe from the tiny fence right next to the fully-developed road). Doesn't spark much confidence in security against proliferation concerns.
> And why is it an issue that the housing looks pleasant?
The issue isn't what the housing looks like. The issue is that it's mentioned at all given the current stage of development.
Just to clarify: the company has been around for 8 years and isn't licensed to even produce prototype reactors yet. Compare this to some of the competition mentioned in the article:
• Elysium Industries (just as small, ~6 years old) [0] features a CAD rendering of their reactor design front and centre
• HolosGen [1] features a detailed CAD rendering of their reactor design on the landing page and includes tons of reference material
• NuGen, founded in 2006 [2] - which is basically a two-person operation with an office in what looks like an apartment building in a residential area [3] - features a CAD rendering of their reactor on their homepage, plus related patents
• XEnergy [4], founded in 2009 and a little bigger, features CAD renderings of both the reactor design and the fuel cells on their landing page
General Atomics - another competitor mentioned in the article - is too big and thus not a fair comparison, which is why I left them out.
I hope you start to notice a pattern here. No matter how small and unimpressive these companies might seem at first glance, all of them focus on the actual technology behind their product and that's what they put at the centre of their presentation.
Oklo, OTOH, doesn't do any of that. I understand that they're in "stealth mode" or whatever, but if you do a CNBC interview and the press material you bring consists of a neat house in a boreal forest with a tree right next to the roof of a nuclear facility and no security measures to be seen anywhere, I call BS on that.
Security concerns are handwaved away without even addressing the point (are the reactors that “operate without security forces and have impeccable security records over many decades.” also found in remote locations?), regulatory obstacles and poor economics aren't addressed either, but instead the reactors will be housed in “aesthetically pleasing” structures - as if anyone cares if they are intended to be located in remote locations, fenced away and obviously surrounded by forest or desert...
[3] https://bit.ly/2SI9yVK (Google Street View of the principal office according to the latest business report filed with the North Carolina Secretary of State)
No one in their right mind builds a structure containing a nuclear facility right next to a fully grown tree, for example. If the tree is a spruce, for example, it'd likely be a shallow root tree, meaning not only would the roots penetrate the foundation, it'd also be prone to windthrow - a serious security risk considering the building is housing a nuclear facility.
There's also no security measures to be seen in any of the renderings (apart maybe from the tiny fence right next to the fully-developed road). Doesn't spark much confidence in security against proliferation concerns.
> And why is it an issue that the housing looks pleasant?
The issue isn't what the housing looks like. The issue is that it's mentioned at all given the current stage of development.
Just to clarify: the company has been around for 8 years and isn't licensed to even produce prototype reactors yet. Compare this to some of the competition mentioned in the article:
• Elysium Industries (just as small, ~6 years old) [0] features a CAD rendering of their reactor design front and centre
• HolosGen [1] features a detailed CAD rendering of their reactor design on the landing page and includes tons of reference material
• NuGen, founded in 2006 [2] - which is basically a two-person operation with an office in what looks like an apartment building in a residential area [3] - features a CAD rendering of their reactor on their homepage, plus related patents
• XEnergy [4], founded in 2009 and a little bigger, features CAD renderings of both the reactor design and the fuel cells on their landing page
General Atomics - another competitor mentioned in the article - is too big and thus not a fair comparison, which is why I left them out.
I hope you start to notice a pattern here. No matter how small and unimpressive these companies might seem at first glance, all of them focus on the actual technology behind their product and that's what they put at the centre of their presentation.
Oklo, OTOH, doesn't do any of that. I understand that they're in "stealth mode" or whatever, but if you do a CNBC interview and the press material you bring consists of a neat house in a boreal forest with a tree right next to the roof of a nuclear facility and no security measures to be seen anywhere, I call BS on that.
Security concerns are handwaved away without even addressing the point (are the reactors that “operate without security forces and have impeccable security records over many decades.” also found in remote locations?), regulatory obstacles and poor economics aren't addressed either, but instead the reactors will be housed in “aesthetically pleasing” structures - as if anyone cares if they are intended to be located in remote locations, fenced away and obviously surrounded by forest or desert...
[0] http://www.elysiumindustries.com
[1] http://www.holosgen.com
[2] https://www.nucdev.com
[3] https://bit.ly/2SI9yVK (Google Street View of the principal office according to the latest business report filed with the North Carolina Secretary of State)
[4] https://x-energy.com