Cover photo for Kumar Thangudu
Kumar Thangudu
Recent posts →

Likely to Be Rackets - Quantum Computing and Small Modular Nuclear Power Plants

Kumar Thangudu
One may have to raise one's cerebral atrophy, to raise that sweet nectar of pension money via VCs,


I've often thrown pot shots at the Kurzwelian CS neuroscientist self-proclaimed polymath physicist types. 

"Great you trustwad, you know physics and math and CS, but you know nothing of chemistry, biology, geology, energy, and materials and the analog realities of the world." 

In no uncertain terms, if you see someone peddling quantum computing OR Small modular reactors, you should proceed with these interrogatives. 

And PS, I think the vast majority of these people are full of it. 

Quantum Computing 
  1. Explain the materials energy balance of quantum computing. 
  2. What problems are perfectly framed in such a way that they are waiting for quantum computing to come solve them and in what industry? Go into the specifics? 
  3. How do you plan to address the chemical reactions and defects that occur during the fabrication of superconducting qubits?
  4. What strategies will you employ to ensure the stability and uniformity of materials at the atomic level?
  5. How do you propose maintaining a vacuum of 10^-11 torr in a practical setting, especially when actively manipulating ions?
  6. What are the estimated energy costs for maintaining such a vacuum at scale?
  7. How will you address the defects and variability in the oxide layers of Josephson junctions?
  8. What strategies will you use to account for the strain and reconstruction of aluminum surfaces at low temperatures?
  9. How do you plan to scale quantum computing systems while maintaining control over quantum states?
  10. What error correction techniques will you use to mitigate the effects of noise and decoherence?
  11. How do you envision integrating quantum computing into real-world applications, given the current limitations?
  12. What timeline do you propose for overcoming these material and engineering challenges?
  13. You do realize that achieving a vacuum better than the moon's surface is a bit over the top, right? Are you planning to build a mini black hole to suck out all the air, or do you have another brilliant method in mind?
  14. How can materials engineers develop cost-effective, scalable quantum computing hardware that maintains coherence times of at least 10 milliseconds, manages angstrom-scale variations in barrier thickness (e.g., ±0.5 Å), ensures qubit frequencies remain stable within a 1 MHz range despite thermal cycling and ambient conditions, and achieves fault-tolerant structures with thousands of qubits—when current fabrication techniques struggle to maintain consistency across even a few dozen qubits, and the cost of cryogenic cooling systems alone can exceed $5 million per unit, while also ensuring that the quantum error correction overhead does not exceed a factor of 10 in computational resources?
SMRs
  1. How can SMRs achieve economies of scale when they lack the size advantages of larger reactors, and what strategies can be employed to reduce costs per kilowatt?
  2. Given that SMRs have a higher cost per kilowatt (up to $5,000/kW) compared to large reactors, how can they compete with renewable energy sources like solar and wind in terms of Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE)?
  3. What are the implications of increased neutron leakage in SMRs on fuel efficiency and radioactive waste management, and how can these issues be mitigated?
  4. How will the complexity of spent fuel from SMRs, including longer refueling intervals and diverse materials, be managed effectively, and what are the potential costs associated with these complexities?
  5. What role can public-private partnerships play in overcoming the financial hurdles faced by SMRs, and how can regulatory frameworks be optimized to support their deployment?
  6. Considering the need for large-scale production to achieve economies of scale, what manufacturing and supply chain strategies can be implemented to support widespread SMR deployment?
  7. How do the environmental impacts of SMRs, including waste generation and potential for increased radiation-activated materials, compare to those of large reactors and renewable energy sources?
  8. What are the potential benefits of using SMRs in remote or off-grid locations, and how can these benefits offset the higher upfront costs and operational complexities?
  9. Given the variety of SMR designs (over 70 concepts), how can standardization be achieved to reduce costs and improve market viability?
  10. What are the policy and regulatory changes needed to support the commercial viability of SMRs, and how can governments facilitate their deployment?
  11. How can materials engineers develop cost-effective materials for SMRs that can withstand temperatures up to 1000 °C, while also mitigating the increased neutron leakage that results in nine times more neutron-activated steel than conventional reactors, given that the cost per kilowatt for SMRs is already significantly higher than for large reactors, often exceeding $5,000/kW?