First time visitor? Learn more.

An interesting new type of nuclear reactor

by coldwarrior ( 57 Comments › )
Filed under Science, Technology at May 19th, 2010 - 9:00 am

I was reading this article and was made aware of a very interesting new type of miniature nuclear reactor for electricity generation.

May 17 (Bloomberg) — Manufacturers of refrigerator-sized nuclear reactors will seek approval from U.S. authorities within a year to help supply the world’s growing electricity demand.

Transportable by truck, the units would come in a sealed box and work around the clock, requiring less maintenance than a fossil fuel plant, the developers say. They’d cost 15 percent less per megawatt of capacity than the average full-scale atomic reactors now in on the drawing board, according to World Nuclear Association data.

“A 25-megawatt plant would put electricity into 20,000 homes, and it would fit inside this room,” James Kohlhaas, vice president at a Lockheed Martin Corp. unit that builds power systems for remote military bases, said in an interview. “It’s a pretty elegant micro-grid solution.”

Of course, there is licensing and other red tape, it is an elegant solution to energy needs that should be pursued.

Here is the link to ‘the plans’ that Hyperion Power has proposed. Please take a moment to read it.

Tags:

Comments

Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

57 Responses to “An interesting new type of nuclear reactor”
( jump to bottom )

  1. 1 | May 19, 2010 9:06 am

    I like it.


  2. mfhorn
    2 | May 19, 2010 9:07 am

    Think what something like that could do in 2nd or 3rd world countries.

    At the same time, there’s the issue of waste, and keeping it out of the hands of groups like the Hammies, the Hezzies and the AlQui’s. US Environmental nutcases heads exploding, too.

    Awesome potential, though.


  3. 3 | May 19, 2010 9:09 am

    This could be a viable solution that would satisfy the Global Warming Cultists and people like myself that prefer to live in the 21st Century instead of the 19th. Naturally, the Green/Red brigades will be out in force to keep this from ever happening.


  4. Johnnyreb
    4 | May 19, 2010 9:12 am

    I can see these in areas where there is a 24/7 armed and alert military presence. In other areas we are just asking for super duper trouble. They can be stolen easily it looks like, and they most certainly will be just to get at the fuel.


  5. huckfunn
    5 | May 19, 2010 9:18 am

    Interesting idea. I think I read something several weeks ago where Bill Gates was looking into this idea to power that monstrosity that he lives in. Now here is technology that is viable and on the market right now. Fuel Cell Generators. The one shown is for connection to the grid. They have models that will run on nat gas or propane and don’t have to be connected to the grid. I like the idea of being self sufficient and free of the grid.


  6. 6 | May 19, 2010 9:20 am

    My only complaint with the design is that it’s a passive reaction – the reaction goes on unless you stop it. Every nuclear reactor has has this same flaw, in that the reaction continues unless you take action to stop it. The latest reactor designs are built to mitigate this; they require active intervention to continue the reaction and will drop below critical mass without it.

    Other than that this is a great idea.

    The possibility of theft… I don’t see it really. The marketing bumf says they can fit in a container but that doesn’t mean you can just crane it off and drive away. from their FAQ:

    Will Hyperion be secure?
    The power-producing core of this module will be contained within multiple gas-tight chambers to insure absolute containment of all gases, along with other contaminants in the unlikely event that a single chamber fails. Further, the module will be buried in the ground during its operational life. This will protect the module from almost all conceivable threats, natural or man-made, and make tampering extremely difficult. Additionally, active area security will be provided by the operator.


  7. mfhorn
    7 | May 19, 2010 9:37 am

    So since these don’t involve wind/solar power, what will VonQuacksalot say? What will AlGore say? Do we really give a sh-t?


  8. huckfunn
    8 | May 19, 2010 9:37 am

    Obowmao futures fall to -19. Yippee! We got him heading in the right direction. After last night’s election results have had a few days to fester, we could see him back into the -20′s.


  9. 9 | May 19, 2010 9:43 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    The Red/Green Brigades are bought off by the Saudi/Gulf States. That’s the real reason they don’t want Nuke plants.


  10. 10 | May 19, 2010 9:44 am

    Johnnyreb wrote:

    They can be stolen easily it looks like, and they most certainly will be just to get at the fuel.

    They say the module weighs less then 50 tons. So I am thinking that it’s not something that can be stolen easily. I don’t think theft will be much of an issue.


  11. huckfunn
    11 | May 19, 2010 9:50 am

    The Mexican President, et ux, are at the WH for a state visit. Can’t wait to see what jaw-dropping gaffes come out. Where’s Jolly Joe Biden this week?


  12. 12 | May 19, 2010 9:52 am

    @ huckfunn:

    Yes, that certainly has its attraction. Now if I could have a small house in Montanna, say 5000 square feet, with a self-sufficient underground bunker, lots of food stores, ammunition, and my own small nuclear reactor, well, life would be just peachy :mrgreen:


  13. huckfunn
    13 | May 19, 2010 9:52 am

    Now that I’ve successfully killed 2 threads, I guess I’d better get to work.

    Later


  14. mfhorn
    14 | May 19, 2010 9:54 am

    @ huckfunn:

    I’ll bet Mexico won’t get tossed under the bus the way Israel was. The Bamster won’t walk out to have dinner with his family this time around.


  15. huckfunn
    15 | May 19, 2010 9:55 am

    @ Iron Fist:
    You could trade your spent fuel rods to Iran for some nifty missles. Just the thing for an autumn dove hunt.


  16. 16 | May 19, 2010 9:55 am

    @ Rodan:

    It is all part of the neo-feudalist drive. They want us living in the dark, walking everywhere we go, and cooking over dung fires like they do in Africa. They don’t look at sub-saharan Africa and see disaster, they see their idea of Paradise. Obama wants to be Robert Mugabe when he grows up. Just with a trans-nationalist flair so he can oppress people of more than one nation. The President is one scary, scary dude. And I don’t mean that in a good way.


  17. 17 | May 19, 2010 9:59 am

    @ huckfunn:

    Hey, if you pushed the Second Amendment as far as they’ve pushed the “right” to abortion I’d have the right to have my own missiles, complete with my own nuclear warheads. That would make life interesting for the Mohammedans.


  18. 18 | May 19, 2010 10:07 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    Yes and they arte in cahoots with their Neo-Feudal Islamic allies.


  19. mfhorn
    19 | May 19, 2010 10:07 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    And, unlike abortion (and, for that matter, the ‘right to privacy’), the right to keep and bear arms is actually spelled out.

    Wasn’t there some state that was considering, or maybe actualy went ahead with, naming all law-abiding adults as members of the militia, to keep with the letter of the 2nd Amendment?


  20. 20 | May 19, 2010 10:17 am

    Hey Obama, grow a pair of huevos and DEPORT Calderon now…


  21. Guggi
    21 | May 19, 2010 10:30 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    It is all part of the neo-feudalist drive. They want us living in the dark, walking everywhere we go, and cooking over dung fires like they do in Africa.

    No, no, not dung. You remember they don’t want us to eat meat. Solarpower or biogas.


  22. 22 | May 19, 2010 10:31 am

    @ mfhorn:

    Under Federal law the Militia is pretty much everybody:

    § 311. Militia: composition and classes
    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia are—
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

    Gun Controlers who want to bitch about the Militia being the only people with the right to keep and bear arms simply don’ tknow what the hell they are talking about. But that arguement is dated, anyway. Heller removed the tie directly to militia service and found a general right to keep and bear arms. I’m hoping McDonald will expand that and make it clear that it is as much a right as free speech or freedom of religion. That would throw out the vast majority of gun control laws, which would be a good thing.


  23. mfhorn
    23 | May 19, 2010 10:33 am

    Wow, talk about a dead thread…


  24. 24 | May 19, 2010 10:44 am

    @ mfhorn:

    Yeah, where is everybody. It’s like they all have to work for a living. They should take Queen Nancy’s advice and quit work so they can devote time to more important persuits…


  25. RIX
    25 | May 19, 2010 10:44 am

    mfhorn wrote:

    Wow, talk about a dead thread…

    OK, let’s talk about it.


  26. 26 | May 19, 2010 10:47 am

    RIX wrote:

    mfhorn wrote:
    Wow, talk about a dead thread…

    OK, let’s talk about it.

    Are you sure it’s dead? Have you tried giving it CPR or mouth to mouth?


  27. snork
    27 | May 19, 2010 10:48 am

    Like anything commercial, the proponents are overhyping a few things. One, I would take the cost figures with a grain of salt. Is that just for the reactor vessel, or is that for the entire constructed facility? If you look at the illustration, the reactor is tiny compared to the whole plant. And 25 mW for 20,000 homes is way optimistic. That assumes gas heat and appliances. In a small town, they could conceivably do some sort of cogeneration scheme where the waste heat from the plant heats the homes, but that would require a very expensive retrofit of a public steam system.

    These things will have a niche in remote locations where a grid isn’t practical, but it’s hard to see these in widespread use. The require a couple of things that are usually in conflict: a very remote location with 10-20,000 homes.

    I could imagine these in some industrial application; they’re about the right size for certain very large plants. Another candidate would be military bases.


  28. mfhorn
    28 | May 19, 2010 10:48 am

    @ doriangrey:

    It’s almost dead, Jim?


  29. Empire1
    29 | May 19, 2010 10:51 am

    ::happy dance:: My radiation oncologist told me this morning that I don’t need any mcre follow-up appointments with him unless I want to!


  30. 30 | May 19, 2010 10:53 am

    mfhorn wrote:

    @ doriangrey:
    It’s almost dead, Jim?

    Charging the defibrillator right now… 21.5 gigawatts………..


  31. snork
    31 | May 19, 2010 10:53 am

    However, conventional large nuclear power plants, due to construction expense and the time required to build them, must be augmented with a smaller solution.

    Even they’re not suggesting that these are a replacement for large plants.


  32. The Osprey
    32 | May 19, 2010 10:53 am

    Nuke-u-ler!


  33. RIX
    33 | May 19, 2010 10:54 am

    doriangrey
    26 | May 19, 2010 10:47
    Are you sure it’s dead? Have you tried giving it CPR or mouth to mouth?

    IF IT’S DEAD. i DO HOPE THAT IT HAS ENOUGH LIFE INSURANCE.


  34. RIX
    34 | May 19, 2010 10:55 am

    Empire1 wrote:

    ::happy dance:: My radiation oncologist told me this morning that I don’t need any mcre follow-up appointments with him unless I want to!

    Yeah baby! Fantastic!


  35. 35 | May 19, 2010 10:56 am

    @ Empire1:

    {Empire1}

    Congratulations! That’s great news!


  36. mfhorn
    36 | May 19, 2010 10:56 am

    @ Empire1:

    Awesome news!


  37. 37 | May 19, 2010 10:57 am

    mfhorn wrote:

    Wow, talk about a dead thread…

    It’s such a beautiful day out I think people are taking advantage of it.


  38. RIX
    38 | May 19, 2010 10:58 am

    I am just R cuming back from kaffier, draw da Profit threed.
    Fuck R U kaffirs , r bullshitr!
    I go back to be hatin U four ever.
    bullshit Kaffirs, I R need more public monies.


  39. 39 | May 19, 2010 11:00 am

    @ Empire1:
    Excellent!!!!

    /bill and ted mode off….


  40. snork
    40 | May 19, 2010 11:01 am

    archonix wrote:

    My only complaint with the design is that it’s a passive reaction – the reaction goes on unless you stop it.

    While normal operation is throttled with rods, the last line of defense is passive safety. The graphite moderator loses its moderation ability as the temperature goes up. The thing might get very hot and melt, but it won’t go Chernobyl.

    But that does raise an important question: do they have a procedure worked out for what you do once this has happened? Are they expected to just fill the containment vessel with dirt, and walk away? Is that going to work politically? Or is it practical to dig up the entire containment structure and haul it off?

    As we recently learned in the gulf, the time to think about oops is before it happens, not after.


  41. mfhorn
    41 | May 19, 2010 11:04 am

    @ PaladinPhil:

    Not so beauty here, we’re getting rain. At least we don’t have tornado warnings like we did last week.


  42. mfhorn
    42 | May 19, 2010 11:07 am

    @ RIX:

    I hadn’t thought of that. I need government funding for my picture of Mo. If I don’t get it, it’s censorship!


  43. RIX
    43 | May 19, 2010 11:15 am

    mfhorn wrote:

    @ RIX:
    I hadn’t thought of that. I need government funding for my picture of Mo. If I don’t get it, it’s censorship!

    That is so spot on! It is the man holding us down.
    ‘No money, no peace.”


  44. 44 | May 19, 2010 11:25 am

    [...] An interesting new type of nuclear reactor › 2.0: The Blogmocracy [...]


  45. 45 | May 19, 2010 11:36 am

    [...] An interesting new type of nuclear reactor › 2.0: The Blogmocracy [...]


  46. 46 | May 19, 2010 11:37 am

    Oh dear, the thread has a erratic pulse, 1 trillion cc’s of epinephrine STAT…


  47. snork
    47 | May 19, 2010 11:39 am

    And a bot infection.


  48. 48 | May 19, 2010 11:43 am

    snork wrote:

    And a bot infection.

    Yup, SOME admin needs to check the logs and ban some IP addys…


  49. orangecrush
    49 | May 19, 2010 12:29 pm

    How about this Bloom Box


  50. 50 | May 19, 2010 12:37 pm

    This is excellent news.

    Electricity and the telegraph were blessings. But they required a central authority to maintain the grid. Wiring up the countryside revoked the self-sufficiency of every community and every state.

    We’ve already restored communication self-sufficiency with satellite technology; now it’s the turn of energy.

    The biggest enemies of this won’t be red or green, they’ll be grey… the dour bureaucrats who need that central control. They’ll say it’s because of safety, the War On Drugs (you got a grow-lamp in that closet, citizen?), “the buck stops here”, anything.


  51. 51 | May 19, 2010 3:24 pm

    [...] An interesting new type of nuclear reactor › 2.0: The Blogmocracy [...]


  52. 52 | May 19, 2010 3:25 pm

    [...] An interesting new type of nuclear reactor › 2.0: The Blogmocracy [...]


  53. 53 | May 19, 2010 9:50 pm

    [...] An interesting new type of nuclear reactor › 2.0: The Blogmocracy [...]


  54. 54 | May 19, 2010 9:52 pm

    Whoo hoo! The Attack of the Spam Bots!


  55. 55 | May 19, 2010 10:17 pm

    [...] An interesting new type of nuclear reactor › 2.0: The Blogmocracy [...]


  56. 56 | May 20, 2010 12:10 am

    [...] An interesting new type of nuclear reactor › 2.0: The Blogmocracy [...]


  57. 57 | May 20, 2010 1:54 am

    [...] An interesting new type of nuclear reactor › 2.0: The Blogmocracy [...]


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David