Portable Nuclear 'Hot Tubs' Could Power America


Recommended Posts

I guess it depends on the time scale. In an hour the radioactive count for fossil fuel waste might be negligible but over 10 years? You also have to contend with the other bi products of burning coal, oil and gas.

I'm aware of the problems of relying on fossil fuels. The point I was trying to make is that the amount of radioactivity emitted into the environment by burning fossil fuels is negligible regardless of which timespan you're looking at.

In my opinion we need to focus on making renewable energy a viable option. Wind power, solar power, hydro electricity... you name it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two main reasons why people are against nuclear power:

  • Reactor safety. While it's acknowledged that modern nuclear power plants are safe, an element of risk still remains.
  • Nuclear waste. Where do you put it? How do you make sure it doesn't contaminate the environment?

Agreed on both points. But as for safety : You could get hit by a bus tomorrow as well. If they've got their spec down pat, tbh I think it's worth a risk!

After all, it's not going to reach acceptance if people don't try it I guess!

As for waste, yes there is that problem, but if it "lasts" 10 years, you'd think it'd be inactive by then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed on both points. But as for safety : You could get hit by a bus tomorrow as well. If they've got their spec down pat, tbh I think it's worth a risk!

After all, it's not going to reach acceptance if people don't try it I guess!

As for waste, yes there is that problem, but if it "lasts" 10 years, you'd think it'd be inactive by then?

Read up on the half life of the isotopes in nuclear waste. It's in the ten thousands of years and longer (Uranium-235 has a half life of 704 million years; Uranium-238 4.47 billion years).

Nuclear waste does not become inactive within a few years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two main reasons why people are against nuclear power:

  • Reactor safety. While it's acknowledged that modern nuclear power plants are safe, an element of risk still remains.
  • Nuclear waste. Where do you put it? How do you make sure it doesn't contaminate the environment?

I agree with your statements, however Reactor Safety has come a long way since Chernobyl and Long Island (that was the other reactor accident wasn't it?), no one is prepared to risk what happened at Chernobyl again. Granted there is a chance it could go wrong but I still think the advantages outweigh the risk.

Nuclear waste is the other major sticking point, there has been tons of research in to all aspects of storage from containment to even the warning symbol that should be placed on the containers. One of the few things you can do is store it under a mountain range which is exactly what the US government is doing, can't remember the specifics though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Few points:

The reactor design is based upon the micro-reactor, that has been used in nuclear subs for a while, (40+ years), no leaks or issues. It is self contained and there are no reasons to fear leaks because the design limits the amount of possible exposer.

Chernobyl could never happen in the US. We do not allow styrene as insulation, and the fine Russian construction would never be allowed, (we require loop sets, heat transfers from one loop to another, they do direct), they allow wood walls and other crappy construction means where we require Type 'D' concrete (added boron and strengthen'.

Little fact - Coal plants are more radioactive then Nuclear plants. Nuclear plants normally are negative, because of the materials used, where Coal plants don't do any shielding.

Yes, i would love to have one in my back yard, and after showing and explaining the concept to my wife, she agrees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a scale model of the Toshiba micro reactor;

340x.jpg

Toshiba Corp. employee Shinichiro Matsuyama explains about the 1/25 scale model of Toshiba's "4-S," super-safe, small and simple, nuclear reactor at the 17th Toshiba Group Environmental Exhibition in Tokyo Thursday, March 6. 2008. Toshiba has been developing the micro-sized nuclear reactor that is said to be self-sustainable for 30 years without being refueled.

Quote and image taken from: Daylife

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Two main reasons why people are against nuclear power:

  • Reactor safety. While it's acknowledged that modern nuclear power plants are safe, an element of risk still remains.
  • Nuclear waste. Where do you put it? How do you make sure it doesn't contaminate the environment?

Reactor safety *can* be properly addressed (these smaller reactors are buriable, leaving no clue that a reactor is on-site; they can share space with larger power substations). Also, the waste problem is also an issue with most non-nuclear power plants (what do you do with the particulates and fly ash recovered from the scrubbers of coal-fired/oil-fired power plants, for example). Another problem handily addressed by these smaller plants (which conventional power plants have not begun to deal with, to a large extent) is a generating/cooling-water source (these buriable plants don't need cooling at all; even better, they can use treated wastewater (grey water) as a turbine-driver! This is being done, on a similar scale, with CNG generating stations; one is fifteen miles from me, and is a JV of Panda Power, Mitsubishi Electric and the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission. It doesn't tap into aquifers whatever, and further cleans up wastewater prior to it being returned to the watershed.).

So what were those issues again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just not looking forward to the local yobs trying to kick it in for a laugh and making us all turn into zombies lol

Which is why people will need to work together to make it work. Anyway, having tight security on something as potentially hazardous as this won't be hard to mantain.

I'm all for it from what I've read so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Few points:

The reactor design is based upon the micro-reactor, that has been used in nuclear subs for a while, (40+ years), no leaks or issues. It is self contained and there are no reasons to fear leaks because the design limits the amount of possible exposer.

Chernobyl could never happen in the US. We do not allow styrene as insulation, and the fine Russian construction would never be allowed, (we require loop sets, heat transfers from one loop to another, they do direct), they allow wood walls and other crappy construction means where we require Type 'D' concrete (added boron and strengthen'.

Little fact - Coal plants are more radioactive then Nuclear plants. Nuclear plants normally are negative, because of the materials used, where Coal plants don't do any shielding.

Yes, i would love to have one in my back yard, and after showing and explaining the concept to my wife, she agrees.

Exactly.

In fact, even CNG generating stations are more radioactive than nuclear reactors (or X-ray machines in hospitals). The Cedarville (MD) CNG power-generating station (which has won numerous kudos, and rightly so, for its non-use of aquifer water; instead, it uses treated wastewater as a cooling source and as a turbine-driver) has a *higher* background radiation count than the three nearest nuclear reactors (BGE's Calvert Cliffs, Dominion's North Anna, and Three Mile Island) put together.

If you're truly worried about background radiation, avoid concerts and sporting events - both are greater sources of radiation exposure. (Not due to the electronics, but due to the natural radioactivity emitted by the audience.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm aware of the problems of relying on fossil fuels. The point I was trying to make is that the amount of radioactivity emitted into the environment by burning fossil fuels is negligible regardless of which timespan you're looking at.

In my opinion we need to focus on making renewable energy a viable option. Wind power, solar power, hydro electricity... you name it.

While radioactivity-release from fossil fuels may *seem* negligible (though it is, in fact, greater than allowed for nuclear reactors by the NRC) the other pollutants from non-nuclear generating stations are FAR from negligible (else why the MAJOR investments required in scrubbers to deal with them required by the EPA?); also, what do you do with the particulates and fly ash that you've recovered with the scrubbers? (I have four dual-fuel generating stations within twenty miles of me, all are in either the Potomac River watershed, Chesapeake Bay watershed, or both; this is not exactly a small issue from where I sit.)

Nuclear power (whether from conventional reactors or Toshiba/LANL-style micro-reactors) is a *bridge* toward renewables, which are still not, for the most part, economically viable (even hydroelectric power, which is the best-known of the renewables, has a regionality problem, as it requires a river; wind power has the *eyesore problem*, which is why it generally is only considered for the most rural and empty of locations, which contrariwise lack the power grids to transport the power to where its needed; further, all renewables (including wind/solar/tidal-generation) have much higher front-end costs than coal, oil, CNG, or nuclear power). Focussing on renewables makes sense; however, we still need power, and lots of it, in the meantime.

(I can hear the surprise over my comment on the *eyesore problem* affecting wind-power; however, one need go no further than Atlantic City, New Jersey; at the triple-intersection of the Atlantic City Expressway, its Brigantine Extension, and US 40/322, sits a single wind generating tower (incidentally, it's owned by the city). The resistance to putting up additional towers is *entirely* due to the *eyesore problem* (the tower is visible from the hotels along the Boardwalk; in fact, on clear days, it's visible from the Boardwalk itself). The *eyesore problem* is why Ocean City (both Maryland and New Jersey) has resisted deploying wind-generating towers of their own.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with your statements, however Reactor Safety has come a long way since Chernobyl and Long Island (that was the other reactor accident wasn't it?), no one is prepared to risk what happened at Chernobyl again. Granted there is a chance it could go wrong but I still think the advantages outweigh the risk.

Nuclear waste is the other major sticking point, there has been tons of research in to all aspects of storage from containment to even the warning symbol that should be placed on the containers. One of the few things you can do is store it under a mountain range which is exactly what the US government is doing, can't remember the specifics though.

You are speaking about the Yucca Containment Facility (which the state of Nevada is resisting due to transportation-security concerns). Also, a Chernobyl-style reactor has never been built in the United States (not even the AEC would have permitted it, as the design broke even the earliest reactor-safety regulations promulgated by the AEC). Finally, even the largest single nuclear-reactor disaster involving a commercial reactor in the US (Three Mile Island) didn't become a greater disaster largely BECAUSE of all the safeguards and backstops (despite the extreme number of preventable human errors in the operation of the failed reactor, the system did what it was supposed to do), which certainly weren't in place at Chernobyl (what flat-out scares ME is that not only is part of Chernobyl still operating AND generating power, there is at least one other Chernobyl-style generating site still operating within Russia!).

Also, consider that the Toshiba/LANL micro-reactor is based upon the most proven reactor design in operation today: the military nuclear reactor (used in submarines and surface ships from aircraft carriers to cruisers for most of my lifetime). Number of *incidents* involving military reactors over my lifetime (United States or US-licensed reactor designs, which therefore includes the British): none. (Amazingly, the typical *reactor watch officer* on a nuclear-powered vessel, whether surface ship or submarine, is a NON-commissioned officer in the US or Britain; only the Russian Navy requires a commissioned officer in that role. Witness the Americans and Brits having no incidents involving military reactors, which certainly can't be said for the Soviet or Russian Navies.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If everyone took the time, we could all have our own individual home made wind turbines (very simple to make) and the most expensive thing is the Load of batteries you have to store somewhere in your house.

Cost approx 2300 buckaroos, and you go look out at your power meter, guess what, its not going the same direction as before!

Throw on 1 or 2 solar panels! wallah! No Hydro bill!

Especially with the new 99.95% efficient solar cell property their currently developing, we're set for the future all for the price lower than your car!

Not to say it doesn't cost you a bit of money (the most expensive part wouldl be clearly the solar panels, but think of all the money you would save never paying for power again!)

All renewables (including the solar panels and wind turbines) have another nasty issue: the *eyesore problem*. Hate to remind you, but both are actually bigger eyesores than DBS dishes (facing cynosure by lots of HOAs now), and green-engineering to lick that problem is far from cheap. (Those are front-end costs which work against renewables, taking them out of the economic viability range.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds kinda promising. I can't wait to see what develops.

The design isn't even close to rocket-science.

Hyperion's *father* is the military nuclear reactor (specifically, the basic design used by the United States Navy in submarines and surface ships as small as cruisers for most of my lifetime without so much as ONE *incident*; that even includes reactors we sold to the British).

Hyperion's *mother* is the TRIGA collegiate reactor (any university with a decent hard-sciences department has at least one; several, notably Penn State, have more than one).

It's smaller than a typical power substation (in fact, it's smaller than the typical family residence, and takes up as much land; it can, in fact, be buried). NO *greenhouse gases* (in fact, far less environmental damage than all except wind power), no *eyesore problem* (something which not even wind or solar are immune from without horrendous front-end engineering costs), can be brought to the site using conventional shipping methods (absent a railhead, it can be shipped by a single truck; try THAT with a wind tower!), you can, in fact, site them where other renewables are unsound for engineering reasons (Tornado Alley, for example). Training the operators can even be done by the owning municipality (it's no harder than operating wastewater-treatment plants, which is something *community colleges* train folks to do today); that is, if you don't take the easy way out and hire military-trained reactor operators (usually chief petty officers).

Safer than existing reactor design, pollutes less than even conventional power plant design (or even most renewables, especially *eyesore pollution*) not to mention far less expensive (in terms of either front-end or back-end costs) than renewables, conventional fossil-fuel, or conventional nuclear power (they are small enough that *existing* REA grant money could be used to buy them, which more than satisfies that requirement, while lowered dependence on fossil fuels, whether domestic OR foreign, and reducing pollution from same are actually gravy).

And this would be hated (outside of anti-nuclear anything extremists) *why*?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The amount of radioactive material in the emissions from burning fossil fuel are negligible compared to the amounts of radioactive waste produced by nuclear power plants.
In regards to the actual environmental threat, it's the opposite. The emissions from fossil fuels are released into the atmosphere directly, free to be absorbed by any living being, including those we eat. A nuclear power plant releases nothing except water into the atmosphere. All waste is retained on site (and reprocessed, in most countries) with the greatest care.

Which is not to say that this waste does not pose a problem. Most nuclear power plants now date to the 1970s and are in dire need of an upgrade. It's the lack of funding into this energy that causes the waste to keep piling up with no apparent solution. The solution is there, it just needs to be realised, which costs money. Look at the third generation reactors being built in Europe; this is just the beginning of what we can do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nuclear power (whether from conventional reactors or Toshiba/LANL-style micro-reactors) is a *bridge* toward renewables, which are still not, for the most part, economically viable (even hydroelectric power, which is the best-known of the renewables, has a regionality problem, as it requires a river; wind power has the *eyesore problem*, which is why it generally is only considered for the most rural and empty of locations, which contrariwise lack the power grids to transport the power to where its needed; further, all renewables (including wind/solar/tidal-generation) have much higher front-end costs than coal, oil, CNG, or nuclear power). Focussing on renewables makes sense; however, we still need power, and lots of it, in the meantime.
I disagree on nuclear power as a bridge towards 100% renewable. I don't see 100% renewable energy happening anytime soon, if at all. For our security, electricity must be available 100% of the time without failure. This is something renewables (solar, wind) cannot guarantee. A nation will need a source on which it can rely when the renewables are not available. In some nations, like my country, hydroelectric power can do, but this is not true for most nations. Fossil fuels will not be an option for much longer. I believe the backbone of most nations will eventually be clean, low-consumption nuclear power, as 4th generation prototypes demonstrate, and maybe fusion at some point. Renewables can play a large role to reduce the burden on the centrals, but I don't see them standing alone for the foreseeable future.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree on nuclear power as a bridge towards 100% renewable. I don't see 100% renewable energy happening anytime soon, if at all. For our security, electricity must be available 100% of the time without failure. This is something renewables (solar, wind) cannot guarantee. A nation will need a source on which it can rely when the renewables are not available. In some nations, like my country, hydroelectric power can do, but this is not true for most nations. Fossil fuels will not be an option for much longer. I believe the backbone of most nations will eventually be clean, low-consumption nuclear power, as 4th generation prototypes demonstrate, and maybe fusion at some point. Renewables can play a large role to reduce the burden on the centrals, but I don't see them standing alone for the foreseeable future.

I 100% agree with your assessment. Unfortunately, the "fear" component in regards to nuclear power currently holds sway over public policy in the US. People need to wake up and realize that the rosy picture painted regarding "renewables" is not perfect by any means, and that the only real alternative (currently) to fossil fuels is an investment in nuclear power. A large-scale investment in nuclear power would help to solve: 1) US reliance on foreign sources of energy, 2) increasing energy demands, 3) transportation nightmare - logical jump to plug-in cars with cheap energy, and 4) climate crisis. Can any one (or any combination of) the current renewable crop claim the same?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The result of anti-nuclear activism, in the US, have been detrimental to the environment : since renewables were not ready (and are largely not yet), more fossil fuels were used instead of nuclear, old reactors were (and are) kept in operation instead of being replaced by more efficient ones, waste was stockpiled on site instead of being reprocessed. This is the main reason for which I think Greenpeace is either stupid or not really pro-environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The result of anti-nuclear activism, in the US, have been detrimental to the environment : since renewables were not ready (and are largely not yet), more fossil fuels were used instead of nuclear, old reactors were (and are) kept in operation instead of being replaced by more efficient ones, waste was stockpiled on site instead of being reprocessed. This is the main reason for which I think Greenpeace is either stupid or not really pro-environment.

I agree with you again 100%. I will add that a co-founder of Greenpeace seems to think that nuclear power should be in our future (one of many source articles).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just imagine the amount of nuclear waste just one of these things produced... where would we be in 40 years if these things were mass produced. It's just asking for an environmental disaster.

It's called reprocessing and transmutation. The US needs to get on-board with the majority of the world's nuclear power producers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with your statements, however Reactor Safety has come a long way since Chernobyl and Long Island (that was the other reactor accident wasn't it?), no one is prepared to risk what happened at Chernobyl again. Granted there is a chance it could go wrong but I still think the advantages outweigh the risk.
Three Miles island showed one thing, that is : our nuclear power plants are extremely reliable. Even completely out of control for several hours and put under the most extreme conditions, there were no repercussions on local population. And Three Miles Island is old technology. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how people are concerned with safety, and these same people smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, drive fast on the freeway, consume fast food, refuse to exercise, have sex without protection, and do hard core drugs.

Safety concerns? Don't make me laugh. Embrace technology advancements you hypocritical morons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.