Mini Nuclear Plants Powering 20,000 Homes Each On Sale Within Five Years

The Guardian:

Nuclear power plants smaller than a garden shed and able to power 20,000 homes will be on sale within five years, say scientists at Los Alamos, the US government laboratory which developed the first atomic bomb.

The miniature reactors will be factory-sealed, contain no weapons-grade material, have no moving parts and will be nearly impossible to steal because they will be encased in concrete and buried underground.

The US government has licensed the technology to Hyperion, a New Mexico-based company which said last week that it has taken its first firm orders and plans to start mass production within five years. 'Our goal is to generate electricity for 10 cents a watt anywhere in the world,' said John Deal, chief executive of Hyperion. 'They will cost approximately $25m each. For a community with 10,000 households, that is a very affordable $250 per home.'

Read the whole story: The Guardian

Comments

[KillTheMessenger]

This is an old hat. Siemens tried to market these things twenty years ago and got exactly nowhere. Can you imagine the problems with your neighbors if you try to install one of these in your back yard?

[Motes]

So are you saying that the design in this article and the one came up twenty years ago by Siemens are the same? Do you have more knowledge on this then what was given in the article?

[research]

They stated it in the article.

It's basically a research reactor design.

[Myshkin57]

But this isn't for private citizens. I think the idea is that you could make the transition neighborhood by neighborhood forgoing the huge initial investment that usually goes with a nuclear plant. Only time will tell if it's a good idea or not, but I don't think it's prima facie ridiculous.

[Big0725]

Different type of reactor.

[Motes]

It would be nice if the article gave a few more specifics about this reactor. It probably is something on the lines of a TRIGA reactor which are, from an operation standpoint, very safe. Questions on how to transport fuel is a concern although if I remember correctly they reactor itself will produce less nuclear waste as water is used as the moderator and shielding so besides for the fuel core itself you will produce heavy water (H20 with deterium) which is also safe and occurs naturally. Everyone drinks 10s of mL of that stuff every day. Likely this could be useable for governement or large scale industrial applications where thinks can be more secure. However, there are a lot of questions on the details of how it will work, but it can be very useful in some situations.

In a TRIGA reactor (if memory serves me correctly) you can actually view the reactor core as it is just immeresed in a large pool of very clean water. It is (was) often used to show how particles can move faster than the local speed of light in a medium (water) and how that will create the bluish Chereknov radiation.

[wadenelson1]

Triga reactors don't produce significant amounts of energy. You couldn't heat the engineering hall with one cranked all the way up.

When you take a reactor to the power levels required to generate steam and spin turbines it's a whole different ballgame. Loose your coolant and you're immediately in trouble.

Supposedly a pebble-bed reactor doesn't have this problem. Only if you lose your helium, those ingenious graphite pebbles (size of tennis balls) can ignite if air gets in there. Research "Windscale" or "Chernobyl" to learn about what happens when your moderator ignites and burns.

[Motes]

That is not a true statement.

Old TRIGA reactors can put out a steady state of about 500kW wtih pulsing up to several hundred megawatts, and they are models running over a few megawatts steady-state. It is entirely possible that this is a modification off of those. Remember this is supposed to be a small scale reactor.

How can you possibly know the details of this project from this one page article? Unless you do not need to know all of the facts prior to passing judgement.

[Big0725]

PBRs are inherently safe. If the medium overheats, the reaction stops.

[sandiaview]

They never gives specifics until it bites you in the buttocks..­.birth defects, leukemia, cancers, two headed animals. Same old anything for a dollar American pirates! Can they insure this crap? They will be asking John Q. Public to hold them harmless and pay the bill. Why is this in the green section?

[desertdweller]

The Russians have had these for years. They have been used, not for domestic purposes, but in remote locations where traditional combustion-powered generators are impractical because of the need to haul fuel. The "mini nuclear power plants" in question contain Strontium-90, a highly toxic and radioactive source. There have been numerous accidents in which tampering has led to exposure and contamination. Countless units went missing over the years. And here's the kicker: while not fissionable in a nuclear weapons sense, Strontium-90 would make one hell of a dirty bomb.

[grizhead63]

Yay! Lets turn the USA into one big Chernobyl! Yay forNukes; Nukethe whalesandp­olarbears!

[jeg]

Wow. +10 for not reading the article at all.

Idiot.

[grizhead63]

Wow. +10 to you for being a nukularFruitcake. I read the article and dont believe a word of nuclear p.r.b.s. Nobody but you would want the toxic waste in their backyard.

All the waste is currently being stored at the nuclear plants around the country because no one wants it near them. Its just piling up.

[GoVeg]

Nuclear waste is a big concern, the article didn't mention anything about it.

[craneman]

To all the pessimists out there, you might want to read the special subscriber edition of Scientific American. Clears up a lot of confusion.

[DragonFly]

Does it clear up the topic of nuclear waste?

I'm very concerned about this, and the fact that the article did not even mention it, causes me to be suspicious.

[wadenelson1]

But it did! First you bury it in concrete to make it safe. Then in 5-7 years you jackhammer away the concrete to replenish the fuel. Try not to hit the core while you're jackhammering.

Say what? Company went out of biz? Oh well, just leave it in the back yard and hope ground water never gets in.

The "core" itself may be the size of a big hot tub but that's not including the turbine and generator you're gonna need to make electricity. Heat exchangers perhaps, so you don't circulate "hot" water to all your neighbors if the thing ever breaches a fuel element?

[newshawk14]

The problem is still nuclear wastes. Depending on the type of reactor you have to manage the
waste for 20K years (slow neutron), or 300 years (fast neutron). The fast neutron reactor fissions
the transuranics, but is more complicated in that liquid sodium is used as the moderator, and
you need a heat exchanger to produce steam. To do an accurate cost analysis, you really have
to look at the cost of managing the wastes.

[alvdh1]

I think you forgot to include plutonium waste storage number. It has a half life of 24,000 years and requires 10 half lifes to become innocuous. 10 X 24,000 = 240,000 years. To do an accurate analysis you have to look at the entire nuclear fuel cycle. The fuel cycle is subsidized by the federal government from start to finish. In that analysis one should also consider the Price Anderson Act which essentially lets the Uitility industry off the hook in the event of an accident. The utility industry acts a consortium to pool insurance dollars to pay up to $10 billion damages. The taxpayers pick up the rest. The utilities refuse to accept full liability for an accident. This is the most damning element of the industry. If it is so safe then why wont you assume full liability.

The industry and it government partner used to say the electricity would be to cheap to meter. If the industry had to pay for the entire nuclear fuel cycle, there would be zero power plants operating in the U.S. If they had to assume full liability, there would be zero plants operating. Now we want to build hundreds of baby nukes so that the taxpayers can subsidize the fuel cycle, liability, terrorist protection and decommissioning of high tech water boilers.

[DragonFly]

Excellent points, and I do wish someone would address them in detail.

It would appear that the people have been left out of the equation once again, because the public has little, to no say, in this matter.

[newshawk14]

Plutonium is a transuranic and gets fissioned, which leaves you with mainly
fission products which are beta emitters and much less energetic.

[MyTake]

Gee, the Bin Laden "jihad" discipals and suicide bombers are salvitating over this one.

Imagine planting these in your back yard and for terrorists to figure out a way to make it "LEAK"!

I much prefer a hydrogen fuel cell power generator that I can keep in my garage that provides my electricity and what I don't use can go back into the electrical grid!

[jeg]

Of course, that'll get jacked by the neighborhood gang for the platinum. Also probably costs twice as much, and there's still the issue of acquiring hydrogen. Sure, it's incredibly abundant, but most of it's locked up in things like water and hydrocarbons.

All in all, the mini-nuke is probably safer. :)

[MyTake]

Well, you got me!

But this guy found a way to burn salt water and the oil cartel patent lawyers were on him like Spiderman: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=xW25Aaaj9so .

With all the money you would save on electricity bills from the energy suppliers, I am sure you could afford a high performance alarm and video system to guard your platinum!

[montemalone]

Where do you get the H?

[MyTake]

Well, since 90% of the Global population lives within 100 miles of an ocean coast, I think this guy, down in Erie PENN, does a mighty fine job of producing Hydrogen gas just by beaming a frequency through a vile of salt water: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=xW25Aaaj9so . At least the TV girl is impressed!

But you can easily get the hydrogen by using Ammonia as feed stock or any carbon based source, but you want to innovatively get it from water because you are just taking the hydrogen atoms off the oxygen atom and letting them snap back together as the water molecule and just capture the energy release when that snap back occurs. If another Tesla type guy comes along and figures how to do this cycle continuously, we will all be better off.

[Myshkin57]

They aren't for private citizens. Unless, that is, you have a huge house and $25 million to spare. And where are these home fuel cell generators? I've yet to see one.

[MyTake]

You have not been watching your TV: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23451723/ .

But the Rockefeller syndicate don't want you to see them in North America until the magical date of 2020.

The Sheraton Hotel chain is converting to hydrogen fuel cell generators, the Verizon building in New Jersey has 6 of them and only use the electrical grid as back-up. Several countries are doing them as well.

Gee, Bill Gates has a huge house and has $25 million in spare change, he might need one to beam all his computer data up to the clouds (cloud computing) and beyond. . The point I was trying to make was that if you put a hundred of these out there somewhere, someone could get to them big time.

[wadenelson1]

The whole thing looks like an investment scam to me.

[robbor]

and your opinion is based on ....?

[wadenelson1]

An engineering degree and a lifelong interest in nukes.

[wadenelson1]

I retract my comments after performing further research. My apology.;

[robbor]

hey GM, why don't you take one of your downed plants and convert it into a reactor manufacturing facility?

Is there a downside to this type of power? If not, then the US needs to get on the stick and start pumping these machines out. Bye bye coal fired plants. Heck, there won't even be a need for rebuilding the grid.
At $250.00 per household, there's no home owner who will not be able to afford this miracle machine.

[60thStreet]

Uh, yeah...I'm going out on a limb here, but, guessing this idea goes the way of HD-DVD for Toshiba...

But, I'll give them kudos for finding a product with very little competitio­n...

It sounds like one of those stupid promo ads from mid 20th century newsreels.­..

"Bury a nuclear reactor in your back yard!!!" "Besides powering your home....It­'ll make a cozy warming area on your lawn for your pet......a toasty pad for camping in the yard with the kids....ha­ve a "white hot" Christmas dinner picnic right in the back yard in the middle of winter!"

"certified by the friendly folks at Los Alamos!!..­..the people that brought you.......

(cue mushroom cloud, melting cars and vaporizing mannequins)

BOOOOOOOOO­OOOOOMMMMM­MMMMMMMMM!­!"

these are sure to fly off the shelves, I'm sure the Japanese citizenry will be all over it...maybe Toshiba could test market it in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to prove to everyone how safe they are...

[AuntSally]

Nuclear waste is the downside, which remains highly toxic -- and a threat to groundwater and food supplies -- for 300-30,000 years (depending on the type of reactor). This article didn't address the specifics of the waste; it's a problems that's plagued the technology for sixty years, with no solution.

Almost certainly these folks aren't factoring the cost of dealing with the waste into their price estimate. And given that the waste could produce catastrophic environmental impact, those costs are enormous.

[WilliePilgrim]

Very interesting. As for the waste from these devices about which so many are expressing their concern and scepticism, I would suggest that a number of better solutions are awaiting us, far better than storing it at Yucca mountain, including neutron bombardment to de-radioactivate materials and even high temperature vitrification processes for ultimate disposal by burial in deep marine ooze at deep sea trench subduction zones.
The resistance to widespread nuclear generation capacity still has some merit and should not be ignored but if there is to be resistance to progress on this technology it has to be more realistic about the technology and less fear-based from the standpoint of ignorance than it has been for the most part.

[NWBrunette]

Fine. Figure it out and factor the cost of disposal in to the upfront cost of the machine. Stop expecting our children to clean up the mess. If you can do that, great. There's nothing fear-based about it.

[Tom95134]

There is no "disposal" only storage.

[AuntSally]

There's a difference between fear-based and risk-based objections. We've been trying to figure out how to safely store nuclear waste for sixty years. Still not there. I say, stop generating the waste until we know how to deal with it. The alternative is to keep generating the waste and hope we eventually figure it out. Poor risk management, plain and simple.

(Not to mention the substantial environmental cost associated with mining and processing uranium ore for the fuel.)

[JScott]

Yup as other comments alluded to STILL WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THE WASTE PRODUCTS!?

This is like those 50's articles about nuclear powered cars (Ford Nucleon?) and using nuclear bombs to blast obstructions to building I-40 and I-15 freeways across the Mojave Desert.

It would only be signicant if they were FUSION reactors.

[Ameriki]

I remember reading an article about nuclear power in My Weekly Reader when I was in elementary school (circa 1958). I haven't searched for the original article but it predicted that we would soon have small central air-conditioner size power units capable of supplying approximately five households. This was before the energy monopolies grabbed the technology.

[escobar]

So the thing will work trouble and maintenance free for eternity?
What will they do with the waste?
They don't know how to get rid of the stuff they have now.
The plan to bury it in mountiain caves isn't doing very well.
What an awful outlook this is.
So, the people who created the potential to destroy all life on Earth have come up with a plan to do just that.

[PSM42]

This article is such obvious rubbish. John Vidal and Nick Rosen appear never to have heard of Amory Lovins and certainly to have never read or listened to anything he has said. And it is not as if he is hard to understand.

The reason no nuclear power plants have been built is that they are completely uneconomic, producing electricity that costing two or three times a gas or coal power plant. And even more than co-generation which is expanding exponentially.

I wish that journalists would do even the most rudimentary research before they write a story based on a talking point from some nuclear industry lobby nutcase.

[PSM42]

Correction -
The reason NO nuclear power plants have been built in the U.S. in a decade is that they are completely uneconomic, producing electricity that costs two or three times that of a gas or coal power plant. In addition, electricity from co-generation plants is the cheapest of all, which is why their market share is expanding exponentially.

This does not even consider the huge and uneconomic capital costs, the enormous expense of decomissioning, the radiation and terrorism risks and the risks of nuclear proliferation. Let alone the risks of bone-headed stupidity bringing about continent wide damage, as in Chernobyl.

Private capital will not, and has not, backed nuclear power for decades, on purely economic grounds alone.

They are only built by a very few national governments, who provide the enormous subsidies needed. Principally Russia, China and France. But France has launched a huge renewable energy initiative because it is more economic and China is building far more capacity with other forms of powerplant that dwarf any small increase in nuclear power.

For all these reasons nuclear power has no part in the green energy revolution to come. Sound bites from politicians notwithstanding.

The only group that wants nuclear power are those who can't do business without continuing enormous taxpayers subsidies. Namely the nuclear lobby, whose earnings come from government handouts.

Sources - Amory Lovins and S. David Freeman.

[geneven]

Of course, nuclear power plants are not inherently "completely uneconomic". This depends on the state of technology. Nuclear power works quite well in the sun, and no one complains about budgets being busted. I agree that this article should not be uncritically published as if it was the last word.

I like the idea of nuclear power plants, but of course that doesn't mean I have an economically feasible one in my back yard. That kind of development has to be proven.

[PSM42]

And a wiseacre - Stanford Ovshinsky, American genius mostly acknowledged only in Japan - pointed out that in the Sun is the best place to keep all nuclear power.

X billion miles away, with no radiation on earth, while we harness its power as he worked for a lifetime to implement. Smart man.

[jnik]

Can "Mr. Fusion" be far behind?