A Nuclear Hot Tub in Your Backyard
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 12.17.07
There are many who think that nuclear power has a major role to play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions; there are others who say that the cost and size of nuclear plants and the risks involved outweigh the gains. But what if there was a small, self-regulating and safe reactor design that could be buried and left alone to produce enough power to run 25,000 homes for five years before you have to "change the battery? "
That is what Dr. Otis Peterson of the Los Alamos National Laboratory claims to have done. It is not the first self-regulating and supposedly carefree reactor; CANDU made the slowpoke in the 60's and the Chinese and South Africans are building pebble bed reactors that are supposedly safe.
Los Alamos describes Dr Peterson's reactor as "a compact device capable of generating high levels of thermal power and is self-regulating to a constant temperature of operation. The thermal stability of the power module is built into the design and is achieved without any mechanical moving parts or other external controls. The constant temperature characteristic allows the device to regulate its output in relation to how much power is drawn so that it can automatically accommodate power production up to its maximum of approximately 10 megawatts of electricity. The absence of mechanical moving parts should make the reactor nearly maintenance free for months or years."
The Santa Fe Reporter is a little more colourful in its description:
"The portable nuclear reactor is the size of a hot tub. It’s shaped like a sake cup, filled with a uranium hydride core and surrounded by a hydrogen atmosphere. Encase it in concrete, truck it to a site, bury it underground, hook it up to a steam turbine and, voila, one would generate enough electricity to power a 25,000-home community for at least five years."
Dr. Peterson set up Hyperion Power Generation to produce the unit, and prefers to call it a " ‘drive’ or a ‘battery’ or a ‘module’ in that it’s so safe,Like you don’t open a double-A battery, you just plug [the reactor] in and it does its chemical thing inside of it. You don’t ever open it or mess with it.”
Others are not so sure: “This whole idea is loony and not worthy of too much attention,” Los Alamos Study Group Executive Director Greg Mello says. “Of course, factoring in enough cronyism, corruption and official ignorance and boosterism, it’s possible the principals could make some money during the initial stages, before the crows come home to roost.”
Certainly their lame website does not inspire confidence, starting with hyperbole like "A veritable showcase of U.S. innovation and global leadership in the coming energy crisis, the Hyperion Hydride Reactor is providing the world with direct evidence of the commitment of the U.S. Government to exploiting the benefits of nuclear power and for putting nuclear research back on track, just in time to prevent the devastating energy shortage from the end of the oil age." and recommending a book Power to save the world which asserts that "a stroll through Grand Central Terminal exposes a person to more radiation than a walk of equal length through a uranium mine; that average background radiation around Chernobyl and in Hiroshima is lower than in Denver"
Still, wouldn't it be lovely if we could have one of these babies in every neighbourhood, cooking away making enough power and heat to keep our way of life going without carbon. Or maybe not. ::Hyperion Power via ::Santa Fe Reporter
Have Yourself a Merry Flat-Packed Christmas: The Christmas Card Edition
|
The TH Interview: The Preacher's Son, David Orr (Part One)
|
"But what if there was a small, self-regulating and safe reactor design that could be buried and left alone to produce enough power to run 25,000 homes for five years before you have to "change the battery? ""
Well ... uranium would still be a finite resource, so in the long run, it would mean absolutely nothing at all.
I'd like to see more coverage of the Pebble Bed reactor design. Like it or not, nuclear is an option and could be used responsibly to provide power w/out increasing GHG emissions. The waste issues need to be addressed before going down this road, but as oil tops US$100 per bbl, creative (and hopefully safe) solutions will be found.
See a Wired article here about how the Chinese are pursuing this design: http://tinyurl.com/4mowz
Cheers,
Marco
In the fight against climate change, there are going to have to be compromises. Nuclear power, I believe, is one of them. The environmentalists that oppose it must look at the larger picture - that climate change is happening and happening FAST - and realize that we cannot merely pray for new technology to save us. Nuclear works and it's here now. It's time to use it, but only as a stepping stone, and a compromise.
I'm sort of opposed to giving anyone a solution that seems this easy. It may work fine and provide everyone cheap reliable power. But the question really is what new ways will people find to waste this new electricity??
Seems bogus. Their main picture even has pumps shown (whereas with sealed units like those sent on deep space probes, I'd almost believe it).
Bury the unit, then dig it up a year later when one of the several pumps bearings fails? I think not...
(not to mention all this junk getting radioactive from neutron bombardment...what do you do with these scattered things, once you're done with them?!?!). Instead of a a lot of power from a few reactors, now you've got less power from more reactors...so you've got all these nice "hot" housings to deal with.
Seems like nuke pie-in-the-sky thinking....and bad ones at that...
The US has spent billions of dollars to secure the radioactive material in similar devices which still scar the landscape and endanger the people of for the former Soviet Union. To think we could have all that here!
I am not against reactors, but that idea is lunacy.
The US has spent billions of dollars to secure the radioactive material in similar devices which still scar the landscape and endanger the people of for the former Soviet Union. To think we could have all that here!
I am not against reactors, but that idea is lunacy.
@Overmat
I'm only speculating, but It looks like the concrete housing is designed to be compatible with the typical cask storage system. In which case the only obstacle to long term storage would be transportation, which in all reality isn't much of an obstacle.
"(not to mention all this junk getting radioactive from neutron bombardment...what do you do with these scattered things, once you're done with them?!?!)"
Neutron bombardment typically yields beta emitters with short half-lives. This can eventually cause failure in the mechanical structure of a reactor, but are not really a factor for long term storage. Fission products are still the primary long term dose contributer in the system.
So this thing is incredibly safe and small. Can someone explain why such a beauty needs to be buried ?
So this thing is incredibly safe and small. Can someone explain why such a beauty needs to be buried ?
First this site should not criticize other websites, this one is horrendous. Second all I read here is a bunch of knee jerk reactions. I here a lot of people saying distributed power generation is what we need....but obviously not like this huh? Sure there are some issues, but how much space or cost would it be for solar and wind to power 250000 homes too?
CANDU reactors are the future. They can use so many types of fuel it's insane. They can use natural uranium, saving energy from enriching uranium. They can also use spent fuel from LWR reactors (like in the US), getting 30-40% more energy out of them, meaning less nuclear waste. They can use plutonium, from decommisioned nuclear weapons, turning material ripe for proliferation into clean energy. And the best part, they are designed and made just north of here by a nice ally called Canada! Proven safety, less waste, less nuclear proliferation, made by an ally. Seems like the future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU
What if I had a sparkly unicorn to nuzzle and could teleport myself across the universe? Gee, nuclear power without any problems sure sounds great!
Hogwash.
Nuclear reactors need larger size to be more efficient. Small results in the same problems, but less electrical generation to absorb the cost and difficulty.
Gas cooled reactors have been tried. Fort Saint Vrain in Colorado was a helium cooled graphite core reactor. The highly radioactive helium kept leaking out, and it's extraordinarily high temperatures cause extraordinary problems - even in the context of nuclear reactors.
Hydrogen cooling means that there can be no oxygen whatsoever within the reactor and its plumbing. Or you will have an excellent chance for an explosion in your core. Just what one of the worst case scenarios for Three Mile Island was.
Put the same investment into solar, wind and tidal power and we would have much more reliable power generation, much more rapidly. It's time to stop funding nuclear follies and support real, safe and secure local power production.
Anyone who thinks there is going to be social acceptance for burying hundreds of nuclear reactors throughout a medium sized city must be living in a different country (or a different decade). No matter how great this thing is, if you announce you plan to start burying nuclear reactors under people's streets, you will be out of office at the next election, if not before.
What would the cost be?
You good always just get a regular Hot Tub!
What would the cost be?
You good always just get a regular Hot Tub!
I think the guy who talked about the Canadian Candu reactors is on the right track. With some modification, Candu reactors might also use thorium.
Also, I'd rather see a few large centralized nuclear reactors than greater numbers of distributed nukes everywhere. This way, all the nuclear waste can be produced, managed and remediated at a central location. Nuclear waste management would be easier. This would keep nuclear power safe. To have nuclear waste produced from zillions of individual point locations seems harder to manage and downright scary.
craigels39 hogwash yourself.
There is no such a thing as "highly radioactive helium" - it simply does not exist (the worst type decays to normal helium in less than a second). So I think the rest of what you posted is equally nonsense.
"Put the same investment into solar, wind and tidal power and we would have much more reliable power generation, much more rapidly."
No we can't - there isn't enough energy in the world to do that. Wind at most can supply about 20%. Tidal even less (and only by the coast, and it's way too expensive, since it's underwater).
For solar you'd need to basically devote the entire of texas to energy. Not practical. And solar cells (to cover roofs) use about the same energy to make as they produce, so not useful. And that's been like that for about 40 years. Not going to change any time soon.
Sorry, but the only clean energy source that exists is nuclear.
By the time we run out (hundreds of years), most likely we'll manage to get power from space via a tether, or succeed with fusion.
No one is waiting for pie in the sky dreams. We are using power now, not waiting. And coal fuel releases thousands to millions of times as much radiation into the environment as nuclear.
There is no other choice: it's burn coal and oil, or it's nuclear.
Pick one, and don't waste time with wishful thinking.
Personally I find nuclear to be safer. Coal has killed thousands to millions. Nuclear much less, even when you include chernobyl.
General Groves found out during the Manhattan Project that trying to buy the world's supply of Uranium is akin to trying to hoard the Sea.
Natural Uranium is a common mineral, widely distributed, easy to find and refine.
United Nuclear in New Mexico even sponsors daytrips to collect your own samples!
Ethically, I would choose a front-loaded energy/water producing system with a admittedly tricky waste problem over letting all those little children die painfully of thirst and starvation.