Mini nuclear plants to power 20,000 homes

[Truth2Tell]

Source: The Guardian

John Vidal and Nick Rosen
Sunday November 9

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 <£13m> each. For a community with 10,000 households, that is a very affordable $250 per home.'

Deal claims to have more than 100 firm orders, largely from the oil and electricity industries, but says the company is also targeting developing countries and isolated communities. 'It's leapfrog technology,' he said.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/miniature-nuclear-reactors-los-alamos

[endless october]

1. i like this idea.

nuclear and renewable energy is the way to go. now we just have to figure out something to do with the waste.

[Truth2Tell]

2. Right, "the way to go,"

except that pesky problem of the waste.

Any ideas?

[FREEWILL56]

21. What about that other pesky problem of security for radioactive materials?

The nuclear fuel doesn't have to be weapons grade to be dangerous as it is still radioactive. It is easier to secure when a facility must be a certain large size, but I can't see having that many smaller secured (can they secure that many facilities?) facilities for every 20,000 people and sooner or later security would be breached by terrorism (doesn't have to be from osama) or a smaller scale accident will occur. Bad idea IMHO as it's just spreading things too thinly.

[Ian David]

25. I like the current waste disposal plan, which is to bury Utah in the stuff. n/t

[snooper2]

30. Build Cheap Rockets..

And shoot it into the sun :)

[Demeter]

39. Hey! Who Blew Up the Sun?

Some moran shooting fissile material into it....

[Nihil]

41. It's OK ... they'll do it at night!

Please tell me you didn't really think that shooting the amounts
of "fissile material" that you can get into a rocket is going to
even be noticed by the sun ...?

(I'm not in favour of trying it BTW but my concern is the risk of
contamination from one of the many failure modes before the rocket
gets out of the Earth's gravitational well. Mind you, even that
would be unlikely to spread more fallout across the globe than the
bomb tests from the 40s, 50s & 60s.)

[Demeter]

42. And You Know This For a Fact Because,,,,

God told you?

[Nihil]

43. Astronomy & physics mainly ...

... mind you, if your view is that God created me and led me through
the various stages of my education then yes, I suppose *you* might say
that "God told me" ... it's just not the sort of phrase that I would
have used ...
:hi:

[Dogmudgeon]

4. Newer reactors can use "waste" as fuel

Nuclear "waste" is simply spent fuel. Some people think it's like garbage or oil, but it's metal rods.

Most of the newer "4th generation" reactors can use that and draw on ("burn") the rest of the radioactivity for energy production. Even some older models, like the CANDU (Canadian Deuterium/Uranium) reactors, are able to use spent fuel.

In addition, storing spent fuel rods in concrete casks (like the core of this mini-reactor does) is much safer than ANY fossil fuel. It takes the average spent fuel rod under 1000 years to return to a background level of radiation. Hardened concrete can easily last that long.

Keep in mind: burning coal releases a TREMENDOUS amount of uranium, thorium, and even plutonium, dozens of Chernobyls-worth per year. This nuclear waste is "stored" in the air we breathe. At least reactor fuel is kept in one place, shielded, and under guard.

--p!

[struggle4progress]

11. You know better than to spread this fiction about uranium and plutonium releases from coal

Let's do the arithmetic

Fact Sheet FS-163-97
October, 1997
Radioactive Elements in Coal and Fly Ash:
Abundance, Forms, and Environmental Significance

... In the majority of samples, concentrations of uranium fall in the range from slightly below 1 to 4 parts per million (ppm). Similar uranium concentrations are found in a variety of common rocks and soils, as indicated in figure 2. Coals with more than 20 ppm uranium are rare in the United States. Thorium concentrations in coal fall within a similar 1–4 ppm range, compared to an average crustal abundance of approximately 10 ppm. Coals with more than 20 ppm thorium are extremely rare ...

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html

Plutonium is, for all practical purposes, a sythetic element; it only occurs naturally at barely detectable levels

Natural plutonium
03 September 2008
From New Scientist Print Edition

... Small amounts of plutonium-239 are found in uranium ores - about 1 part in 10^11 of uranium ... http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926721.200-natural-plutonium.html

Thus one expects plutonium to represent only about 1 part in 10^17 of coal

In general, one expects the heavy elements to concentrate in ash or slag:

Natural radioactivity of coal and its by-products in the Baoji coal-fired power plant, China
CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 91, NO. 11, 10 DECEMBER 2006 1158-1159

... The results show that fly ash or bottom ash contain three to six times
more natural radionuclides than feed coal.environment ... <pdf:> http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/dec102006/1508.pdf

According to Table 12.4 at p303 in Coal Geology (Larry Thomas) about 1.5% of the uranium in coal is released in flue gases and the rest in concentrated in the ash; see http://books.google.com/books?id=4oYWx90ybY8C&pg=PA303&lpg=PA303&dq=coal+%22fly+ash%22+fraction&source=web&ots=2pioUqF5j1&sig=-JEzm_SP_MHBprBoGsZ3SfOJg4M&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=34&ct=result

A reasonable guess for current annual world coal consumption is perhaps 7000 million short tons or about 6350 million metric tonnes; see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=html_table

Thus currently one expects about

6350 million million g coal x 4 g U/million g coal x 0.015 = 392 metric tonnes U

to be released to the worldwide atmosphere annually by coal burning. The corresponding annual worldwide atmospheric plutonium release is about 4 nanograms

For comparison, consider the total amount of uranium already suspended in the atmospheric atmospheric dust that blows from North Africa to the Caribbean:

... Prospero and Carlson <9> established that
the quantity of dust transported annually from North
Africa to the Caribbean area by the trade winds between
10°N and 25°N was in excess of 50 megatons; this cal-
culation was based on five years of essentially continu-
ous sea level aerosol studies at Barbados, West Indies,
<9—12> and on extensive aircraft measurements made
during the Barbados Océanographie and Meteorologi-
cal Experiment <13> ... For Barbados dust, the average U and Th con-
tent is 3.6 and 12.4 ppm, respectively, and the Th/U
ratio is 3.5. Miami westerly dust has 5.5 ppm U and
1.65 ppm Th, yielding a Th/U ratio of 0.3. Krauskopf
<20> gives the average U and Th contents (in ppm) for
the earth's crust as 2.7 and 9.6, and for shale as 3.2 an
11, respectively; therefore, the ratio of Th/U for crust
would be 3.6 and for shale 3.4. Thus, the Barbados
samples show a small enrichment, approximately 30%
of U and Th compared to average crust, but the Th/U
ratio is about the same ... http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:F2p5TWUtVtkJ:www.rsmas.miami.edu/divs/mac/People/Faculty/Prospero/Publications/Publications/Rydell_Prospero_Uranium_EPSL14_1972.pdf+atmospheric+dust+uranium+-depleted&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us

Thus, dust blown from the surface of North Africa dumps approximately

50 million million g dust x 3.7 g U/million g dust = 185 metric tonnes

of uranium into the Caribbean every year

Uranium releases from coal plants are not the primary reason that coal plaants should cause us concern: currently the primary reasons, assuming good scrubbers are employed, are the environmental destruction associated with coal mining and global warming from CO2. Uranium mining is also quite destructive and leaves large waste rock and tailings piles, which themselves can be significant sources of uranium in atmospheric dust and in runoff waters

[Dogmudgeon]

13. That's a pretty tangible fiction!

Of course, there are worse threats about coal burning than radionuclide release; you pointed some of them out already. But the U/Th release is still pretty hefty. And airborne fly ash itself is concentrated metallic and glassy material.

Not only does it contain uranium and thorium, but mercury and arsenic are well-represented. So, too, is cadmium, which is used in thin-film solar PV technology. The mercury toxicity is probably the largest risk outside of CO2-forced climate change.

And while the Plutonium release is extremely small, it's still there. The same logic is used universally in assessing radioactive contamination. No release level is considered to be too small. Homeopathic levels of radionuclide release are cause for major scandal.

CO2, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, uranium, and falling from a 500-foot high aerogenerator tower all have potentially lethal risks. We need a unified view of risk-vs-benefit for any technology. There's way too much nuclear panic -- and too little concern about coal and metal poisons -- which will lead us to make poorly informed choices that could easily be worse than inaction.

--p!

[struggle4progress]

17. Radioactivity releases from nuclear operations dwarf radioactivity releases from coal

Natural uranium is not very radioactive: 25,280 Bq/g or 0.000000683 Ci/g or 0.683 Ci/metric ton. So the annual 392 ton of U from coal corresponds total radioactivity of 267 Ci

In comparison, the Chernobyl accident released at least 100 million Ci (see http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/NucEne/cherno2.html) -- and perhaps a hundred times that

The Three Mile Island accident released something like 2.4 million Ci, including 13-17 Ci radioiodine; see http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/216/4542/131

In 1981, average routine tritium emissions from the Pickering plant in Canada were 1350 Ci/mo to the atmosphere and another 625 Ci/mo to local waters; see http://books.google.com/books?id=xlTv3smyZQYC&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=candu+tritium+release+ci&source=web&ots=4sCM1N2lue&sig=P7tVsp4KjExIdrZp-iAiv1T6IBA&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

Thus the local radioactivity releases from Chernobyl and TMI correspond respectively to about 375000 and 9000 years of burning coal worldwide at the current rate. The local radioactivity release from Pickering for 1981 corresponds to about 75 years of burning coal worldwide at the current rate. Note that I have mentioned only two incidents at two plants and one year at a third for nuclear, disregarding releases from fuel manufacture and waste handling -- while for coal I am discussing worldwide nuclear emissions from all plants

Nuclear fuel manufacture also has release potential

The 1999 Tokaimura criticality accvident in Japan released at least 162 TBq or about 4378 Ci of noble gases and radio-iodine

Beyond such exceptional cases, there are so-called "routine" releases from operating nuclear power stations: these can also be substantial individually and in aggregate will dwarf the radioactivity releases from worldwide coal consumption


Finally, I will add:

When considering "small" releases, the spatial and temporal features of the release are important: no one sane would consent to having a particle containing a nanogram of plutonium in his/her lung -- but that is rather different from a worldwide total combined release of a nanogram of plutonium into the atmosphere from thousands of locations over the course of a year

[quidam56]

18. END MOUNTAIN TOP REMOVAL !!!

http://www.wisecountyissues.com

[Duppers]

48. hear here!

thanks

[slampoet]

32. If the reactor is on your property, you will be disposing of it around your house and family.

[crikkett]

37. except that 'clean' nuclear energy has been leaking all over France.

This is a HORRIBLE IDEA.

[northernlights]

3. thin film solar is available commercially...today

I'd rather see investment in something that has zero risk -- no nuclear waste to contend with, no polluting output at all.

AND it could be affordable by individuals, freeing us from BIG ENERGY COMPANIES who want us dependent on them.

[Dogmudgeon]

5. Solar film waste is Cadmium. Highly poisonous.

There is no risk-free technology. NONE.

And check the companies that are funding solar energy -- they are huge. We will replace the BIG ENERGY COMPANIES with BIG TECH COMPANIES. And we will be dependent on THEM instead.

Solar/Wind/Tidal all have tremendous potential, but they also have limitations. And they WON'T magically free us from corporate domination. Nuclear energy is an excellent solution, but it's also not perfect. For all of these things -- "Sad, but true".

--p!

[itsrobert]

22. Evergreen Solar Panels don't use Cadmium

thanks

[FREEWILL56]

23. Adding to your post is that there is more than thin film out there.

Thin film is not as good as the crystaline technology or the string technology of Evergreen and they sell them by the watt anyway so why buy the cheap quality shit found in thin film? With prices around $4-$5 a watt, guess what the better buys are in photovoltaics?
To those that spread overly optimistic scams er claims, please spare me the $1 a watt bull shit as it isn't being sold to anybody in the public at that price.

[greenman3610]

6. I'm always skeptical of plans for nuclear

but if this works as advertised, it alleviates some of the concerns.
In reading the article, I still don't see how this completely alleviates the
proliferation concerns. We still have to question if we want the Algeria's, Syrias,
and Jordan's of the world to have fully developed nuclear programs.
Historically, nuclear weapons ALWAYS go hand in hand with "peaceful"
nuclear power.

[snort]

7. sounds costly

he may have been misquoted. 10 cents a kilowatt would make more sense.

[eggplant]

9. It wasn't the only math error in the quote.

$25m / 10,000 homes = $2500, not $250. And you buy electricity in watt-hours, not watts.

[Dogmudgeon]

8. Hyperion Website

http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com">Get information about Hyperion from Hyperion itself.

--p!

[Arctic Dave]

10. Interesting concept.

If this is a part of an overall composite of non coal energy production I can see merit with it. However, I am jaded enough to know not to believe every commercial I see put out by a company that stands to make lots of money.

[struggle4progress]

12. Reactor rods are rather quickly poisoned by fission byproducts, so such buried reactors

would require regular replacement

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. Article says 7 to 10 years; company website says

"The waste produced after five years of operation is approximately the size of a softball and is a good candidate for fuel recycling".

What isn't clear from the article is whether $25m includes the cost of cleaning up the reactor at the end, or if it's just the initial cost.

[jwirr]

14. And what about waste? What about the devistation caused by mining

uranium? Does this little wonder correct those problems?

[Phred42]

15. STUPID - STUPID - STUPID

:banghead:

[Codeine]

27. Yes, the anti-nuke forces certainly are stupid.

Good of you to point that out. :hi:

[Phred42]

29. Idiot

[Codeine]

33. Correct again.

Most of them are, indeed, idiotic. I'm glad we're finding so much common ground on this issue.

[wordpix]

19. "impossible to steal" but possible to bomb

and NO ONE WANTS THE WASTE. I call bullshit

[Psephos]

24. that sounds like a Terrah argument

had enough of those already :-)

[Codeine]

28. You sound like a Bushite.

Quit using terror as an argument.

[curse of greyface]

20. Great idea for large Hospitals. nt

[Javaman]

26. Neighbor #1: So where is bob today?

Neighbor #2: oh, you didn't hear? or see the glowing?

Neighbor #1: glowing? hear what?

Neighbor #2: his reactor went all china syndrome last night.

Neighbor #1: really? I hadn't heard a thing, was it on the news?

Neighbor #2: just a small blurb, it's pretty common now sad to say. His house is taped off, don't need any of the local kids getting zapped.

Neighbor #1: well that's good. So you going to the ball game later...

[slampoet]

31. This is an OLD IDEA FROM 1956 Why is this in LBN?

This was part of the promotion package during the ATOMS FOR PEACE campaign back in the 1950's

[superconnected]

34. Oh look, nuclear reactors really will be in every neighborhood.

I guess the kids with asthma will just have to die. (ultrafine particles that are linked to asthma that the power plants give off and all.)

[Nihil]

40. The "kids with asthma" will die a lot quicker if they stick to coal-fired plants.

> (ultrafine particles that are linked to asthma that the power
> plants give off and all.)

The above is exactly right ... for a COAL power plant. :rofl:

[superconnected]

46. Thanks for correcting me on that. Sorry you lack any class in doing so, but thanks for correcting me

[Nihil]

47. You're welcome. Sorry that you caught me on a "less than tactful" day.

:pals:

[curse of greyface]

44. Actually this would help kids with Asthma. nt

[superconnected]

35. BTW, what happens when there's an earth quake and a subsequent melt down?

Chernobyl for the neighborhood or the entire city?

[Overseas]

36. Mini-nukes, eh? Do they have MINI-WASTE too? And just mini-meltdowns?

Radioactive for only 5,000 years?

[Demeter]

38. With Its Own Built-In, Everlasting Glow in the Dark Night Light

There are much cheaper, safer and greener ways to get power.

[curse of greyface]

45. I prefer whale oil. It's all natural, green and renewable.

Nuclear is one of the greenest power sources out there. It isn't 1975 anymore.

I swear some people have the strangest blind spots when it comes to nuclear power.

[KewlKat]

49. Things that make me go hm...

Small enough to be transported on a ship, truck or train, Hyperion power modules are about the size of a "hot tub" — approximately 1.5 meters wide. Out of sight and safe from nefarious threats, Hyperion power modules are buried far underground and guarded by a security detail. Like a power battery, Hyperion modules have no moving parts to wear down, and are delivered factory sealed. They are never opened on site. Even if one were compromised, the material inside would not be appropriate for proliferation purposes. Further, due to the unique, yet proven science upon which this new technology is based, it is impossible for the module to go supercritical, “melt down” or create any type of emergency situation. If opened, the very small amount of fuel that is enclosed would immediately cool. The waste produced after five years of operation is approximately the size of a softball and is a good candidate for fuel recycling.

So they have to be "guarded"? I guess that's one way to get Americans back to work.


SOURCE: http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/