Fridge-Sized Nuclear Reactors to Tap $135 Billion Power Market

[wtmusic]

"For John Deal, the solution to the world’s growing electricity demand is a nuclear reactor the size of a refrigerator.

The chief executive officer of Hyperion Power Generation Inc. is developing miniature atomic-energy plants that would supply a small factory or town too remote for connection to a traditional utility transmission grid.

The Santa Fe, New Mexico-based company and Japan’s Toshiba Corp. are vying for a head start over reactor makers General Electric Co. and Areva SA in downsizing nuclear technology and aim to submit license applications in the next year to U.S. regulators. They’re seeking to tap a market that has generated about $135 billion in pending orders for large nuclear plants."

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-16/fridge-sized-nuclear-reactors-to-tap-135-billion-power-market.html

Bad idea (E/E regulars will call me out for my previous thought-experiment involving a ²¹⁰Po-powered car, but IMO this crosses the line into an unacceptable proliferation/contamination risk).

[rfranklin]

1. People don't maintain their septic tanks, why would they do any better with atomic waste?

Think about it.

[Statistical]

2. This isn't for a residence. It outputs 25,000 kW continually.

More like a smaller power plant. Although it is fridge sized it still generates more power than a small town uses.

To put it in context the typical US household has power demand of about 1 kW average and 2 to 3 kW at peak load so this would be overkill for anything less than 10,000+ residences.

Where this would be useful is remote "small" cities/towns. There are some towns in Alaska that truck in oil to run power plants. Trucks drive back and forth 365 days a year to keep the town supplied with electricity.

Buying massive high voltage lines for such a low population density doesn't make much sense. Natural gas is too expensive and coal is too far away. A large nuclear power plant would be overkill for a town with population of couple thousand. A "mini nuke" could supply a significant portion of the town with baseload power and then a small natural gas generation could serve as a peaking plant.

[wtmusic]

3. Don't you mean 2 kW? (power vs energy) nt

[Statistical]

4. Yup. Updated.

[hunter]

5. Good for ocean liners too...

...especially if Iceland's volcanos keep messing with air traffic.

[wtmusic]

6. Commercial Nuclear Ships: A New Market for Uranium

"To Americans the trade name for the China Ocean Shipping Co. sounds like the big-box competitor to Sam’s Club. But COSCO may soon become a household word in the nuclear industry, now that Wei Jaifu, its president and CEO, has called on international shipping organizations to investigate the use of nuclear energy for powering merchant ships.

Wei has indicated that his company, now more accurately known as China Ocean Shipping Group, will take the lead in studying the application of nuclear, and in fact has already begun discussing it with the China National Nuclear Corp. Nuclear propulsion is common in military fleets, but questions remain about the use of nuclear in commercial shipping.

Still, if the study shows the technology is viable for commerce, shipping companies could develop into an important new consumer of uranium. That could have major implications for the global uranium market."

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_lfibbBnlKt8/S-7gBM0G-mI/AAAAAAAAAyg/8bv59WU4cP8/s400/Savannah+Waterside.JPG

http://theenergycollective.com/TheEnergyCollective/65789?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=The+Energy+Collective+%28all+posts%29

It's hard to sufficiently regulate ships on the open sea.

[bergie321]

7. hmmm

I wonder where that waste will end up...

[Statistical]

8. US built one back in 1960s NS Savannah

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

The design was very poor. As a prototype and with goal of showing dignitaries the power of nuclear propulsion it had both large cargo bays and large passenger cabins. The design of the ship was also very poor making loading and unload expensive, difficult, and low. Not exactly an optimal mix.

As a result the ship ran at an annual $2 million loss compared to conventional powered ships. Here is the interesting part though that was at $20 per barrel oil prices. Even this poorly designed ship would have had comparable fuel & operating costs at $80 per barrel oil.



As oil prices ratchet higher and higher this method of propulsion will be reconsidered. Imagine nuclear propulsion vs diesel propulsion at $150 oil, $200 oil, $300 oil.

Still it would take a couple of the "mini nukes" in the OP to power a large cargo ship. As an example the Colombo Express (one of largest cargo ships in the world) diesel boilers produce 69MW peak power. The larger supertankers have powerplants double that size.

[Tesha]

9. Ahh, the perfect way to get the materials to make dirty bombs!

These will *NEVER* get licensed by the paranoid US government.

Tesha

[Statistical]

10. Why?

Fuel assembly for a conventional reactor weighs a tiny fraction of this sealed core.

A 1GW reactor core weighs about 60-80 tons however it isn't one giant block of fuel. Instead the reactor core is made up of dozens of smaller fuel assemblies.

In PWR each fuel assemblies weigh about 650kg each and about half that in a BWR.



The hyperion reactor instead is a 20 ton sealed unit. So why would a 20 ton sealed reactor core present more of a risk than a 300-650kg fuel assembly used in conventional reactors?

[Nederland]

11. Why do you do that?

Why do you insist on introducing pesky facts about how much things weigh? Don't you know this is about emotions, not facts? Radiation is bad! Terrorists with nukes are...terrifying! Painting an image of little children dying of cancer and cities being blown up is how you win arguments Statistical.

Facts.

Meh. You should know better :)

[Statistical]

12. You know the irony?

Each of the "mini reactors" is different design but the hyperion one is Lead-bismuth cooled.

So you stop the reactor and wait for it to cool to avoid being burned to death trying to get it out of containment. Guess what happens when the Lead-bismuth alloy in reactor cools?

Thats right it turns solid. So your nuclear fuel elements are not only inside a sealed reactor but now the inside of the reactor core is a solid block of lead. What is lead good for? I know it is something.... oh yeah blocking radiation.

The terrorist who tries to make dirty bomb out of a Hyperion reactor is the nuclear equivalent of the Times Square idiot.

On a serious not PbBi does have one pretty cool feature. The reactor is designed to last 10 years and never be refueled on site. Once cooled the lead in coolant acts as a radiation shield allowing the "spent" reactor to be safely transported back to Hyperion factory for refurbishing.

[NNadir]

15. There are profound physics reasons that anyone trying to get through the lead coolant would be

killed fairly quickly. The reason is that it is a eutectic containing bismuth.

Most of the people raising the "dirty bomb" issue are completely ignorant of nuclear technology and know nothing about the subject.

Quite frankly, it would be much, much, much, much, much easier for a terrorist to kill with an ammonia bomb, which has already happened, calling for zero demands for a fertilizer phase out.

[Tesha]

13. Because:

a) The min-nukes are almost certainly less-well defended than conventional
base load power plants

b) They can be carried away by a suitable truck

c) Bad guys can probably buy them outright

Tesha

[Statistical]

14. What?

A) you are aware NRC regulations for security of a nuclear power reactor are the same regardless of capacity. Hell the same security requirements apply at a nuclear site that is still fueled (has spent or active fuel on site) even if the reactor has been decommissioned.

B) So can spent fuel rod from a conventional reactor that weigh a tiny fraction on this reactor. A spent fuel rod from conventional reactors is far "easier" (relatively speaking) to retrieve. Just pool one out of cooling pond using the supplied defueling machine (crane for moving fuel assemblies). A magnitude easier than shutting down reactor, figuring out how to open containment, waiting for reactor to cool, removing reactor proper from support assembly, and rigging a crane capable of lifting 20 tons.

C) where do you get the idea this will be something you pick up at Walmart? It is a nuclear reactor just like a 1000 MW reactor is a nuclear reactor. It is no harder or easier to get than a full sized reactor.

However honestly for a dirty bomb medical & industrial isotopes are the way to go anyways. Most of them are unguarded or barely guarded. Many of the isotopes are particularly nasty stuff with good biological absorption characteristics.