Mini nuclear plants to power 20,000 homes

Originally posted by Tayesin
Didn't read past page 1, sorry. But I was surprised that by then no one had mentioned the most important thing about Nuclear Energy... our complete and utter inability to effectively de-commission so much as one Nuclear Power Plant.

Take England's first Nuclear Power Plant, built in the very early 1950's as an example. It is presently being decommissioned in a process that will take another 120 years to complete!! Yep, that's right, you're eyes are not fooling you... it did say 120 years more.

Well here in Sweden the time to tear down one of our now deactivated nuclear power plants is estimated to take about 7 years I think. Yep, your eyes are not fooling you: Britons must be idiots. Or have lousy power plants. Hell even though its deactivated its still of use: great for anti-terrorist training and essentially one giant nuclear power plant simulator

Also you should read up on thorium based nuclear powerplants: far less radioactive waste and useless for weapons.

I'd advise anyone to take a look at the Fallout universe. Nuclear power really works! I mean, the computers are running for hundreds of years *cough* after the complete and utter annihilation of the world and everyone turning into mutated ghouls *cough* and that's good right!?!?!

[edit on 14-11-2008 by merka]

That's pretty interesting but what I am curious about is how the shed sized reactors make power, especially when it says there are no moving parts. A typical reactor is not much different than a coal plant where you burn fuel, heat water, and spin a turbine. I'm thinking these must be like massive nuclear batteries but I don't really know how those work. Also it says the fuel only needs to be refueled every 7-10 years which is interesting cause normal plants refuel on average every 18 months.

I doubt it uses the nuclear battery type technology, i read that is very inefficient so I doubt it would be used on a scale any larger than a cell phone and also that doesn't use uranium as a fuel and the article makes it seem like low enriched uranium is used. It might be possible to operate a low power, small reactor with using only natural circulation of water, eliminating pumps, but that is still done under high pressure (~1000psi) and would still require a turbine for electricity.

Does anyone know any other way to make electricity? Uranium creates lots of heat (~700*F) and is cooled by water, but how do you then get electricity out of the heated water without moving parts?

The guy that says its uranium hydride doesn't provide a link, i read the hyperion website and i didn't read that. Other people say it could be a TRIGA type reactor which uses small UO2 pellets but it can be placed in a zirconium-hydride cladding which has the same effect as using uranium hydride (self moderating). However alot of people are posting completely wrong details they consider fact. Like the big one saying that *-hydride keeps the reactor from going supercritical by 'moderating' it. It does moderate the neutrons, but moderating the neutrons is what makes the neutrons usable by the fuel. Without hydrogen (or another small element) the reactor could never be self sustaining and would quickly shut down.

I read about design japan came up with in 2001 which this design is probably most similar to.

A hydride fuel or cladding to moderate the fuel and eliminate the need for water. But then to cool the reactor it uses liquid metal with neutron absorbers dissolved in. As the fuel heats up and the neutron flux increases, the liquid metal expands and raises on the fuel which spreads out the neutron absorber to absorb more neutrons and bring the reactor power back down.

Anyways, after reading around I doubt this will really happen. Its weird that it is getting alot of press right now considering several other small reactors have been designed. The reactor on campus is only 30ft tall by probably 15ft square on top (and most of it is wasted space of just water) and was designed back in the 70s i think. Sounds like hyperion is looking for attention, its easy to buy an idea but alot harder to implement it.

And still the no-moving parts is still unexplained. The hyperion pic shows two buildings above the reactor which is probably where all the moving parts are (turbine/generator). Anyways, lots of ideas/speculation but no facts = probably not happening.

reply to

You might want to google Big Rock Point Michigan. Gone for good nothing but a memorial left behind..

mikell


post by Tayesin

reply to post by Buck Division

Hi,
I get what you're saying Buck, for me decomissioning would mean that the site will always be safe, with no residue, ever. No sneaky little night time dumping of radioactive materials would have happened, etc. It wouldn't be covered in tons of soil and called safe. But I am a little extreme in my views perhaps?

Even here in Australia we store our waste above ground in a large wharehouse!! Which to me is pure insanity of the highest order.

Nothing we have done so far can be called effective in the longer term. I've seen documentaries on how each country deals with it's waste, and so far the best option was to bring it all to my country and bury it many miles down in Pangea Rock, plug it with reinforced concrete and overfill the entire site with soil and native bush... but Australians freaked out at the prospect, so the world is still stuck with it's useless long term non-effective means.

The last thing I would like to see in a few hundred years is what has happened in the old USSR, where waste has made it's way from the rusting hulks of a naval yard to many small towns... that are now ghost towns by the way due to everyone dying off from radiation related illnesses.

Merka, 7 years is a good timeframe isn't it? I would hope the area is safe for humans for many thousands of years to come... with or without still running computers.

mikellmikell, thanks for the link. It sure looks good, but again, is it safe for the long term? Where no shorcuts taken? Do you think private enterprise or governments can be trusted to do the right thing, given their track record so far?

I look at what is happening at Chernobyl (which in the Ukraine language means Wormwood, apparently) where the first efforts to cover the hot mess has already broken down. Currently there is a move to something slightly more effective but it requires a multinational effort to finance the massive building that will eventually house the problem. Even then, there are no guarantees that the new building will last long enough.

That's my point. Why do something when we really do not have the best means to insure long term safety for all people?

Yep, my views are extreme. Mainly because my government against my wishes is selling yellow cake to Indonesia, without security agreements being enforced, for their long term plan of 150 nuclear power stations spread across one of the most active earthquake regions in the world.

Best we put the same amounts of money into renewable energy now, and save the long term future if we can.