I would gladly endorse this type of nuclear reactor if they are to be installed in the residential house of each politician (and executives of the manufacturers of these reactors). Imagine, there will be no more greenhouse gases for power production or no more politicians in case they're wrong. But the idea has some appeals and some merits. - Joe.


Source: http://blogs.abcnews.com/scienceandsociety/2007/11/a-nuclear-react.html

A Nuclear Reactor that Fits on a Truck?

November 27, 2007 3:23 PM

Cooling_towers_071127_main A company in New Mexico says it is developing a nuclear reactor about the size of a hot tub.

The firm, Hyperion Power Generation, is using technology developed at Los Alamos National Lab. Hyperion's chief scientist, Otis Peterson, filed a patent for the device when he was there in 2003.

They say they hope to have a factory up and running by 2012, turning out 4,000 of the units. They say it's safer, smaller, cleaner, and less expensive to build and run than conventional nuclear or coal-fired plants. One "module" could generate 27 MW of electricity, about enough to power 25,000 typical homes.

"Often referred to as a 'cartridge' reactor or 'nuclear battery,'" the company writes on its website, "the Hyperion hydride reactor is self-regulating with no moving parts to break down or corrode. The inherent properties of uranium hydride serve as both fuel and moderator providing unparalleled safety among nuclear reactors." Find more HERE.

When I e-mailed the firm yesterday they gave a friendly reply that they'd say more when they could. But in the meantime they've been noticed by their local paper, the Santa Fe Reporter, and they're all over the blogosphere (look HERE and HERE).

Naturally, there will be skeptics. Even if Hyperion makes a fission "battery" that only heats water to run a turbine, even if there are no moving parts, even if the unit is small, is it as safe and practical as its makers hope? As Andrew McCaskey wrote on Slashdot Review, "The endorsement of at least some of the scientists at the Los Alamos National Lab is a good start, but it will not be enough to get past the critical public."

Some years ago I was an outside salesman for Van Waters & Rogers (the nations largest chemical distributor). My sales territory was Colorado and New Mexico. The Los Alamos National Lab was my customer. If one does not like energy from a nuclear source, than one better like coal fired generation plants. Wind power or solar will never (in our life time at least) be able to meet the energy demands of the United States.

I would disagree with the solar energy statement. There is more than enough desert lands that can be converted to capture solar energy to power the entire USA, far less than the cost of building nuclear plants per energy output. Solar thermal plants are very good examples and are at par in terms of cost, much cheaper than solar cells if done on wide scale.

Nuclear reactors are excellent if the politicians, the physicists and engineers can find it safe enough to put their living quarters on top of them. Then I will truly campaign for their adopton. But as long as mankind is stupid, and history is our witness, nuclear reactors are just a safety myth. I would be glad to be proven wrong, but only time will tell.

I kind of like the concept of small scale nuclear reactors which equates to small scale disasters and we can learn many many instances of mistakes and able to correct for them. The trials and safety improvements could be done stepwise and small scale. Unlike the super massive nuclear reactors which has produced super massive nuclear accidents and disasters, super expensive construction, cleanup costs, health sufferings and lives lost that is still resounding its effects today and is hard to correct for or learn from them.

Joe, my friend, we will agree to disagree on solar. Take care.

Two miles south of my farm are the Union Pacific railroad tracks. Approximately 35 trains a day consisting of 100 coal cars per each train come out of the Rocky Mountains heading to coal fired power plants of some eastern cities. Every day seven days a week.

I think nuclear power has come a long way since the days of TMI and Chernobyl. Todays reactors are much safer and I believe that it is the quickest way to reduce fossil fuel combustion. I am all for wind and solar, but I think it will take too long to get enough wind and solar online.

10-15 years ago when the government gave tax credits for wind and solar energy development, many of the farms around here and some residential properties put in wind mills to "generate" electricity (in reality to get the tax credit). Today, there is ONLY ONE wind mill still standing, and that is not on a farm or a residential property, it is at a wall mart.

Luckily the United States has one of the worlds largest coal reserves, which will give us an energy supply for many years to come. Colorado also has one of the world largest oil reserves (greater than the middle east), however it is tied up as shale oil. When either the price of oil get high enough, or the extraction of oil from shale become cheaper, Colorado will be a major player in oil. Perhaps then we can sell oil to the Saudis for $100.00 per barrel.

I thought Colorado is full of gas? Natural gas I mean, , seriously.
I've read some articles that it has vast supplies of natural gas trapped in various regions within.

Small scaled down versions of nuclear power packs
may be more inviting when we know what to do with
the by products and waste material to make them less
volatile and render them harmless in the future.

Find a way to clean up the nuclear and learn how to
make radioactive isotopes from being harmful in
their half-lives and I can go along with pickup sized
nuclear as a clean and effective means to generate
electricity. The problem will be we cannot have
enough of the power packs operational to do much
for us at this point in time. In theory it makes sense
but in actuality the control of output and where it
goes and ends up going and can be stored and used
will be the bigger issues.

Jim