Personal reactor in five years

[mkreku]

 

What Bokishi uses to power his Triple-SLI rig

 

Bury it in the backyard and be hassle-free for the next ten years.

[Gorgon]

What they use to power nuclear subs is about the size of a stove. I guess a little, well a lot, of extra lead is needed for the home environment.

[Gorgon]

'Toshiba says the reactor will make power available for as little as 5 cents'

 

And the companies who invest in one will make sure consumers pay what they always have. The power industry has a long track record of cartels and underhand deals.

[samm]

Oh yes, how long have I been waiting to have my own radiation source in the backyard! It'll produce all kinds of interestingly mutated specimen for the avid hobby insect researcher as a free sideeffect! Hoorray :D

Edited November 10, 2008 by samm

[Gfted1]

Lets see:

 

Reactor cost: 25,000,000

Lifetime: 10 years

Homes supported: 20,000

 

So, 25M/10Y = 2,500,000 per year / 20,000 = $125.00 per year per house. Nice!

[Magister Lajciak]

I don't know how to react to this. On the one hand, it is a great thing, enabling cheap reliable distributed power and providing a stable power source for remote communities. Yet, I cannot help but think about the huge proliferation issues this may lead to in the long term. It will make access to radiological materials easier, particularly in countries with little-to no security capabilities that might want this most in the first place. It will also probably spread nuclear technology. Once a country buys a reactor, it will want to develop the capability to refuel it itself (and some to build it themselves in the first place) and will thus have an excuse for building enrichment facilities. I don't see this as a rosy development in the area of nuclear proliferation.

 

We will also see how nuclear waste disposal will occur. If sell such a supposedly hassle-free reactor is sold to say the Central African Republic, I have strong doubts that nuclear-waste disposal is going to be dealt with responsibly...

 

I can see the enormous potential of these mini-reactors, but the associated problems could be considerable too. I have not made up my mind yet as to whether the positives or the negatives predominate and this despite the fact that I am generally supportive of nuclear power. Regardless, I do have to say that this is innovative and exciting in the technical/economic sense.

[I want teh kotor 3]

Gee, free nuclear fireballs in my backyard and cancer! Thanks, whoever came up with this brilliant plan!

[Gorgon]

The UN has some kind of deal on nuclear fuel making it much cheaper to buy than develop the technology on your own, and it's not that many places that have suitable isotopes as a natural resource anyway. I don't know what the potential for dirty bombs are with this, but I imagine it would constitute a security risk, and would have to have remote sensors and active monitoring to avoid it falling into the wrong hands.

 

With nuclear power it's always the question of the lesser evil. It's certainly preferable to large scale coal or other organic fuels, provided you can keep the radiation out of the water supply. That's a real issue if you think a few decades ahead. There is no guarantee that there will always be an efficient organisation to monitor the status of spent nuclear fuel.

Edited November 11, 2008 by Gorgon

[random n00b]

I don't know how to react to this. On the one hand, it is a great thing, enabling cheap reliable distributed power and providing a stable power source for remote communities. Yet, I cannot help but think about the huge proliferation issues this may lead to in the long term. It will make access to radiological materials easier, particularly in countries with little-to no security capabilities that might want this most in the first place. It will also probably spread nuclear technology. Once a country buys a reactor, it will want to develop the capability to refuel it itself (and some to build it themselves in the first place) and will thus have an excuse for building enrichment facilities. I don't see this as a rosy development in the area of nuclear proliferation.

 

We will also see how nuclear waste disposal will occur. If sell such a supposedly hassle-free reactor is sold to say the Central African Republic, I have strong doubts that nuclear-waste disposal is going to be dealt with responsibly...

Since it's a private endeavor, it's reasonable to assume that they will offer an integral service, complete with refueling, eventual maintenance, and depleted fuel disposal. I don't think it'll be possible to have one of these in your backyard, anyhow, so the risks of people stealing the fuel for their own are probably pretty low. The technology is on license from the US govt, so I'm not too convinced that they'd allow these things to be set up on places deemed unsafe.

 

The disposal thing is a valid and very real concern, though.

 

 

Gee, free nuclear fireballs in my backyard and cancer! Thanks, whoever came up with this brilliant plan!

/facepalm

[Humodour]

Um, it costs $25 million.

 

So it's a thing you use to power a town/suburb of a few thousand people.

 

And lol @ the knee-jerk reactions. I must be one of the few Greenies out there who is pro-nuclear. Then again, a lot of the nitwits against clean and safe nuclear are religious freaks.

[Kaftan Barlast]

This is totally Fallout, dude.

 

 

 

 

..but the problem is still that we dont have any good methods to get rid of the spent nuclear fuel.

[Humodour]

..but the problem is still that we dont have any good methods to get rid of the spent nuclear fuel.

 

Did you know coal waste is often more radioactive than nuclear waste?

 

Anyway, last I checked there's a heck of a lot of research and development going on regarding waste disposal. Wikipedia has some stuff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_w...atment_of_waste

[Kaftan Barlast]

I dont quite believe that fly-ash from a coal plant is anywhere near as radioactive as spent nuclear fuel on a pound-by-pound basis. The probably did this comparison with the other types of radioactive waste that nuclear plants create.

 

 

 

...and only savages and smelly euros burn coal anyway, we swedes have our hydroplants and maybe an nuclear or two on the border towards denmark (which we intentionally keep in poor condition to keep the smelly danes on their toes)

[samm]

/facepalm

there's now a smilie for this, you know?

[Gorgon]

...and only savages and smelly euros burn coal anyway, we swedes have our hydroplants and maybe an nuclear or two on the border towards denmark (which we intentionally keep in poor condition to keep the smelly danes on their toes)

The Baresebek plant was closed wasn't it. Anyway was sort of a recurring nightmare from my childhood that the bloody Swedes would screw up and send radioactive clouds over Copenhagen.

[Kaftan Barlast]

The Baresebek plant was closed wasn't it? Anyway was sort of a recurring nightmare from my childhood that the bloody Swedes would screw up and send radioactive clouds over Copenhagen.

 

 

The reactors are offline but the plant is functional, and we' ve still got Ringhals a bit further up north though so you're not in the clear

 

 

 

I grew up on the east coast and I remember when Chernobyl blew, a big cloud of fallout blew over the sea and hit us. There were men with geiger counters in the playgrounds and stuff, and we had a big radioactive puddle at the back of the kindergarden that we werent allowed to play in (but we did cause we wanted to mutate into superheroes)

[Humodour]

I dont quite believe that fly-ash from a coal plant is anywhere near as radioactive as spent nuclear fuel on a pound-by-pound basis. The probably did this comparison with the other types of radioactive waste that nuclear plants create.

 

If you live in Sweden, shouldn't you being using kilogrammes instead of pounds? Ye Imperial bastard.

 

Anyway, a weight for weight basis like you suggest is pretty useless. If two things are equally radioactive, but one weighs twice as much, does that make it any less dangerous? Certainly not, especially if the more 'dilute' product is produced in much larger quantities.

[taks]

I grew up on the east coast and I remember when Chernobyl blew, a big cloud of fallout blew over the sea and hit us. There were men with geiger counters in the playgrounds and stuff, and we had a big radioactive puddle at the back of the kindergarden that we werent allowed to play in (but we did cause we wanted to mutate into superheroes)

so that explains why you now have extra limbs, three ears and such?

 

taks

[Walsingham]

We could just forget about the danger of a dirty bomb. The UN have said it's a question of 'when not if', so I say best to make it sooner. Hell, most people don't worry about terrorism anyway. Viva la revolucion!