• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Mini Nuclear Reactors for a more distributed power grid!!!!

Meredith

Vice Admiral
Admiral
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 $2,500 per home.'

From what i can tell this looks more like a "Nuclear Battery" than an actual Nuclear Reactor. This is a way of turning the nuclear sword into a nulcear plowshare so to squeak.

God I hope this is going to happen, even if you don't want these buried in people's backyards, they could install them in military bases and that way the bases get power that can't be knocked out and all the excess power can be piped over to civilian power grid if we get paranoid about security. Plus a reactor like this may be essential for moon exploration to provide power to a mission during the 15 day lunar night when solar cells don't work.

These could also be install near wind farms and solar farms to provide a way to buffer the electricity from non-constant sources. Plus this could be used in places like Alaska where you don't want to burn much fossil fuel to heat things and to generate electricity.

These "Nuclear Power Cells" could also be used "if safe enough" in water to power sea going ships that currently burn oil/coal to run their electric turbines! Not sure if putting them in trains would be a good idea or not, probably not.....

You could maybe use them to make a "floating aircraft carrier" like the "Valiant" as seen on Doctor Who maybe????? You would have to power a whole bunch of massive electric turbo fans to keep the thing afloat, but it could be cool as hell!!!!!

I am hoping that the power of the Atom can be realized safely and effectively because Fusion is still (sic) 30 years away ......
 
I saw this article as well and it left me :confused: I guess I'll believe it when I see it, but there are unanswered questions, such as how they will be safeguarded, regulated, and all that.

And to the O/P, are you not aware of Nimitz Class aircraft carriers? Their twin reactors can power almost 3/4 of the San Francisco Bay Area.
 
I read this article too. It seems like a promising idea. I'd love to have one to power my converted missile silo for a home that I'll buy when I win the Lottery. That would be awesomeness in a lead-lined can... or should I say tub?
 
I read this article too. It seems like a promising idea. I'd love to have one to power my converted missile silo for a home that I'll buy when I win the Lottery. That would be awesomeness in a lead-lined can... or should I say tub?

You could build the ultimate survivalist compound!!! Power for 5 years or so and grow mushrooms for food, you could pump water from aquifers for water and use the excess heat to stay warm, you could survive 5 years after the sun went out and be the envy of the entire survivalist community.

Just make sure to stock up on tinfoil hats too!
 
I saw this article as well and it left me :confused: I guess I'll believe it when I see it, but there are unanswered questions, such as how they will be safeguarded, regulated, and all that.

And to the O/P, are you not aware of Nimitz Class aircraft carriers? Their twin reactors can power almost 3/4 of the San Francisco Bay Area.

Yeah, we should build some more of those on the ground and replace all our coal plants with reactors like that.

France has it figured out, make standardized reactors that you can mass produce and use safely. No having to re-train personelle for each new reactor being built. Also helps heaps for replacement parts and safety procedures.
 
So, is it generating electricity from random decays, then, and not getting into chain reactions?
 
I saw this article as well and it left me :confused: I guess I'll believe it when I see it, but there are unanswered questions, such as how they will be safeguarded, regulated, and all that.

And to the O/P, are you not aware of Nimitz Class aircraft carriers? Their twin reactors can power almost 3/4 of the San Francisco Bay Area.

Yeah, we should build some more of those on the ground and replace all our coal plants with reactors like that.

France has it figured out, make standardized reactors that you can mass produce and use safely. No having to re-train personelle for each new reactor being built. Also helps heaps for replacement parts and safety procedures.


The topic of nuclear has come up here a lot in the last two years. There are very efficient designs on the book, the problem is the red tape coupled with the ROI on nuclear plants. They take about 30 years before becoming profitable.
 
Nukes often like to talk up the capabilities of the Nimitz class nuke plants.

They are not nearly as awesome as nukes would like you to believe. Now that I have been out for a number of years, I am allowed to drop some of the "rah rah we're nukes you're pukes" BS that went around. ;)
 
Nukes often like to talk up the capabilities of the Nimitz class nuke plants.

They are not nearly as awesome as nukes would like you to believe. Now that I have been out for a number of years, I am allowed to drop some of the "rah rah we're nukes you're pukes" BS that went around. ;)


ROTFLMAO!!! I'll give you that; however, they are tough designs and loaded with safeties. I can tell you we raced the USS Texas in the Indian Ocean in 1988; however, I don't dare state how fast we were before the CO of the Texas chickened out. :)
 
I read this article too. It seems like a promising idea. I'd love to have one to power my converted missile silo for a home that I'll buy when I win the Lottery. That would be awesomeness in a lead-lined can... or should I say tub?

You could build the ultimate survivalist compound!!! Power for 5 years or so and grow mushrooms for food, you could pump water from aquifers for water and use the excess heat to stay warm, you could survive 5 years after the sun went out and be the envy of the entire survivalist community.

Just make sure to stock up on tinfoil hats too!

I don't like Mushrooms. Also, Tinfoil does a lousy job of keeping the aliens from scanning your thoughts. Just a FYI.
 
These "Nuclear Power Cells" could also be used "if safe enough" in water to power sea going ships that currently burn oil/coal to run their electric turbines! Not sure if putting them in trains would be a good idea or not, probably not.....

It'd be easier to put them in diesel electric trains. Most ships to convert would need massive overhauls, as the only ones that I can think of that use electric motors already are submarines. Most run diesels on bunker oil, and nukes and some LNGs use steam turbines.
 
With the distribution possibilities, it might be more worthwhile to electrify a larger percentage of the rail network and stop using diesel-electric trains altogether. Nuclear trains are sort of wasteful for two reasons: the weight they have to carry along, and the fact that they can't turn off their engines even when idled for long periods. While a constantly active electric grid for the rail network also wastes some energy, it could be made more economical overall, not to mention the improved safety of bolted-down rather than mobile nuclear power sources.

As for ships that could take a nuke aboard, it is of special national lament for us Finns that the first-ever large gas turbine -powered passenger ship (and the sixth mercantile ship overall to have gas turbines), the 32-knot car ferry Finnjet running on P&W FT 4C-1DLF jets, is now being scrapped after three decades of sterling service and plenty of structural life remaining. Installing a couple of nukes there would have solved the problem of operating expenses...

What are the key differences between a naval gas turbine and a steam turbine, from the black box point of view? Does one take considerably more space than the other? A radically different gearbox? Is it mainly a matter of air trunkage? A gas turbine would need more of that, so installing a steam one in its place and then plopping in the domestic nuke should actually be easier than going the opposite route.

Timo Saloniemi
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top