2337 of 62457 members online
Coffee Machines 720 GetFrank GymJunkie Menu Mania Snow Surf Varsity

Forgot Your Password? Create Account
[quote]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/miniature-nuclear-reactors-los-alamos

Pretty cool!
[quote]
but could it work here?
[quote]
Of course it could. I think that's the same company I was reading about some time ago who were offering small remote towns who currently run on diesel and are snowbound half the year such a system, for free, if they paid market rates for the power.

No one took them up because of anti-nuclear feelings.
[quote]
Cool, but STILL no comment on waste handling. I'm always suspicious of pro-nuclear commentary that just totally avoids the issue.

Presumedly they have clear plans of what to do with the waste fuel that will come out every 7-10 years so why is it not laid out?
[quote]
This came up about a year ago? The plan is to dig it up after the 10 years and send it back to the factory for reprocessing and refitting. What they do with the waste then is probably the same as they do now so its a separate issue.
[quote]
What if you managed to blow one up?

What danger does that pose to local community or immediate area?

Obviously they would become an easy target in a war, terrorist or otherwise.
[quote]
Did you read the article? There are some issues of course but in a country that already uses nuclear power they are safer than existing methods.
[quote]
bob said:
The plan is to dig it up after the 10 years and send it back to the factory for reprocessing and refitting

Didn't see that plan in there tis all.
Look I'm all for it, so long as there's full disclosure of cost (capex and opex), safety and waste effects.
[quote]
Typical garethw: "Oh i'm just saying <captain obvious> is all..."

As if everyone else in the thread, let alone the US DOE and DOD Laughing Froggy
[quote]
bob said:
Did you read the article? There are some issues of course but in a country that already uses nuclear power they are safer than existing methods.


Yeah I did and are Nuclear Power stations not typically heavily guarded with tight secutiry?

They may be in the ground but who's keeping an eye on them?
[quote]
Christ women! They are very safe!

- They are sealed and contain no weapons grade material, there would be no point in trying to get to them for ill purposes

- They can be stuck under a tin shed with a guy with an uzi in it, who's only real reason for being there is to stop someone taking out the power to the village.

- In reality they'd be well within the confines of a power substation which would have pretty large grounds anyway.
[quote]
quote:
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.


quote:
The reactors, only a few metres in diameter, will be delivered on the back of a lorry to be buried underground. They must be refuelled every 7 to 10 years. Because the reactor is based on a 50-year-old design that has proved safe for students to use, few countries are expected to object to plants on their territory. An application to build the plants will be submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission next year.

'You could never have a Chernobyl-type event - there are no moving parts,' said Deal. 'You would need nation-state resources in order to enrich our uranium. Temperature-wise it's too hot to handle. It would be like stealing a barbecue with your bare hands.'


http://www.primidi.com/2005/02/06.html
[quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSTAR
[quote]
http://www.atomicinsights.com/AI_03-20-05.html

quote:
Small reactor producers also face a prejudice that they will be vulnerable to attack and possible misappropriation for nefarious purposes. That is one reason why Toshiba is proposing to bury their reactor nearly 100 feet (30 meters) under ground in a sealed container that cannot be lifted by any equipment available in the local area. The reality is that even very small nuclear reactors will be surrounded by strong layers of steel, lead, and concrete in order to protect their operators from excessive radiation levels. These containers are at least as strong and certainly far better protected than most bank vaults. They are less likely to be attacked because, unlike a bank vault, they surround radioactive material that is quite good at protecting itself from human beings.
[quote]
Andrew said:
Typical garethw: "Oh i'm just saying <captain obvious> is all..."

OI, SHUT UP... Laughing

So can somebody please explain the waste-handling procedures for this stuff? Not "they could do this" but specifically what they ARE doing with it? Interested tis all...
[quote]
My understanding is the container is never opened on site. They simply fit another one in and take the old one back for refuelling and processing the waste.

The toshiba 4S ones are planned that way and i have heard the same for other ones though i cant find a link.

It would certainly make sense. There is quite a lot of work going into these types of reactors at the moment but as in one of my links it is a 42-60month process to get approval and they have to pay US$200/per bureaucrat per hour over that time...
[quote]
Yeah full replace makes a lot of sense - I just still don't have a real clear take on what they do with the waste post-reprocessing (i.e. that small amount of nasty stuff they end up with)?
Goes into concrete warehouses or something?
[quote]
garethw, what does it matter where they store it??

I think you can rest assured that it will be somewhere secure and safe – I mean it’s not like they are going to start adding it into Big Macs? lol

Amd don’t forget we are only taking about a fraction of a cubic centimetre for each person’s lifetime supply of electricity. I think can live with leaving a fraction of a cubic centimetre as my ‘legacy’, hell of a lot better than thousands of tonnes of CO2 and global warming init?
[quote]
Our goal is to generate electricity for 10 cents a watt anywhere in the world,' said John Deal, chief executive of Hyperion.

One would hope they meant 10c a kW
[quote]
Mw is better still
[quote]
trapper said:
hell of a lot better than thousands of tonnes of CO2 and global warming init?


I thought that was a myth? Or have you warmed to the idea now?
[quote]
There are plenty of good reasons to disprove of the burning of coal.

This seems to be the one which resonates strongest with the anti-nuclear brigade.
[quote]
There was a very good article on this in Time magazine recently... It showed the companies which are planning them (including India) and what the pros and cons for each were.

R