Hyperion hopes mini nuclear reactors will power the world
by Stevie Smith - Nov 11 2008, 13:00
Interested in a more interactive TTH? Join our Facebook Group
Want regular updates from The Tech Herald? Follow us on Twitter
Talkback
Add your comment (no registration required)
It just seems like an accident waiting to happen. If broad use actually happens, its just a matter of time. You're just playing the odds. Or am I way off? Does this seem too good to be true? There's got to be some huge negative factor that isn't being reported on, or hasn't been realized yet.
I would have to agree, this does seem like a disaster waiting to happen.
Even if there is little to no potential for radioactive release, is it truly a good idea to bury a container of lead, molten or otherwise? Isn't this a very clear danger to groundwater supplies?
The one thing we can count on in this world is entropy; even the most well-designed system will eventually fail. You can surround them with as much concrete as you like, eventually that concrete will erode and it seems clear to me that these mini-reactors will become a hazard.
At a minimum, I hope that they have taken material failure into account to establish a base amount of time that the reactors can stay in use before needing to be removed and / or maintained. That removal and / or maintenance should occur long before the system is actually approaching material failure.
This is definitely a disaster waiting to happen. I do agree that if all goes well then it would be the next best thing since sliced bread but I know that somewhere out there someone is already planning to make use of the mini reactors, and not in a good way.
Great Idea. Put one in my backyard. I have absolutely no problem with it, and the price is right.
If my math is right, it would only be about 400 bucks a year to power the average home. That's a bargain.
The cries about safety seem like the same voices crying about carbon emissions from coal, which is a bunch of baloney. Sure, get rid of the stuff that causes acid rain, but the Co2 isn't a problem.
Now you've got something that emits zero Co2, but you don't like that either.
Some people just dont' want any power at all, but we can't live in a world like that.
If these were left in the ground over a long period of time, I could see there being a danger to the groundwater and the environment. However, the story clearly states that they will be buried for only '7 to 10 years', which at that time they will be dug up, taken back to the factory for refueling. At that time, I'm sure, the radioactive material will be packed in a different containment, because concrete is relatively cheap.
Stop being afraid of radiation people.
it is tempting to be seduced by something that sounds so easy & safe. to feign bravery in the face of known carcinogens is puerile - much like those wanting to emulate the marboro men who died from cigarette induced lung cancer.
and to suggest wanting to leave a clean and safe planet for our progeny means there isn't a strong driving desire for bountiful, clean, safe, affordable energy is equally asinine
there are lots of renewable technologies with far less environmental & potential health impacts to consider, that the responsible approach is to focus the financial & intellectual resources into those avenues
Uh, did I miss a vital fact description here? '10 cents a watt' is not a valid expression. Electricity is measured in watts-over-time, the most common expression of which is the kilowatthour, the electricity to run a 100-watt lightbulb for 10 hours. In California, a kilowatthour for the home user costs between 11 cents and 34 cents, depending on usage thresholds. That marginal 34 cent rate is easily achieved by a family of 4.
I digress. How about a clarification of the cost figure? Per kilowatthour?
It's great this is happening. I think nuclear is the only technology we have that can address global warming and pollution in the short term. People are already getting sick and dying from coal powered plants (especially in developing countries), and it's believed that a lot of the mercury and other pollutants in our oceans and air come from burning coal, so even though accidents could happen, on the whole, this could be much safer for people than coal and more practical than solar and wind.
People that pooh pooh nuclear power want energy to come from moon beams, rainbows and happy thoughts. Nuclear power is not the devil.
To me this sounds like a practical solution to a problem facing the nation. It doesn’t release harmful emissions into the atmosphere, it provides energy cheaply (once the units are massed produced the cost will come down further) and it creates green collar jobs in the U.S.
i believe you could put a price per watt on the thing if you were paying 25 million dollars for each reactor, 10000 homes, set level of output watts divided among those homes at a max amount of w/e it is max watts of lets say 10000 per home at 2500$ would give you a price per watt, where as your electric company charges you based on power used over time periods.
Add your comment (no registration required)
Comment on this Story