Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Toshiba Builds 100x Smaller Micro Nuclear Reactor
Next Energy News ^ | December 17, 2007

Posted on 12/18/2007 9:44:50 PM PST by HAL9000

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-155 next last
To: American in Israel

> 5 cents per kilowatt hour, at 200kw is 100 bucks an hour, 2400 bucks a day.

Actually, you are off by a factor of ten here. 0.05 * 200 = 10 dollars an hour. Which implies 3.5 million dollars worth of electricity over 40 years.

Even if it only costs them $25,000 a year to hire someone to watch the reactor 42 hours each week, they would need to spend $4 million over those 40 years just to provide a single on-site employee 24 hours each day.

In theory, it might be possible to bury this micro-reactor deep enough that it would require no on-site security, but I wouldn’t want to bet my life on it.


61 posted on 12/19/2007 2:57:46 AM PST by Mr170IQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
20 feet by 6 feet; just the perfect size to fit into an ISO standard shipping container.

Right not some flea bitten, stinking, western-educated, al-Qaeda scientist in the tribal areas of Pakistan is trying to get enough data to figure out how you can make a Toshiba lithium-6 powered nuclear reactor explode on command.

Swell.

62 posted on 12/19/2007 3:03:53 AM PST by Captain Rhino ( If we have the WILL to do it, there is nothing built in China that we cannot do without.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lokibob

Yeah doesn’t the Navy have a reactor design that’s only about 20 x 15 x 40? I may be wrong about the precise dimensions, but the thing I saw fit pretty handily on the back of a flat bed tractor trailer.Of course that might not have been the whole thing, (maybe it was in two or ten different parts and assembled later, but the story I was given at the time was that it was for powering a nuclear frigate.


63 posted on 12/19/2007 3:08:58 AM PST by tcostell (MOLON LABE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000

Wal-Mart and Best Buy were completely sold out when I called. My son will have to wait.


64 posted on 12/19/2007 3:16:39 AM PST by gotribe (I've been disenfranchised by the GOP.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Calvin Locke
There's a documentary on one of those that had an accident.

I think the crew, three or four of them died on scene. One was missing, until somebody noticed a body impaled at the top on a control rod that was pushed against the ceiling.

If I recall correctly, that weren't no accident. Three technicians on duty, two guys one gal, two were married, the other .... well anyhow, it appeared to be a murder-suicide.

65 posted on 12/19/2007 3:16:56 AM PST by RJR_fan (Lovers and winners shape the future. Losers and whiners TRY TO PREDICT it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Talking_Mouse; All
TM: GMTA.

The rest of y'all:

Yes, I still want one of these.


66 posted on 12/19/2007 3:21:20 AM PST by ExGeeEye (NIE or no NIE, I've been waiting since 11/04/79 to do something about Iran.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000

PING.. Check out equity.


67 posted on 12/19/2007 3:41:45 AM PST by Broker (Grandpa Petti Bones wants to know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DB

“Assuming it can’t dangerously malfunction, the real question is what can people who are bent on doing harm do with it?”

We can’t run away in fear from new technology. Look what 19 people did with box cutters.


68 posted on 12/19/2007 3:47:40 AM PST by listenhillary (You get more of what you focus on)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: caseinpoint

What the manufacturers could do is build in communication technology that contacts authorities with GPS location if any tampering occurs.

With a polling communication contact system with the units, any non responsive unit is investigated quickly.


69 posted on 12/19/2007 3:57:41 AM PST by listenhillary (You get more of what you focus on)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: AntiKev

Check this out.


70 posted on 12/19/2007 4:02:11 AM PST by Former Proud Canadian (How do I change my screen name after Harper's election?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls
The 200 kilowatt Toshiba designed reactor is engineered to be fail-safe and totally automatic and will not overheat.

Famous last words.


Famous knee-jerk response.
71 posted on 12/19/2007 4:03:16 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: generalhammond
Fantastic idea, especially for small remote areas (eg central Australia) currently using diesel generators. One problem - ISLAM ie Islamic nutbags opening them up and turning them into weapons.

How in the world do you think this could possibly be turned into a weapon in any way more substantial than a car can be turned into a weapon by driving it into a crowd? No nuclear reactor can be made into a nuclear weapon without so much involved work that you may as well make one from scratch and look how much effort (North Korea, Iran) that takes. If you had a graphite core, you could have a radioactive fire (a la Chernobyl). If you had a build-up of hydrogen gas, you could have an explosion of the gas. But the nuclear fuel in a power reactor won't explode under any circumstances.
72 posted on 12/19/2007 4:10:02 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: geopyg

2 protoypes. My thesis adviser was on the team that developed them. They worked very well.


73 posted on 12/19/2007 4:19:22 AM PST by steveyp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls
actually, i bet you it *is* safe: remember Japanese executives and engineers commit sepuku if they really screw up, so they tend to be pretty competent.
74 posted on 12/19/2007 4:29:12 AM PST by chilepepper (The map is not the territory -- Alfred Korzybski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

Well said. There are far more dangerous uses for plastic explosives than trying to crack open a reactor.

People are far more frightened of Nuclear stuff than they need to be - and its all the fault of the left.


75 posted on 12/19/2007 4:30:47 AM PST by agere_contra (Do not confuse the wealth of nations with the wealth of government - FDT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Mr170IQ
A suitcase full of plastic explosive shaped charges would turn this $3million reactor into a mini-Chernobyl.

Chernobyl killed, at most, 500 people - and that's counting all early deaths from the poorly protected cleanup crew. A mini-Chernobyl would be 1/1000 of this, or one half-dead person.

I can live with those odds.

76 posted on 12/19/2007 4:36:23 AM PST by agere_contra (Do not confuse the wealth of nations with the wealth of government - FDT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: BipolarBob
............that is designed to power individual apartment buildings or city blocks.

Unless you own an apartment building, I don't think it's for individual units.

77 posted on 12/19/2007 4:39:15 AM PST by purpleraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1
But how stable is Lithium-6, and how would one measure and/or determine its degradation?

Just because something is an isotope, doesn't mean it's unstable. An element is composed of isotopes of that element, only some of which are unstable due to radioactive decay. Carbon 14 radioactively decays. Carbon 12 and carbon 13 do not.
78 posted on 12/19/2007 4:43:01 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra

>> A suitcase full of plastic explosive shaped charges would turn this $3million reactor into a mini-Chernobyl.

> Chernobyl killed, at most, 500 people
...
> A mini-Chernobyl would be 1/1000 of this, or one half-dead person.

Chernobyl was a reactor test gone wrong, which resulted in a large fire spreading most of the core, including tons of uranuium, plutonium, and fission products, into the atmosphere. This contaminated a large area and killed a few people.

This micro-reactor, although it has a power output about 700 times smaller than Chernobyl, contains proportionately more fuel, because it is designed to operate for decades without refueling.

This risk is that Bad Guys(TM) with explosives could breach the core and produce a large “dirty bomb” style contamination event.

Although the amount of radioisotopes released would be perhaps fifty or a hundred times smaller than the amount released at Chernobyl, it would still be a MAJOR release of nasty high level waste. A cleanup could easily cost billions - depending on the location - even if it didn’t kill a single person.


79 posted on 12/19/2007 5:33:13 AM PST by Mr170IQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Mr170IQ

Do you fear the micro reactors enough to demand they not pursue it?


80 posted on 12/19/2007 6:12:04 AM PST by listenhillary (You get more of what you focus on)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-155 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson