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

Toshiba has developed a new class of micro size Nuclear Reactors that is designed to power individual apartment buildings or city blocks. The new reactor, which is only 20 feet by 6 feet, could change everything for small remote communities, small businesses or even a group of neighbors who are fed up with the power companies and want more control over their energy needs.

The 200 kilowatt Toshiba designed reactor is engineered to be fail-safe and totally automatic and will not overheat. Unlike traditional nuclear reactors the new micro reactor uses no control rods to initiate the reaction. The new revolutionary technology uses reservoirs of liquid lithium-6, an isotope that is effective at absorbing neutrons. The Lithium-6 reservoirs are connected to a vertical tube that fits into the reactor core. The whole whole process is self sustaining and can last for up to 40 years, producing electricity for only 5 cents per kilowatt hour, about half the cost of grid energy.

Toshiba expects to install the first reactor in Japan in 2008 and to begin marketing the new system in Europe and America in 2009.



TOPICS: News/Current Events; Technical
KEYWORDS: energy; hitech; micronuclearreactor; nuclear; nuclearenergy; nuclearreactor; toshiba
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 141-155 next last
To: HAL9000
Cool.

And think of the energy savings in not having to transport the energy from a plant 50 miles away.

81 posted on 12/19/2007 6:13:36 AM PST by Tribune7 (Dems want to rob from the poor to give to the rich)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: American in Israel
5 cents per kilowatt hour, at 200kw is 100 bucks an hour, 2400 bucks a day. 40 years of that at 365 days a year is a paltry 35 million bucks and change.

Is that net present value?

If you have to plunk down 35 million to buy it, either you are going to have a mortgage on the thing, or you are going to lose investment income.

82 posted on 12/19/2007 6:18:30 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary

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

I don’t fear the micro-reactors at all. However, I think the claim in this article of 5 cents/kwh power from one is completely bogus, and I suspect that they will only be deployed in extremely remote locations.

If you planned to deploy these in a city, the only way to make it economical is to get the security for free - perhaps locate it under a police station. The value of the electricity it would deliver is only $10 per hour - you can’t afford ANY round-the-clock staff at that rate.

I could also see these reactors being deployed in a university setting, where they would provide co-generation of hot water, and could also be useful for nuclear research.


83 posted on 12/19/2007 6:38:25 AM PST by Mr170IQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: js1138

We have some wildly varying costs being thrown about on the thread. 3.5 million vs 35 million.

A number of these tied into a city electric grid might provide outstanding peak usage power and backup power for critical operations. Electric purchased at peak rates is very very expensive. If these can be tapped for peak power, they might pay for themselves very quickly.

I wonder if they could be deployed to disaster areas?

Just some ideas. Anyone - feel free to shoot them down.

I think it pretty exciting technology. We need to be less dependent on central power stations that can easily be taken out.


84 posted on 12/19/2007 6:41:51 AM PST by listenhillary (You get more of what you focus on)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000

nifty.....

it has two major hurdles:

1) cost effective ???
2) pass the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (very big hurdle)


85 posted on 12/19/2007 6:44:22 AM PST by FreedomProtector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr170IQ

It would make sense to locate them in the emergency planning centers, police departments, hospitals. This is what needs to stay up when disaster happens.

They have their own built in security system wouldn’t they?

You don’t have the proper codes, zot and you are a crispy critter.


86 posted on 12/19/2007 6:45:18 AM PST by listenhillary (You get more of what you focus on)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Lokibob

Great read about your experience in Greenland. There were no photos displayed?


87 posted on 12/19/2007 6:46:16 AM PST by Rb ver. 2.0 (Global warming is the new Marxism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000; hiredhand; Travis McGee; Larry Lucido; Tijeras_Slim

Cool !

now to find a cheap island for sale with fresh water....


88 posted on 12/19/2007 6:49:33 AM PST by Squantos (Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet. ©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: geopyg
Out at the Idaho National Labs there is a prototype of a nuke aircraft engine as I recall.

No, that was in Nevada -- the NERVA project.

89 posted on 12/19/2007 6:49:42 AM PST by Ditto (Global Warming: The 21st Century's Snake Oil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary

> We have some wildly varying costs being thrown about on the thread. 3.5 million vs 35 million

Do the Math - it’s not rocket science:

“American in Israel” made a mistake when he claimed “5 cents per kilowatt hour, at 200kw is 100 bucks an hour”

200 KW times FIFTY cents a kw/h would be $100 per hour.

If the electricity is only worth $0.05 per kilowatt/hour, then you are only looking at an output value of $10 per hour.

Come on, this is fourth grade math here, folks.


90 posted on 12/19/2007 6:51:22 AM PST by Mr170IQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Mr170IQ

But I’m lazy and you did the math for me.


91 posted on 12/19/2007 6:52:49 AM PST by listenhillary (You get more of what you focus on)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary

I think nukes and distributed energy sources have to have a future. At some point in the next 50 years we will be transitioning away from fossil fuel.

I can’t help thinking these will not fly in the U.S.


92 posted on 12/19/2007 6:52:59 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000

What happens when Abdul goes down to the basement and puts 20 pounds of C4 under the reactor?


93 posted on 12/19/2007 6:53:05 AM PST by dljordan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Squantos

With that much power, who needs fresh water? Just RO all the seawater you want.

Fill swimming pools with it, and run fountains!


94 posted on 12/19/2007 6:53:06 AM PST by Travis McGee (---www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: js1138
I think nukes and distributed energy sources have to have a future. At some point in the next 50 years we will be transitioning away from fossil fuel.

I agree. Even without a mini-nuke, you can live to first-world standards off the grid, using COTS wind and solar engergy products.

95 posted on 12/19/2007 6:54:42 AM PST by Travis McGee (---www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000

Cool nuclear bump.


96 posted on 12/19/2007 6:56:50 AM PST by techcor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dljordan

He doesn’t get close to the reactor. It has a potent defense system available if designed properly. I won’t say it can’t be done, but we can not write off nuclear power because Achmed might blow it up.

If we do, Achmed has succeeding in dragging us back to the 7th century.


97 posted on 12/19/2007 6:57:41 AM PST by listenhillary (You get more of what you focus on)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: geopyg

In fact I believe there are two and they’re still there.


98 posted on 12/19/2007 6:59:56 AM PST by satan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Tree of Liberty

There’s something not quite right about that boy...

he seems to have some sort of fetish for radioactive substances, above and beyond that of the typical science geek. Anyway, he never achieved criticality, but apparently he may have successfully produced trace amounts of plutonium.


99 posted on 12/19/2007 7:27:46 AM PST by -YYZ- (Strong like bull, smart like ox.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

“But the nuclear fuel in a power reactor won’t explode under any circumstances.”

No, but nuclear reactors, even low powered ones running on natural or low-enriched uranium (LEU) have a tendency to produce some nasty radioactive by-products which could make quite a mess if spread around. I suspect extracting those by-products for use in a dirty bomb would be beyond most, if not all, groups capabilities, but blowing the reactor up could certain create at least a local contamination problem. But, then, we’re not talking about using these in heavily populated areas.


100 posted on 12/19/2007 7:32:33 AM PST by -YYZ- (Strong like bull, smart like ox.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 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