Underground Mini Nuclear Reactors to Power Homes Within 5 Years?
We're not totally opposed to building new nuclear plants to help ween us off of foreign oil, but we're not really comfortable with having one literally in our back yards. Hyperion, an energy company based out of New Mexico, has licensed technology from the U.S. government that will allow it to build miniature nuclear power plants capable of powering up to 20,000 homes for six to seven years without refueling. The company hopes to produce its first commercially available generator in five years at a cost of $25 million with hopes of selling them to small communities. These small-scale power plants (roughly the size of a tool-shed) are encased in concrete, contain no moving parts, and are designed to be buried underground. The company claims these safety features, in addition to using lower grade uranium (which will be difficult, if not impossible, to refine into weapons grade material), mean the reactors can be deployed in developing nations and U.S. neighborhoods at minimal risk to health and nuclear proliferation. We think it might be underestimating the tenacity of those who would seek nuclear material for a weapon.
Since the technology is based on 50-year-old designs used in university research labs across the country, Hyperion expects it will face minimal opposition from local populations and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which will review the company's application next year.
Even if the tiny reactors are used to power just half of the potential 20,000 homes, the cost is still only $2,500 per household for at least six years of electricity, or about $413 per year -- significantly less than most U.S. homes spend on a year's worth of power. Hyperion will have to work quickly, however. Other companies, including Toshiba, are also working on mini reactors. Toshiba's design could power a single building (we assume they're targeting office structures) for up to 40 years.
On the plus side, burying a nuclear reactor under your office building may be a big boon for productivity. If we were sitting on top a potential Chernobyl, we know we'd be working to get home as fast as humanly possible. [From: Guardian]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
D-Nice said 2:03PM on 11-10-2008
Sounds good to me. A little radiation buried 200 feet underground probably wouldn't hurt any one. I pay $600 a month, so $413 a year is great!
Reply
SimbaDogg said 2:17AM on 11-11-2008
jesus h christ..are you running some of googles servers in your house or something? 600 a month? please tell me you have a home w/ 15+ bedrooms/a family of more than 10...because i simply dont understand how you can run up a $600 bill, unless you live outside the us somewhere.
wako said 1:51AM on 11-11-2008
Lets actually hope they DO NOT quickly push this out. It would literally be a disaster if they issued a recall ;)
Reply
Darin said 4:59AM on 11-11-2008
this is all fine and dandy....but power suppliers will not pass along the savings to the consumer....you will pay the same amount for your power and the company will pocket the savings as profits...except for me...I am a member of an energy co-op
Reply
MyKisa said 6:47AM on 11-11-2008
I would rather see solar hydrogen production
Reply
Chernobleman said 7:35AM on 11-11-2008
Nice idea but who gets to pay for the periodic refueling, spent fuel storage, waste management, etc.? Who gets the liability for the containment failure risks. Who gets the pleasure of protecting the burial site, transporters from terrorists? Who needs a nuclear reactor in their neighborhood? Who pays for the steam turbine operation and maintenance? Who gets the responsibility for the condensing steam cycle thermal polution? Is the reactor coolant sodium? Why is this a cost effective solution to power generation in larger communities?
This is being marketed by a venture capital corporate group. Is it really advisable to put our trust in a group that could pull out and leave the local owners to deal with the abandoned equipment? We can't even rely on large utilities to responsibly operate their nuclear facilities now, and we want this? Bull !!!!
Reply
mitch said 11:57AM on 11-11-2008
Now we are talking. I predicted just yesterday that all the insulation and weatherizing and caulking and stuff we are doing to make energy use more efficient, will all become a moot point when energy becomes ultra cheap, AND ecosafe. then we will all be tearing down our walls and windows and living in nuclear powered teepees and igloos. this is just a phase to get us to the next phase. the earth doesnt stand still and change is the only constant except for no change or changing change. what was will be gone but then come back and then leave again in different incarnations. what we do will become a crisis to be solved. with mini nukes, the temptation will be to waste so much energy that global warming will be caused by the sheer temperature increase and not co2 emissions from cleanly heating an open home. everyone will have that 1000 horsepower vehicle that gets 500 miles per gallon. that will cause a wave of new safety developments that will get more and more restrictive until some kind of teleportation device gets invented that ships us all to maui in winter and to alaska in summer.
Reply
Joseph Davis said 10:04AM on 11-12-2008
This is all well and good, but, as many have indicated, there is the threat of leakage, quakes, recalls, erosion, etc. The better solution is research on these over unity generators that supposedly are installed into homes and generate enough power to repay the energy used from the electric company and sells back $4 of energy for every dollar consumed. Now that's a solution. An inventor in Australia is supposed to be close to marketing a commercially saleable unit for $5000 USD. This would be a worthwhile investment and would force electric companies to operate at more efficient levels to maintain profitability.
Reply
Cancer = Nuclear said 7:30AM on 11-26-2008
http://www.medio-ambiente.info/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=264
Read carefully:
Thus, in July last year was published in the journal Occupational & Environmental Medicine an epidemiological study conducted by scientists from
the University of Alcala de Henares and Guadalajara's Hospital in which he concludes that the risk of cancer increases linearly with proximity
to the nuclear power Trillo and that the risk of having a tumor is 1.71 times higher in the environment closest to the nuclear power plant
(within a radius of 10 kms. around it) than in the area enclosed within a radius 30 kms.
In July 2001 was published in Environmental Health Perspectives a study by the Cancer Epidemiology Unit of the National Center for Epidemiology
Carlos III Health Institute that concluded that there was an increased mortality from leukemia in the vicinity of the facilities of nuclear fuel
.
Two years earlier, in 1999, the Carlos III Health Institute concluded that there was an incidence of multiple myeloma higher than normal in the
vicinity of the Zorita nuclear power station in Guadalajara. This study was published in the October issue of the journal Cancer Epidemiology,
Biomarkers & Prevention. In this same area, and in 1987 the National Health Institute concluded that the rate of deaths from tumors of the
digestive tract was between 3 and 4 times higher than the average of the Spanish State.
In addition to these conclusive data, the studies of 1999 and 2001 from the Carlos III Health Institute also detected the existence of a fee
Unexpectedly high of stomach cancer in people of both sexes in the area surrounding the nuclear plant Garoña. This increase, linked to the
proximity to this facility, occurred in the period after the start of activity of the nuclear plant, after comparing with the situation prior to
its entry into operation.
Also, it was found that mortality from lung cancer showed a greater increase in the areas in the vicinity of 30 kms around the central Garoña,
Zorita and Vandellos-I compared with national trends. The same situation occurred with respect to kidney cancer in La Haba, an area of uranium
mining.
According to these studies, Garoña is the environment in which nuclear power has found a higher rate of mortality from leukemia in the
population from 0 to 24 years, in a ratio higher than in the control populations beyond that radius. In the environment of other nuclear plants
and facilities for uranium mining has been detected excess mortality from various types of cancer.
Reply
Cancer = Nuclear said 7:31AM on 11-26-2008
http://www.medio-ambiente.info/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=264
Read carefully:
Thus, in July last year was published in the journal Occupational & Environmental Medicine an epidemiological study conducted by scientists from
the University of Alcala de Henares and Guadalajara's Hospital in which he concludes that the risk of cancer increases linearly with proximity
to the nuclear power Trillo and that the risk of having a tumor is 1.71 times higher in the environment closest to the nuclear power plant
(within a radius of 10 kms. around it) than in the area enclosed within a radius 30 kms.
In July 2001 was published in Environmental Health Perspectives a study by the Cancer Epidemiology Unit of the National Center for Epidemiology
Carlos III Health Institute that concluded that there was an increased mortality from leukemia in the vicinity of the facilities of nuclear fuel
.
Two years earlier, in 1999, the Carlos III Health Institute concluded that there was an incidence of multiple myeloma higher than normal in the
vicinity of the Zorita nuclear power station in Guadalajara. This study was published in the October issue of the journal Cancer Epidemiology,
Biomarkers & Prevention. In this same area, and in 1987 the National Health Institute concluded that the rate of deaths from tumors of the
digestive tract was between 3 and 4 times higher than the average of the Spanish State.
In addition to these conclusive data, the studies of 1999 and 2001 from the Carlos III Health Institute also detected the existence of a fee
Unexpectedly high of stomach cancer in people of both sexes in the area surrounding the nuclear plant Garoña. This increase, linked to the
proximity to this facility, occurred in the period after the start of activity of the nuclear plant, after comparing with the situation prior to
its entry into operation.
Also, it was found that mortality from lung cancer showed a greater increase in the areas in the vicinity of 30 kms around the central Garoña,
Zorita and Vandellos-I compared with national trends. The same situation occurred with respect to kidney cancer in La Haba, an area of uranium
mining.
According to these studies, Garoña is the environment in which nuclear power has found a higher rate of mortality from leukemia in the
population from 0 to 24 years, in a ratio higher than in the control populations beyond that radius. In the environment of other nuclear plants
and facilities for uranium mining has been detected excess mortality from various types of cancer.
Reply