If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   The future of nuclear power is in a series of miniature reactors that are just so cute you'll want to cuddle with them   (npr.org) divider line 61
    More: Strange, nuclear reactors, reactor cores, office park  
•       •       •

16638 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Feb 2013 at 1:08 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-02-04 01:11:42 PM
7 votes:
The article is talking about micro nuclear reactors. There was a greenlight some time back about the town of Galena in Alaska wanting one of these since it was so expensive to import diesel fuel for their generators.


Voiceofreason01: Seems like a big safety and security risk.


Not really. The latest generation of reactors are fairly safe, including a number of passive cooling designs that make issues like we saw at Fukushima a non-issue. Keep in mind that the General Electric boiling water reactor at Fukushima was designed in the 1950s, and the RBMK reactor at Chernobyl was designed shortly after (and was a horrible design even for the time; they were illegal to build in the US).

The fuel is kept in sealed containers that can't really be tampered with onsite. When the fuel is exhausted, it is put on a truck and shipped back to the factory, so you don't have holding pools like we saw at Fukushima.

I'd consider coal power a greater health risk since we know that they are actively spewing heavy and radioactive metals into the air. More people have died from coal related illness in the US than from nuclear accidents.  That shiat really has got to go.

The nice thing about these micro facilities is that you can build them close to towns so you can avoid long-distance transmission losses. Nobody wants to see high-voltage transmission lines go up yet they don't want to pay to have them installed underground, so this sorta side-skips the issue.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-02-04 11:17:42 AM
4 votes:

Voiceofreason01: Seems like a big safety and security risk.


No, they would just be grouped onto large facilities.  It costs a lot less to get approval for one large site than ten, and it's the same for providing security and everything else.

Making them smaller just makes them easier to build and assemble and finance.  It's not like they are going to be on sale at Home Depot.
2013-02-04 01:40:39 PM
3 votes:

liam76: Dinjiin: Nobody wants to see high-voltage transmission lines go up yet they don't want to pay to have them installed underground,

What is the benefit of puttingt hem underground?


Downed lines from wind, drunks and ice? Logistics of poles, easement for clearance, and maintenance? Just plain not having to see them?
2013-02-04 12:52:26 PM
3 votes:
I expect a lot of:

upload.wikimedia.org

"Not in my back yard!"
2013-02-04 03:10:18 PM
2 votes:
Been tiny little reactors since the 1950s, very clean energy source if the Government would get out of the way and let our reactors be updated.

Fear and ignorance is much more dangerous than nuclear power, especially now that it has advanced to a very well understood and manageable science.
2013-02-04 03:06:54 PM
2 votes:
there's been one tiny one located in The Peoples Republic of Cambridge next to Boston for  .  .  .  well since forever I guess.  There's about 24 more of nearly the same size scattered across this great land of ours - all attached to some university.

http://www2.cambridgema.gov/CityOfCambridge_Content/documents/MITRes po nsesNuclearSafetyConcerns.pdf

citation
2013-02-04 01:57:20 PM
2 votes:

Xcott: Heard this story on the radio this morning, and was disturbed by the total absence of information about the technology.  Was it Thorium-based?  Was it a pellet reactor?  Is it a new technology with safety advantages over traditional methods?

Sadly, my first thought was:  this is NPR, so they're not going to mention any of that stuff---they're out to scare their hippie demographic, so they'll just describe this as a customary nuclear reactor only smaller.   And double-sadly, I was right.


Or maybe they know most peopel listening won't get the difference...
2013-02-04 01:49:50 PM
2 votes:
Where does the spent fuel go?

www.personal.psu.edu
2013-02-04 01:48:12 PM
2 votes:

Voiceofreason01: Seems like a big safety and security risk.


From what I've read, the failsafes on these small nuclear reactors are quite thorough.

From Pop Sci 2009:

" As in modern reactors, the containment shell acts as a heat exchanger, Reyes explains. The water closest to the core is vented into the outer shell as steam, where it condenses and drips into the cooling pool, which is recirculated to cool the core. The whole unit sits below grade, without telltale cooling towers. The reactor doesn't use pumps to circulate the water if the unit overheats, which means it needs no external power to cool down. That's a "passive safety" feature that protects the unit from electrical sabotage.

The new unit can be manufactured cheaply, with standard turbines from General Electric, for example, rather than custom-made parts. Because the steel reactor vessel is only 9 ft. in diameter, it can be made entirely in the U.S., rather than relying on Japan Steel Works, the only manufacturer who can cast today's one-piece, 25-ft.-plus reactor vessels.

Each 45-megawatt electrical unit would generate enough power for about 45,000 homes. By comparison, plants operated today generate 1000 to 1700 megawatts, according to NRC spokesman Scott Burnell. "You can't take an AP1000, a large base-load reactor, and put it down where there's no grid to support it. A smaller design could be useful in a remote setting."


I've been checking this stuff out for a long time. The community I live in could use one of these. We have a big nuclear power plant within ten miles, but we get no power from it. We get mucho tax and other benefits- but a small reactor right in the middle of our neighborhood would be just as safe and secure as the big guy down the street.
2013-02-04 01:41:51 PM
2 votes:
GOOD

Also make the nuclear industry accept for modern technology. These knuckleheads still rely on orifice plates for flow metering.
2013-02-04 01:41:01 PM
2 votes:
Article doesn't specify fuel type.  I will reserve judgement until I find this out.
2013-02-04 01:40:20 PM
2 votes:

liam76: What is the benefit of puttingt hem underground?


The benefit of installing transmissions lines underground?  Umm, they don't ruin your view...

retasite.files.wordpress.com
2013-02-04 01:30:42 PM
2 votes:

SkunkWerks: Voiceofreason01: Seems like a big safety and security risk.

Whatever do you mean?  A nuclear reactor that's small enough to be loaded into a back of a simulated wood-panel van?

FTA: The plan is to build hundreds of mini-reactors, dot them around the U.S. and export them overseas.

What could possibly go wrong here?


Reactor designs are nowhere near what they were when Chernobyl, Fukushimi, or even the dozens of swimming-pool reactors scattered around the USA. Modern technology and engineers has essentially removed the risk of melt-down and the transportation of radioactive waste is an existing issue. We already ship all kinds of radioactive material to hospitals every day. The risk the same using these small reactors. The article doesn't specify, but these should include Thorium-based reactors as well. No reason to limit ourselves to moderately enriched Uranium. I am also curious about down-time for refueling. Large reactors actually have planned outages for refueling and maintenance. Having lots of little cores allows staged refueling - which simplifies the process and evens-out maintenance scheduling.
2013-02-04 01:27:36 PM
2 votes:
As a proponent of nuclear energy, there are reasons why developing countries can't have nice things.

I'm on the fence about it, but I could be swayed.
2013-02-04 01:13:58 PM
2 votes:
These are really cool. You could have one at each power sub-station. That way, you could have a really neat  grid of independent power sources. Someone is finally making sense.
2013-02-04 12:35:17 PM
2 votes:

Voiceofreason01: Yeah but where? Unstable African countries? There are remote areas of the US and Canada where it might work but the article specifically mentioned sending these units abroad. I really like the idea of these mini-reactors but you'd have to site them really carefully(keeping in mind that they're potential security and environmental hazards for decades, even after they're offline).


Who says they need to be remote? There's lots of old coal-fired power plants all over the world, and if you've got, say, an old 600mw plant that needs replacing, you need 3-4 of these to replace it. If the price is right to buy and install, that makes nuclear power a real choice in roles it never was before - nobody builds full scale nuclear plants for a load requirement that small.
2013-02-04 11:55:08 AM
2 votes:

Voiceofreason01: But in practical terms where do you deploy these?


Replacing existing end of life (conventional) power stations.
2013-02-04 09:13:56 PM
1 votes:

MrSteve007: The future of nuclear power should be limited to a footnote in the history books.

Teachers:
"Look kids, here's an industry that told the public that it would be clean, so cheap that meters wouldn't be necessary & completely safe."

Kids: "What a bunch of idiots."


dude. stop it. you're embarrassing environmentalists. You don't understand nuclear physics and reactor design. PLEASE STOP.
2013-02-04 05:42:13 PM
1 votes:
I enjoy occasionally looking at the live output of the grid's fuel mix up here in the Pacific NW:

transmission.bpa.gov

The red line is the actual level of demand in the region. The blue is the hydro power output. The gray is the coal, nuclear, natural gas and biomass, and the green is wind power.

It's pretty obvious that our region can more than survive off of the hydro power alone. And as you can see, wind power is quite variable - but when at full output, produces more energy than our nuke, gas and coal plants combined. Also, if you take a look at the load profile of demand, we could easily integrate ~20% solar power into our regional grid to level off our peak demand during the daytime.

At least for this quadrant of the nation, there's no need for nuclear, coal or even natural gas power to keep our lights on.
2013-02-04 04:25:39 PM
1 votes:

TypoFlyspray: FatherChaos: Meh, I'm putting my chips on Fusion reactors that create plasma.

Plus:

[www.ocmodshop.com image 354x221]

Who else gets seriously annoyed when these things blow up and irradiate you?  Is that what we want for our kids?

You should really put them in Fission.

Mmmmmm Fission Chips.


Mmm...unprocessed Fission Chips...

Well, here's some more info on Fusion technology.  There's a reactor in the city of Toki, Gifu Prefecture in Japan.  I really wanted to visit it before I moved back to the States, but I might try to go back sometime soon for a tour.
2013-02-04 04:05:14 PM
1 votes:

Rent Party: It is physically impossible (as in "would break the laws of physics") for a modern pebble bed reactor to melt down.


Pebble bed reactors are going out of favor because of a couple of reasons.  One is the radioactive dust caused by pebbles bumping into each other while traveling down the conveyor system, knocking fragments of ceramic casing off or just splitting the pebble in half.  The other problem is that the pebbles sometimes get stuck.

The big draw of a PBR was the low fuel density preventing runaway fission.  I believe scientists have found ways to do the same with other fuel structures.
2013-02-04 03:52:17 PM
1 votes:

Dinjiin: The article is talking about micro nuclear reactors. There was a greenlight some time back about the town of Galena in Alaska wanting one of these since it was so expensive to import diesel fuel for their generators.


Voiceofreason01: Seems like a big safety and security risk.

Not really. The latest generation of reactors are fairly safe, including a number of passive cooling designs that make issues like we saw at Fukushima a non-issue. Keep in mind that the General Electric boiling water reactor at Fukushima was designed in the 1950s, and the RBMK reactor at Chernobyl was designed shortly after (and was a horrible design even for the time; they were illegal to build in the US).


It is physically impossible (as in "would break the laws of physics") for a modern pebble bed reactor to melt down.  They are gas cooled and self moderating from a temperature standpoint.  The hotter they get, the less efficient they become.

Done right, a reactor in every neighborhood is a great idea.
2013-02-04 03:37:17 PM
1 votes:

MrSteve007: The future of nuclear power should be limited to a footnote in the history books.

Teachers:
"Look kids, here's an industry that told the public that it would be clean, so cheap that meters wouldn't be necessary & completely safe."

Kids: "What a bunch of idiots."


Teachers: Well, that's today's lesson. Now head back into the fuel starved wasteland to try and scavenge some gasoline.
2013-02-04 03:29:29 PM
1 votes:
Eh, sounds good.  Honestly, this will _increase_ the safety of nuclear facilities for the most part, because they haven't been allowed to upgrade the tech at most of them since the '50s.

Having smaller-load nuke plants will be nice as well.

Dinjiin:Some of those spent fuel rods can be used as fuel in breeder reactors, but outside of the EBR-II reactor at ANL-W (now INL) near Idaho Falls, we haven't had the best luck with breeder reactors.

Thing thing about the breeder reactors is that, frankly, you only need one.  Remember that the physical mass of nuclear fuel is incredibly low by power generation standards, even the shipping concerns for replacing solar panels every 5-10 years involve a bigger process stream and require more plant capacity.
2013-02-04 03:23:11 PM
1 votes:

Rich Cream: /I wasn't shilling you so much as this thread had a preponderance of pro-nuclear comments. Much more than could be expected from general population.


Ah. Well, eh, I'm a physics grad student, and don't have a the reflexive "ZOMG IT HAS THE WORD NUCLEAR! That means it's bad!" reaction that portions of the population have. (to be fair, I understand WHY they have that reaction). And I'm sort of of the opinion that nuclear power can be pretty safe *IF YOU DO IT RIGHT* (like, say, the way France does it), but that does also require a crap-ton of government regulation and investment, which to be fair doesn't really fly in this country.
2013-02-04 03:22:47 PM
1 votes:
MrSteve007 AKA: all forms nuclear technology and waste will still be farking us for at least the foreseeable future. Reprocessing that much waste is a dream.

Well, I'll rely on Dr. Till & Co's determination of that.

By the way, Blue Ribbon Panel was nearer to proliferation of the politically correct, than an examination of the science.

http://www.beyondfossilfools.com/assets/files/BRCresponse.pdf

Need `terawattage'  of Carbon neutral elec., on demand, in the briefest time possible?  Ain't no alternative.
2013-02-04 03:12:53 PM
1 votes:

Felgraf: It DID just occur to me: That super-gorilla glass that Apple makes for their Ipads? ... How much does that cost to make?


Gorilla glass is way over-hyped. It's resistant to all kinds of damage but it's still trivial to break it or scratch it.
2013-02-04 03:09:52 PM
1 votes:

Voiceofreason01: Yeah but where? Unstable African countries?


If these are the kinds of reactors I've heard about for years now, the entire system is "factory sealed" inside a welded steel tube. There is no access to the nuclear material without taking a cutting torch to it, basically. The ultimate "No user serviceable parts inside" if you will.

When the reactor's fuel life is spent, you ship it back to the factory for refurbishment. You can be damn sure we'd be keeping track of every single unit and they'd probably be fitted with all kinds of alarms and tracking devices so we'd know if someone tried to crack one open.

Rich Cream: /fission will be nice, probably won't live to see it :(


Uh, we've been operating fission reactors since the 1950s. I'm guessing you meant fusion?
=Smidge=
2013-02-04 02:41:40 PM
1 votes:
The obvious market for small, dumbed-down, modular, shippable nuclear power generators is Australia. But it ain't gonna happen.
2013-02-04 02:33:29 PM
1 votes:

pkellmey: In the Midwest, ice storms and hail storms make them too vulnerable, especially when insurance companies will replace part costs, but not the man hours required to repair, which can be the costliest portion of the bill. However, a few companies are working on solar paint and window glass coverings that may be easy enough for people to maintain on their own. I think that will be the point where solar will really take off.


Considering solar panels these days can stop a .22 or .38 bullet from a few feet away - I have a feeling that they're not too vulnerable to piddly little hail.

sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
Or hold a couple ton truck up between a 48" span, using only glass.
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
2013-02-04 02:22:10 PM
1 votes:

A Shambling Mound: For my part I figure it's a pretty safe assumption that before anything like this starts getting dropped all over the place someone will have figured out how to make them impossible to run off with.


You'd think that the indicators of any safety system would report on the condition of the system's actual physical components rather than whether or not you pushed a button to place one of those components in a certain state.

You'd think.

Three Mile Island suggests strongly otherwise.


Again, I'm very careful about what I consider to be "pretty safe assumptions", even where they concern people which are demonstrably quite intelligent.

Mind you- once again- I don't feel this is reason enough to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but horrifyingly negligent approaches to stuff like this are commonplace enough to be a worthy cause for alarm.  Where it concerns things like this, honestly I don't see how it's possible to have enough due diligence.


I recall reading an article not long ago (within the past year, in fact) which stated that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was solving the problem of reactor facilities being in unacceptable states of disrepair...

...by relaxing regulation.


Believe me, I want to get behind nuclear power.  Fission might not be perfect, but at the moment it's our best stepping stone to something better.  On the other hand, I'd also love to see these matters taken as seriously as, well, you'd think matters like this would warrant.
2013-02-04 02:19:37 PM
1 votes:

Mikeyworld: Pick: These are really cool. You could have one at each power sub-station. That way, you could have a really neat  grid of independent power sources. Someone is finally making sense.

If'n they'd spend the time developing roof-tile solar panels that were affordable, The power situation would be solved. They are real close to the 'break-even' point in my budget right now as it is.

/just a touch more affordability...
//or, subsidies
///And I'm in Washington State


In the Midwest, ice storms and hail storms make them too vulnerable, especially when insurance companies will replace part costs, but not the man hours required to repair, which can be the costliest portion of the bill. However, a few companies are working on solar paint and window glass coverings that may be easy enough for people to maintain on their own. I think that will be the point where solar will really take off.
2013-02-04 02:16:22 PM
1 votes:

MrSteve007: The future of nuclear power should be limited to a footnote in the history books.

Teachers:
"Look kids, here's an industry that told the public that it would be clean, so cheap that meters wouldn't be necessary & completely safe."

Kids: "What a bunch of idiots."


Coal's worse. Because coal puts out *just* as much nuclear waste as nuke power (Yes, really. Coal's got radioactive crap trapped in it), but it puts it out *INTO THE AIR*.

And until we get some room temperature superconductors, *something's* gonna be needed for baseline loads. Solar currently isn't able to do that.

Some of the next gen reactor designs are pretty damn sweet, to the point of using spent fuel from traditional reactors *as fuel*, ending with waste that isn't much more radioactive than the stuff they hauled up from the ground in the first place.

(And some are thorium based, and there's enough thorium to use as fuel to, well... that would solve a lot of energy needs for a very, very long time.)

/Not anti-renewable. But also a physicist, and in favor of a hybrid system for our current needs.

Mikeyworld: If'n they'd spend the time developing roof-tile solar panels that were affordable, The power situation would be solved. They are real close to the 'break-even' point in my budget right now as it is.


Solar's awesome, especially for variable loads, but something is needed to provide a baseline load.

/Though there are some neat avenues at storing the energy from solar for use at night-I seem to recall reading something using liquid salt.
//And solar's growing pretty fast, which is awesome.
2013-02-04 02:13:12 PM
1 votes:

Jument: Stranded On The Planet Dumbass: Where does the spent fuel go?

[www.personal.psu.edu image 630x494]

Personally I'd rather have it in drums than in my lungs.


I'm pretty sure we can dig deep, make the storage facility have really thick walls with multiple passive containment layers and large enough so that we can store several hundred years worth of waste.  There must be a talent pool of civil engineers large enough in this country to be able to figure it out.  I seem to recall there aren't as many civil engineering projects now as there was a few years ago.  It can't be that hard to find the engineers needed to figure out the details.

Not only that but I do believe that there are a few people out there with construction experience who aren't currently working.  I bet we could get a few of them together to put the whole thing together.  I know, it's crazy but it just might be possible.

I'd rather have it underground than in my lungs.
2013-02-04 02:12:22 PM
1 votes:

Mikeyworld: Pick: These are really cool. You could have one at each power sub-station. That way, you could have a really neat  grid of independent power sources. Someone is finally making sense.

If'n they'd spend the time developing roof-tile solar panels that were affordable, The power situation would be solved. They are real close to the 'break-even' point in my budget right now as it is.

/just a touch more affordability...
//or, subsidies
///And I'm in Washington State


The subsidies for renewables in WA State are some of the highest in the world. Rooftop solar panels have about a 6 year ROI.
2013-02-04 02:05:57 PM
1 votes:

Tax Boy: [members.chello.cz image 500x317]

Mr Fusion?


Honestly, that's about all Miller High Life is good for.
2013-02-04 01:59:21 PM
1 votes:
Adorable!  But whose going to pick up the waste?
2013-02-04 01:58:39 PM
1 votes:

Stranded On The Planet Dumbass: Where does the spent fuel go?


The fuel for some of the models come from used rods from larger plants.
2013-02-04 01:57:06 PM
1 votes:

Stranded On The Planet Dumbass: Where does the spent fuel go?

[www.personal.psu.edu image 630x494]


Personally I'd rather have it in drums than in my lungs.
2013-02-04 01:57:02 PM
1 votes:

Mouser: <i>"It's a developing country that doesn't have a substantial electrical grid that is precisely the kind of country I would not want to see have any kind of nuclear power plant," he says.</i>

Because burning the local forests for fuel or relying on the warlord's oil fields is so much better for people in developing countries.

I suppose the one saving grace about Western environmentalists hating humanity is that they want the impoverished foreigners to die off first.


Yes, that's right, we hate humanity.
Specifically, you.
2013-02-04 01:49:30 PM
1 votes:
Heard this story on the radio this morning, and was disturbed by the total absence of information about the technology.  Was it Thorium-based?  Was it a pellet reactor?  Is it a new technology with safety advantages over traditional methods?

Sadly, my first thought was:  this is NPR, so they're not going to mention any of that stuff---they're out to scare their hippie demographic, so they'll just describe this as a customary nuclear reactor only smaller.   And double-sadly, I was right.
2013-02-04 01:46:05 PM
1 votes:

give me doughnuts: Not having to listen to nutcases who claim to be sensitive to magnetic fields, and claim that they cause cancer, rickets, and gingivitis.


Agreed.  If non-ionizing magnetic fields caused cancer, we would have a century's worth of data showing cancer clusters around clear-channel AM radio transmitters.  Yet we don't.

Besides the out-of-sight, out-of-paranoid-mind benefit and not having to look at them, it might be beneficial to bury them in northern latitudes if it helped avoid complications from solar flares / magnetic storms.
2013-02-04 01:43:09 PM
1 votes:
Whole bunch of swabbos/squiddos who've been paddling water for a long time within spitting distance of small reactors (not this particular design) who've only had their tags take a hit when wearing them out when spending a sunny day  on the beach.

We spent twenty billion perfecting a passive safety/recycling system Integral Fast Reactor and then said fark it (actually cut the cooling/elec and then went to lunch):

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/ti ll .html
2013-02-04 01:42:04 PM
1 votes:
Mr. Fusion?
2013-02-04 01:38:41 PM
1 votes:

liam76: Dinjiin: Nobody wants to see high-voltage transmission lines go up yet they don't want to pay to have them installed underground,

What is the benefit of puttingt hem underground?



Not having to listen to nutcases who claim to be sensitive to magnetic fields, and claim that they cause cancer, rickets, and gingivitis.
2013-02-04 01:38:34 PM
1 votes:

GameSprocket: Knew it all along.


This was supposed to have a picture. New editor fooled me.

hubcap.clemson.edu
2013-02-04 01:38:27 PM
1 votes:

willfullyobscure: "We're gonna need about a 450 year detour from Elliot and Lake to exit 38 on the greenway, a semi flipped last night night and took out reactor 22. On the flip side, we' won't need any street lights in the area for a while, either."


Yeah it's a shame nobody knows how to build hardened structures with layers of passive defenses against objects with lots of kinetic energy.

Yeah it's also a shame nobody knows how to build in plain sight without drawing attention.  There's no way to build bland buildings that nobody pays attention to.
2013-02-04 01:37:42 PM
1 votes:
Sounds pretty rad.
2013-02-04 01:35:39 PM
1 votes:

A Shambling Mound: Point proven.


Really?  I'm actually one of the folks here who would normally weight in against alarmist notions about nuclear power.  In fact, I firmly believe it's the way forward, and still do.

That said, when you alter one of the fundamental properties of nuclear power plants, and dramatically so- in this case, their size- there are certain logistics considerations that should probably be carefully examined at that point.

And it's entirely possible they're being examined, I admit.

It's just that, well, my faith in humanity is a rather dim sort of faith, and with folks all up and gushing about how "neat" this is, it's not exactly uncommon for such glaring issues to be glossed over, or else, entirely ignored.
2013-02-04 01:34:26 PM
1 votes:
As someone who lives within the fallout zones of two nuke plants, I'm not concerned.

Actually, having a nuclear power plant eight miles from my home is kind of exciting, if anything.
2013-02-04 01:33:24 PM
1 votes:
There is no mention of it in the article but I read that the military is interested in small portable reactors.  Instead of shipping diesel fuel through let's say Pakistan to run generators at bases in Afghanistan you could bring in a portable nuclear power plant that would run for years without refueling.  They also want them to power bases in the US so those bases are relying on vulnerable local power grids.  My guess is that the DOE money for this is mostly for the purpose of supplying the military.
2013-02-04 01:31:02 PM
1 votes:
2013-02-04 01:29:34 PM
1 votes:
When can i buy one for my home and get rid of the damned electric utility's ever-expanding costs
2013-02-04 01:27:49 PM
1 votes:
pjmedia.com
2013-02-04 01:22:15 PM
1 votes:

A Shambling Mound: Pick: These are really cool. You could have one at each power sub-station. That way, you could have a really neat  grid of independent power sources. Someone is finally making sense.

Yes but wait until the general public catches wind of any potential installations. Sense will immediately stop being made.


Wait for it:

SkunkWerks: Voiceofreason01: Seems like a big safety and security risk.

Whatever do you mean?  A nuclear reactor that's small enough to be loaded into a back of a simulated wood-panel van?

FTA: The plan is to build hundreds of mini-reactors, dot them around the U.S. and export them overseas.

What could possibly go wrong here?


Point proven.
2013-02-04 01:20:49 PM
1 votes:
Meh, I'm putting my chips on Fusion reactors that create plasma.

Plus:

www.ocmodshop.com

Who else gets seriously annoyed when these things blow up and irradiate you?  Is that what we want for our kids?
2013-02-04 01:15:16 PM
1 votes:

violentsalvation: I expect a lot of:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 395x269]

"Not in my back yard!"


Screw distributed power generation
Screw progress
NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY DERPDERPDERP
2013-02-04 01:09:21 PM
1 votes:

Voiceofreason01: GAT_00: Thanks Asimov, I still don't need a nuclear knife.

OOOooo, but what about a nuclear powered laser gun?


It's our constitutional right to have nuclear-powered laser guns.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-02-04 01:02:27 PM
1 votes:

Voiceofreason01: costermonger: Voiceofreason01: But in practical terms where do you deploy these?

Replacing existing end of life (conventional) power stations.

Yeah but where? Unstable African countries? There are remote areas of the US and Canada where it might work but the article specifically mentioned sending these units abroad. I really like the idea of these mini-reactors but you'd have to site them really carefully(keeping in mind that they're potential security and environmental hazards for decades, even after they're offline).


At the sites of existing reactors. They already have site licenses.
2013-02-04 12:51:39 PM
1 votes:
Whatever happened to the air cooled ceramic mini nuclear plants we were promised? It seems going with steam is just backward.
2013-02-04 12:15:22 PM
1 votes:

Voiceofreason01: costermonger: Voiceofreason01: But in practical terms where do you deploy these?

Replacing existing end of life (conventional) power stations.

Yeah but where? Unstable African countries? There are remote areas of the US and Canada where it might work but the article specifically mentioned sending these units abroad. I really like the idea of these mini-reactors but you'd have to site them really carefully(keeping in mind that they're potential security and environmental hazards for decades, even after they're offline).


I want one of these for my doomsday prepper bunker!
 
Displayed 61 of 61 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report