|
U-Know! Forum » Climate change solved? Small scale nuclear generators |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic View: Flat | Threaded |
handofdave 3515 posts |
May 20, 2009, 15:02
|
||
|
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/miniature-nuclear-reactors-los-alamos Self contained systems that use passive methods of reaction control.
|
|||
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Edited May 20, 2009, 16:06
May 20, 2009, 16:05
|
||
|
handofdave wrote: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/miniature-nuclear-reactors-los-alamos Self contained systems that use passive methods of reaction control. I don't know enough about this technology to give a considered critique. So I'm flagging this post in advance as a "first thoughts / first impressions" thing. And on that basis... yikes! Thousands of little nuclear reactors encased in concrete, scattered all over the world and maintained and secured by the lowest bidder. First of all, this commits us to a heavily industrialised future (i.e. one in which uranium mining and processing is done on a scale that rivals the modern oil industry) which I'm not sure is a sensible decision. Secondly, the waste management issues just give me the head-staggers. It's one thing having a few secure, essentially semi-militarised, locations where the waste is produced and stored. Even that is problematic. But to handle such a distributed network with a reasonable guarantee that none of the stuff ever ends up in the local reservoirs? Thirdly, I'm always worried when the person selling the technology creates a huge straw man regarding security. What's he trying to distract us from? 'You could never have a Chernobyl-type event - there are no moving parts,' said Deal. 'You would need nation-state resources in order to enrich our uranium. Temperature-wise it's too hot to handle. It would be like stealing a barbecue with your bare hands.' What exactly about "stealing a barbecue with your bare hands" would have prevented the September 11th hijackers doing so if it was part of their mission? See, for me the security risk of these things is a dedicated bunch of nutters -- perhaps the owners of a local concrete supply company? -- who don't care about getting their hands burnt. It's just possible that there are people willing to expose themselves to a lethal dose of radiation as they drain the waste into the local water-table. The whole thing is fraught with the kind of "What Ifs" that just don't enter the equation when you recommend a combination of renewable energy and a reduction in consumption. But I'd be interested in having those "What Ifs" answered and I'll look out for more information on this over the coming months should it start to gain credibility. Maybe this is the magic space dust we've been waiting for.
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
May 20, 2009, 16:58
|
||
|
It is worth a look-see... that's why I posted it. Of course, not everyone would want or need this, but in many situations it'd be viable both economically and in terms of security. A buried reactor is not so easily tampered with without someone noticing, and if it's designed well it could provide years of reliable electric and thermal power. Tho nuke power has it's obvious downsides, it does have it's advantages as well.. clearly, we just can't keep burning coal forever while we debate how to slow global warming. All options should be regularly reconsidered and examined, especially as the technology improves. Certainly, there's many situations where the potential for tampering would be extremely minimal... for example, inside of already heavily guarded industrial sites, for example.
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
May 20, 2009, 17:31
|
||
|
handofdave wrote: Tho nuke power has it's obvious downsides, it does have it's advantages as well.. clearly, we just can't keep burning coal forever while we debate how to slow global warming. All options should be regularly reconsidered and examined, especially as the technology improves. We shouldn't be burning coal at all. But out of interest, how long do you think we can keep burning uranium? It only becomes a "renewable resource" when you start reprocessing. And that's unproven technology outside of the lab, which brings it's own set of problems to solve. If Climate Change is as urgent as we think it is, then shouldn't we go with the "less reliant upon making further technological breakthroughs" solution? (reduce consumption, scale up renewables dramatically) Also, a not-insignificant point; the mining and processing of uranium is far from carbon neutral. PS: If you're interested, I just stuck a slightly expanded version of my first response up at my place.
|
|||
Eduardo 375 posts |
May 20, 2009, 17:37
|
||
|
There is limited scope for nuclear power until the problem of dealing with the waste is solved. On purely economic grounds I don't see how they can be cheap when the waste will need secure storage for thousands of years. Also nukes provide baseload electricity so there is still a need something more controllable in the fuel mix to manage the grid. I admit I'm biased, don't like the idea of nuclear power at all.
|
|||
LeatheratJem 2 posts |
Jun 13, 2009, 00:56
|
||
|
At the bottom of the Guardian article is this correction: "This article was amended on Sunday November 16 2008. Editing errors above resulted in our reporting that 'scientists at Los Alamos' say that nuclear power plants smaller than a garden shed and able to power 20,000 homes will be on sale by 2013. This was actually announced by Hyperion Power Generation, the company that will make the reactors. They licensed the technology from Los Alamos. Editing errors also led us to claim that the $25m [£13m] reactors cost a community with 10,000 households, 'a very affordable $250 per home'. That's actually £16m, not £13m, and $2,500, not $250. Hyperion CEO John Deal told us that he hoped to produce electricity for '10 cents per watt anywhere in the world,' but has since amended that to '10 cents per kilowatt hour'. The numerical errors have been corrected." I hope to Christ that their design and quality testing departments are better than their PR dept....
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Edited Jun 13, 2009, 05:23
Jun 13, 2009, 05:22
|
||
At that corrected price, if the things are actually 'safe', it's still competitive with existing solar options, per house. But even in places where sun can't be counted on, like the deserts, the move toward these things might be offset if solar power panels that absorb a greater amount of the electromagnetic spectrum can be built cheap enough. That might be enough to bury the whole nuke energy industry.
|
| U-Know! Forum Index |
