| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| Goin' Fission? |
| 2008-07-17 |
| What is small enough to be hauled on a truck, has the power to provide electricity to 45,000 homes, can help the U.S. cut its dependence on foreign oil and has no emissions? Hint: The Sierra Club won't like it. Next week, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will rule on an application from NuScale Power, an Oregon-based startup that is seeking federal clearance to move ahead with its project to build mini or portable nuclear reactors. Popular Mechanics quotes NuScale as saying that if its design is approved, it will begin tests with the hope of getting final approval a few years from now. Should the process go smoothly, the mini reactors could go online by 2015. Mini nuclear power plants, from end to end, would be no more than 65 feet long and have no visible cooling towers to ruin anyone's "viewshed." A conventional nuclear plant can eat up thousands of acres and cannot "disappear" into a populated area. Because of their size, the mini plants can be built at a central factory and shipped via rail or large truck anywhere in the country, keeping construction costs down. An Energy Department official told New Scientist magazine four years ago that such reactors wouldn't require maintenance or need to be refueled. After their useful life of about 30 years they could be returned to the factory. And oh yes: They're virtually terrorist-proof. While neighborhood-friendly mini nuclear plants could displace a large number of traditional coal- and gas-fired power plants, they would be especially useful in remote areas where fossil fuels are used to run generators. They also would make it unnecessary to burn large amounts of gasoline and diesel to transport other fossil fuels to these isolated outposts. The U.S. has not seen a nuclear plant of any size come online since the Watts Bar facility in Tennessee went into production in 1996. While France gets more than 75% of its electricity from nuclear power, the U.S. has been stuck at the 20% level for years. But the high price of crude seems to have refocused minds. NRC documents show the commission already this year has received 13 applications to build 19 nuclear power units. It would be helpful if many of those who are now thinking differently are part of the NRC license-approval bureaucracy. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #18 One other thing, for off the grid communities and communities that want to go off the grid, you can and should make electricity unmetered. That would be a powerful incentive in colder places. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2008-07-17 17:40 |
| #17 Richard of Oregon is right. First places to get them would be places off the grid, currently using diesel generators. Then the camel's nose is under the tent. The Soviets had quite a lot of these, and even with Soviet's safety standards and quality control (lack thereof), I don't recall any problem. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2008-07-17 17:34 |
| #16 I'm sure the controls will include some means to synchronize the volatge phase. Even the local yokels might be able to handle it..... However, things also depend upon the voltage/amperage coming out of the plant and what you are feeding that power into whether it be a substation or what. Lock in the power out of sync and motors start turning backwards and things go poof! There are already vast monies spent on the infrastructure including substation, transformers, and lines. Investor owned utilities might jump at the chance to stick the bill to you whereas co-operatives might be able to use them to offset higher costs of coal/natural gas generation. |
| Posted by: mailbu_shrade 2008-07-17 14:54 |
| #15 Don't underestimate the knee-jerk automatic resistence to nuke power. I forwared an article on this approach to my local newspaper yesterday; I expect to have them cancel my subscription by the end of the week. I do still have some concerns - the usual two and one of them seems to have been addressed; (1)the safety of the system when it's run by local yahoos and (2) what is the ultimate disposal plan for the waste materials |
| Posted by: Big Unusoth9894 2008-07-17 14:23 |
| #14 Interesting point. Whenever load is low, use the excess capacity to produce hydrogen for local fuel cell work. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-07-17 11:08 |
| #13 Richard - use the extra capacity to create hydrogen. Yes you lose a lot in the conversion but you don't entirely waste the capacity and that hydrogen can be used in fuel cells. I still can't imagine the greenies letting this get past. For most of the 'green' organizations these days its more about power, and the ability to run people's lives, than the environment. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2008-07-17 10:55 |
| #12 Actually "malibu", transmission issues are exactly what this avoids. By being small safe and local, its relatively simple to hook to the grid, with no long distance transmission of poeer needed. That's actually one of the major selling points - put power generation closer to where it is consumed, and replace transmission lines from distant power plants. And as other have stated, and array of these might be a viable alternative to a medium scale coal or nuke plant for small cities. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-07-17 10:38 |
| #11 I've got a space in my front yard that the wife's been complaining about, but I think it might be a little too small. |
| Posted by: Perfesser 2008-07-17 10:24 |
| #10 I think this is proven tech. Both the Japanese and the South Africans have had similar units going on 20 years, and have ironed out a lot of bugs. The idea is to have a very low maintenance system that is just like a big box with a few gauges, an on-off switch, and circuit protected high current plugs. And when its lease runs out, the company picks it up and gives you a new one. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-07-17 10:05 |
| #9 This appears to address one of the issues that I seldom hear much about. There are many advantages to having a distributed power base. Don't need as many big power lines to shift power from a few central locales where it is produced to the many, many places it is needed. A distributed power generation system cuts transmission losses, is more secure against attack or critical component failure. One question does come to mind. What do you do for dynamic load adjustment. Nuclear is great for producing lots of power, but is not good at adjusting on the fly to rapid changes in demand. House-sized batteries or better yet, several million Toyota electric cars hooked to the power grid at night can go a long way toward smoothing things out on the old grid. |
| Posted by: Richard of Oregon 2008-07-17 10:03 |
| #8 The greenies will have many opportunities to obstruct. If every NuScale miniplant will have to file a transportation plan and every transportation plan will have to be approved by every jurisdiction the miniplant moves through, it will just about kill this whole idea. |
| Posted by: mhw 2008-07-17 10:01 |
| #7 Hopefully the promise of this can deliver. It would really make things a heck of a lot easier. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-07-17 09:32 |
| #6 damn fat fingers....legislators |
| Posted by: mailbu_shrade 2008-07-17 09:23 |
| #5 It's all well and good but transmission issues will still abound. It's kind of like the folks (including some of our brilliant legislaters) who think that wind turbines store the energy they produce for when the winds not blowing. Although given the current political wind here in Kansas on coal fired power, this might have some credibility. Although we are still talking nuclear and that has it's own ramifications, we'll just have to wait and see how it plays out in the MSM.............. |
| Posted by: mailbu_shrade 2008-07-17 09:21 |
| #4 The key is the passive fail-safes that are designed into the unit (that is, if nothing is done the unit will simply slowly shut down), as compared to the active ones (i.e. someone has to do something to prevent a runaway, and generally they need electricity to do it) in older designs. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-07-17 08:46 |
| #3 Sweet! Next stop: TokaMate - your personal thermofusion reactor. |
| Posted by: Grenter, Protector of the Geats 2008-07-17 08:34 |
| #2 Phil_b, don't underestimate the Greenies. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2008-07-17 06:57 |
| #1 This is a great idea, which will bypass a lot of the BS obstructions thrown up by Greenies. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2008-07-17 04:49 |