| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Tech |
| Experimental mini nuclear plant in the pipeline (Alaska) |
| 2005-02-11 |
| A SMALL Alaskan town with a population of 700 could become the site for an experimental mini nuclear power plant. If approved, it would be the first reactor in the US since 1974. Last Wednesday the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission met with local community leaders from Galena, an Athabaskan village 900 kilometres north-west of Anchorage on the Yukon river, to discuss licensing procedures. Also present were representatives of Toshiba, which will build the plant if it is licensed, and which seems to have initiated the project. One benefit for Toshiba would be to test its new type of reactor. The device, known as a "battery" because it has no moving parts, will generate about 10 megawatts of power, roughly 1 per cent of a typical nuclear plant's capacity. The design has never been built, and anti-nuclear campaigners suspect that it is no coincidence that the company has chosen a remote, sparsely inhabited region, where it is more likely to get a licence. But locals seem to welcome the plan. They have to pay three times the US average for their diesel-generated electricity. This sounds really promising. Let's hope the enviro-loonies don't tie this up in the courts. I doubt many will get to Galena to protest in person. |
| Posted by:phil_b |
| #21 It's still worthwhile to talk about the risks. One reason is to make sure they're covered. Another reason is so that the rest of us are armed with that information. |
| Posted by: Dishman 2005-02-11 9:59:17 PM |
| #20 I get so tired of the chicken little response to any type of nuclear power. Even from people who should know better. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2005-02-11 3:29:56 PM |
| #19 probably solid-state on a "raft"-type (post-tensioned)concrete foundation - should ride any quakes out....undoubtedly a trip-system to shut down til no damage assessment is done, though |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-02-11 1:03:00 PM |
| #18 Sounds good. One little itty bitty question-it's leagues away from any earthquake fault lines, right? Alaska does have those pop up now and then-biggies, too. |
| Posted by: Jules 187 2005-02-11 1:00:44 PM |
| #17 LOL |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-02-11 12:56:46 PM |
| #16 Unless it is embedded in 10 feet of reinforced concrete, it looks like it can be quickly breeched. It is. As well as quite a bit of lead, which ironically acts as the coolant in some of the designs. The Toshiba design appears to use liquid sodium instead, but the idea's the same. So, let's see: You ignore the alarms and start working your way through the reinforced concrete. Once you've cut your way through that, you're confronted with a bath of molten sodium. Assuming you survive the burning-hot, explosive sodium, then you have access to the log-sized chunk of fuel. Congratulations! |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-02-11 12:55:45 PM |
| #15 I want my Mr. Fusion! |
| Posted by: mojo 2005-02-11 12:12:44 PM |
| #14 The right side add sez: Nuclear Plant. Nuclear Plant for sale. aff[ordable] Check out the deals now! www.eBay.com I'll go check, I wanna one today! |
| Posted by: Sobiesky 2005-02-11 11:26:46 AM |
| #13 I am specifically thinking of suicide terrorists from a certain religion. It should be enough if they can survive a few hours after containment breech. The photo of the core/cooling vessel looked quite small if it was anywhere near scale, and the core itself was said to be the size of a log. Unless it is embedded in 10 feet of reinforced concrete, it looks like it can be quickly breeched. Alarms aren't going to do it and local security can be overcomein remote areas. |
| Posted by: ed 2005-02-11 11:16:50 AM |
| #12 >I am more worried about capturing a core that has been in operation for some years, taking to a waiting plane or copter, and detonating it over a nearby city center. There are a lot of really bad waste isotopes building up in the core. < Any core that has operated for several years would kill anyone who tried to transport it without some highgrade containment. The threat is so overblown that I sometimes think that if some yo-yo with a pellet gun took a shot at a nuclear plant, most of the press would go insane with irrational panic. Davemac |
| Posted by: Ebbavitle Glereling2593 2005-02-11 10:43:42 AM |
| #11 The US got quite a shock a dozen years ago when the Japanese and South Africans unveiled very small nuclear reactors. Clean, efficient, and compact. Just the thing for micro energy generation, supplementing an existing grid, emergency use, military use, and even space use. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-02-11 9:37:59 AM |
| #10 Probably the best news is that it doesn't need to be maintained for 30 years. The biggest problem with nuke plants was the disposal and storage of spent fuel. Since Sept 11, there are added security issues, too. I'd like to see how they intend to secure the unit. |
| Posted by: PlanetDan 2005-02-11 8:40:38 AM |
| #9 This seems like bad news from a nuclear/radioactive materials theft standpoint. I'm pretty sure this type of reactor is completely sealed. Getting at the core would be difficult, noisy, and probably fatal to those involved. AFAIK, they're not designed to be refueled. It takes 100 of these babies just to equal the power output of 1 1,000MW PWR reactor. If this design becomes popular, there will be thousands of them, and security will be a nightmare. Kinda like those tens of thousands of containers of highly flammable liquid we have stashed all around the country? Or the tens of thousands of places you can get the ingredients for ANFO? Or what about all the radioactive waste generated by hospitals? Worried about that? Why not? I'm with Phil -- the relative danger here is small. Heck, here's a page full of information on small nuclear reactors: http://www.nuclear.com/n-plants/index-Small_modulr_reactr.html Granted this appears to be from pro-nuclear power people, but some of the things here are... interesting. For example, under "Proliferation resistance advantages of SMRs" we learn that the whole reactor is transported as a unit, so that neither the fuel nor the wastes EVER need to be removed. Under the bit about autonomous operation, there's this: "The reactor could be monitored via satellite and be equipped with various sensors that would go off if someone tried to tamper with it." |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-02-11 8:14:47 AM |
| #8 Back in the late '50s and early '60's there were experiments done in Oak Ridge to design and build a reactor powered airplane. How scary is that? I don't know how big this "battery" is, probably bigger than a bread box, so I would guess taking the whole unit would be unworkable and just taking the core would be extremely dangerous to anyone trying to do so. Of course, not doing really stupid things doesn't seem to matter much to the Islamofascists. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2005-02-11 8:00:52 AM |
| #7 Toshiba. Didn't they used to sell machine tools for quieter submarine propeller's to the Soviets? Now they're selling mini nuke plants. Who knew they had so much nuclear technology? |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-02-11 7:29:30 AM |
| #6 I agree that uranium's fears are worse than the reality. I am more worried about capturing a core that has been in operation for some years, taking to a waiting plane or copter, and detonating it over a nearby city center. There are a lot of really bad waste isotopes building up in the core. It takes 100 of these babies just to equal the power output of 1 1,000MW PWR reactor. If this design becomes popular, there will be thousands of them, and security will be a nightmare. |
| Posted by: ed 2005-02-11 6:48:49 AM |
| #5 This seems like bad news from a nuclear/radioactive materials theft standpoint. The kind of places that would be interested in this would be places like remote mine sites, which commonly store large amounts explosives. The risk of theft would be no worse. Besides the real risks of a dirty bomb made from a lump of uranium would be almost exclusively to the bomb makers. We really have get past this irrational fear of 'radiation'. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-02-11 3:49:37 AM |
| #4 This seems like bad news from a nuclear/radioactive materials theft standpoint. Better large plants with a security force. Alaskan village offered prototype "nuclear battery" by Toshiba The village of Galena, Alaska, is considering switching from its 28 cents/kWh diesel generator electricity to a Toshiba 4S micronuclear power plant. On paper, the Toshiba proposal to build a prototype plant could lower the cost of energy by more than 75 percent with little capital cost to the city. The 4S is a sodium-cooled fast spectrum reactor -- a low-pressure, self-cooling reactor. Toshiba representatives say the system is nothing like the infamous sodium-cooled nuclear power plants of the past. Rather, they characterize it as a "nuclear battery" -- self-contained and automated without any moving parts. At the heart of the 4S system is a log-sized uranium core, which would generate power for 30 years before needing to be disposed of and replaced. The company hopes to have a 4S system operational by the end of the decade. |
| Posted by: ed 2005-02-11 1:55:04 AM |
| #3 AP: "I have in-laws in Galena. Will try to get some more info on the deal." Damn, I love the blogosphere! :-D |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2005-02-11 12:54:09 AM |
| #2 This has been in the works for quite some time. Galena is on the Yukon River, about 10 miles upstream from the confluence of the Yukon and Koyukuk rivers. In the winter it can be a cold place, sitting out in the flats and all. I have in-laws in Galena. Will try to get some more info on the deal. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2005-02-11 12:23:15 AM |
| #1 The envirocommies already have a team of lawyers waiting to fight this I am sure. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2005-02-11 12:21:18 AM |