Mini nuclear plants to power 20,000 homes

reply to post by Phage


The braking mechanism that limits the speed of the wind turbine broke during a storm in Denmark. This was the outcome. 02/22-2008.

jp.dk...

Bonus info:

-The tower of the mill was 60m high
-Wind speed was probably around 30 m/s
-You can see a truck at the base of the mill, but nobody was hurt. The mill had been evacuated 400m in each direction.

i repeat as this seems to have been missed

I hate nucluor power and you should, do you hate living on oil?

Well Nucleor power require Isotpes, this is the new oil when it runs out.

Dont you SEE?!! Nothing will Effing change, when the oil runs out, it will be the same guys in friggin charge!.

But by then they will have collapse the monetary sytems, Gone to world war, and Conpired, all over a useless OIL...

Except now its Nucleur fuel......

Nuclear Power relies on Radioactive Compounds~ The richest countrys in this are now the SUPERPOWERS!

[rants:IDIOTS!!)

reply to post by mopusvindictus


interesting stuff, i love to learn new things!

But i am afraid that that could disturb the current delicate balance of the solar system, and have catasrophic effects with life on earth.

maybe we should try it on another un-inhabited solar sytem first?
assuming it works....

So is that what killed off life on mars? and stripped it to its almost barren state today?

The claim of "No moving parts" certainly intrigues me... how did they manage to pull that one off?

I must know more.


Outside of the technicalities, provided they can prove it's safe and cannot achieve an accidental core meltdown, nor bleed radiation past the containing structure, I'm all for it.

Last thing we would need though, is an unchecked mini-reactor leaking it's contents into the water table.


Until they can prove it's safety, I'm quite content with large nuclear reactors, especially the CANDU and other superior versions... there's people working to keep it in check at all times, and multi-layered automated fail safes to ensure against a catastrophic failure.

reply to post by johnsky


This has gotton out of hand, and i think the media has put it's spin on it.

I think the poin it we will soon have reactors the size of a garden shed. wich is Ideal For space flight, Spyplanes, tanks that never run out of gas.

NOT for individual homes.

reply to post by monkeybus


You mean, I can't have my nuclear powered car like they promised in the 50's?

Awww... I wanted to see a highway-side meltdown.


Well, whatever they intend to use them for, I still say they should prove their safety record first. Something that small won't have a team of experts keeping an eye on it.

reply to post by johnsky


I think it will be amazing to send some guys to mars with a Nucleur ship, like they ones they where developing, but they need to not expell any hazardous waste.

Toshiba is on record trying to produce one of these that works off of lithium-6 for individual homes that could sustain the average home with constant power for 40 years. Since Lithium breaks down as it gets cold you would proabaly want to make a "stair well" in the basement so that one of these devices could be lowered underground to be kept at a good temperature.
Engadget Article

[edit on 11/10/2008 by jcheney]

seems to me that , Los Alamos has ripped off the toshiba reactor design , anyways , i am skeptical about the projected capabilities of the hyperion bathtub reactor

anyways this reactor can only provide power for 5 years and has to be sent back, but toshiba 4S reactor can provide power for 40 years
www.hyperionpowergeneration.com...
secondly, theclaim that reactor has no moving parts , its BS ..

Once sited safely in its underground containment vessel, an HPM is monitored but does not require a battery of operational personnel.. It just quietly delivers safe, reliable power – 70 MW thermal or 25 MW electric via steam turbine – for a period of seven to 10 years.
www.hyperionpowergeneration.com...

so , electric power is made via steam turbine
[edit on 10-11-2008 by sadchild01]

[edit on 10-11-2008 by sadchild01]

Originally posted by monkeybus

I hate nucluor power and you should, do you hate living on oil?

No not really. But if a better option comes along that can save money and is much much more efficient and much easier to deal with its waste, should we not praise it?

Dont you SEE?!! Nothing will Effing change, when the oil runs out, it will be the same guys in friggin charge!.

But by then they will have collapse the monetary sytems, Gone to world war, and Conpired, all over a useless OIL...

Alright take a deep breath. The biggest reserves in the world for uranium are Canada and Australia. I don't think there will be many wars over uranium in these two countries.

Except now its Nucleur fuel......

Nuclear Power relies on Radioactive Compounds~ The richest countrys in this are now the SUPERPOWERS!

I am not totally sure what your argument is here. From what I gather you think that now with Nuclear Power getting more popular, more businesses will profit from it including smart oil companies that see this a growing market and a good investment. Is that your argument?

[rants:IDIOTS!!)

Indeed

reply to post by Cool Hand Luke


Registered: 12-12-2007
Location: Super Secret Illuminati Headquarters
Mood: In Awe

By they way were is the headquarters,? i havnt found the secret map yet

reply to post by Bejing


An additional comment from a not very deeply informed (yet) person. Hyperion appears to be about 3 years behind The Chinese in bringing these Reactors to market. The scenario I imagine developing worldwide is; a Western Company partners with The Chinese and clearly dominates the competition w/ Hyperion for the potential large quantity of orders for these small self-contained Reactors. Try researching how far along Hyperion is in the large scale manufacture of this technology and you will see a startling gap in present efforts and future claims - i.e. they look about 10 years from market acceptance - whereas the Chinese are already building the Manufcaturing facilities for mass production of small self contained reactors. Hyperion appears to be content with claiming some staus as holding a unique monopoly on the technology - whcih destroys their credibility since China is not the only player to have this technology effectively devoloped either - leading me to ask - what is Hyperion really doing..?? Looks like they are simply positioning themselves to raise rounds 1 - 3 of Venture Capital - which is not impressive for a large high tech manufacturer - not impressive at all.

Originally posted by monkeybus
i repeat as this seems to have been missed

I hate nucluor power and you should, do you hate living on oil?

Well Nucleor power require Isotpes, this is the new oil when it runs out.

Dont you SEE?!! Nothing will Effing change, when the oil runs out, it will be the same guys in friggin charge!.

But by then they will have collapse the monetary sytems, Gone to world war, and Conpired, all over a useless OIL...

Except now its Nucleur fuel......

Nuclear Power relies on Radioactive Compounds~ The richest countrys in this are now the SUPERPOWERS!

[rants:IDIOTS!!)

sorry every nation with the knowledge and every company with the knowledge to get into space has access to free mass Isotopes .. space access cheap and reliable will have a great impact and yes If they want to build on in my town I welcome them because I don't want those windmills and solar power in my neighborhood .. it is not reliable nor is it wise .. if a event should happen like a asteroid impact, explosion of a bomb , higher wind speeds due to the lie they call climate change , then I wind and solar are useless .. you have to invest in a energy source like c=mc2 because nuclear power is save better and reliable and solar and wind power cannot be used in space.
if we find life in space or a planet supporting life and we want to go or we have to because of a disaster nuclear is the only source currently in reach for powering spacecrafts to mars and beyond ..
not investing in it is a bad bad thing and expansive financial and time based.
if something should happen and we have neglected to invest in nuclear fusion/ fission ect we will be domed our civilization will be lost and humankind will be lost for ever.. if we have no power for a escape plan.
now you may build solar and wind but this thing from hyperion is a good thing for the short run .. it could even make townbased hydrogen production possible so hydrogen fuel for cars doesn't have to be brought in by tankertrucks which use fuel also .. so that is a plus also.

Originally posted by monkeybus

Registered: 12-12-2007
Location: Super Secret Illuminati Headquarters
Mood: In Awe

By they way were is the headquarters,? i havnt found the secret map yet

It's north of Hades, west of the Super Mason Headquarters, east of the GFL light ship, and south of the Draconian Reptilian lair.

In other words, Winnipeg

[edit on 10-11-2008 by Cool Hand Luke]

reply to post by johnsky


According to the website, a meltdown is impossible because, if the totally sealed core is compromised, the material quickly cools down.

reply to post by sadchild01


The steam turbines could be built above ground, separate from the reactor.

To be honest, I think this idea is great. It has a rather limitless potential, provided the companies involved get it right.
Imagine paying for five years of power for, was it 250 dollars??? or 40 years of power from Toshiba. In the long run this would save everyone money.

However in poor old New Zealand where I live, anything nuclear is band and illegal. This is due to the theories of 70's politicians and to be honest nuclear was no where near perfect then. So the politicians were right to sceptical then. Although they were protecting our nation, unfortunately and ultimately will bring us to a stand still, or even push us backwards. My country is a split country on this matter. Some think nuclear power solves problems and some think it will destroy our pure and untamed forests.
Being the country that fathered the man who split the atom first, it is ironic that nuclear power and other devices are band in New Zealand.

If it were to be proved as safe as the companies say, well it may change the New Zealand governments view on nuclear power. In the mean time, we run on damns, wind, tidal, geothermal, oil and solar. This combination meets our needs, but really it could be better not much in mother nature is completely reliable. We are not a third world country. But even for us in third to fourth stage of development, it would help and improve.
As far as potential goes, I want to know how small we can get this tech, how much power can we get from it??? I want to know would it fully solve oil problems. The biggest question is of course what to do with the waste???
The waste material that comes from nuclear power is not much, which is a bonus but still a problem. It’s not enough to say less waste produced, they need to say how the can use the waste or process it so it is harmless. Has enough research gone into the waste product, can it be turned into usable material, can it be used for space travel. People solve one problem, cause another but do not solve it. Yes it is a good idea but none of the sources address the point on waste and how to deal with it or recycle it.
This can solve many issues of poverty, lacking resources and the likes, but further development into waste needs to be done in my opinion.
I don’t know maybe that’s the nuclear free New Zealander speaking in me lol


Edit: spelling

[edit on 10/11/2008 by Wisdom of one]

reply to post by fixer1967


I doubt they meant one reactor to one house. Seriously think about it...how cost effective would it be to bury a nuclear reactor for 20k houses individually. Wouldn't make any sense. The reactor itself for one house to buy and use as a power source would be way out of range as far as price.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Didn't read past page 1, sorry. But I was surprised that by then no one had mentioned the most important thing about Nuclear Energy... our complete and utter inability to effectively de-commission so much as one Nuclear Power Plant.

Take England's first Nuclear Power Plant, built in the very early 1950's as an example. It is presently being decommissioned in a process that will take another 120 years to complete!! Yep, that's right, you're eyes are not fooling you... it did say 120 years more.

The company producing these small units will probably not be around to take responsibility for their creations when they are due for decommissioning in 40 to 50 years time. So who will be responsible for them then?

Watching a documentary 10 years ago about humanity's Nuclear Follies, I was surprised to hear someone apparently in the know say, "We (the U.S.) went ahead building these power plants in the hope that by the time they needed to be decommissioned we would have discovered how to do it properly. Unfortunately, we haven't yet."

Since we do not have ANY effective measures as yet to deal with the waste products of Nuclear Power generation, and the contamination of the ground they are built on, WHY would any sane people want to go ahead with this scheme... apart from the most obvious answer of making a gazillion dollars?

Isn't it time we took the plunge into Green Power Generation for the same amount of dollars? In doing so we at aleast will insure a safer planet for our great-grandchildren to inherit... if we get that far.

It's time to wake up folks. Time to not let big $$$$ continue to ruin our future with their mindless pursuit of technologies that are harmful to all life on the planet!!

Good and thoughtful post, Tayesin. At the risk of sounding argumentative, I want to respond to a couple of points:

Originally posted by Tayesin
I was surprised that no one had mentioned the most important thing about Nuclear Energy... our complete and utter inability to effectively de-commission so much as one Nuclear Power Plant.

Might this be due more to the extremely high (and perhaps ridiculously rigid) standards defining what "decomission" actually means? For example, you can decomission a nuclear power plant by tearing the plant down, and dumping some dirt on it, and then building a fence around the area. Although people can argue against that approach to decommissioning, there is evidence to suggest those arguments are not completely valid, and are inspired by unrealistic paranoia. It depends upon how dangerous this nuclear residue actually is. (The answer -- not as dangerous as many people believe.)

Since we do not have ANY effective measures as yet to deal with the waste products of Nuclear Power generation, and the contamination of the ground they are built on, WHY would any sane people want to go ahead with this scheme...?

Again, it is debateable what "effective" means here. For example, the French think it is effective to place nuclear waste in an above ground warehouse, and simply keep an eye on things without getting too elaborate. And this has been working for them. On the other hand, the USA believes that burying the waste a 1000 feet deep in a geologically stable mountain is still not effective enough. The term "effective" is subjective. ALL approaches so far have been effective in preventing people from being massively poisoned by radiation. The simplest approach appears to be working. It could be said that we are overcomplicating this issue.

Isn't it time we took the plunge into Green Power Generation for the same amount of dollars? In doing so we at least will insure a safer planet for our great-grandchildren to inherit.

Okay! Here I completely agree with you. If there has been a conspiracy against nuclear power, to prevent its widespread usage and acceptance here in the USA, then that is DEFINITELY TRUE for solar power as well.

There is so much heated argument against nuclear power that I have actually given up (except here at ATS ) any defense of this technology, especially since solar power is now economically viable. It is probably time to move straight to solar power. It has been demonstrated to work, and be scalable. People still are not aware of that, or of the major breakthroughs in hydrogen fuel cells (to store solar energy) and cost reductions in making photovoltaic elements. So maybe the arguments for and against nuclear power have finally been rendered purely academic.

Edit: A cool link that shows how viable solar power is:

en.wikipedia.org...

Nellis Air Force base, in Las Vegas, generates more than 10 MEGA watts of solar power using a scant 140 acres of land -- enough for 12,000 people. This is strictly using photovoltaic cells.

[edit on 14-11-2008 by Buck Division]