Hey, environmentalists: for all those places where solar and wind tech aren’t practical or possible, wouldn’t one of these every few blocks be desirable, especially with an electric car in every garage on the horizon? Nuke tech has advanced greatly since Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. At least that’s what the company hype says which is always right. Right? No weapons grade material, but no dirty bomb capabilities, too. Right?

Mini nuclear plants to power 20,000 homes

Nuclear power plants smaller than a garden shed and able to power 20,000 homes will be on sale within five years, say scientists at Los Alamos, the US government laboratory which developed the first atomic bomb.

The miniature reactors will be factory-sealed, contain no weapons-grade material, have no moving parts and will be nearly impossible to steal because they will be encased in concrete and buried underground.

The US government has licensed the technology to Hyperion, a New Mexico-based company which said last week that it has taken its first firm orders and plans to start mass production within five years. ‘Our goal is to generate electricity for 10 cents a watt anywhere in the world,’ said John Deal, chief executive of Hyperion. ‘They will cost approximately $25m [£13m] each. For a community with 10,000 households, that is a very affordable $250 per home.’




  1. Deep-Thought says:

    # 61
    “Until a safe disposal system is come up with, most western countries will rally against the technology and make sure this doesn’t happen.”

    Well, the eastern Europe states are building new facilities. We western Europeans don’t like this very much. Which is a bit stupid because they are mostly phasing out soviet area chernobyl style systems.

    Waste disposal is really expensive here, but the russians take it for little money. They don’t care if we like it.

  2. Paddy-O says:

    #62 “Every sight in the world where they deployed that technique is now radioactive;)”

    LOL. Except for the ones currently operating.
    ROFL

  3. Paddy-O says:

    #61 James, “Here’s my question: If someone drops a bunker buster on one of these things, what happens?”

    Why would the U.S. bomb one of those sites?

  4. Paddy-O says:

    # 60 Deep-Thought said, “Signing off.”

    Appropriate response to irrefutable facts…

  5. James Hill says:

    #63 – So you’re saying it would clean up Lake Michigan? 🙂

    #63, #66 – I strongly suspect the Russians are capable of duplicating this technology, if they have not already done so. We can never assume we’re the only group that has “something”. Take stealth technology, the Russians are catching up in that field.

  6. Paddy-O says:

    # 68 James Hill said,

    “I strongly suspect the Russians are capable of duplicating this technology,”

    So? Why do it that way when an ICBM can target the site? Fly a bomber all the way to the US to bomb a nuc power plant?

    Too funny. LOL

  7. em2nukeman says:

    well… being a nuclear electrician in the navy, i can personally vouch for this tech. the cost is minimal and the tech is more than adequate…as for the president elects energy plan… well i’m not at liberty to discuss my views. so on a lighter note. people don’t realize that nuclear reactors are all around them. there are currently 2 operating almost continually near a city in the south and most of the people there act like they don’t exist because the navy knows what its doing and has been doing it for over 50 years now…it turns out that nuclear power is the future and is safer than diesel and other fossil fuels has less emissions and is closely regulated and monitored.. as for 3 mile island.. that was because people were inattentive and it was kept to a minimum damage because of 2 nuclear operators that were previously in the navy…as for chernobyl well it was designed to be unstable and it bit USSR in the butt.
    most people don’t know this but even the army is banned from using nuclear power because they were idiots with it too (spoken..killed 4 people). nuclear power is safe, when operated with intelligence and plenty of oversight…
    i only see this reactor working and performing well if they are continually monitored and watched… even if they are not, the plant design is inerently stable and WILL protect itself from damage… as for disposal, well, nuclear waste is closely managed and protected, it will be dealt with in safe and controlled manner. as with all technologies that benefit mankind, there are lots of naysayers. most of which are uninformed dolts who voted for someone other than the one i did.
    just remember there will always be tree-huggers and thank god for the rednecks who keep them at bay…

  8. amodedoma says:

    BTW!!! I just found a NextEnergyNews.com. Outstanding news source for alternative energies. Check it out.

  9. JimD says:

    How can ANYONE BELIEVE THE NUKE INDUSTRY ??? Nothing but LIES FROM THE BEGINNING !!! Remember “Energy too cheap to meter???” So their Cost Estimates are NOT TO BE BELIEVED !!! On Long Island in New York they have a Plant that didn’t produce the first Watt of electric power but cost SIX BILLION DOLLARS !!! And what happens to the reactors at the end of their lives ??? The Nuke Sellers will be living on Maui and won’t want to hear about that question !!!

  10. Paddy-O says:

    # 72 JimD said, “How can ANYONE BELIEVE THE NUKE INDUSTRY ???”

    Truth. Look at France. They don’t have a viable nuc power industry.

    # France derives over 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy. This is due to a long-standing policy based on energy security.

    # France is the world’s largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over EUR 3 billion per year from this.

  11. Jadran says:

    Good I can use it to heat my summer beach lake lodge . Who needs Manitoba hydro and the needless flooding with water of our scenic lakes ?

  12. the answer says:

    Wasn’t the first plans for nuke tech to every house to have their own reactor about the size of a stove?

  13. Rabble Rouser says:

    Oh yeah, drop the waste from this into the earth’s mantle. How much is it going to cost to make it safe to drill into the mantle? Or are you just gonna throw it into a volcano? And when the volcano spews it’s stuff into the atmosphere, so what if it’s radioactive?

    Reprocessing does not get rid of the waste. It just reprocesses it. It does not become “recharged.” It’s still radioactive, for tens of thousands of years, no matter how you look at it.

    Ah, wtf am I talking about. Every day I start to believe more and more that humans are just a virus, infecting this beautiful planet. Maybe we should all just end the existence of this virus via extinction!

  14. Future Chaos says:

    This has been in the works since ’96.

    You could have a PEM before you think about getting a mini-nuke for the house or neighborhood.

    “The Department of Defense (DoD) Residential PEM Demonstration Project began in the Fiscal Year 2001 (FY01). Congress appropriated $3.6M to demonstrate domestically-produced, residential-scale, stationary Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) fuel cells at military facilities, managed by the Fuel Cell Team at the United States Army Engineer Research and Development Center / Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (ERDC/CERL).”
    http://dodfuelcell.cecer.army.mil/res/index.php

    It saves money because it saves energy.
    The 911th Airlift Wing purchases electricity from Dusquene Light Co. under rate schedule GL – General Service Large. Natural Gas is purchased from Peoples Gas. Energy bill savings from the fuel cell were estimated at $44,000 per year as shown below: Electric Savings: $91,000
    Thermal Savings: $11,000
    TOTAL SAVINGS: $102,000
    Natural Gas Cost: ($58,000)
    NET SAVINGS: $44,000

    Fuel Cell Performance

    12/18/1996 : 12/31/2001 (Site Performance Summary)Hours of Operation 35,234 Hours
    Total Electric Output 6,037 MWhrs
    Average Fuel Cell Output 171.3 kW
    Capacity Factor 70.7%
    Availability 82.5%
    http://dodfuelcell.cecer.army.mil/pafc/wing.php

  15. GregA says:

    Paddy-o,

    Frances nuclear waste reprocessing facility is one of the dirtiest in the world.

  16. GregA says:

    #76,

    France and England claim they are dumping the barrels of waste into subduction zones. The idea is, you put the waste in a barrel then drop it in the ocean, and all will be well and the milieu pass by the waste gets sucked into the mantle… But…

  17. SnotLikeBlasterpoop says:

    More nukes, more wind, more solar, more geothermal, more hydro, more everything. We need to multiply our power generation / consumption by a factor of 1000. I want so much power generated heat the waste heat alone makes the Arctic Ocean warm enough to swim in.

    Oh yeah, more nuclear weapons is good too.

  18. deowll says:

    A fairly large and very vocal group off people are about to completely freak out.

    How safe and cheap the tech is doesn’t even matter to them. They are much to devoted to their cause for those issues to even matter.

  19. #81 – deowll,

    A fairly large and very vocal group off people are about to completely freak out.

    How safe and cheap the tech is doesn’t even matter to them. They are much to devoted to their cause for those issues to even matter.

    Funny. You accuse those of us opposed to fusion of being closed minded. Then, you completely and utterly ignore the issues of mining, disposal of depleted uranium, and disposal of spent fuel.

    That’s not exactly open minded of you.

  20. Paddy-O says:

    # 79 GregA said, “and all will be well and the milieu pass by the waste gets sucked into the mantle… But…”

    … enviro wackos would rather see high energy prices and will spread FUD to make sure this happens.

    I finished your sentence.

  21. Paddy-O says:

    # 82 Misanthropic Scott said, “Funny. You accuse those of us opposed to fusion of being closed minded.”

    No, we oppose people who don’t have a basic education on the grade school basics of power generation trying to spread FUD through false data.

    Did you ever learn what a transformer is for and what it does?

  22. chuck says:

    At $25 million each, why doesn’t Google (or Sergey Brin) buy a couple, stick them near one of their server farms and sell any excess power back to the power utility?

  23. #84 – Paddy-O,

    No, we oppose people who don’t have a basic education on the grade school basics of power generation trying to spread FUD through false data.

    Did you ever hear of mining? Do you think that fissionable material is just sitting at the surface of the earth in nice neat clumps encased in lead waiting to be picked up?

    The mining is a horrific environmental and health hazard, as is the disposal of the depleted uranium by shooting it through people. And, clearly, these reactors are intended to sit right where you bury them with no attempt to decommission them or dispose of their waste.

    You just don’t listen to anyone else’s arguments at all, do you?

    Did you ever learn what a transformer is for and what it does?

    Yes. Did you ever learn what a link is? Or a dictionary?

  24. #85 – chuck,

    At $25 million each, why doesn’t Google (or Sergey Brin) buy a couple, stick them near one of their server farms and sell any excess power back to the power utility?

    Don’t put them in my backyard thanks. I think it would be bad to bury these in a crowded subway station. Put them in your own backyard if you like them so much.

  25. Les says:

    ‘Our goal is to generate electricity for 10 cents a watt anywhere in the world,’

    Ok, but I pay about 10 cents a kilowatt now. Thats 1000 times more expensive.

  26. #88 – Les,

    I believe they are considering cost of construction of the power plant, not cost to run it. Your cost per kilowatt hour is not quite what they are referring to, IMHO.

    I’m still opposed to nukes, but do like to be fair about the comparisons.

  27. Paddy-O says:

    # 89 Misanthropic Scott said, #88 – Les,

    “I believe they are considering cost of construction of the power plant, not cost to run it.”

    Yes, add security and one tech to keep an eye on it.

    Done.

  28. #90 – Paddy-O,

    Yes, add security and one tech to keep an eye on it.

    Done.

    Not really. As any insurance adjuster knows, human life can be valued monetarily. Add in the cost of the health and lives of the miners. Then add in the cost of the environmental clean up that will come out of your tax dollars, if you’re lucky. If you’re unlucky then add in more cost in human health from the toxic water supply.

  29. Paddy-O says:

    # 91 Misanthropic Scott said, “Not really. As any insurance adjuster knows, human life can be valued monetarily.”

    Sorry, I’m talking about the cost to the customer to run the power plant.

    You are not.

  30. #92 – Paddy,

    You’re right. I’m not. I consider human life to have value. You don’t. We’ll have to agree to disagree.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 5379 access attempts in the last 7 days.