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.’
I love this and hope the environmental wacko’s all go to Montana and share an environmentally friendly shack.
As far as the cost is concerned, even at $2500 each, it’s a steal.
Here is why. One thing the article doesn’t mention is the lifetime of the power plant. It does state that it needs to be refueled every 7 to ten years, but that is just the fuel and not the entire plant.
But just assuming the plant is replaced entirely every 10 years, this still averages out to $250/year. Adding overhead, let’s say $400/year tops.
That still only comes out to less than $40/month for electricity! I spend normally about $80+ a month on an average size home. There is $40/month savings right there. $4,800 over 10 years.
And then add this. Electric cars or plugin hybrids.
Erase 90% of your gasoline costs, and you are actually saving money. I easily spend $80 and more a month just on local commuting. A plugin hybrid puts that at $20/month.
This adds up to $7,200 savings over 10 years.
Total, $12,000 saved over 10 years.
# 33 Ah_Yea
Do you REALLY think our gov’t is interested in solving the energy problem?
Paddy-O, your obsession with geology continues to amaze me considering the topic.
Not any state considers your method. (As far as I know)
Just dumping them into fault lines will not work, consider the stress exhibited on these containers while they go under.
Which ends in a big scale under water mining operation. (In a geological active region I might add)
Just consider the costs!
Nuclear might be the best short term solution, still based on limited resources, but not fossil.
But it has proven to not be the magic bullet we where searching for. Lets concentrate on systems that really promise change. Renewal and Fusion.
I don’t say switch of nuclear or build no new nuclear plants. But we should still consider nuclear a failed technology but maybe the lesser evil.
I have nothing against nuclear power per se. But placing radiological targets like this all over the place with probably inadequate security is not wise, I think.
# 36
At least the waste is lying around in populated areas.
We might be inclined to (willingly) forget our nuclear waste deposits in bad times.
We would probably not do so when they are stored in populated areas and not under ground.
I mean, there is no big security risk in nuclear waste. As long as it is properly maintained.
I would clean up my back yard from nuclear waste, but I might not be so much interested in cleaning up some big hole in some mountain somewhere where other people live (or none).
Unless you can fuse H2, this is the next best thing for electrical power.
I want one
#35 Some thought said, “Just dumping them into fault lines will not work, consider the stress exhibited on these containers while they go under. Which ends in a big scale under water mining operation. Just consider the costs!”
So? The containers have a problem at 20k+ feet under water. They aren’t going to contaminate ground water or food supply.
Live up to your moniker.
#13 – Paddy-RAMBO
>>Maybe Omama Omama Omama Omama Omama
>>Omama Omama Omama should be told about
>>this. Since he doesn’t really have an energy
>>plan he could start researching at least.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy
#40 Like I said no plan.
If you knew ANYTHING about energy production, current and proposed, you wouldn’t have linked this piece of propaganda thinking it was a real plan.
LOL
“So? The containers have a problem at 20k+ feet under water. They aren’t going to contaminate ground water or food supply.”
I predict a real life Cloverfield in 30 years. =D
#42 I prefer Godzilla.
#1 – Hop,
Me too.
As it is, I’m still nervous. Exactly how is this going to address the problems of mining for uranium, what to do with the depleted uranium, what to do with the spent nuclear fuel, etc.?
I remain opposed to nuclear power until such issues are addressed.
#11 – smartalix,
The tech does exist, and for every narrow-minded enviro-fan who hates anything with “nuke” in it there will be 10 people who want clean cheap energy.
Those of us who still say no nukes want clean cheap energy. We just don’t see it in nuclear fission.
* The mining is unsafe for workers and an environmental disaster.
* We use the depleted uranium, which is still quite radioactive and has a half life of hundreds of millions of years, to shoot through armor instead of making any attempt to dispose of it properly.
* And, there is still the issue of what to do with the rest of the nuclear waste, of which, not one gram anywhere in the world has ever been permanently disposed.
Cow Paddy,
Maybe you alone in the world have the solution to nuclear waste. I assume you plan to put the depleted uranium in the subduction zones as well, rather than into armor piercing bullets. But, if this is your idea of a tried and proven solution to the issue of waste, then tell me why not one gram has been disposed of in this way.
Also, would you throw the miners that have had their health destroyed by uranium mining into the subduction zones too?
What about all the rest of the environmental degradation around the mine? Perhaps you would suggest that we just push the whole continent under the subduction zone more quickly as well.
#41 – Paddy-RAMBO
>>LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
RAMBO, there’s nothing Obama could do or say that you wouldn’t bitch and moan about.
You are the very definition of “a closed mind”.
Now get back to straightening up those radio-controlled cars. The kids like them neatly organized. That’s YOUR energy plan.
Does anyone else wish that Superman Returns had picked up after Superman 4 instead of 2? I can’t believe that people could just pretend that Superman and Nuclear man had never pushed the moon.
#41 Cow Paddy,
Which is it? No plan? Not a perfect plan? Make up your mind.
Second, yes, his plan is not perfect. I agree. It’s probably the biggest reason that Obama was not my first choice.
That said, what plan would you have voted for as an alternative? “Drill baby drill?”
His plan is not terrible. It will help a lot.
I’d prefer no nukes, no first gen biofuels and only very cautious use of newer biofuels where each is examined very carefully first, a revenue neutral carbon tax instead of cap and trade, and accepting Gore’s challenge of all renewable energy for electricity generation of our entire grid within 10 years (we could if we wanted to).
But, no one stating those things could have gotten elected.
Kucinich’s plan was best. But, MSM said he was “unelectable” and we believed them. So, we’re left with a good president elect and a pretty good plan. It’s the best we could have hoped for.
Trust me, with the crap you spout on this web, you really are not electable. So, you must choose from the available options. Obama’s plan will help a lot and still not be perfect.
M. Scott…is uranium mining all that much different, on balance, than coal mining?
Thousands of miners have died in countless accidents and of all sorts of diseases, the landscape in many areas is destroyed from the effort. Coal has plenty of waste too, the current ‘solution’ is accepted because it was chosen long before anyone could object.
So what’s the difference?
# 47 Misanthropic Scott said, “Which is it? No plan? Not a perfect plan?”
Plan: a method for achieving an end.
It cannot achieve the end stated.
Bwhahaha! Paddy-O suggested nuclear fuel reprocessing in the same context he complained about being informed.
The term “Not even wrong” comes to mind;)
The reason I am against nuclear energy always is BECAUSE of nuclear fuel reprocessing. Sure I agree, the reactors can be made safe. The reprocessing facilities on the other hand…
I heard talk of using these kinds of mini reactors to power desalination plants around the arid coastal parts of Australia.
# 51 GregA said, “The reprocessing facilities on the other hand…”
Have been safely operated for a long time. Your point?
#49 – Olo Baggins of Bywater,
So what’s the difference?
Absolutely none. I oppose coal as well. In fact, I’m less opposed to nuclear than I am to coal, even the oxymoron “clean coal”.
# 44 Misanthropic Scott said, “then tell me why not one gram has been disposed of in this way.”
For the same reason we constantly war in the mid East…
#53,
Really? I don’t think you have the first clue what you are talking about, and I have no point for you other than you are an ignorant fool if you think reprocessing facilities have been operated safely;) I don’t see any point at all discussing this with you any further until you demonstrate any amount of intelligence on this issue.
# 50 Paddy-O-Troll,
You can’t even cite a dictionary correctly.
Sorry Paddy, once again, you are incorrect. A plan need not achieve a goal to be a plan.
However, even if you were correct, so what would you do? Sit back and have the human species go extinct, taking many other (and more beautiful) species with it?
Bad idea.
We do what we can as we can and as we see fit. By far, the best we could do in this election was to elect Obama. And, it’s a far better result than I allowed myself to hope for.
# 56 GregA
“PUREX – Is the most common liquid-liquid extraction process for treatment of light water reactor spent fuel. The irradiated fuel is dissolved in nitric acid, and uranium and plutonium are extracted in the organic phase by an organic solvent consisting of tributyl phosphate in kerosene, while the fission products remain in the aqueous nitric phase. Further process steps enable the subsequent separation of uranium from plutonium.
Advantages – fully commercialized process, with over 50 years of experience.”
Don’t be such an idiot. It is a bad way to live.
#55 – Paddy-O,
# 44 Misanthropic Scott said, “then tell me why not one gram has been disposed of in this way.”
For the same reason we constantly war in the mid East…
God?
Oh man Paddy-O.
“Live up to your moniker.”
Yea, coming from you.
The only thing you did manage here is being really offensive and throwing out ridiculous claims without even elaborate them one bit.
Signing off. No use trying to persuade you of anything.
At least you are not very convincing to anyone here. :p
#27 – The “orders being in” is meaningless, as no money has changed hands. Until a safe disposal system is come up with, most western countries will rally against the technology and make sure this doesn’t happen.
Here’s my question: If someone drops a bunker buster on one of these things, what happens?
#58,
Every sight in the world where they deployed that technique is now radioactive;) All of the US sights are Superfund clean up areas, Both Handford and Savanah River have areas so intensely radioactive that that they haven’t even begun cleanup yet.
See I knew you were totally ignorant on the issue;)
#61 James…the result is a lot less than if the same bomb were dropped on either of the two major reactors located 8 and 13 miles from where I sit. In this case, the lower third of Lake Michigan would likely become a waste zone, along with a loss of water supply for many millions.
A bomb dropped on a small inland reactor would be bad, but not on the same scale of the current plants which are all on major waterways.
Besides, when did “the terrists” get their hands on some US bombers? Sounds like FUD to me.
M. Scott….thanks.