Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:04PM EST
See Comments (3)
With the outlook on fossil fuels growing ever dimmer, many energy mavens have touted nuclear power as a way to keep the lights on, at least until solar or other renewable energy systems become efficient enough to pick up the slack.
But while large-scale nuclear plants often suffer from Not In My Back Yard syndrome, one wonders how consumers will feel about the prospect of actually having a nuclear generator in their back yard: One company says it has started production on nuclear reactors "the size of a hot tub," designed to be placed in communities and each capable of generating enough power to light up 20,000 American homes.
Safety would be a major concern, of course, but because the units have no moving parts, they would not require many of the complex safeguards of big power plants. The units are completely sealed and the intent is to bury them underground, then post guards on the site to prevent tampering. They would presumably need to be unearthed once every five years or so, to remove the softball-sized bit of waste that is generated and add additional fuel as required. The company also says they can't meltdown: If the units are opened they would instantly cool down.
The ultimate goal for the price of power from the devices is said to be "10 cents a watt," (per the CEO -- and I think he means he wants to get the price to hit $2.5 million for 25 megawatts of capacity), and the company, Hyperion Power Generation, says it can have commercial production lines ready by 2013. The company says it wants to produce 4,000 units in its first run, each to be priced at $25 million.
All of that sounds really enticing, but I am still more than a little curious about how the system actually works. HPG doesn't really explain much about it: Traditional nuclear plants use the heat from fission to boil water to make steam, which turns a turbine that creates electrical current. HPG's modules don't seem to work this way at all. In fact the company says to think of the device as a "large battery." Until I see more technical data I remain unconvinced -- yet cautiously hopeful.
UPDATE: On this page the company mentions the power would have to come via steam turbine, so this is likely just a heat source, not a full on generator, which would need to be built above ground.
Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.
Tesla could light a lightbulb from forty miles away using only the left over resonance from the big bang. He used a magical invention now called a Tesla Coil, that converts resonant radiation into electricity. No wires, nothing expensive at all. They are relatively cheap to build, and their power source is limitless and nearly harmless to the environment. Why aren't we using Tesla Coils to keep the lights on at home? I said this method was inexpensive; it was, in fact, FREE. That's why we're not using it. The electric company kept it in the dark, because nobody would have made a profit if the energy was free. :/
Everyone thinks nuclear is a good idea until it's time to get rid of the radioactive waste and suddenly everyone says not in my back yard. If we all switched over to nuclear we would have a major problem with transporting dangerous waste as well as burying it underground, hoping it won't eventually corrode and get into the water supply and send us all to the oncology wards.
Please enable your browser's cookies to activate the My Tech column.
| Computers | Home Office | Wi-Fi & Networking | Phones & PDAs | Cameras & Camcorders | TV & Home Theater | Portable Audio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 Posted by dcsoccer25 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:39PM EDT Report Abuse
I say go for it in areas that aren't prone to seismic activity. It's fairly easy to secure an underground location, even without guards.