My prediction: This is the primary solution to declining fossil fuel production. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/miniature-nuclear-reactors-los-alamos
Hadn't heard of this before but it sounds fantastic if truly safe. The cost seems almost too good to be true. This would chop the legs out from under Iran, Russia, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia without one bomb being dropped.
I agree that nuclear power is a good idea in general, however, I think having lots of small reactors is a bad idea. The chance to have something faulty or defective goes up along with the parts count per kw. You'll also have many more people involved vs building a new large reactor which increases the risk do to human error. Lots of other problems with nuclear such as waste or weapons grade material if you reform the waste, water usage, cost etc.
We currently have 85 "small" nuclear reactors that aren't nearly as safe as these that are operated by mostly 19-25 year old young men and women. It works well.
Finally! I'm not sure how I feel on concentrated vs. dispersed nuclear plants. There's risks with both. Concentrated = target for terrorists/military Dispersed = greater civilian risk
I would think so. I'll bet that the first group to are industries such as manufacturing who will use the power they need and sell the rest to the grid. Many of them already handle small amounts of nuclear material and have established procedures for it. The next most likely would be rural electrical co-ops. They have taxing authority, and could sell bonds to pay for the capital costs, and significantly reduce variable cost for power.
Link for this? Just did a quick google on this and I'm intrigued. For the sake of discussion, if safety isn't an issue and it's cost effective, what is the downside? Educate me. Play "devil's advocate".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_ships_of_the_United_States_Navy 74 nuclear submarines. 11 nuclear carriers. Safety is an issue, but it's a manageable issue, has been for a generation, but the US government still refuses to permit new nuclear reactors. I really don't know why.
We have nuclear waste from all sorts of instruments in the chemical industry. There are disposal procedures for it, and it seems to be reasonably safe. I can only imagine that these "environmentalists" are egged on by coal and gas producers.
I have mixed feelings about this too and would definately need to see more. The idea of perhaps thousands of dispersed nuclear reactors around I think should be a cause of concern then again we have thousands of tanks of highly explosive material around, gas stations, and there have been very few accidents. I'm also very skeptical regarding some of the stuff about no moving parts when if that was the case then how is the reaction controlled or even how do they get the power into a usuable form. Most nuclear reactors generate a lot of heat that is used to generate steam to drive turbines creating electricity. If these mini-reactors work that way then there has to be a lot of moving parts that are going to require maintanence. Also if they are generating steam where is the water coming from and how is the excess heat and steam dealt with? Another thing I wonder about is if these things can't be stolen because they are too hot to handle how is having one of these buired in someone's back yard going to affect to other infrastructure?
I am pretty sure they use some new techs, otherwise every company can build a small old fashion nuclear plant.
Same as ever,disposing of the waste. Additionally you would have to run around to lots of rural areas carting nuclear waste all over the place. Hey, let's hope they can have a breakthough on the waste issue. You can just pretend it has been solved.
This is awesome news -- long overdue. Hopefully we'll have some major advances in breeder reactor technology in the near future as well.
