I read that story with a great deal of interest..

the_rajah

Mon Nov 10 21:32:02 -0800 2008

manage

What do they mean 10 cents per watt? Commercial electricity is sold by the kilowatt-hour. OR, are they talking about the instantaneous wattage available, which I see as 25 Megawatts for 25 Megabucks or a dollar a watt. As is all too often the case, I'm confused.

There are more than a few unanswered questions here. I subscribed to their email notifications so hopefully will get more information soon. I'm a little skeptical, too. It's the old, "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is." feeling rearing its head.

I read that story with a great deal of interest..

pyro9

Tue Nov 11 05:50:41 -0800 2008

manage

The second one, instantaneous wattage available. That would mean (based on a 7 year life) 1.6 cents per KWh for the reactor. Of course, there are many other expenses in generating and delivering electrical power, but that's not bad.

I read that story with a great deal of interest..

Beryllium Sphere(r)

Tue Nov 11 12:31:52 -0800 2008

manage

That's an awfully low price for a watt of capacity. The big fixed stations, with economies of scale behind them, are measured in dollars per watt of capacity.

$2,500 per home times 10,000 homes for a 25 MW electric output is a dollar per watt.

I read that story with a great deal of interest..

X

Wed Nov 12 16:33:44 -0800 2008

manage

<!-- @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } -->

Big fixed stations may be measured in dollars per watt of capacity (ie; continuous output), but I'm sure they charge in terms of kWh or some equivalent that assumes continuous power consumption over time periods greater than one hour.

One dollar per watt of continuous output (and presumed consumption) each for 2,500 homes for one year is: (8,760 hours/year)*(10,000 watts/hour at one watt per home)= 21,900 kWh. With a lifetime of 7 years the unit would produce a total of 153,300 kWh.

The unit costs $25,000,000, so the cost of 1 kWh is $25,000,000/153,300 kWh = $163/kWh. Not exactly competitive. In fact I must have made a mistake somewhere‽

Renaissance of Nuclear Power

Verteiron

Tue Nov 11 06:19:18 -0800 2008

manage

These will last right up until Al Qaeda and friends hijack a truck carrying one of these things, then blow it up in the middle of a city. Instant dirty bomb. That happens once, Hyperion will never sell another one...

Renaissance of Nuclear Power

Josh

Tue Nov 11 07:44:13 -0800 2008

manage

I hear ya. Kids will never sleep in their own rooms again once they see boogymen lurking in their closet.

Something tells me it will be somewhat difficult to unearth a $25m nulcear reactor unnoticed. Given the scope of previous Al Qaeda "operations," I'm not too worried.

Renaissance of Nuclear Power

rubycodez

Tue Nov 11 07:57:38 -0800 2008

manage

unearthing and breaching one fast and easy, that's just a special type of demolition job.  therefore I say no to this idea, much  safer to have very large central plants.

Renaissance of Nuclear Power

President4242

Tue Nov 11 08:37:15 -0800 2008

manage

IIRC, we had an interview with the president of Hyperion posted here a couple of months ago.  His view was "not enough high-radioactive material" in their 3% enriched fuel for this to be a problem.

I remember looking it up at the time and finding out that there's more dirty bomb potential in a natgas-heated home with radon in the basement.

Renaissance of Nuclear Power

rubycodez

Tue Nov 11 13:04:37 -0800 2008

manage

what nonsense if he said that, properties of new fuel irrelevant after reactor is running. products of reaction will be the same as any other uranium reactor, and all commercial reactors are 3 - 3.5 % enriched fuel.  Contaminants resulting from a breech will be far greater than that for a conventional uranium oxide reactor by virtue of that fact that instead of most products of reaction being held inside solid fuel (the most dangerous being radioactive iodine), they'll all be released at once as the UH explodes upon contact with air!  I suggest a new name for this type of reactor, Al Qaeda's Friend(tm)

Renaissance of Nuclear Power

Bhima

Tue Nov 11 09:41:18 -0800 2008

manage

What!? 

Unearthing and breaching structure this large and this protected is neither fast or easy.  In fact the parent's idea such a device might be hijacked and rerouted is even more improbable.  These ideas are so silly they wouldn't make into Bruce Schneier's annual movie plot terrorism contest and would be relegated to daytime television and blogs.

Renaissance of Nuclear Power

Matt Fulkerson

Tue Nov 11 12:37:18 -0800 2008

manage

Step 1 Start digging

Step 2 Use a jackhammer

Maybe not fast, but not that hard either.

Renaissance of Nuclear Power

Bhima

Tue Nov 11 12:48:57 -0800 2008

manage

Do seriously believe a few guys with heavy equipment are going to be able to engage in this activity anywhere near an operational nuclear reactor?

If you do, please also explain why the US should not be labeled a failed state... and require the rest of the world need to step in and relieve them of all the dangerous nuclear materials within its borders.

Renaissance of Nuclear Power

rubycodez

Tue Nov 11 13:13:34 -0800 2008

manage

we're not talking about a normal operational reactor, but a very small one with very thin containment.

Renaissance of Nuclear Power

rubycodez

Tue Nov 11 13:11:46 -0800 2008

manage

I take it you know nothing of construction nor demoltion.  Two minutes, tops, with right single piece of construction equipment and shaped charge.

Renaissance of Nuclear Power

Bhima

Tue Nov 11 13:26:59 -0800 2008

manage

These movie plot scenarios ignore the design and security of nuclear facilities.  I have a sufficient working knowledge of  explosive chemistries and structural engineering to understand what is required and I have a sufficient working knowledge security to understand that my knowledge of chemistry and engineering are completely irrelevant in this scenario.  I also am very sure that, given sufficient expertise, materials, and a terroristic will, a terrorist (having these mental faculties) would not recommend his fellow a terrorists attempt this, rather he would point them at other, perhaps softer, targets they would have a greater or equal chance of destroying.

I also think that we should be discussing facts or at worst movie plot scenarios and not what we may think the other knows.  While I am sure we have been reading each other's posts for years, we do not know what the other knows or does not know.

Renaissance of Nuclear Power

rubycodez

Tue Nov 11 15:02:47 -0800 2008

manage

we're not talking about "nuclear facilities" as we have them now, they are advocating thousands of reactors in small towns with "security details", a rent-a-cop!

Renaissance of Nuclear Power

Verteiron

Tue Nov 11 08:11:52 -0800 2008

manage

Don't misunderstand me, I'm all for these micro-reactors. I think it really could change things for the better in a huge way, especially in developing nations. I'm just concerned that the first time one of them goes missing (and it's bound to happen sooner or later), all the benefits will immediately be forgotten in the interests of "safety". We'll be lucky if people don't use the terrorism argument to combat mass production of these devices before they even get started.

Renaissance of Nuclear Power

mcrbids

Wed Nov 12 08:36:56 -0800 2008

manage

You can find detailed directions for how to make a nuclear bomb in under 5 minutes with a few well-placed key words at Google, along with instructions for legally obtaining raw materials. I'm not vouching for the accuracy of such documents, but the truth remains:

On the Internet, a single leak of information instantly eliminates the power of "security by obscurity". One leak to the right person, and the information can spread to thousands in less than 24 hours. Anonymously. Quickly.

Those whose business model depends on the friction of information flow (EG: the RIAA, Textbook vendors, etc.)  are in serious danger.