Mini-Nuke Plants for Homes?
Mini-Nuke Plants for Homes?
Author
Discussion

Jimbeaux

Original Poster:

33,791 posts

261 months

Monday 10th November 2008
quotequote all

spikeyhead

20,455 posts

227 months

Monday 10th November 2008
quotequote all
Looks like a useful technology.

I hate to think what the yogurt weavers will make of them.

The Ben

1,623 posts

247 months

Monday 10th November 2008
quotequote all
bout time... Get rid of the crappy wind farms...

Alex

9,978 posts

314 months

Monday 10th November 2008
quotequote all
Now that sounds like the future of power generation.

rpguk

4,515 posts

314 months

Monday 10th November 2008
quotequote all
Interesting.

They only mention the reactor though? Wouldn't the turbine and associated other stuff still be huge/cost a fortune?

Edited by rpguk on Monday 10th November 23:08

EDLT

15,421 posts

236 months

Monday 10th November 2008
quotequote all
I thought this thread was going to be about this:


Mars

10,120 posts

244 months

Monday 10th November 2008
quotequote all
No moving parts? So how is electricity generated?

mybrainhurts

90,809 posts

285 months

Monday 10th November 2008
quotequote all
EDLT said:
I thought this thread was going to be about this:

No, the Guardian doesn't do manly things....

GreenDog

2,261 posts

222 months

Monday 10th November 2008
quotequote all
Mr Fusion ?!!!

Jimbeaux

Original Poster:

33,791 posts

261 months

Monday 10th November 2008
quotequote all
spikeyhead said:
Looks like a useful technology.

I hate to think what the yogurt weavers will make of them.
If I am not mistaken, the religion known as "Green" has switched its dogma to now deem nuke power as a good thing.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Tuesday 11th November 00:04

FourWheelDrift

92,307 posts

314 months

Monday 10th November 2008
quotequote all
"Dad! It think it's leaking"


hairykrishna

14,506 posts

233 months

Monday 10th November 2008
quotequote all
Makes sense to cite the nuke plant close to where the powers needed. Means you can do combined heat and power and make use of the waste heat.

I would imagine that the 'size of a hot tub' spiel off their website refers only to the reactor itself and not to the associate electricity generating gubbins.
I wish I could find some more technical details of the reactor design. Their patent application suggests it uses lightly enriched Uranium Hydride as an all in one fuel and moderator. This is a very interesting approach but I'm pretty sure they haven't built a working prototype yet. They claim to be using old technology, based on the TRIGA design (hence the 'safely operated by students line'). This is, bluntly, not true. Their reactor will be significantly different from TRIGA if does what they says it does; different to the extent that it will require a lot of complicated engineering and extensive experimental testing.

The concept is sound but their press releases paint a VERY optimistic picture. Can't blame them, they seem to be a small company fishing for funding.


sultanbrown

5,740 posts

261 months

Monday 10th November 2008
quotequote all
Interesting, I was discussing this as a possibility with the Daddy a couple of weeks ago.

hairykrishna

14,506 posts

233 months

Monday 10th November 2008
quotequote all
Jimbeaux said:
If I am not mistaken, the religion known as "Green" has now switched its dogma to now deem nuke power as a good thing.
You give them too much credit. Greenpeace et al are still as rabidly anti nuclear as they ever were. We are apparently going to be able to meet our electricity needs through efficiency gains and 'renewables' only...

otolith

68,977 posts

234 months

Monday 10th November 2008
quotequote all
hairykrishna said:
Greenpeace et al are still as rabidly anti nuclear as they ever were. We are apparently going to be able to meet our electricity needs through efficiency gains and 'renewables' only...
Where by "efficiency gains" they mean "seriously reducing our standard of living".

Jimbeaux

Original Poster:

33,791 posts

261 months

Tuesday 11th November 2008
quotequote all

jeff m

4,066 posts

288 months

Tuesday 11th November 2008
quotequote all
Maybe we can get them installed before house fire seasonbiggrin

We'll have a series of mini Chenobals in North West Philadelphia.

Edited by jeff m on Tuesday 11th November 04:18

dilbert

7,741 posts

261 months

Tuesday 11th November 2008
quotequote all
We're still better off with one hoofing great power station than loads of little ones. (IMO)
If you ask me if I would rather have one of those in my area vs going without power, then it's the reactor every time.

TBH, I think I would probably opt for the third way, knock down my garage and replace it with a nice old engine house, with a decent boiler and a triple expansion engine.
smile



You'd be able to sell the spare electricity to your neighbors.

Edited by dilbert on Tuesday 11th November 04:43

Jimbeaux

Original Poster:

33,791 posts

261 months

Tuesday 11th November 2008
quotequote all
jeff m said:
Maybe we can get them installed before house fire seasonbiggrin

We'll have a series of mini Chenobals in North West Philadelphia.

Edited by jeff m on Tuesday 11th November 04:18
This type design cannot "do a Chernobyl".

mackie1

8,169 posts

263 months

Tuesday 11th November 2008
quotequote all
How do they work with no moving parts? I'm guessing some sort of hydrogen fuel cell with the cracking powered by the heat from the reactor and a catalyst.


Edited by mackie1 on Tuesday 11th November 17:12