Nuclear Batteries: Brilliant or Disastrous?

Re: Should portable nuclear reactors be pursued?

Yes.

Re: Or do the dangers outweigh the benefits?

Nobody really knows, do they? But there are some interesting ideas out there for small nuclear reactors that have some failsafe type features. They need to be developed and tried out. Maybe first in Antartica or similar, but somewhere.

Also, they typically have smaller quantities of fissionables installed, so less of a risk from that point of view also.

I wonder why they're terming it a battery. I heard talk/rumors in my days operating a nuke plant of companies/government creating small reactors that operated slightly different. The reactor would be operated below the point where any substantial heat is generated and the principal energy harvested was the radiation, not the heat. The thought was to use layers of PV cells in lieu of shielding that simply absorbed it.

I wonder if that is the case here or if "battery" is just a resemblance of its size and portability.

I have a book (somewhere) that describes an "Atomic Battery"

I always thought it was a good use for nuclear waste.

chris

Here is a link to the TIME article.

From there: "...the nuclear battery - so called because it is cheap, small and easily transportable - is about the size of a refrigerator... It produces 25 megawatts of electricity... has been designed to power subdivisions or towns with fewer than 20,000 homes, as well as military bases, mining operations, desalination plants and even commercial ships, including cruise liners."

WHY are these not everywhere?

Oh, that ticking time bomb thing probably.

I agree, the article is not an information rich environment.

Size of a fridge, 25 MW, about 25 people to keep it running... How do you get 25 people in a fridge? I think you are on the right track: the core is the size of a fridge, and the ancillary stuff is aside that... but how portable does all of that become?

It is a TIME article intended for the masses, not mainstream engineering information.

I'd agree this is just the core size.

The last I heard there were a couple designs that were trying to get licensed. Both were gas cooled, closed Brayton cycle, with the reactor taking the place of the combustors on a typical gas turbine (gt). The gt being coupled to a generator.

One core + 1 or 2 GT generators (25MW) + switchgear for $100 million seems reasonable...

I agree, 25 megawatts coming out of something the size of a refrigerator sounds a bit high, unless it is glowing white hot.

It isn't really that high. Do a quick thermal calculation and you'll see it amounts to heating about 7 cubic meters of water 50C per minute. That's sounds far from white hot to me.

It isn't that you have to have 125,000 gallons of water, it could simply be a closed circuit with say 1000 gallons that goes through a complete cycle twice a minute (and yes, reactor coolant pumps do pump alot of water, but typically at a low head). As for cooling it, that's where steam generators come in, remove heat from the coolant and provide input for a steam turbine.

confirm a quick flow calc too... If we assume a 3 ft x 3 ft dimension (roughly a typical refrigerator), at a flow rate of 125,000 gal/hr, the water would be screaming through that reactor at... about 0.5 ft/s

Pretty crazy huh?

;-)

Maybe I'm still hung up on the "size of a refrigerator" thing. A pump capable of 125,000 gpm, a steam turbine and generator, a cooling tower, 1000 gallons of water maybe--probably a little bigger than a refrigerator.

One of the things about the Toshiba system (and possibly the Hyperion system, but I am not sure) is that primary cooling is done with molten sulfur, not water...

Actually, the Toshiba system's primary cooling is done with liquid sodium.

The Hyperion system uses (presumably liquid / molten) Lead Bismuth (PbBi).

If I'm reading the fact sheet from Hyperion correct, it is liquid metal cooled (lead and bismuth)

Disregard for being redundant...

I do worry when metric and Imperial values are converted.

"(because a cubic meter of water weighs about 1 kilogram, or 2200 lbs.)"

_{(just kidding rh)}

Oops, yeah--should have been 1000 kgs. Good catch!

Sounds good to me. One day they will find a way to extract every drop of energy from nuclear, ( I hope), whatever waste is left will be harmless, and they will power everything.

That would be nice.

Sounds like a good thread/blog title.................Is there a way, or is it possible to extract energy from nukes to the point that the waste is relatively harmless?

I don't know the answer and I can't start the thread..................I'll be gone for a while come Saturday..........................I'll be back though.

Here is an article about the Toshiba 4S that is undergoing regulatory evaluation for installation in Galena, Alaska- a bit bigger than an refrigerator, but the closest "mini-nuke" to commercialization. More on the Toshiba 4S. Or, direct from Toshiba. A little bigger than a refrigerator...

Here is a fact sheet from Hyperion Power, a spin-off from Los Alamos National Laboratories in New Mexico, attempting to commercialize US Government sponsored technology.

Here is information about the Russian "floating Power Plant".

There are several other proposals for portable nuclear power supplies out there- all but the Russian concept are inherently safer than the conventional approach.

A major roadblock appears to be that these are generally smaller capacity units that don't fit well into the standard "distributed power" business plan...

The dangers outweigh the benefits.

For more details and specs please go to following link:-

http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/product.html

OK, it is a big freezer.

Each 10 years you need to replace the complete unit, the old remains active for decades.

You can of coarse still use it to heat buildings for decades.

The only way to know if the dangers outweigh the benefits is to continue the research, searching for ways to make it safe. Pursuing the research is the way to go. Decide whether to use them after you know what is involved.

ya!

whats a little radiation between friends...

I've seen my ex go radioactive at times.

chris

OT?

what for? seriously... she would generate electricity if you put her in front of a pv panel.

chris

And you got high voltage shock?.

Hey I'm For It But Then you Have The Problems With Some Would Be Terrorist Using It Against Us. If There Could Be Some Way To Implement Strict Control Safeguards As Well As Adequate Disposal Facilities And Guidelines Then It Would Be A Brilliant Idea?

You're kidding right?

I'm sure they are idiot proof ......... until we design a better idiot. And what about someone who WANTS to create a problem with these devices? I fI buy 40 of them can I create my own melt down in my basement.

Whats next very "small" nukes for pest control and home defence?

Sooner or later you will have leak in the containment and then you and your neighbours are irradiated at levels much above Fukushima and similar events.

Don't think that you will ever get permission by any authority.

Spent nuclear fuel should be stored until next generation reactors are ready (see AECL.ca) these can burn most of the stuff as having enough reactivity.

Then reprocess and burn the high activity waste. This will give cut-down of storage time from 500K years to 5K years!

RHABE

Even if nuclear batteries could fill every energy need around the world, you'd still have to get the public okay with the idea that their town was being powered by something "nuclear." For most people, "nuclear" means catastrophic failure and destruction. Nuclear is often only perceived as a weapon and little more.

Re: Which, as I see it, all the 'regulations' now making it "nearly impossible", are actually aimed at. I.e. 'properly managed' it is uneconomic against 'cheap fossil'

Sorry, I don't understand that sentence, or the point you're trying to make.

Trying to work it out:

• yes, proper management may cost more (at least short term) than improper management (e.g., "deferred maintenance"--or, is deferred maintenance proper management under some circumstances? ;-)
• ???
  

A fair bit of comment is on the cost of meeting regulation.

The price of power in the US is very low by world standards, and very competitive. The natural tendency is to 'service the shareholders' and/or the investors in new plant.

Fossil you can cut to the bone and nothing much happens.

Nuclear you can't. There is no "(at least short term)" or you risk 3 mile or Chernobyl.

If you can't 'cut overheads' then you can't compete. And you can't just switch it off and sell it for scrap.

All equals small profits = poor investment - until coal, or power, gets more expensive.

Thanks!

I don't disagree about the reality of coal one jot.

The public is unaware of (or deaf to) everything you list above, and more.

Principally as; if you tried to 'regulate coal' to the same standards as nuclear - it equals "the price of power" and "third world doom".

Secondly - if you did - you wouldn't get any power out of coal.

Why? because that would be "Clean Coal" and who in the 'masses' really grasps enthalpy when most of the scientific and academic community 'go blank' on the concept when it comes to fossil fuels?

It's all about 'perception' - and 'misguided self interest' - not facts.

So in Topic terms - the first two are the hurdles to nuclear and 'deafness' to anything touching 'self interest' is the far larger hurdle.

Eventually we will simply launch all no usable radioactive waste into the sun.