Mini nuclear plants to power 20,000 homes | Hacker News Reader

Mini nuclear plants to power 20,000 homes

guardian.co.uk

24 pointsgibsonf110 comments

'They will cost approximately $25m [£13m] each. For a community with 10,000 households, that is a very affordable $250 per home.'

Make that $2,500. Somewhat less affordable. That's a $2,500 capital investment for electricity that's about a third of the going rate, so it'd pay for itself reasonably quickly (within 5 years, I'd guess).

All this said, if they're safe, easily positioned and cheaper than the regular power grid in base costs, surely the power companies would be interested in rolling these out to lower their own costs? You'd certainly reduce "cost of transport" issues that exist with the current system.

Like the $1/watt solar panels, I doubt we'll be seeing these real soon, no matter the promise, but I hope places like Antarctica, remote island communities, etc, get them first.

Anyone have more concrete information about the design?

How do they modulate the reactor to deal with varying loads? (Or do they dump the energy?)

How is the heat converted to electricity?

From the FAQ (http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/about_FAQ.html) at Hyperion:

Unlike conventional designs, the proposed reactor is self-regulating through the inherent properties of uranium hydride, which serves as a combination fuel and moderator. The temperature-driven mobility of the hydrogen contained in the hydride controls the nuclear activity. If the core temperature increases over the set point, the hydrogen is driven out of the core, the moderation drops, and the power production decreases. If the temperature drops, the hydrogen returns and the process is reversed. Thus the design is inherently fail-safe and will require minimal human oversight. The compact nature and inherent safety open the possibility for low-cost mass production and operation of the reactors.

I'm sure a Google search or Wikipedia search would net you more.

From what I understand, they're merely a modified version of a Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator. They'll use thermocouples to directly produce electricity from the heat emitted from the radioactive decay. Ordinary RTG's are generally more complicated, but that's because they're launched into space and there's no simply switching out the generator if something goes iffy.

I imagine how they'd be installed would be inside a concrete bunker of sorts. The company would build a underground container with connections leading to the outside installed when the concrete is setting like most foundation works and then place a multi-tonne concrete slab on top so that only someone with a back-hoe and crane can even get to them and open the things. They could easily be placed somewhere even more secure like installed on police property in small communities.

A little more info is here - not all positive

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/12/a_nuclear_hot_t.php

No. The only thing added is a highly speculative and suggestive quote (Of course, factoring in enough cronyism, corruption and official ignorance and boosterism, it’s possible the principals could make some money during the initial stages, before the crows come home to roost) from the "Los Alamos Study Group".

Also, the article ends in the words, "Or maybe not".

That fully sums up the criticism of the device.

Take things said on treehugger with a large pinch of salt.

None of this is going to happen without a more streamlined regulatory process to allow their sale in the first place.

It looks like these things are going to be a lot easier on the Environment. Not as visually disruptive and I don't think they'll be killing many eagles.

nevertheless the anti-nuclear fringe will go haywire over this regardless of its benefits. You are forgetting that these guys operate like a religion, not a rational group. If not, they would have gone pro-nuclear a long time ago.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com