Toshiba Builds 100x Smaller Micro Nuclear Reactor

With a breeder reactor, the 'recycling' is taking place in the core. You don't have to take stuff out and put more in. What to do with the everyday contaminated waste is something to consider.

Looked for some more info on this reactor. Found this instead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S
http://www.atomicinsights.com/AI_03-20-05.html
Sounds like their previous generation. The core is in a sealed vault a hundred feat under ground. Once the fuel is spent in 30yrs, I guess you're stuck with putting in a new core. But getting to it isn't easy, and if a terrorist had the means of damaging it, they probably can cause more damge attacking a dam.

If you could get to it, how easy is it to successfully steal a nuclear fuel rod? It's a 3 to 4 foot metal rod that is heavier than gold which needs some heavy shielding. You, and the couple guys who helped ya move, aren't goping to be picking it up and tossing it into the back of a U-haul. Without the shielding, it becomes simple to track, plus you'll likely be dead.

 

. . . and don't forget decommisioning ... spent fuel storage / burial costs etc.

 

From Wikipedia:

The article goes on to minimize the risks of the fuel being diverted to weapons, citing newer technology that contaminates the plutonium with other elements, making it harder to refine. But you're still creating one of the most lethal materials in existence.

 

Let's hope Sony wouldn’t enter the micro-nuke generator market....

 

When a nuclear power station is finished with do you really believe a private company will conduct the clean-up? Do you see your local utilities putting aside realistic amounts of cash for the decommissioning of their nuclear power generation facilities? They could have reactors to reduce the radioactive waste but mostly they don't so what makes you think this will happen in the future? They could have clean burning coal fired power stations but they don't. They could shoot the waste into orbit but that doesn't get rid of the waste, it is still there and will still be there until it loses kinetic energy where the orbit is reduced and in a shower of nuclear waste across the planet re-enters the earths atmosphere. It's useless sending waste into orbit, maybe into the sun would be a better idea but that would cost a lot more. Have a look at the size of the Saturn 5 rockets used to get 3 men to the moon and back compared to the space shuttle used to launch tons of equipment to the orbiting space station and ferry people out and back.

I don't think any country has the right to send the deadly roulette ball into space then wait and see which country it lands on. Think I'm exaggerating? Where is Skylab now?

I wonder who is paying for this project in Nevada? http://library.thinkquest.org/17940/texts/nuclear_waste_storage/nuclear_waste_storage.html Most certainly the people of Nevada will. These guys are talking about 10,000 year storage of a radioactive waste with half lives of 100,000 years? So what happens in 10,000 years time and who will pay the bills?

When we started burning fossil fuels for energy people didn't foresee the problems of global warming so what problems of nuclear energy aren't we seeing today? It seems most of the problems we can see we choose to ignore or place band aids on which only delay the problem for about 1/15th of their life.

Someone asked why I don't like nuclear energy.

 

And no one ever died for a cause.

 

The real limitation of nuclear power, is that it is only viable if:

1) The planning/financing includes the 100000 year disposal period.
2) The 100000 year plan is executed perfectly.

 

That will be handy after the sun stops shining. What is wrong with solar? Who will remove the radioactive waste before the satellite crashes back to earth? The owners? And if they have gone broke, who then?

 

The reason for storing 100,000-year crap for only 10,000 years is that the people doing the planning really only care that it remains sequestered for about 50 years, until they are dead. Even 10,000 years is fantasy, but 50 years might just be possible.

In the movie The Return of the Living Dead the kid asks if the drums are safe. The man says, of course they're safe. They were built by the Army Corps of Engineers, and he slaps one to demonstrate how solid it is. The slap makes it start spewing steam like a breached pressure cooker. I think they're supposed to be something like 25 years old. But the movie is far too pessimistic. I think the Army Corps of Engineers could build drums to last twice that long, effectively protecting the politicians and the owners of the nuclear plants until they die a natural death.

The problem with solar energy is they have not yet figured out a way to put a meter on it and charge us for the electricity.

And the problem with our planners is they just don't give a good goddamn what happens after they're gone, much less what happens in 100 years. Let the future look after itself. That's their motto. On the other hand, the human race doesn't seem likely to survive another 10,000 years, so maybe that's enough time to store the crap after all, if it was possible, which I don't think it is.

 

I think the reason is nuclear energy would be uncompetitive with truly green renewable energy if they had to pay all the cost of waste disposal.

 

These are very astute comments, and are sadly true. No politician is allowed to really care about the future after they're gone; there are too many compromises to make in the immediate, foreseeable future (i.e. the rest of their own lives; future generations are irrelevant). You never hear them talking seriously about plans for more than one generation ahead, and why should you? They campaign for two years, competing for a job that expires in four. Then the second half of those four years, they accomplish no real work because they're campaigning too hard for the next four. Or six. Or whatever.

Tesla wanted us to have wireless electricity distribution, which would work wonderfully, except "how do you slap a meter on it and charge customers for it?" It's a very true statement.

Solar power is easily metered off if you use a large, bulk generator to add power to the lines that are already there. It's also easy to meter off if you measure the number of turns of individual generators placed in people's yards, etc. But to power lots of homes you'd need a solar farm somewhere outside city limits, in the ocean, etc. Then you could meter it but you face the amazing (and dangerous) possibility of local or even global cooling.

I'll tell you right now that at current efficiencies solar power isn't ready for country-sized markets. And we need to increase the efficiency.

What about an adiabatic (no net heat change) process that traps the heat waste produced by a city and reconverts it into some useful electricity? That would not only reduce the environmental impact of urban centers but would also decrease the need for air conditioning, creating a trickle-down benefit. I can't think of a pretty way to do it; in my mind is pictured a giant bubble topped by a huge Stirling engine...

~ dan ~

 

They have in Florida. They will sell the electricity just like they always have. The latest coal plant proposal was torpedoed and a concentrated solar power plant was started. These are not words, these are solid decisions made and executed.

Yes it is. Concentrated solar power is starting to turn heads because a lot of plants are being built. Not everyone with decision making power is dumb, (just most are). And yes... we need to always increase the efficiency.

Right now the biggest problem I have with solar energy is that I am not using it....but I am laying my groundwork now because I plan to be in the future. Hopefully, they will never figure out a way to meter the sun. In fact I am depending on it.

 

Anything can be taxed. Anything.

 

Yes, but not every tax can be enforced.

 

That is absolutely true. But it's not the only cost nuclear does not pay:

In the U.S. there is a law which limits the liability of the owners of nuclear plants in case of accident. Every business has liability insurance, and this is one of the costs of doing business. But the legal liability ceiling limits the amount of liability insurance a nuclear power plant has to buy. A big accident would leave the government and the local citizens holding the bag for the costs of the damage and clean-up. If they had to pay the real cost of insuring the plant, nuclear power would cost many times more than any alternative energy available (wind, photovoltaic, etc.)

Nuclear power is a big "FU up the A" to future generations, who will be stuck with mountains of radioactive waste, old decommissioned plants too radioactive to use and too expensive to dismantle, and possibly a few Chernobyls, as the older a plant gets, the greater the chance of accidents, and the owners will not want to shut them off and lose a source of revenue.

 

(Warning-The following comments are not to be misconstrued as supporting nuclear power.) In reality, that is not entirely true. The nuclear plants are having to pay a lot of the cost since they are storing, and have been storing, all the waste on site till Yucca Mountain opens. This costs them quite a bit. Active cooling is needed and space has to be added for all the unplanned storage. This is sore spot since they utilities have been taxed to pay for big parts of the Yucca infrastructure, yet have not been able to move their gigantic spend stock of fuel assemblies. (Basically, the government said we will take care of it....and they have failed so far.)

Also, the work that has gone into making Yucca mountain safe has been intense. Unlike a lot of government approaches to nuclear waste, this has been far, far more open. As painful as it is, look at the details. This is very important since we are past the point of no return for all the waste generated already and good work is needed. A lot of thinking of how to make it last for well over 10,000 years has be implemented, and a lot of money has been spent. Unfortunately, if this does not work to perfection......

 

And those on-site storage tanks are now holding twice the amount of waste they were designed for, but instead of shutting down the plants when the on-site storage was full, the government just authorized them to increase the density.

As for Yucca Mountain, anybody who thinks that ANYTHING they might possibly do will secure that stuff for 10,000 years (one-tenth as long as it will need to be stored!) has a screw loose. The scene I described above from Return of the Living Dead is comedy, but it is so very true. We are condemning future generations to hell on Earth. Assuming the human race does not wipe itself out in the next decade or so.

 

Sorry Daniel but that isn't right. 100,000 years is the half life not how long it takes to become safe. I think it will take a good deal longer than that.
Maybe just USA and the middle east.

 

Oops!

 

What is the "stuff" in question though? The biproduct of u235 fission? (which I can't recall off the top of my head). The U238 which isn't fissile? The reactor itself which has been hammered by so many neutrons its hot?