[EnergySpin]

Well,
I decided that the people who call for decentralized small energy systems are right : small is beatiful. And nothing is smaller and more beautiful than this baby
A portable 100MW lead cooled breeder reactor ... weighting close to 500 tons; its dimensions are 15 meters high and 3 meters wide.
For comparison, a 4.5MW wind turbine (like the one I have as an avatar) weights more than 450 tons , and is 90+ meters high.
Even though this reactor has not been built yet, similar reactors (like the 4S by Toshiba) have been built and have been operated successfully. One of them is about to be installed in Alaska. Consider this reactor as an attempt to improve upon existing designs and not as something that is years down the road.

SSTAR also offers potential cost reductions over conventional nuclear reactors. Using lead or lead–bismuth as a cooling material instead of water eliminates the large, high-pressure vessels and piping needed to contain the reactor coolant. The low pressure of the lead coolant also allows for a more compact reactor because the steam generator can be incorporated into the reactor vessel. Plus with no refueling downtime and no spent fuel rods to be managed, the reactor can produce energy continuously and with fewer personnel.

This type of reactor is targetted for 3rd world countries. US+Japan will deploy the reactor and collect it after 30 years to recycle the fuel (the reactor does not need to be refueled in the interim period).

This post serves the following purposes:
a) educational: most of you did not know that such reactors could exist (inspite of Donshan's post about the 4S a few weeks ago)
b) psychological: I'm getting tired of people bashing science, technology, nuclear power and the US and decided to given them something that combines all 4 "evils". Happy chocking

[Comp_Lex]

WE'RE SAVED!!!! I'm gonna buy one today and put it in my backyard!

[EnergySpin]

WE'RE SAVED!!!! I'm gonna buy one today and put it in my backyard!

Wouldn't it be nice?

[coyote]

This type of reactor is targetted for 3rd world countries. US+Japan will deploy the reactor and collect it after 30 years to recycle the fuel (the reactor does not need to be refueled in the interim period).

Interesting, especially the part about not needing to be refueled... so you can seal the thing and have a GPS alarm signal go off if anyone tries to tamper with it, send in the Marines...

I think there are good arguments both for and against nuclear power, but ultimately all those arguments will mean nothing. We will ramp up our nuclear industry, whether debaters of pros and cons like it or not. Just as we will drill in ANWR, even though I and other environmentalists detest the idea and fought against it last year. Sliding down the backside of Hubbert's Peak, when people are freaking out big time... can anyone imagine any elected official deciding that we're not going to go nuclear? Or telling people that ANWR remains off-limits? People will absolutely refuse to do without power if they can possibly help it. They will keep as much of the party going as they can, for as long as they can. So whether we like the idea of more nuclear power or not, I think we'd better get used to the idea...

[lardlad]

The idiots promoting breeder reactors on this forum are such a waste of bandwidth. Yes, what we need is nuclear weapon proliferation on a giant scale! Unbelievable stupidity.

[Starvid]

The idiots promoting breeder reactors on this forum are such a waste of bandwidth. Yes, what we need is nuclear weapon proliferation on a giant scale! Unbelievable stupidity.

People get nuclear weapons because they are scared not because they have breeder reactors.

Has Iran got a breeder? North Korea? Pakistan?

You don't even need ordinary reactors to make nuclear weapons. The only thing you need is an uranium mine and an enrichment facility.

[ubercynicmeister]

STIRRER!

I think that you have a point in what you say about the dismissiveness about technology - one of the things about technology is it's UNambiguous - it either does or it does not. If (and it's a damn big if, too) if we investigate the "alternatives" to Oil, then we'll come up with some answers fairly smartly as to what - if anything - can be done as regards Energy & it's future or lack thereof.

But even the most optimistic of the techno-fixers have to admit: we're not doing the looking, in any serious way. Oh, sure a few eccentrics are tinkering at the edges - I should know, I'm one of 'em. But we have to look before we can find.

And - as a civilisation - we're not looking.

Can technology "fix" Peak Oil? Well, it could - given the chance - stop it from turning into Peak Energy. At least that's what I, personally, beleive. If someone were to challenge me on that belief, I would have to admit it's ONLY a belief, it's not proven, certainly.

I also think that the longer we delay, obfuscate, procrastinate, demurre, defer, prorogue, postpone, dawdle, protract or otherwise put-off "looking", we increase our chances of technology not having the time to come up with solutions.

It's all about time...and how much we have of it.

[EnergySpin]

One of them is about to be installed in Alaska.

There is no Toshiba 4S. I looked it up on the internet, specifically the World Wide Web (WWW). The town of Galena has discussed such a project but it is not underway.

Energyspin. Why do you feel compelled to sugar coat our situation? And why do you get defensive when called on it? We are not babies, idiots, or doomers. And there is no Toshiba 4S, however fun and techie it might prove to be .

Hey pstarr... read this:

Galena officials met with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday. If the commission approves the plan, the reactor would be the first new one permitted in the United States since the early 1980s, according to an Alaska Public Radio Network report on Thursday.

Energy to power electricity is important to Galena. Winter temperatures can dip below minus 60 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 51 Celsius). Daylight is scarce because of the short days during the winter.

Galena is powered by generators burning diesel that is barged in during the Yukon River's ice-free months. That is costly and carries its own environmental risks because diesel can spill.

NRC has got to approve it, but it is a done deal as far as the village is concerned.
http://www.primidi.com/2005/02/06.html

The story is confirmed by the EIA:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/pa ... viss2.html

The 4S is a very small molten sodium-cooled reactor designed by Toshiba. The reactor presently being considered is 10 MWe though larger and smaller versions exist. The 4S is designed for use in remote locations and to operate for decades without refueling. This has led to the reactor to be compared with a nuclear “battery”. The use of molten-sodium as a coolant is not particularly new, having been used in many FBR designs. Sodium-coolants allow for higher reactor temperatures. Potential fuels are uranium or uranium-plutonium alloys. When uranium is the likely fuel in the United States, present plans call for 19.9 percent fuel enrichment. This high level of enrichment is one reason the reactor could be able to operate for extended periods without refueling. Toward the end of 2004 the town of Galena, Alaska granted initial approval for Toshiba to build a 4S reactor in that remote location.

And it seems a done deal as far as Toshiba is concerned. The reactor has been in development since 1988 ... this is the first commercial test.

What's the matter pstarr? Afraid that nuclear tech will maintain the human presence in this planet? I am do not feel compelled to sugar coat anything. I'm just reporting the facts.

[billp]

Honda fit or jazz.

http://www.prosefights.org/msd/msd.htm

[EnergySpin]

unfortunately neither life nor toys are like that. There are lots of ambiguous gadgets out there-cold fusion, biofuels, guns, automobiles, and rocks to name a few. It is what people do with their stuff that imparts value to them--not to mention their particular eroei.

Biofuels is not cold fusion. Haven't I ridiculed you enough?

your confidence is underwhelming. We have yet to find a substitute for crude petroleum and its refined products.

If you are referring to chemical feedstocks you are dead wrong. Chemistry, math, science is not your strong points pstarr. Give it up, go do something else (pray to the die-off god maybe?).

if anything was worth the extra effort and investment--it is energy.

Yeap it is called nuclear.

there is no monolithic "fix." There are only individual scientists, entrepreneurs, governments, and NGOs looking to get by--for themselves. And peak oil is a liquid fuel problem, not an energy problem. The two are not necessarly related.

Correct it is a liquid fuel energy problem; therefore swithc to electric (train) transport , nuclear ships and a small but important agro-bf sector for everything else.

taccording to Hirsch at the DOE, not enough.

Oh the economic impact will be felt ...

Pstarr stop hijacking this thread; you can jerk off in the privacy of your own home. And before you start accusing me of ad hominem let me remind you that you called a Sandia research project an intellectual handjob. I'm just returning the favour.

[EnergySpin]

This from the doe website you linked to. The device has not been certified.

4S Toshiba Sodium-cooled No application decision

and

Galena and Toshiba officials discussed their plans with the NRC in early February 2005. The NRC indicated that it was not familiar with the 4S design and that design certification (at vendor expense) might be costly and prolonged.

furthermore I have seen no news on the internet that this has changed. I repeat, why are you so dead set on sugar-coating the world?

Add textual intepretation to the long list of the things you cannot do.
All nuclear power plants that involve non standardized designs have to be pre-approved by NRC. This does not mean that the reactor type does not exist. Galena said YES to Toshiba's offer, and it is up to NRC to review the data sheet of the reactor. If the NRC says ok, the reactor will be deployed at Galena.

Capisci?
What's up next? Are you going to claim that Galena does not exist ?

[Andy]

You know something, I guess we should relax and enjoy life while it is good. Humans are incapable of dealing with issues on the scale that sustainanbility demands. We simply are not genetically programmed to do it. When our backs are against the wall, we are going to burn coal like there is no tomorrow, we are going to make a valiant effort with nuclear and to hell with safety and health standards, we are going to ramp up tar sands, we are going to clear the forests for biofuels, we are going to poison our life support system from every angle known etc. etc. We just will have to wait for nature to sort things out for us. It may happen in our lifetime or it may take longer but it will certainly happen. It may very well end up meaning that we are extinguished from the planet. Hence, let us relax!!!

A question for the people who propose nuclear and particularly breeders especially for unstable developing countries. Are the breeders immune to sabotage? Can a local or regional conflict cause damage that allows the escape of radionuclides with commonly available weaponry? Will we 2, 3, 4, 500 years from now have all the material and organizational competence to safely handle the entire process? Will we have proper documentation of what was done even 100 years before. Remember, the United States of America is not even 300 years old, a human lives on average 70 - 80 years in optimum conditions etc. etc. Another question, will nuclear technology render the other critical environmental issues moot? I speak of soil availability, water quality, deforestation etc. etc., all a consequence of our excessive population numbers?

Another question, is nuclear the only technology that can provide energy at the requisite scale and cost? If you answer yes, you have not done your homework. Wind already provides electricity for costs ranging from 3- 9 US c/KWH including offshore technology. The high value of 8 - 9 c/KWH is the low value for nuclear. Concentrating solar thermal costs between 8 and 13 cents with costs likely to fall, the opposite of which is likely true for nuclear when the intractable civil defence and waste/fuel issues are contemplated. Any attempt to minimize those costs simply tranfers it from internalized to external (health, military). Energy efficiency costs as low as 1 c/KWH and the potential is as much as 30 - 50% of existing energy consumption. Concentrating photovoltaic technology is threatening to cost near 10 c/KWH at the retail site in high solar areas, already distributed. (Read about 39% efficient Spectrolab cells on their way to 41% and more)

I have not even mentioned wave, tidal, ocean thermal which have not been given an equitable share of research resources and thus are not yet market ready. A British acknowledgement recently came out that for example the anticipated cost of electricity from the Salter Duck wave energy device was maliciously stated at several times the likely real cost. The suspects were the traditional nuclear and fossil establishment. I could go on and on but the post is already too long.

[frankthetank]

If there hauling these things by ship, they better have one of these along...



Until i see some serious action here in the US, like bricks ACTUALLY being laid, i'm staying in the doomer camp. I think nuclear has amazing potential, but no one seems to be serious about actually building new ones in this country.

[SchroedingersCat]

Sorry Energy Spin, I wish your dreams were realities but the facts are that liquid sodium cooled reactors still have serious economic, technical and safety issues. The economic issues will soon become moot, but the technical and safety problems need to be solved.

Constant irradiation of the highly exotic alloys inside even a water cooled reactor eventually degrades the metal. The slightest flaw in a weld in the interior of a reactor can cause a leak. With water or steam, it's bad enough. With liquid sodium, it is always a catastrophe.

Even though it might be possible for us to make these things safe and reliable, there is no reason to believe that it will happen.

[Dezakin]

Constant irradiation of the highly exotic alloys inside even a water cooled reactor eventually degrades the metal. The slightest flaw in a weld in the interior of a reactor can cause a leak. With water or steam, it's bad enough. With liquid sodium, it is always a catastrophe.

Funny how we've had light water reactors running for half a century now. We do allright with them; And a sodium leak isn't a catastrophe: Its a mess. Just a giant pain, putting out the sodium fires and cleaning up the crap.

Now there are reasons to oppose liquid metal fast breeder reactors of any stripe. Its because they are useless. Today uranium is far too cheap to justify investing in breeder reactors, and if you do want to invest in a breeder reactor regime you want molten salt breeders because they're superior in nearly every way except weapons material production.

But if you want to make a bomb fast you invest in liquid metal fast breeder reactors.

[lakeweb]

Can technology "fix" Peak Oil? Well, it could - given the chance - stop it from turning into Peak Energy. At least that's what I, personally, beleive. If someone were to challenge me on that belief, I would have to admit it's ONLY a belief, it's not proven, certainly.

The numbers support your belief. Therefore, it is more than belief.

Best, Dan.