Are Flying Cars Next?

Small-sized nuclear reactors in the news again:

http://www.dailytech.com/Miniature+N...ticle13389.htm

John Savard

Quadibloc wrote:
Small-sized nuclear reactors in the news again:

http://www.dailytech.com/Miniature+N...ticle13389.htm




Although the article talks it up, it still will generate nuclear waste,
and although the fuel isn't highly enriched enough to make a nuclear
weapon out of, you could still probably make a dirty bomb out of it.
As for this: "Toshiba is also working on its own mini nuclear reactor,
the '4S', which the company says stands for 'super-safe, small, and
simple'. " ....this is from the place that gave us Mr. Pluto:
http://www.speakoz.com/english-direc...plutonium.html
Yes, you can just pee that plutonium away... mind you, avoid peeing on
lizards or insects or there will be hell to pay somewhere down the line
when the JSDF has to take on the fire breathing mutant nuclear nightmare
your urine caused. :-D

Pat

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...
Small-sized nuclear reactors in the news again:

http://www.dailytech.com/Miniature+N...ticle13389.htm

This is truly a horrible concept which is best buried along with the people
who came up with it. I mean, I see al sorts of problems with this scheme
such as the sheer number of these things which would be needed to supply
everyone in Africa, Asia and South America with cheap electricity, it must
be hundreds of thousands (150.000 is my first guess). Can you imagine that
all of them need to be dug up and refueled by poor, hungry and uneducated
people every seven years? There will be small Tjernobyl's on almost a daily
scale. And Bin Laden would love to get his paws on one of these babies to
tinker with, trying to produce a primitive nuclear device or a dirty bomb.

All I can say is that the people who came up with this wacky idea are
totally out of touch with reality.

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 21:50:36 +0100, in a place far, far away, "Bresco"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:


"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...
Small-sized nuclear reactors in the news again:

http://www.dailytech.com/Miniature+N...ticle13389.htm

There will be small Tjernobyl's on almost a daily scale.

Nonsense.

Claude Hopper wrote:
Quadibloc wrote:

Small-sized nuclear reactors in the news again:

http://www.dailytech.com/Miniature+N...ticle13389.htm

John Savard


I want one.


The part about using them in the oil industry was interesting...I can
picture using one on a oil platform for power, but starting to plonk
them down in the Mideast sounds like you're are asking for trouble as
far as terrorism goes.
One thing I'm surprised they didn't mention is that you could power
cargo ships with these, although the other attempts at that concept
didn't pan out all that well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._nuclear_ships

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:

:
:
:Claude Hopper wrote:
: Quadibloc wrote:
:
: Small-sized nuclear reactors in the news again:
:
: http://www.dailytech.com/Miniature+N...ticle13389.htm
:
: John Savard
:
:
: I want one.
:
:
:The part about using them in the oil industry was interesting...I can
icture using one on a oil platform for power, but starting to plonk
:them down in the Mideast sounds like you're are asking for trouble as
:far as terrorism goes.
:One thing I'm surprised they didn't mention is that you could power
:cargo ships with these, although the other attempts at that concept
:didn't pan out all that well:
:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._nuclear_ships
:

This just doesn't seem believable. The claim about the amount of
power and the size from a non-enriched reactor just doesn't seem
credible.

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

Fred J. McCall wrote:

This just doesn't seem believable. The claim about the amount of
power and the size from a non-enriched reactor just doesn't seem
credible.


It's a closed-loop turbine driven one rather than a RTG, so it does turn
out a lot of power for its size.
There's a small town up in Alaska that's slated to get one in the fairly
near futu http://www.primidi.com/2005/02/06.html
Want to see a really high-powered small reactor, check out the one on
the Soviet US-A RORSAT:
http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/RORSAT/RORSAT.html
There you have three kilowatts coming out of something around the size
of a coffee can.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:
:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: This just doesn't seem believable. The claim about the amount of
: power and the size from a non-enriched reactor just doesn't seem
: credible.
:
:
:It's a closed-loop turbine driven one rather than a RTG, so it does turn
ut a lot of power for its size.
:

I know the difference between a reactor and an RTG, Pat. My point is
that they're claiming 27 MW from a system the size of a hot tub with
low-enrichment fuel. The reactor on Savannah only delivered around 3x
that power and I suspect you'll find it was bigger than 3 hot tubs and
used fairly highly enriched fuel.

:
:There's a small town up in Alaska that's slated to get one in the fairly
:near futu http://www.primidi.com/2005/02/06.html
:

The Toshiba system seems a little more believable (liquid metal
cooled, which allows higher power density, and only 10 MW) than the
other one cited.

:
:Want to see a really high-powered small reactor, check out the one on
:the Soviet US-A RORSAT:
:http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/RORSAT/RORSAT.html
:There you have three kilowatts coming out of something around the size
f a coffee can.
:

You must have damned big coffee cans where you live.

"The fuel core of the reactor was 0.2 m in diameter, 0.6 m long"

That makes the FUEL CORE about 8" across by almost 2' tall. My coffee
can is about 6"x8", so even the CORE of that reactor is around 3
coffee cans in size. Now add the power generation part and remember
that that reactor is using bomb grade material.

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

Fred J. McCall wrote:
The Toshiba system seems a little more believable (liquid metal
cooled, which allows higher power density, and only 10 MW) than the
other one cited.


If you look at the reactor though, the part doing the fissioning is are
around the size of what's inside of a sub reactor or maybe even larger:
http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/
The only accurate description of how big the fissile mass in a sub is
was a description of the ones on Russian subs, and in that case they
were pretty small... around the size of a softball (when you think about
it, it _has_ to be pretty small if you are using 90-95% enriched
uranium... make it too big and it will hit critical mass and melt down.)
If Hyperion is telling the truth about all those advanced orders, then
someone out there thinks it has merit.
BTW, power output is supposed to be 25 MW.
I suspect that those cooling structures will be a bit bigger (say x10)
than shown in the artwork though, unless they intend to dump the heat
into the soil somehow.

:
:Want to see a really high-powered small reactor, check out the one on
:the Soviet US-A RORSAT:
:http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/RORSAT/RORSAT.html
:There you have three kilowatts coming out of something around the size
f a coffee can.
:

You must have damned big coffee cans where you live.

"The fuel core of the reactor was 0.2 m in diameter, 0.6 m long"


There are Norwegians here, they go through coffee like it's water. :-)
I meant the diameter, but now that you mention it, I actually have seen
coffee cans that have around that internal volume for sale at Sam's Club
years back.

That makes the FUEL CORE about 8" across by almost 2' tall. My coffee
can is about 6"x8", so even the CORE of that reactor is around 3
coffee cans in size. Now add the power generation part and remember
that that reactor is using bomb grade material.


It was quite the piece of engineering and NASA bought a improved one
from Russia after the Soviet Union fell to examine its innards in a
unfueled form.
It reminds me of the reactor on the front of the Walt Disney spaceship
that loops the Moon in their WvB space series:
http://www.ninfinger.org/~sven/model...ps/strmd34.jpg

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:
:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: The Toshiba system seems a little more believable (liquid metal
: cooled, which allows higher power density, and only 10 MW) than the
: other one cited.
:
:
:If you look at the reactor though, the part doing the fissioning is are
:around the size of what's inside of a sub reactor or maybe even larger:
:http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/
:The only accurate description of how big the fissile mass in a sub is
:was a description of the ones on Russian subs, and in that case they
:were pretty small... around the size of a softball (when you think about
:it, it _has_ to be pretty small if you are using 90-95% enriched
:uranium... make it too big and it will hit critical mass and melt down.)
:

I don't believe that, either. You're not using the metal in one big
lump, so the softball size limit makes no sense. Your cited size
above is an order of magnitude too low.

"A typical reactor core contains 315 kg of uranium."

"A second-generation submarine reactor contains about 250 kg of
uranium, of which 50 kg are U-235."

"Third-generation nuclear submarines contain approximately 115 kg of
U-235."

http://www.nti.org/db/nisprofs/russi...l/reactors.htm

:
:If Hyperion is telling the truth about all those advanced orders, then
:someone out there thinks it has merit.
:BTW, power output is supposed to be 25 MW.
:I suspect that those cooling structures will be a bit bigger (say x10)
:than shown in the artwork though, unless they intend to dump the heat
:into the soil somehow.
:

I'd think there'd be some security objections to spreading these
things around.

: :
: :Want to see a really high-powered small reactor, check out the one on
: :the Soviet US-A RORSAT:
: :http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/RORSAT/RORSAT.html
: :There you have three kilowatts coming out of something around the size
: f a coffee can.
: :
:
: You must have damned big coffee cans where you live.
:
: "The fuel core of the reactor was 0.2 m in diameter, 0.6 m long"
:
:
:There are Norwegians here, they go through coffee like it's water. :-)
:I meant the diameter, but now that you mention it, I actually have seen
:coffee cans that have around that internal volume for sale at Sam's Club
:years back.
:
: That makes the FUEL CORE about 8" across by almost 2' tall. My coffee
: can is about 6"x8", so even the CORE of that reactor is around 3
: coffee cans in size. Now add the power generation part and remember
: that that reactor is using bomb grade material.
:
:
:It was quite the piece of engineering and NASA bought a improved one
:from Russia after the Soviet Union fell to examine its innards in a
:unfueled form.
:

NASA has worked on an enlarged version for use on the Moon. It comes
nowhere near to tens of MW of power.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden