200 KW mini-reactor

The future is officially here!
The robot is vacuuming the floor, the flat screen TV is on the
wall...but something is missing...The Nuclear Reactor In The Basement of
course!:
http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/...ar-12.17b.html
This could have major ramifications for space exploration and bases on
other planets.
Is this now small enough to drive a large vehicle?

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote in
:

planets. Is this now small enough to drive a large vehicle?

I wouldn't tailgate it; the thermal exhaust alone would melt
the plastic bumper and grille on your vehicle. Likely the
relatively low operating temperature would mean low thermal
efficiency, which is less of a disadvantage for a building:
waste heat can warm the building and help drive a cooling
system in hot weather.

--Damon

Damon Hill wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote in
:


planets. Is this now small enough to drive a large vehicle?


I wouldn't tailgate it; the thermal exhaust alone would melt
the plastic bumper and grille on your vehicle. Likely the
relatively low operating temperature would mean low thermal
efficiency, which is less of a disadvantage for a building:
waste heat can warm the building and help drive a cooling
system in hot weather.


I looked up the info on Lithium-6: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-6
http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/lithium.htm
This news story smell funny.. and I wouldn't trust it until Toshiba
backs it up.
So far, no mention of it on their official website.

Pat

On Dec 20, 5:23 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:

I looked up the info on Lithium-6:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium...ke/lithium.htm
This news story smell funny.. and I wouldn't trust it until Toshiba backs it up.

6Li does have an appetite for neutrons and is used in various
shielding applications, so I guess it could be used in control rods.
The thing I'd watch out for is that 6Li + n produces tritium. Tritium
is a significant radiological hazard, though sealed rods should keep
it contained. But it's also the MSG of nuclear weapon design, so you'd
want to have good inventory control of all those mini-reactors and
their parts.

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:30:43 -0600, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

The future is officially here!
The robot is vacuuming the floor, the flat screen TV is on the
wall...but something is missing...The Nuclear Reactor In The Basement of
course!:
http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/...ar-12.17b.html
This could have major ramifications for space exploration and bases on
other planets.
Is this now small enough to drive a large vehicle?

Size isn't the only issue. How do you do electrical conversion in a
reliable way, and how do you keep it cool?

Pat Flannery wrote:

This news story smell funny.. and I wouldn't trust it until Toshiba
backs it up. So far, no mention of it on their official website.

This is somewhat old news. See

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear...ucenviss2.html

--
Dave Michelson

Dave Michelson wrote:

This is somewhat old news. See

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear...ucenviss2.html

In that, the coolant is described as liquid sodium, not lithium-6.
This mentions that it is going at the bottom of a 100 foot deep hole, also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S
The use of neutron reflector plates is reminiscent of Soviet submarine
reactors.
The design also seems a bit similar to the reactors used by the Soviet
RORSATS.

Pat

On Dec 20, 10:39*pm, " wrote:
On Dec 20, 5:23 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:

I looked up the info on Lithium-6:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium...g/nuke/intro/n...
This news story smell funny.. and I wouldn't trust it until Toshiba backs it up.

6Li does have an appetite for neutrons and is used in various
shielding applications, so I guess it could be used in control rods.
The thing I'd watch out for is that 6Li + n produces tritium. Tritium
is a significant radiological hazard, though sealed rods should keep
it contained. But it's also the MSG of nuclear weapon design, so you'd
want to have good inventory control of all those mini-reactors and
their parts.

IMHO, the tritium is not that hazardous. It was a "relatively" short
half-life of about 11 years (which is a little longish for 10 t1/2
decay-in-storage) and it is a pure beta emitter and the beta is low
energy, making it reasonably easy to shield. it is not really an
external hazard.

I do agree that you want to keep the container tightly plugged since
it behaves chemically like any other isotope of hydrogen. It is an
internal hazard to be respected. It is noooooo fun at all when it
gets loose into water, The only upside to that is, that in the event
of an uptake, one traditional yet effective treatment is massive
quantities of a fermented malt-based beverage that is favored by many
of our co-correspondents. Just be sure to buy your own, the
government procured stuff takes the definition of "skunky" to a whole
new level.

Merry Christmas to you all . . .

John

On Dec 20, 10:43*pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:30:43 -0600, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

The future is officially here!
The robot is vacuuming the floor, the flat screen TV is on the
wall...but something is missing...The Nuclear Reactor In The Basement of
course!:
http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/...shiba-micro-nu...
This could have major ramifications for space exploration and bases on
other planets.
Is this now small enough to drive a large vehicle?

Size isn't the only issue. *How do you do electrical conversion in a
reliable way, and how do you keep it cool?

Themocouples although horribly inefficient . . . are reliable. As for
cooling, run the other way when someone suggests sodium. A great
coolant . . . until you need to do maintenance.

best

John

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


Dave Michelson wrote:

This is somewhat old news. See

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear...ucenviss2.html

In that, the coolant is described as liquid sodium, not lithium-6.
This mentions that it is going at the bottom of a 100 foot deep hole,
also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S
The use of neutron reflector plates is reminiscent of Soviet submarine
reactors.
The design also seems a bit similar to the reactors used by the Soviet
RORSATS.

Pat

These small nuclear fission reactors are interesting, but I
didn't see anywhere discussion of using these to power space
settlements.

For which, I believe, they are going to be essential. Look
at the very different environment any off-Terra settlement
exists in: there is nothing there someone doesn't make and
maintain; the settlement will need electric power for about
the same reason we down here need air.

I see people talking about solar power, which I think is a
good idea over the long run if the site permits it; but the
beginning settlement will be very marginal. They don't need
to klutz around setting up an elaborate solar power system,
or something of that sort. They need 200 Kw of nuke, good
for 30 years, right there right now. *This is doable* so I
don't see why we aren't talking about it.

I've been thinking about settlements, and something about
the treatment this topic seems generally to get, troubles
me. I feel people who are talking about these settlements,
and drawing up seductive images of beautiful happy places
with lots and lots of open clean lifespace per each person
there, are missing centrally relevant details. For
instance, see the current issue of Popular Science Magazine,
2008 January, p. 28, "The Green Side of the Moon." That
looks pretty good, right?

*Wrong.*

My basic WWW for off-Terra settlements is: Watts, Water,
Work. Look at that picture the the settlement sprawls
all over like a man spreading his arms and saying, "Hit me."
The Watts come from an array of mirrors and machinery and
did anyone think about how reliable, redundant, and
repairable that stuff is? Not to say the cost to get it
there and then set it up?

I see no resource there for Water: it looks to me like they
carry all that in. And I think the people who designed this
settlement didn't notice all such structures leak somewhere
all of the time; and the more joints and surface area, the
more leaks. This is potentially serious, where whatever
leaks out can never be fetched back.

But the really big missed thing is Work. Look at that nice
pictu what do the people *do* in this place? What is its
purpose? Settlements are communities: they exist in a
larger social environment where they do something that
covers costs of existing there. This projected settlement
touches on nothing of the sort: it can only exist as a
parasite, continuously supported. Thus it features a major
failing and in my view, it cannot exist over the long run.

I think also, it's too complex and too vulnerable to survive
for very long off-Terra. It sprawls, but in real life any
settlement off Terra will be a minimax project. Along many
dimensions, one of which must be maximum lifespace within
minimum containing shell.

And for which, they must use nuclear fission power. So
while these little nuclear power generators are getting
discussed here, I'd like to see discussion around using them
where we'll really really need them. And I'd like the
settlements (not bases!) where we think of using them, to be
physically, socially and economically *realizable* places,
not dreamed-up places that exist in a vacuum (yes, sort-of
pun).

Cheers -- Martha Adams [sci.space.policy 2007 Dec 21]