News Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence

[mheslep]

...Have you ever operated a nuclear plant?
Once you tell them what to do, they pretty much run themselves.
.

If you mean they run independently, they do not. For instance, the NRC gets detailed operation reports from every plant in the US which they review every morning. Not much chance an individual could comply with that kind of reporting for a garage reactor.

 

[OmCheeto]

If you mean they run independently, they do not.

Doesn't mean they couldn't. They are incredibly simple devices.

For instance, the NRC gets detailed operation reports from every plant in the US which they review every morning.

Looking for what? Have they seen anything out of the ordinary since, say, 1979?

Not much chance an individual could comply with that kind of reporting for a garage reactor.

From what I recall, if the operators at TMI had not been there, there would have been no accident.

But this is just hearsay. I'm old, and can't remember all the details.

To get back to the orginal topic though; If I'm not energy independent by this time next year, I'd like to be banned from the forum. I spend too much time arguing about trivialities when there are things to be done, researched, and actually created, to prevent this from being a delusion.

 

[Übermensch]

With the possibility of not seeing a renewable fuel source in a couple of years, what can we see from this outset?

 

[OmCheeto]

With the possibility of not seeing a renewable fuel source in a couple of years, what can we see from this outset?

Well Superman, I'd say right off the bat, that you have not been paying attention. Energy is all around us, and has never been, and has always been, renewable.

Energy either came, or will come from the sun, or one of it's satellites.

...

sorry...

and, I am, still, not, william shatner...

 

[vanesch]

Just because something does not come to fruition, does not make it a hoax.

The hoax is in the "Toshiba is planning to commercialize a garage reactor". It is very well possible that some of their engineers had fun in adapting the design of the S4 to even smaller power just to have a good laugh with his buddies, or for any other fun reason. But for sure, Toshiba doesn't commercialize or doesn't plan to commercialize private garage reactors - they would have filed a demand for approval (like they did for the S4) and they didn't - and they'd know it would never pass.

Have you ever operated a nuclear plant?
Once you tell them what to do, they pretty much run themselves.

I work in an institute that has a reactor. They really don't "run by themselves" :-)

And really, you don't have an idea about the regulations. A private basement reactor is simply so remote from anything that could ever pass regulations that it isn't even thinkable to ask.

The only thing I didn't like about the Galena-Toshiba reactor was the fact that Galena sits along the Yukon river. And they want to sink their liquid sodium cooled reactor into the ground. Ice water flood + kilo degree liquid sodium cooled nuclear reactor = not such a good idea. Perhaps they should put one on the top of the hill in Ruby instead. Maybe the Galenites could move. Ruby is so much more picturesque.

So you worry about a professionally guarded reactor somewhere in Alaska, but you wouldn't worry about your neighbor Joe Sixpack running his basement reactor ??

 

[Astronuc]

With respect to Toshiba 4S -

On Feb. 2, 2005, the NRC staff met with the city manager and vice mayor of Galena, Alaska to discuss and answer questions on the city’s plans to build a Toshiba 4S reactor to provide its electricity. Toshiba began pre-application discussions with NRC staff in Oct. 2007, and the company expects to submit a design approval application in 2009.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/new-nuc-plant-des-bg.html

Currently there are four certified reactor designs that can be referenced in an application for a combined license (COL) to build and operate a nuclear power plant. They are:

Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) design by GE Nuclear Energy (May 1997);

System 80+ design by Westinghouse (formerly ABB-Combustion Engineering) (May 1997);

AP600 design by Westinghouse (December 1999); and

AP1000 design (pictured at left) by Westinghouse (January 2006).


GE is working on certification for ESBWR:

Areva submitted its EPR certification application on Dec. 11, 2007. The staff expects the certification process to continue through 2011.

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI), a Japanese firm, met with NRC staff in July 2006 to discuss its intent to apply for design certification for the U.S.-specific version of its Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor, an evolutionary design being licensed and built in Japan. MHI expects to submit a design certification application early in 2008.

There is also a US private venture - Hyperion Power Generation ( http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/ ) - which offers a 25MWe compact design. There is no serious discussion with the NRC AFAIK.


Nuclear power units would not be in or under some individuals garage. One must obtain a license from the NRC to contruct and operate a nuclear reactor, and the process is rigorous and expensive.

 

[OmCheeto]

I work in an institute that has a reactor. They really don't "run by themselves" :-)

The one I operated did. You must have a poorly designed reactor system.

And really, you don't have an idea about the regulations.

Having worked in the nuke industry for 4 years, yes I do.

 

[mheslep]

..Having worked in the nuke industry for 4 years, yes I do.

OmC, there are many things one can do in the 'nuke industry'. Having made this statement above about NRC reporting

Looking for what? Have they seen anything out of the ordinary since, say, 1979?

perhaps you could agree, though you may be very familiar with the operational area in which you were involved, you are unfamiliar with the mass of regulatory compliance necessary.

 

[edward]

We currently have a lot of portale reactors in aircraft carries and submarines. We need more research on really long extension cords.

 

[mheslep]

We currently have a lot of portale reactors in aircraft carries and submarines. We need more research on really long extension cords.

Those naval reactors are large, 100MWe and up on a carrier (each, there are two)
Nimitz class:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A4W_reactor

 

[OmCheeto]

We currently have a lot of portable reactors in aircraft carries and submarines. We need more research on really long extension cords.

Oh the stories I could tell about nukes and extension cords. But that's soon to be B. Elliott's job.

My stories are still mostly classified as secret.

But the numbers that I've seen for the Toshiba machine indicate that my numbers were way off.

10 megawatts for 30 years at $25 million indicates a cost of 1 cent per kwh.

hmmmm...

 

[vanesch]

The one I operated did. You must have a poorly designed reactor system.

Well, it is a research reactor, not a power plant. It "does operate on its own" of course once it has been started up etc... for about 10 weeks (that's the time we do with a fuel load - yes, that's burned up very fast I know)... until there is the slightest problem, like a glitch on the grid, or one or other alarm that goes off or whatever, in which case there is an automatic shutdown. That happens, I don't know, once a month. Then people have to track down the reason for the alarm, fix it (if it wasn't a false positive which happens), and restart it again. So, yes, it would "run on its own" (if allowed to, which it isn't, regulations require presence of a minimum number - I think it is 4 people - present all the time in the control room, 24hr/day, 7days/week) until the next problem, or the end of the fuel elements, which would happen in any case in a few weeks time.
So what it can do is to cope with absence by putting itself in a safe state automatically. That's it.

Having worked in the nuke industry for 4 years, yes I do.

Well, then you should know that it is near impossible for a private citizen to own a reactor - unless it is someone like, say, Bill Gates who pays for all the regulatory expenses, and pays a crew to watch over it.

The reporting is not to report "failures". The reporting is normal business, to keep checking that the regulations are being followed up. To avoid a situation in which it would even be conceivable that something really bad is even made possible.

I'm not saying that it is impossible to design low-power reactors - I'm not sure they could be competitive below a certain power, but even that I leave in the middle. What I can guarantee you is that regulations make it absolutely impossible for Joe Sixpack (even a moderately wealthy Joe) to have his private garage or basement reactor, like he could have his private swimming pool, or his private supercomputer if he puts the money on the table. You will never be allowed to have a private reactor that is left unattended by a professional crew and which allows Mr. Anybody to fiddle with it.

 

[vanesch]

BTW, in order to "prove" that this Toshiba garage reactor is a hoax, look at the 3D drawing of page 33 in this document, describing the 4S:
http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/Galena_power_draftfinal_15Dec2004.pdf#search='Toshiba 4S'

and compare it to the drawing of the "basement reactor" on the advertisement:
http://www.coolest-gadgets.com/20071219/toshiba-creates-home-nuclear-power-plant/

or here:
http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/19/toshibas-building-a-micro-nuclear-reactor-for-your-garage/

or here:
http://www.computer-advice.info/2007/12/19/toshibas-building-a-micro-nuclear-reactor-for-your-garage/

or the dozens of other gullible "scoop" transmissions.

It is clearly exactly the same 3D picture !

 

[OmCheeto]

BTW, in order to "prove" that this Toshiba garage reactor is a hoax

The pop press's moniker of "garage reactor" is simply a quaint allusion to it's small size. As Astronuc pointed out earlier, they are not meant to be put in anyones garage.

Unless I suppose your name were Gates or Allen. I would imagine they could afford 24/7 staffing of operators and security guards. Let's see, 4 operators @ $50/hr and 4 security guards at $30/hr yields a cost of $320/hr with 200kwh per hour gives a cost of $320/200kwh = $1.60/kwh
+$0.05/kwh capitol expenses.
yields $1.65/kwh total operating expense.

hmmmm...

I think they can get their power cheaper than that.

But it would yield bragging rights.

Kind of like owning your own pro football team.