Distributed "Nuclear Batteries" the New Infrastructure Answer?

thepacketmaster writes "The Star reports about a new power generation model using smaller distributed power generators located closer to the consumer. This saves money on power generation lines and creates an infrastructure that can be more easily expanded with smaller incremental steps, compared to bigger centralized power generation projects. The generators in line for this are green sources, but Hyperion Power Generation, NuScale, Adams Atomic Engines (and some other companies) are offering small nuclear reactors to plug into this type of infrastructure. The generator from Hyperion is about the size of a garden shed, and uses older technology that is not capable of creating nuclear warheads, and supposedly self-regulating so it won't go critical. They envision burying reactors near the consumers for 5-10 years, digging them back up and recycling them. Since they are so low maintenance and self-contained, they are calling them nuclear batteries."

Comments

First idiot with a backhoe

[astrodoom]

and we have a hazmat incident. What could be worse than a gas line breach...how about a core breach!

Dead idea

[pehrs]

Radioisotope thermoelectric generators are nothing new. And they have the same problem as all small "safe" nuclear power generators.

They are full of highly radioactive material.

Even if the stuff can't go boom on it's own they make a perfectly good dirty bomb, if introduced to some simple explosives.

Not to mention that they can and do leak.

The Russians have many Radioisotope thermoelectric generator along their northern coast. And they get lost, leak and are generally a safety hazard.

Re:Peace through mini nukes!

[rubycodez]

bullshit - not "a lot of explosives", that containment vessel is VERY thin compared to a conventional PWR, more like a couple minutes with common construction equipment to breach one of these. and as a bonus Hyperion's choice of fuel is extremely flammable and explosive upon contact with air. These things would be a *very* attractive terrorist targets

Hallelujah!

[Un pobre guey]

Yay! Nuclear is Clean! It is now the Cleanest Energy Source, so now we can just bury reactors in our towns and forget about them, they're so clean! No worries about corrosion, wayward backhoes, leaks, manufacturing defects, faulty installation or setup, unforeseen design issues, ground settling or shifting, people digging them up and damaging them, government and utilities losing track of some of them, venting of radioactive fission products, etc. That won't happen. It can't happen because Nuclear is Clean! It's The Cleanest Of Them All!

Come on you stupid backward dipshit ignorant latte-sipping bisexual liberal faggots, get with the program!

Oh! Es inutil...

Re:why not just do this with solar.

[philspear]

Solar takes a lot of space and puts out a lot less power. It's also costlier. And the process of manufacturing solar panels is horrible for the environment.

Nuclear power is, believe it or not, the cleanest technology we have available, even if you consider the highly radioactive waste and the (typically minute) risk of meltdown.

What about mining for... and I'm going to sound ignorant about this because I am... whatever it is you put into the nuclear plant? Uranium? That's an environmental impact.

As for power, it seems to me that adding more solar panels/ collectors will improve that.

Cost is related to economies of scale. If more solar panels are purchased, the price will come down as the manufacture efficiency improves.

And as far as bad for the environment, as I understand it there are cleaner forms of solar power, not to mention that there's of course room for technological improvements on solar power. People who say that solar power is bad for the environment seem remarkably short sighted. Solar power is not perfect as is, but neither is nuclear, we seem to have invested a lot more time and effort into nuclear so far, and it doesn't seem that the dangers of nuclear are going anywhere.