Posted on 10/09/2017 5:38:11 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
Energy Secretary Rick Perry has a vision for developing fully mobile, hot tub-sized nuclear power plants that could become the latest piece in the Energy Department's innovation and grid resiliency push.
Perry brought up the idea while addressing a National Clean Energy Week conference late last month. He used it as an example of what the Trump administration means when it talks about energy "innovation" as part of its energy dominance agenda.
Perry called them "small modular reactors." But the version of the technology he described would function more like a nuclear battery than a conventional, water-cooled nuclear power plant.
He envisioned them being used for hurricane relief in Puerto Rico. The nuclear batteries would be piled into the cargo hold of a C-130 military transport plane, the kind Perry used to fly in the Air Force, and flown to the disaster zone to re-energize the island's wiped-out grid, he explained.
The situation in Puerto Rico is "maybe one of the most tragic events in history," Perry said. "We are trying to get micro-generators down there," but if small modular reactors were available, they "could serve tens of thousands" and even more "very quickly."
When he delivered the speech, nearly all 1.6 million electricity customers in Puerto Rico were without electricity. Perry's agency is working with the Federal Emergency Management Agency on power restoration.
The idea of portable, small nuclear power plants is not new. It's an idea that came from the lobbying and consulting playbook of William C. Anderson, former President George W. Bush's assistant secretary of the Air Force for installations.
Anderson was a big proponent of making military bases self-sustaining, while looking for advanced power plant technology that would reduce the need for tactically vulnerable diesel supply chains in places such as Iraq.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
They work safely and well in submarines, under the control of 18-24 year old techs, supervised by 25-30 year old officers. Sounds like a workable system to me.
Thorium.
Check out ‘HOLTEC’ in Camden NJ
Thorium is such high temperature (molten salt, think about how hot that has to be) is already at thermal run away
I am all for thorium when it’s ready but material Science has a ways to go for a commercially sustainable reactor. We have decades of experience with uranium fission that could be leveraged right now.
Where is that one?
Mostly not true.
The “thorium cycle” is actually a uranium cycle, just a different uranium isotope. Thorium is mostly Th-232 (non radioactive). Neutrons convert Th-232 into U-233, which IS fissile, and which CAN be made into bombs. It is just much more difficult to isolate the fissile uranium from the fertile thorium due to the much higher level or radiation involved. IIRC, U-233 is highly gamma radioactive. Plutonium is not.
Thorium is being sold as an energy panacea.....it isn’t.
(Note....I am all in favor of fission power, even using current technology, but believe in being accurate about what is possible.)
“Nuclear electricity,” thats pretty silly. I think we all know better now but, how do we deal with all the giant ants and 50 foot women?
I assume it is still on the moon.
Ah. The dust looked wind swept. It must have been close enough to the LEM take off to disturb the regolith.
A small nuke reactor is a very good idea with just one down side. Terrorists, terrorists would just love to get their hands on the fuel and make some really nasty bombs. Should start using lots of small nuke reactors like the one described in this article terrorists will acquired fuel from some of them and results will not be pretty.
It's only workable while under military guard.
The nuclear reactors in submarines use highly enriched (96% U-235) uranium. I.e. weapons grade. This is fine as long as it's under military guard, but is not something you could leave unguarded.
I was talking about the concept of small reactors, not the specific type.
The Moon is a harsh mistress.
Now you have a hot tub full of seething radioactivity - lethally radioactive for the next 50 to 100 human generations.
So what does one do with the radioactive trash? Have the taxpayers foot the bill for disposal?
If the **ratepayers** had to foot the bill for the entire fuel cycle, the only nuke plants that would exists would be military - for power or for weapons.
Until the multiple issues of how to safely dispose of the nuke trash is resolved, I have to be a non-supporter.
This, if for no other reason, than to *not* leave a mess behind for my grandkids......
Indeed she is. You have to tow the (Hein)lein exactly to survive...
doesn’t Voyager have one ? (small nuclear power generator)
I thought I had read somewhere that Sweden or one of those other places with remote mountain villages already has something like this?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.