Bill Gates & Toshiba in Talks on Small Nuclear Reactor

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Bill Gates and Toshiba want to put a mini-nuclear reactor in every home. Ahhhh! We are all gonna die!

An energy start-up backed by Microsoft Corp. co-founder Bill Gates is in discussions with Toshiba Corp. on developing a small-scale nuclear reactor that would represent a long-term bet to make nuclear power safer and cheaper.
Click to expand...
 
I hear they are planning the first prototype in december of 2012
 
I hear it will use depleted uranium, so I guess that means you only get cancer from it instead of a core meltdown.
 
What? With terrorism concerns I can't conceive of how this would make things safer.
 
I thought nuclear reactors small enough for homes/vehicles wouldn't work at that scale.
 
What about disasters? What happens if a semi truck crashes into one of these reactors. What if a tornado or earthquake hits the reactor? Could you suddenly add widespread radioactivity to the list of dangers inside an otherwise average disaster area? What if the Twin Towers had used these for a power source? What if hurricane Katrina had hit an area with hundreds of thousands of these reactors installed? Really does not sound safe at all.
 
niconx said:
What about disasters? What happens if a semi truck crashes into one of these reactors. What if a tornado or earthquake hits the reactor? Could you suddenly add widespread radioactivity to the list of dangers inside an otherwise average disaster area? What if the Twin Towers had used these for a power source? What if hurricane Katrina had hit an area with hundreds of thousands of these reactors installed? Really does not sound safe at all.
Click to expand...

what if somebody broke into your house and took your gun and shot you? what if they used a knife from your kitchen and stabed you? what if they used the curtins or sheets to strangle you? which if they broken a mirror, window, or picture frame and stabed you with the glass shards? None of that sounds very safe either.
 
Can someone post the entire article? You ahve to register to read it :(
 
Parmenides said:
What? With terrorism concerns I can't conceive of how this would make things safer.
Click to expand...

You'll be surprised how much information there already is available for terrorists to build nuclear weapons. All they need to do is get their hands on plutonium or uranium and they'll have a bomb. Why do you think the world is trying so hard to stop rogue nation states like Iran and North Korea from enriching uranium?

I don't think depleted uranium can be used to create atomic weapons. I might be wrong.
 
I can't wait to tweak my home reactor!

"I moved the control rods up .001" and got an extra 500watts from it."
 
niconx said:
What about disasters? What happens if a semi truck crashes into one of these reactors. What if a tornado or earthquake hits the reactor? Could you suddenly add widespread radioactivity to the list of dangers inside an otherwise average disaster area? What if the Twin Towers had used these for a power source? What if hurricane Katrina had hit an area with hundreds of thousands of these reactors installed? Really does not sound safe at all.
Click to expand...

Ehh, I think we're better off with lots of tiny reactors than a few giants, it essentially wards off terrorism that way. Yeah, an earthquake could potentially cause the release of radiation if we used these, but i bet it would be a LOT less than if an earthquake caused a radiation leak at a normal nuclear facility.
 
"Good news everyone.."

But truly, I'm glad we are headed in this direction. Household nuclear reactors will likely never be able to reach super critical mass, have to be installed by the state, and have to pass inspection every few years.

Could probably use thorium as a fuel source?
 
Honestly nuclear power is very safe and has been used for decades in ships, submarines and other applications. When was the last time you heard about an accident on one of those?

People way over react about nuclear power which is kind of sad as it is by far the best way to supply the power needs for the world when planned and used correctly.
 
pingjockey said:
Honestly nuclear power is very safe and has been used for decades in ships, submarines and other applications. When was the last time you heard about an accident on one of those?

People way over react about nuclear power which is kind of sad as it is by far the best way to supply the power needs for the world when planned and used correctly.
Click to expand...

Agreed. We fear what we do not know. Today's media doesn't help either.
 
Wow: A power source that needs no refuelling or waste removal for 50-100 years, basically the life of a house. It would be great to be off the grid.

Of course, with people whinging about chronic illnesses and crop failure from cell towers, what are the chances these would ever be allowed in my neighbourhood?
 
Exavior said:
what if somebody broke into your house and took your gun and shot you? what if they used a knife from your kitchen and stabed you? what if they used the curtins or sheets to strangle you? which if they broken a mirror, window, or picture frame and stabed you with the glass shards? None of that sounds very safe either.
Click to expand...

Those are nothing compared to a widespread radioactive disaster making the area impossible to live in again. Causing who knows what other problems and spreading cancer like wildfire. I think that large scale reactors are much safer compared to these. There has only been 1 instance of a real nuclear disaster (Chernobyl) actually happening. Natural disasters happen all the time everywhere. I simply winder if these reactors could be made safe enough to prevent a natural disaster form becoming a man made disaster on top of that. Imagine an earthquake hitting California and 5% of the 200,000 reactors in the area are cracked open because of fallen buildings, bridges, explosions, whatever. That is 10,000 leaking sources of radiation inside a city. Large scale reactors are safer in reality because they are managed properly, these small scale reactors are interesting and could have some applications, but I really don't think their place is right outside someones house.
 
Can I just remind everyone that people had these same kind of concerns around the turn of the century with internal combustion engines.
 
When I think of Nuclear Power, I think of Sim City on the SNES. The scenario that right as you start, ALL the Nuclear Power Plants explode and you have to clean up the mess.

Hate that scenario :mad:
 
People are making the mistake of thinking that any accidents involving the word "Nuclear" means a huge explosion. That is not true at all. Infact it takes an awful lot of effort and the right environment to make a nuclear explosion. Meltdowns are 100% avoidable thanks to the past accidents that happened. The ONLY concern is radiation exposure, which is a serious one. It is debatable how much radiation exposure would come from such a device that would exceed what we already are exposed to day-to-day.

If nuclear power can be done safely and cleanly (zero long term consequences) then we should certainly be using it. I just don't believe that is possible so I've been against it for years. Wind/Solar seems more practical and safe.
 
Sounds great, but what about when the waste does need to be removed? That's a lot of radioactive waste to 'get rid of'. Most people don't even recycle their plastic, lol. Once every 75 years: "Aha, the nuclear waste man is here..." then they just go dump it in a facility in some mountain? Nuclear power is awesome but I disagree with it because of the waste. Why not supply solar and wind turbines to every home instead?
 
Nice! I can see it now........custom water-cooling mod.....overclock that baby.........

NEED... MORE... POWER!
 
Here is a snip from the article:

"Nuclear power, which supplies roughly 20 percent of electricity in the United States, is generating new interest because it does not produce carbon emissions linked to global warming. But nuclear energy is still associated with high-profile accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, and remains mired in safety concerns.
The “traveling wave” concept championed by TerraPower envisions a reactor that would use a small amount of enriched uranium at the start, and then run on depleted uranium or natural, unenriched uranium for up to 60 years or more without the need for refueling. The concept originated decades ago with Edward Teller, an American physicist known as the “father of the hydrogen bomb,” but has never been put into practice."

Now, I know from experience we have a hell of a lot of depleted uranium in this country so there is abundant fuel available. The issue is going to be like stated earlier waste management which is the issue with anything now a days.

I think that a well thought out plan should be able to handle this issue. But we shall see in time as we see more about this.
 
Betaboy1983 said:
Why not supply solar and wind turbines to every home instead?
Click to expand...

Unless i lived on a farm, i for one wouldn't want a wind turbine in my yard, even a small one. not to mention, its not windy everyday where i live. An solar, the cost of the panels alone for a house my size would be 40K, not to mention how inefficient they are.
 
Betaboy1983 said:
Sounds great, but what about when the waste does need to be removed? That's a lot of radioactive waste to 'get rid of'. Most people don't even recycle their plastic, lol. Once every 75 years: "Aha, the nuclear waste man is here..." then they just go dump it in a facility in some mountain? Nuclear power is awesome but I disagree with it because of the waste. Why not supply solar and wind turbines to every home instead?
Click to expand...
Did you miss the part in the speech that showed the US's current pile of nuclear waste, and that is the fuel for these new power supplies. They are burning the waste that the large ones produce now...
 
Who says this reactor needs to be outside your house? It could be installed at a secure location managed by a power company. It would still be dumping the same amount of power into the grid and earning you credits with the power company. Plus no need to worry about any kind of accidents causing you to gain superpowers. No need to worry about widespread radiation leaks in disaster areas that could take days or even weeks to stop.
 
Menelmarar said:
Did you miss the part in the speech that showed the US's current pile of nuclear waste, and that is the fuel for these new power supplies. They are burning the waste that the large ones produce now...
Click to expand...

Yeah our current waste is still very rich, there are many theoretical uses for it.

Hopefully this startup produces something. Nuclear power is the future, people just need to do some research and get over their unnecessary fears.
 
I am all for this, although I am surprised that they aren't pushing solar energy more.. Nuclear is a lot safer than people most realize or care to know...
 
In 10 years, Toshiba will be sued by the USA for price fixing nuclear reactors.
 
About 30 years ago the answer was Hydrogen fuel cells, the idea got shot down. Well, it got shot down here in the US but Japan is moving forward:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23451723/

Fuel cells in the home? Japan is big on idea
2,200 homes run on systems now, goal is one-fourth by 2020​

HIRATSUKA, Japan - Masanori Naruse jogs every day, collects miniature cars and feeds birds in his backyard, but he's proudest of the way his home and 2,200 others in Japan get electricity and heat water — with power generated by a hydrogen fuel cell.
The technology — which draws energy from the chemical reaction when hydrogen combines with oxygen to form water — is more commonly seen in futuristic cars with tanks of hydrogen instead of gasoline, a key culprit in pollution and global warming.
Developers say fuel cells that use natural gas to get hydrogen produce one-third less of the pollution that causes global warming than conventional electricity generation does.
Click to expand...
 
If I ever had a chance to put one of those mini-nuclear reactors in my home I'd gladly do it. Then I'd tell TXU where they can shove it. I'm not concerned about terrorists either. I'll provide my own reactor security. :cool:
 
Sweet can't wait to get one of these in my San Francisco basement... a couple tie straps to the wall for earthquake protection and all will be good.... on second thought I'll stick with solar, only have to worry about people climbing on my roof with portable saws and stealing those!
 
The thing is designed to last 100 years. When you install it, put it in the ground in the back yard, and encase it in concrete. What could really happen to it then? Besides, there are designs now that make it impossible, and i mean physics impossible, not "impossible" for the reactor to melt down.

I too would love to have one of those in my backyard. Especially if I still had my connection to the grid so I could draw off the grid if I used more than it provided, and I could sell my power to the grid when I wasn't using all of it.

Screw solar panels for $40k - $50k that last 10 - 15 years.
 
so how much are these going to cost to own/operate? The way I'm thinking this will all work is that the reactors will be leased to households (sort of like how you lease cable/satellite boxes from TV providers while you're under contract).

How much will it cost to install?
 
I agree in the sentiment that the reactors should stay large and with the power companys. Economics of scale dictate the electricity cost from a one (1) Gigawatt nuclear plant will be MUCH cheaper then the electricity cost from two hundred thousand (200,000) 5 Kilowatt (5,000 Watt) nuclear generators.

Inherently as well will the safety and efficiency of the single large plant be superior.

Spend the money and build more large plants. Focus on the technology to recycle, reuse and re-concentrate spent nuclear fuel. Breeder reactors. Improved efficiency.

GE, Hitachi, etc all have new super efficient, super safe, and cheaper nuclear plant designs ready to go. They just need the contracts to build them.

http://www.pi.hitachi.co.jp/rd-eng/product/nuclear-sys/index.html
http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/
http://www.ge-energy.com/prod_serv/products/nuclear_energy/en/new_reactors.htm

Perhaps there is a useful market for these small reactors, and I'm not against them. But there's a reason why we don't all have gas turbines burning natural gas, desiel engines or steam turbines turning electric generators in our homes. And it's the same reason this small reactor technology won't change things.
 
Menelmarar said:
Did you miss the part in the speech that showed the US's current pile of nuclear waste, and that is the fuel for these new power supplies. They are burning the waste that the large ones produce now...
Click to expand...

You can't honestly believe that the waste is used and 'poof'; clean as a virgin?
 
okashira said:
I agree in the sentiment that the reactors should stay large and with the power companys. Economics of scale dictate the electricity cost from a one (1) Gigawatt nuclear plant will be MUCH cheaper then the electricity cost from two hundred thousand (200,000) 5 Kilowatt (5,000 Watt) nuclear generators.

Inherently as well will the safety and efficiency of the single large plant be superior.

Spend the money and build more large plants. Focus on the technology to recycle, reuse and re-concentrate spent nuclear fuel. Breeder reactors. Improved efficiency.

GE, Hitachi, etc all have new super efficient, super safe, and cheaper nuclear plant designs ready to go. They just need the contracts to build them.

http://www.pi.hitachi.co.jp/rd-eng/product/nuclear-sys/index.html
http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/
http://www.ge-energy.com/prod_serv/products/nuclear_energy/en/new_reactors.htm

Perhaps there is a useful market for these small reactors, and I'm not against them. But there's a reason why we don't all have gas turbines burning natural gas, desiel engines or steam turbines turning electric generators in our homes. And it's the same reason this small reactor technology won't change things.
Click to expand...

Although home to home nuclear plants would double as a generator during storms. Nobody would deal with power outages from frozen or broken lines or transformers. In addition, imagine the strain plug-in electric cars will have on the grid and power lines when more and more people buy them in the near future. Having your own generator powerful enough will curtail this problem big time.

Central power has it's faults too.
 
Azhar said:
Although home to home nuclear plants would double as a generator during storms. Nobody would deal with power outages from frozen or broken lines or transformers. In addition, imagine the strain plug-in electric cars will have on the grid and power lines when more and more people buy them in the near future. Having your own generator powerful enough will curtail this problem big time.

Central power has it's faults too.
Click to expand...

QFT, we need a mix.
I would have one of these in my back yard, DU is only 0.7% (I can't remember the exact amount) U-235 which is the fissile one so the chances of even getting any reasonable amount of radiation dose from this is small.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top