portable nuclear reactor

[MaudDib]

There are many who think that nuclear power has a major role to play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions; there are others who say that the cost and size of nuclear plants and the risks involved outweigh the gains. But what if there was a small, self-regulating and safe reactor design that could be buried and left alone to produce enough power to run 25,000 homes for five years before you have to "change the battery? "

Interview with John Deal, Hyperion Power Generation

» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «

No presentation turned more heads—or spurred more talk—at the Venture Capital in the Rockies Fall Conference earlier this month than Hyperion Power Generation. The New Mexico-based startup is trying to turn an old idea into a novel technology—a nuclear reactor small enough to be shipped by train or truck but powerful enough to supply electricity to a small city or a large industrial operation. Techrockies.com recently had the opportunity to sit face-to-face with Hyperion's chief executive officer, John R. "Grizz" Deal, and discuss his company and its unprecedented product. Here's what he had to say.

In a nutshell, describe how Hyperion Power Generation came to be.

John R. "Grizz" Deal: We were only actually incorporated a year ago. The technology has been worked on for the last 10-15 years at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. [Our VC backer] applied for and secured the commercialization rights through the tech transfer program at Los Alamos almost two years ago. So we got involved a couple of years ago and we have been moving the design of the reactor to a manufacturable product.

The difference here is it is really easy to build one computer chip, but it's really hard to build a million of them because there's quality control issues, there's supplier issues, there's raw material issues, so we're doing that part of this so we can build—well, of version one, we expect to build 4,000 reactors.

Small or not, that's a lot of reactors.

John R. "Grizz" Deal: The market opportunity is for half a million units today and it's growing, so selling 4,000 units of our first design is a pretty reasonable goal. But we've still got to be very, very careful about how we get that final design done.

That's what we're doing now. We're finalizing the design so that it's repeatable, it's replicatable and it's got a high degree of quality control behind it because, quite honestly, unlike a lot of products out there, we are extremely regulated. You wouldn't believe. And I'm glad that we're highly regulated—it's nuclear energy, after all; it should be highly regulated.

How tightly regulated is this technology?

John R. "Grizz" Deal: Just as highly regulated as the drug industry is the way that we put it. People are familiar with 20-year development cycles for biotech products. Well, we pre-empted the first 10 years of our quote-unquote product cycle because of the work that we're leveraging from Los Alamos. So, if you wanted to make an analogy between the regulatory environment for nuclear reactors and a medical device or drug, you could say we're getting ready to start clinical trials.

Do you have a working prototype?

John R. "Grizz" Deal: We're leveraging the design of a very common reactor, called a TRIGA reactor. There are 60-something of those reactors around the world. They are the only reactor that the NRC has licensed for unattended operation, meaning it's so safe that you can literally walk away from it. It's walk-away safe.

So we're taking that basic concept and then we're applying for some engineering modifications to get heat out of it. Right now, those reactors are not used to generate electricity or heat for electricity; they are used for academic purposes. You don't really get a working prototype until you get a license. You have to do it all simultaneously. It's kind of a chicken-and-egg scenario.

What's the size of this reactor? I've heard it described as ‘portable.'

John R. "Grizz" Deal: Transportable, not portable. Once you put it in the ground, it's there for its life because it's hot. It's about a meter-and-a-half across and about 2 meters tall, which is very small.

How much will one weigh?

John R. "Grizz" Deal: Fifteen to 20 tons, depending on whether you're measuring just the reactor itself or the cask—the container that we ship it in—as well. It was specifically designed to fit on the back of a flatbed truck because most of our customers are not going to have rail. We're literally going to get an 18-wheeler with a flatbed and put on it this very secure and very well established transportation container with our reactor inside it.

How much will one cost?

John R. "Grizz" Deal: About $25-$30 million each, depending on options.

What's the expected yield?

John R. "Grizz" Deal: It's about 70 megawatts thermal, and, depending on your steam cycle and how you're generating electricity, it's about 30 megawatts electrical, at the turbine. Thirty megawatts is tiny compared to traditional nuclear reactors and even coal plants, but we're going for distributed or grid-appropriate electric generators or for industrial uses—for mining, for heavy oil production.

Let's get technical for a second. What keeps this safe? What keeps this device from creating a runaway reaction?

John R. "Grizz" Deal: The way that you sustain a chain reaction for nuclear energy is through the use of a moderator. This is Nuclear Energy 101. A moderator is a necessary part of almost all power-producing reactors. What it does is slow down the neutrons so that those neutrons that are being shed by the uranium, as it breaks apart, can be grabbed by other uranium atoms. That fracturing process is called fission, and that's how you get heat.

In traditional reactors, you've got to have a moderator and then you've also got to have some way to cool it so it doesn't get out of hand. In our nation's light water reactors, the water serves as both the moderator and the coolant. So the moderator actually makes it go and a cooling system keeps it from going too far.

Our fuel is very unique. It's uranium hydride. UH3 is the chemical formula. Low-enriched, about 10 percent [uranium isotope]-235, the rest is U-238. By comparison, bomb-grade fuel is about 98 percent enriched.

You can't turn our fuel into a bomb. You'd have to re-enrich, re-process the fuel, so you might as well start with yellowcake. That's one of the neat safety features of our reactor. For nefarious purposes, our reactor has absolutely no value whatsoever.

What's so "unique" about your fuel?

John R. "Grizz" Deal: The neat thing about UH3, about uranium hydride, is it's a moderator and an emergency cooling system in one. It's chemical composition—and we say it's been designed by God to be the prefect nuclear fuel—when uranium hydride gets too hot, when the reaction gets a little out of hand, it will start shedding those hydrogen atoms naturally, which turns off the nuclear fires and, if necessary, cools down the reactor. This happens very, very fast.

So it's self-governing?

John R. "Grizz" Deal: It's self-governing. We have the patent on this specific application of uranium hydride for nuclear energy. But the discovery that uranium hydride was not appropriate for letting a chain reaction get out of hand (to make a weapon) was made decades ago. It was sort of like, "Gee, that's a dud," because, at the time, they were only interested in a chain reaction that resulted in some sort of explosion.

That work was picked up by our now-CTO, the scientist who invented the product, Otis "Pete" Peterson at Los Alamos, and he said, "Wait a minute! You're generating an awful lot of heat there. It just doesn't get out of hand. That's actually a good thing if you want to generate power."

He was always thinking about distributed electric, always thinking about how you take nuclear energy and put it in the middle of nowhere essentially, without all the infrastructure, without all of the yards of concrete that a traditional nuclear reactor incurs. So there are no cooling towers; our cooling system makes steam for extracting heavy oil out of the ground, generating electricity or supplying power for many other possible needs. It is self-regulated. It's analogous to a battery.

Where do you anticipate first deploying the product? Is it safe to assume outside the United States because of the red tape involved?

John R. "Grizz" Deal: We've already signed up our first customers, Romania and the Czech Republic. They were looking at a very high infrastructure cost for an electric grid, but are now doing a distributed model.

So how do you get dependable, base-load power? Wind is not base-load capable. Solar is certainly not base-load capable. They're not always there. You can't store electricity; you generate it and then you use it or lose it.

Those people—and virtually every country in the world, to some extent—rely upon United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing as a basis for their own licensing. So we are seeking a design certification and a license from the U.S. NRC, even if we never install one in the U.S.

[Other countries] won't rely on [NRC licensing] completely, but they will leverage that work.

So an NRC license will get you in the door?

John R. "Grizz" Deal: Right. It's a lot like the FDA and how getting licensed in the [European Union] helps you in the U.S. and vice versa.

How long will each reactor last?

John R. "Grizz" Deal: Probably eight to 10 years, but that depends on your use because it is load following. The more you use it, the faster it is used up, just like a battery. Again, there's that battery analogy!

Could an owner recharge it by inserting more fuel?

John R. "Grizz" Deal: No. That's actually a design feature. Unlike any other reactor design on the planet, there is no in-field refueling. We seal it at the factory, ship it out to the location, they use it for eight to 10 years, and then we go get it and take it back to our factory for refurbishing and refueling.

There's a lot of skepticism toward nuclear energy in this country, including the waste it produces. What are your plans for disposing of the spent fuel?

John R. "Grizz" Deal: We're going to take it back to the factory and we're going to reuse most of it.

The waste that comes out of our reactor after powering 20,000 homes for 8-10 years is about the size of a football. Using coal and gas over the same time frame, the waste stream for just you, after factoring in CO2 emissions, would overflow Mile High Stadium in Denver. So our waste stream is very concentrated, and yes, we have to do something with it, but there are known ways of dealing with it.

The U.S. has a different political philosophy, but from a technical standpoint, dealing with waste is really not complicated. It's a regulatory complication, it's a political complication, it's a social complication. We have enough uranium to power the planet for the next thousand years, but the problem again is the waste, so you want to handle that waste in a smart manner and not just put it in a pond somewhere.

Depending on where the waste originates will determine how we dispose of that waste because there are different regulations depending on where you are in the world. We know how to deal with it. For security reasons, we're not disclosing what will happen to it, but it's not going to just sit in some bucket somewhere. Recycling was "baked in" to our reactor design from the beginning.

That 30-megawatt net power generation, could you express that in lay terms? How much power is that?

John R. "Grizz" Deal: Thirty megawatts is enough to power 20,000 U.S. homes or, internally, we've figured out that would equate to about 100,000 homes anywhere outside the U.S.

There's not a lot of 100,000-home places out there in the developing world, so they're going to have enough electricity to power residential, plus industrial, plus clean water, plus sewage. It's everything; it's not just powering homes.

Let's talk about your backing. What stage are you guys at as far as financing?

John R. "Grizz" Deal: From a financial perspective, we're really very far along. We're going to get this out the door for less than $100 million.

Because of the way that energy financing works, we're not going to add inventory. You order it, you pre-pay for most of the cost, we manufacture it and then we deliver it within six to 12 months. That's how the financial mechanism works on the manufacturing side.

This is not an issue for us of getting enough capital; it's getting the right kind of capital because when you're developing a company that's got such broad-based global implications, you want the right kind of investors that are going to really help us along in our development, not just provide cash.

How many rounds of institutional funding have you raised?

John R. "Grizz" Deal: This is only our second round of financing that we're currently in. We've not closed it.

What can you tell us about your Series A?

John R. "Grizz" Deal: Our Series A was funded by the Altira Group out of Denver and, again, we don't disclose our cap table. We've done a lot in the last year on very little money because we were able to leverage all that basic research time. And we continue to pay Los Alamos to do things for us on the manufacturing design and we're involving other large nuclear labs, plus industry, in this.

And your go-to-market time frame is four-and-a-half years?

John R. "Grizz" Deal: Yes, 6/13 is the number that sits above my desk. We ship in June of 2013, our first customer install. We will make that date.

We have an engineering plan that goes out in a couple of years, but we built in a robust contingency. Even though we have a very well thought out engineering plan, we have already put in twice as much calendar time as we need to go to market because you just don't know. There could be regulatory issues, supplier issues ….

Again, we're not trying to rush. We're not competing against some release by Microsoft or something Exxon is coming out with. We're alone in the market space with this.

Nuclear energy is very traditional, it's very well known. Word about this kind of reactor—a uranium hydride reactor from Los Alamos—it was first talked about 20 years ago. This is not a new product; this is a new product coming out to the market.

toshibin odgovor

» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «

Toshiba Builds 100x Smaller Micro Nuclear Reactor

Toshiba has developed a new class of micro size Nuclear Reactors that is designed to power individual apartment buildings or city blocks. The new reactor, which is only 20 feet by 6 feet, could change everything for small remote communities, small businesses or even a group of neighbors who are fed up with the power companies and want more control over their energy needs.

The 200 kilowatt Toshiba designed reactor is engineered to be fail-safe and totally automatic and will not overheat. Unlike traditional nuclear reactors the new micro reactor uses no control rods to initiate the reaction. The new revolutionary technology uses reservoirs of liquid lithium-6, an isotope that is effective at absorbing neutrons. The Lithium-6 reservoirs are connected to a vertical tube that fits into the reactor core. The whole whole process is self sustaining and can last for up to 40 years, producing electricity for only 5 cents per kilowatt hour, about half the cost of grid energy.

znachi cirka ~25mil$ (mozhda i manje sa japancima ) i nema zime :)

[Dule_smor]

jebote, zamisli imas ovo cudo u podrumu zgrade...ludi japanci, vec vidim dzija kako narucuje jedan:)

[MaudDib]

koliko hotjete vasha jaja przhena :D

i jedna rofl pricha

» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «

FBI shuts down gamer's homemade nuclear reactor

For this week's 'you've got to be kidding me' story, an out of work game designer in Texas wanted to do something useful during his time off--so he decided to build his very own nuclear reactor at home.

The gamer, whose name was withheld by the request of his family, is a computer genius and has been enamored with the science of physics since he was in the eighth grade. He has an intense interest in radiation and nuclear reactions.

However, after he posted details about his hobby, the federal authorities were alerted and decided to make a visit to young Einstein to see what he was up to. The gamer and amateur physicist said, "People do it in universities all the time. It's just not usual that somebody does it outside of a university."

His homebrew reactor doubled the radiation in his home but as it turns out, the police, FBI and officials from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, who made a surprise visit to his house, decided that everything was in order and there was nothing to be alarmed about.

"They're just doing their job. That's their job to come and check on stuff like that. When they left, it had been deemed that, you know, everything was within reason." The authorities confiscated all his equipment at the urging of his parents.

Well, at least they didn't take away his video games.

The gamer stoically said after the incident, "I think I'll keep it cool for awhile."

Good idea.

[dzontra.volta]

Interview with John Deal, Hyperion Power Generation

» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «

No presentation turned more heads—or spurred more talk—at the Venture Capital in the Rockies Fall Conference earlier this month than Hyperion Power Generation. The New Mexico-based startup is trying to turn an old idea into a novel technology—a nuclear reactor small enough to be shipped by train or truck but powerful enough to supply electricity to a small city or a large industrial operation. Techrockies.com recently had the opportunity to sit face-to-face with Hyperion's chief executive officer, John R. "Grizz" Deal, and discuss his company and its unprecedented product. Here's what he had to say.

In a nutshell, describe how Hyperion Power Generation came to be.

John R. "Grizz" Deal: We were only actually incorporated a year ago. The technology has been worked on for the last 10-15 years at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. [Our VC backer] applied for and secured the commercialization rights through the tech transfer program at Los Alamos almost two years ago. So we got involved a couple of years ago and we have been moving the design of the reactor to a manufacturable product.

The difference here is it is really easy to build one computer chip, but it's really hard to build a million of them because there's quality control issues, there's supplier issues, there's raw material issues, so we're doing that part of this so we can build—well, of version one, we expect to build 4,000 reactors.

Small or not, that's a lot of reactors.

John R. "Grizz" Deal: The market opportunity is for half a million units today and it's growing, so selling 4,000 units of our first design is a pretty reasonable goal. But we've still got to be very, very careful about how we get that final design done.

That's what we're doing now. We're finalizing the design so that it's repeatable, it's replicatable and it's got a high degree of quality control behind it because, quite honestly, unlike a lot of products out there, we are extremely regulated. You wouldn't believe. And I'm glad that we're highly regulated—it's nuclear energy, after all; it should be highly regulated.

How tightly regulated is this technology?

John R. "Grizz" Deal: Just as highly regulated as the drug industry is the way that we put it. People are familiar with 20-year development cycles for biotech products. Well, we pre-empted the first 10 years of our quote-unquote product cycle because of the work that we're leveraging from Los Alamos. So, if you wanted to make an analogy between the regulatory environment for nuclear reactors and a medical device or drug, you could say we're getting ready to start clinical trials.

Do you have a working prototype?

John R. "Grizz" Deal: We're leveraging the design of a very common reactor, called a TRIGA reactor. There are 60-something of those reactors around the world. They are the only reactor that the NRC has licensed for unattended operation, meaning it's so safe that you can literally walk away from it. It's walk-away safe.

So we're taking that basic concept and then we're applying for some engineering modifications to get heat out of it. Right now, those reactors are not used to generate electricity or heat for electricity; they are used for academic purposes. You don't really get a working prototype until you get a license. You have to do it all simultaneously. It's kind of a chicken-and-egg scenario.

What's the size of this reactor? I've heard it described as ‘portable.'

John R. "Grizz" Deal: Transportable, not portable. Once you put it in the ground, it's there for its life because it's hot. It's about a meter-and-a-half across and about 2 meters tall, which is very small.

How much will one weigh?

John R. "Grizz" Deal: Fifteen to 20 tons, depending on whether you're measuring just the reactor itself or the cask—the container that we ship it in—as well. It was specifically designed to fit on the back of a flatbed truck because most of our customers are not going to have rail. We're literally going to get an 18-wheeler with a flatbed and put on it this very secure and very well established transportation container with our reactor inside it.

How much will one cost?

John R. "Grizz" Deal: About $25-$30 million each, depending on options.

What's the expected yield?

John R. "Grizz" Deal: It's about 70 megawatts thermal, and, depending on your steam cycle and how you're generating electricity, it's about 30 megawatts electrical, at the turbine. Thirty megawatts is tiny compared to traditional nuclear reactors and even coal plants, but we're going for distributed or grid-appropriate electric generators or for industrial uses—for mining, for heavy oil production.

Let's get technical for a second. What keeps this safe? What keeps this device from creating a runaway reaction?

John R. "Grizz" Deal: The way that you sustain a chain reaction for nuclear energy is through the use of a moderator. This is Nuclear Energy 101. A moderator is a necessary part of almost all power-producing reactors. What it does is slow down the neutrons so that those neutrons that are being shed by the uranium, as it breaks apart, can be grabbed by other uranium atoms. That fracturing process is called fission, and that's how you get heat.

In traditional reactors, you've got to have a moderator and then you've also got to have some way to cool it so it doesn't get out of hand. In our nation's light water reactors, the water serves as both the moderator and the coolant. So the moderator actually makes it go and a cooling system keeps it from going too far.

Our fuel is very unique. It's uranium hydride. UH3 is the chemical formula. Low-enriched, about 10 percent [uranium isotope]-235, the rest is U-238. By comparison, bomb-grade fuel is about 98 percent enriched.

You can't turn our fuel into a bomb. You'd have to re-enrich, re-process the fuel, so you might as well start with yellowcake. That's one of the neat safety features of our reactor. For nefarious purposes, our reactor has absolutely no value whatsoever.

What's so "unique" about your fuel?

John R. "Grizz" Deal: The neat thing about UH3, about uranium hydride, is it's a moderator and an emergency cooling system in one. It's chemical composition—and we say it's been designed by God to be the prefect nuclear fuel—when uranium hydride gets too hot, when the reaction gets a little out of hand, it will start shedding those hydrogen atoms naturally, which turns off the nuclear fires and, if necessary, cools down the reactor. This happens very, very fast.

So it's self-governing?

John R. "Grizz" Deal: It's self-governing. We have the patent on this specific application of uranium hydride for nuclear energy. But the discovery that uranium hydride was not appropriate for letting a chain reaction get out of hand (to make a weapon) was made decades ago. It was sort of like, "Gee, that's a dud," because, at the time, they were only interested in a chain reaction that resulted in some sort of explosion.

That work was picked up by our now-CTO, the scientist who invented the product, Otis "Pete" Peterson at Los Alamos, and he said, "Wait a minute! You're generating an awful lot of heat there. It just doesn't get out of hand. That's actually a good thing if you want to generate power."

He was always thinking about distributed electric, always thinking about how you take nuclear energy and put it in the middle of nowhere essentially, without all the infrastructure, without all of the yards of concrete that a traditional nuclear reactor incurs. So there are no cooling towers; our cooling system makes steam for extracting heavy oil out of the ground, generating electricity or supplying power for many other possible needs. It is self-regulated. It's analogous to a battery.

Where do you anticipate first deploying the product? Is it safe to assume outside the United States because of the red tape involved?

John R. "Grizz" Deal: We've already signed up our first customers, Romania and the Czech Republic. They were looking at a very high infrastructure cost for an electric grid, but are now doing a distributed model.

So how do you get dependable, base-load power? Wind is not base-load capable. Solar is certainly not base-load capable. They're not always there. You can't store electricity; you generate it and then you use it or lose it.

Those people—and virtually every country in the world, to some extent—rely upon United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing as a basis for their own licensing. So we are seeking a design certification and a license from the U.S. NRC, even if we never install one in the U.S.

[Other countries] won't rely on [NRC licensing] completely, but they will leverage that work.

So an NRC license will get you in the door?

John R. "Grizz" Deal: Right. It's a lot like the FDA and how getting licensed in the [European Union] helps you in the U.S. and vice versa.

How long will each reactor last?

John R. "Grizz" Deal: Probably eight to 10 years, but that depends on your use because it is load following. The more you use it, the faster it is used up, just like a battery. Again, there's that battery analogy!

Could an owner recharge it by inserting more fuel?

John R. "Grizz" Deal: No. That's actually a design feature. Unlike any other reactor design on the planet, there is no in-field refueling. We seal it at the factory, ship it out to the location, they use it for eight to 10 years, and then we go get it and take it back to our factory for refurbishing and refueling.

There's a lot of skepticism toward nuclear energy in this country, including the waste it produces. What are your plans for disposing of the spent fuel?

John R. "Grizz" Deal: We're going to take it back to the factory and we're going to reuse most of it.

The waste that comes out of our reactor after powering 20,000 homes for 8-10 years is about the size of a football. Using coal and gas over the same time frame, the waste stream for just you, after factoring in CO2 emissions, would overflow Mile High Stadium in Denver. So our waste stream is very concentrated, and yes, we have to do something with it, but there are known ways of dealing with it.

The U.S. has a different political philosophy, but from a technical standpoint, dealing with waste is really not complicated. It's a regulatory complication, it's a political complication, it's a social complication. We have enough uranium to power the planet for the next thousand years, but the problem again is the waste, so you want to handle that waste in a smart manner and not just put it in a pond somewhere.

Depending on where the waste originates will determine how we dispose of that waste because there are different regulations depending on where you are in the world. We know how to deal with it. For security reasons, we're not disclosing what will happen to it, but it's not going to just sit in some bucket somewhere. Recycling was "baked in" to our reactor design from the beginning.

That 30-megawatt net power generation, could you express that in lay terms? How much power is that?

John R. "Grizz" Deal: Thirty megawatts is enough to power 20,000 U.S. homes or, internally, we've figured out that would equate to about 100,000 homes anywhere outside the U.S.

There's not a lot of 100,000-home places out there in the developing world, so they're going to have enough electricity to power residential, plus industrial, plus clean water, plus sewage. It's everything; it's not just powering homes.

Let's talk about your backing. What stage are you guys at as far as financing?

John R. "Grizz" Deal: From a financial perspective, we're really very far along. We're going to get this out the door for less than $100 million.

Because of the way that energy financing works, we're not going to add inventory. You order it, you pre-pay for most of the cost, we manufacture it and then we deliver it within six to 12 months. That's how the financial mechanism works on the manufacturing side.

This is not an issue for us of getting enough capital; it's getting the right kind of capital because when you're developing a company that's got such broad-based global implications, you want the right kind of investors that are going to really help us along in our development, not just provide cash.

How many rounds of institutional funding have you raised?

John R. "Grizz" Deal: This is only our second round of financing that we're currently in. We've not closed it.

What can you tell us about your Series A?

John R. "Grizz" Deal: Our Series A was funded by the Altira Group out of Denver and, again, we don't disclose our cap table. We've done a lot in the last year on very little money because we were able to leverage all that basic research time. And we continue to pay Los Alamos to do things for us on the manufacturing design and we're involving other large nuclear labs, plus industry, in this.

And your go-to-market time frame is four-and-a-half years?

John R. "Grizz" Deal: Yes, 6/13 is the number that sits above my desk. We ship in June of 2013, our first customer install. We will make that date.

We have an engineering plan that goes out in a couple of years, but we built in a robust contingency. Even though we have a very well thought out engineering plan, we have already put in twice as much calendar time as we need to go to market because you just don't know. There could be regulatory issues, supplier issues ….

Again, we're not trying to rush. We're not competing against some release by Microsoft or something Exxon is coming out with. We're alone in the market space with this.

Nuclear energy is very traditional, it's very well known. Word about this kind of reactor—a uranium hydride reactor from Los Alamos—it was first talked about 20 years ago. This is not a new product; this is a new product coming out to the market.

» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «

[Dule_smor]

cini mi se da kaze negde u tekstu da je upola manja cena kilovat casa nego ovako...al svejedno, kako smo krenuli uskoro cemo se grejati na drva:)

[cali]

cini mi se da kaze negde u tekstu da je upola manja cena kilovat casa nego ovako...al svejedno, kako smo krenuli uskoro cemo se grejati na drva:)

NUKLEARNA DRVA!

[Sting]

From newly anexed Canada!

[mohican]

Nuklearna energija jeste chista.

[voodoo_]

Osim što nije pogodna za korišćenje u Srbiji, jer bi svi izginuli zbog posledica ošljarenja i opšteg boljenja kurca među zaposlenima zaduženim za to.

[mohican]

Kao prvo ko je pricao o tome u srbiji?

Po toj logici su i brane opasne jer lose izgradjene mogu da poplave naseljena mesta itd itd.

Sam proces dobijanja energije putem nuklearnog reaktora je chist.

Edited March 6, 2009 by mohican

[voodoo_]

S tim što kad pukne brana pogine 500 ljudi, a kad pukne nuklearka bude Černobilj.

Naravno da pričam o Srbiji, ne živim u Norveškoj.

[Dule_smor]

a sta cemo sa nuklearnim otpadom, da ga zakopamo na kosovo!

[Sting]

U KINU CEMO DA IZVOZIMO!

[dzontra.volta]

Kao prvo ko je pricao o tome u srbiji?

Po toj logici su i brane opasne jer lose izgradjene mogu da poplave naseljena mesta itd itd.

Sam proces dobijanja energije putem nuklearnog reaktora je chist.

Ko je jos cuo da nuklearke proizvode nuclear waste?

[bjela]

Van pameti bi bilo da se kod nas pravi nuklearka (pa makar i mala lol, sto kaze vudu nismo u norveskoj) kad nije iskorisceno ni 50% vodenih snaga a ni 1% snaga vetra (koga makar imamo kolko oces), a vetar je ubedljivo najcistiji (i valjda najjeftiniji, to ne znam za sigurno).

[Sting]

Da je najjeftinije prvi bi kinezi napravili 3 milijarde vetrenjaca u svojoj pustinji u kojoj uvek duva vetar =P Kontam da je najjeftinija termoelektrana.

[G!!!]

nuklearna energija nije cista, prljava je jer kosta mnogo milijardi evra... neka hvala, bolje da budzimo brane za koju stotinu k evra

[tomkeus]

Što se tiče ove Hyperion.. kompanije, bio bih vrlo skeptičan prema njima. Čini mi se da je u pitanju neka prevara.

Što se Toshibinog dizajna tiče, on nije uopšte toliko mikro, koliko vam se čini, zato što sam reaktor jeste relativno mali, ali samo postrojenje u kojoj se proizvodi električna energija (turbine, izmenjivači toplote, kondenzori) nije nešto što može da stane u vašu garažu ili dvorište. Ovi reaktori (Toshiba 4S) nisu alternativa masovnoj proizvodnji električne energije već su namenjeni ekonomičnoj proizvodnji električne energije tamo gde nema drugih isplativih alternativa (ostrva, udaljena mesta na kopnu i sl.).

Edited March 31, 2009 by tomkeus

[MaudDib]

i meni ovi hyperion po onome shto sam prochitao zvuche kao neki deal "uzmi pare i bezhi" al videtjemo =)

shto se tiche toshibe, nigde i nije recheno da je za kutje, nego za zgrade .. znachi ono umesto kotlarnice :)) i ne razumem ovaj deo oko "nisu alternativa masovnoj proizvodnji" .. pa naravno da nisu chim nisu masovna nego za komshiluk. vishe im je cilj samostalnost od grida.

btw negde sam prochitao da su vetj krenuli da ugradjuju ove toshibine.

[tomkeus]

shto se tiche toshibe, nigde i nije recheno da je za kutje, nego za zgrade .. znachi ono umesto kotlarnice :)) i ne razumem ovaj deo oko "nisu alternativa masovnoj proizvodnji" .. pa naravno da nisu chim nisu masovna nego za komshiluk. vishe im je cilj samostalnost od grida.

btw negde sam prochitao da su vetj krenuli da ugradjuju ove toshibine.

Hteo sam da kažem da nisu alternativa velikim reaktorima velike snage ni ekonomski ni po efikasnosti. Uostalom, prave se za jednokratnu upotrebu (njihovo punjenje bi trebalo da traje oko 30 godina).

Ovi reaktori nisu nigde ugrađeni zato što prva (i jedina za sada) mušterija treba da bude neki gradić na Aljasci, a reaktor još nije dobio sertifikat od nadležne američke agencije (a koliko vidim ni od japanske - mada ne znam da li je Toshiba i tražila sertifikat od njih).

Što se budućnosti nuklearne energije tiče, to su po svemu sudeći brzi oplodni reaktori. Oni iskorišćavaju gorivo mnogo bolje i ostavljaju za sobom kratkoživeći otpad. Njihova najveća prednost je što mogu da koriste nefisiona goriva, poput Torijuma 232 ili Uranijuma 238, kojih ima mnogo više u prirodi i lakše se prerađuju.

[MaudDib]

Toshiba expects to install the first reactor in Japan in 2008 and to begin marketing the new system in Europe and America in 2009.

pomeshao sam :)

inache evo josh linkova koga zanima kako se ovo razvija:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S

http://www.atomicinsights.com/AI_03-20-05.html