Toshiba's building a "Micro Nuclear" reactor for your garage?
By Paul Miller 
posted Dec 19th 2007 11:40AM
posted Dec 19th 2007 11:40AM
Alright, details are slim, and we really have no idea if Toshiba has any plans whatsoever to sell these nuclear reactors to consumers -- in fact, we hope it doesn't -- but it does seem like the company is well on its way to commercializing the design. Toshiba's Micro Nuclear reactors are designed to power a single apartment building or city block, and measure a mere 20-feet by 6-feet. The 200 kilowatt reactor is fully automatic and fail-safe, and is completely self-sustaining. It uses special liquid lithium-6 reservoirs instead of traditional control rods, and can last up to 40 years, making energy for about 5 cents per kilowatt hour. Toshiba has been testing the reactors since 2005, and hopes to install its first reactor in Japan in 2008, with marketing to Europe and America in 2009. Oh, and we lied: we totally want one of these in our garage.[Via Dvorak Uncensored]
Read - Next Energy News
Read - Roland's Tech Trends (2005)
My wife said she wouldn't back-seat drive if I got a green RV so she could do stuff in the back while I drive. Then I thought of putting one of these in an RV. I'd have gobs of extra power even after I put in a 5000HP electric motor, enough to maybe even add some phasers... :P
I'm not one to fear-monger, but doesn't this have the ability to become a dirty bomb fairly easily?
I mean, that's if it has real nuclear material in it, and even if it doesn't, I'm sure whatever it is using as a catalyst isn't safe if it were to be used in nefarious ways.
Not necessarily, just because it has radioactive material doesn't make it weapons grade.
Dirty Bombs are made with highly radioactive material from fission reactors (nuclear waste, fuel rods, etc).
Lithium-6 is not highly radioactive so it wouldn't likely be used in a Dirty Bomb.
This is the reason FUSION power would be so important in the future.
#1 the waste from Fusion reactors has much shorter radioactive half lives.
#2 the products from Fusion can't be used to make nuclear weapons.
#3 Fusion would be cleaner and safer provided we had the technology to enclose the reaction under tremendous heat/pressure.
Imagine the whole apartment's residences going impotent hahahahahha
Lithium-6 is only in there in place of control rods, basically so absorb Neutrons and control the reaction rate.
Its a nuclear reactor, therefore has to contain nuclear material and thus can be made into a dirty bomb. You don't need weapons grade stuff in it as you use conventional explosives in a dirty bomb and the nuclear material is a payload is it were.
Oh and @ Flashpoint in particular, Fusion doesn't use any radioactive materials at all and doesn't produce any radioactive products, rather than products with shorter half-lives.
When you can't readily buy Nuclear material and a Reactor, and people like you fear mongering that it can be used in nefarious ways, the terrorists have Won. ;-)
Thats odd, Flashpoint's response to my message appeared down under Randy's comment a few down (yet I got an email about about the reply, I didn't think you could reply to replies, how did you manage that? :S) Anyway, I'll keep it in this thread.
Yes Fusion produces waste, but that waste happens to be Helium, a completely inert gas. Pretty much as safe as you can get.
Tritium is radioactive. It has a 12 year half-life which isn't bad but it is still radioactive.
When Lithium-6 catches those neutrons a by product is Tritium which can be fed back into the reactor.
While its not plutonium, there are still radioactive elements in a fusion reactor.
@ Randy
Don’t blame the population for being terrified out of their minds from the "Invisible Terrorist" scattered through America, aka “Sleeper Cells”... Blame the Government and the Mass Media.
Also... does anybody even know what a dirty bomb is and how much damage it can do?
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/dirty-bombs.html
@Flash
Fusion Reaction needs High Pressure and Temperature to take place. Comparable to Sun's core. This kind of Pressure and Temperature is humanly impossible to recreate.
In a Fusion Reactor or a Fusion Bomb (The H Bomb) First, a Fission Reaction is initialted which produces the required Temp and Pressure. Hydrogen atoms are then introducted and "secondary" Fusion Reaction takes place. Fusion Reactions are much complicated and much more cannot be controlled as easily as fission reactions. This is the reason why most of nuclear power plants are Fission based.
Additionally, a Fussion Reaction is as much radioactive as a fission reaction because of 1. The initial fission reaction and large amount of Gamma and high energy radiation produced.
Lastly, Dirty nukes are not dangerous because of radiation but because of their destructive power. For EG a so called Suitcase Nuke carries enough firepower, comparable to 10 to 15 truckloads of TNT or Dynamite.
@indiatech,
Fusion is produced in dozens of laboratories worldwide daily. The temperatures, pressures and magnetic fields used are NOT impossible to create. In fact the most advanced fusion research reactors produce temperatures and pressures that are 100 times higher than the core of the sun. They also use magnetic fields that are about 10 times stronger than the suns.
In addition, fission is NOT used to start these reactions. Only on weapons are small fission bombs used to start the fusion reaction. In the modern fusion reactor the radiation produced is Alpha, Beta and Gamma. The alpha and beta over time cause the reactor itself to become a low level Beta emitter with a half life of around 5 years. It's expected that Fusion reactors that are past their life and disassembled will need to be stored for around 20 years before they can be scrapped and recycled safely.
Not at all, all that Lithium in the air will make us happy as clams... weeeeeeeeeeee!
@IndiaTech
First, there are no functioning fusion based power plants in the world,
Learn what a Dirty Bomb is before you talk, another name for such a device is a radiological dispersal device or RDD.
The purpose of these devices is to spread radioactive dust throughout an area. These devices use byproducts or Spent material from nuclear reactors such as the attempted Caesium-137 bomb in Chechnya.
No fission takes place in a Dirty Bomb, the common misconception that these are fission based weapons is because of the idiots in hollywood...
Suitcase nukes on the other hand are just very small nuclear weapons, the closest thing to a true suitcase nuke that the government has ever admitted to producing is the W54 warhead which while not small enough to fit in a suitcase, could quite easily fit in a backpack. Such devices are very low yield compared to modern large scale nuclear devices.
Heres a picture of such a weapon inside a projectile attached to a large portable rifle used to fire it:
http://xmb.stuffucanuse.com/xmb/viewthread.php?action=attachment&tid=4518&pid=13152
Will it come in black?
Can't wait pre-order two and tell them for %50,000,00 a piece on ebay.
I typed that wrong. See my post below for the create typing.
Finally, enough power for my Xbox360
It's unfortunate that Nuclear power got a bad rap. Our society would be so much more advanced if the mistakes of the past were avoided. Nuclear power is so much cleaner, healthier, cheaper, and safer than what we're currently using (burning coal still provides most of our power in the US). Perhaps someday... and when that someday comes, I too hope they come in black.
Better than coal/pretro burning? Radioactivity takes millions if not BILLIONS of years to disappear. Both cause ailments to humans, but I think we know which one's the worse when it comes to health effects. Not to mention that storing nuclear waste is expensive as hell.
At least Earth has the ability to start a washing cycle (ice age) if the air gets too hot.
Anyway, I'm just frustrated because a lot of you seem to think that fission-based energy has become bulletproof over the last couple of years.
I'm sorry, but it hasn't. I'd rather wait for fusion reactors.
"Radioactivity takes millions if not BILLIONS of years to disappear."
All the more reason to switch. Burning coal produces more radioactive waste than nuclear.
The newest nuclear fission reactor designs are pretty much failsafe. They are designed such that if heat (excess heat is the cause of every single reactor mishap) starts to increase beyond acceptable limits that the very design of the "pebbles" causes the nuclear material to increase it's distance from it's neighbor thus slowing the reaction and heat production dramatically. People can walk away from these reactors and the cooling systems can be shut off and they will shut themselves down automatically. The system is designed such that runaway heat causes the nuclear material to separate. It's a good design that causes excess heat to work against the reaction rather than relying solely on cooling systems that can fail.
Now I don't know how this system works but it sounds less like a traditional fission-->steam-->power system and more like a nuclear battery where the very radiation from the nuclear material generates the power.
And lets get a fact straight. Burning coal dumps hundreds of tons of radium, uranium and a dozen other highly radioactive materials into the atmosphere through the smokes stacks. In fact so much radioactive material comes out of the stacks of coal power plants that worldwide we dump more radiation into the environment every year than was released at Chernobyl. Think about that when you think coal is safer than nuclear power. Coal is probably the WORST energy source (from an environmental perspective) on this planet. Oil isn't far behind as it also contains lots of nasties (although most are removed during refinement), but it's politically a disaster. The cleanest fossil fuel is gas and there isn't enough of it on this planet to meet our needs. Nuclear fission as a baseline combined with a large percentage of renewable sources should be the energy policy of choice for the USA.
And if you want to wait for Fusion you are going to be waiting a LONG time. IF ITER gets built in the next 20 years (which is doubtful given it's history) they MIGHT learn enough about fusion such that in 50 YEARS, after ITER is torn down, or so they MIGHT be able to commercialize fusion. Personally I wouldn't bet money on it. I would wager that fussion won't be even a possibility until the next century (2200AD.
Not to mention, coal also dumps other nasty stuff like cadmium, mercury, and other heavy metals. Then there are the tons of greenhouse and smog gases dumped into atmosphere. Nuclear is our best hope for reversing global warming.
That's a really great business model - 1. the reactor itself will cost very well + 2. Toshiba will make maintenance every month - for stability and security - and it will cost additional money for consumer/householder.
If it's good enough for the sun, then it's good enough for me.
And, It comes with a self destruct button too.
About coal: well, in all honesty we don't burn coal here, so I didn't know about that. But I'm still against fission plants nonetheless, the long-term costs simply are not worth it. Pardon my ignorance about coal.
As a bonus I bet it makes you sterile.
The short answer is "no".
Luddite.
That is brilliant! where do I sign?
Pfft. Sell-out. I'm still waiting for Cuisinart's Mr. Fusion.
"... fully automatic and FAIL-SAFE"...
LMFAO! Use SOME editorial judgment Engadget! Nothing in this world is 100% "failsafe", and just because Toshiba says their reactor is, doesn't mean you have to trot it out like trained monkeys at a typewriter!
You obviously don't know a damn thing about nuclear engineering.
Put down your copy of Frankenstein and pay attention to reality. Have you ever heard of a pebble-bed reactor? Probably not.
Think before you speak.
You're right, nothing is 100% fail safe. Welcome to reality where life is a never ending risk/cost to benefit analysis.
Let's compare this (or more conventional nuclear options) to our other options.
Coal and Oil: What do I need to say about these? Limited resources, far deadly due to mining operations, heavily toxic to the environment, massive land use in both mining operation, plant and refining space. Gotta go, and will go whether we intervene or not. The stuff has a "sell by date" attached.
Wind and solar: biggest problems are heavy land use and needs to be placed in an appropriate environment. Future tech indicates that these problems might be mitigated but, until they're here, not really an option. Oh, and windmills kill birds.
Hydroelectric (dams): do you really want to plug up more rivers?
Wave action: Will work great right up until some rich bastard on his 100ft yacht or from his coastside mansion pitches a fit about his view. Haven't really studied this as closely though.
Biofuels: Not gonna bother. Just do some research. Bio fuels are a waste of time and nothing more than a subsidy for farmers.
Nuclear: Modern reactors are extremely safe, emit no toxic substances and produce relatively low grade nuclear waste that is stored extremely safely with modern storage tech. I'm not sure I want one right under my apartment but a few miles outside of population would be just fine with me (yes, I would live within 10 miles of a reactor). Of all available options, use the least amount of space for the greatest amount of energy production (by far).
All options have draw backs. For now, until something better comes along, nuclear is the best bet.
68newyorker - Wonderful comment, but you forgot one:
Fusion - Comic book material that we've been "20 years" from for the past 60 years.
"A vote against Nuclear Power is a vote for coal." If you think CO2 emissions are bad now, wait until we start burning coal. It'll block out the sun with smog.
starkruzr: Pebble bed reactors are completely safe? Ha! You ever hear of Hamm-Uentrop plant, in Germany? In 1985, that pebble bed reactor had a pellet lodge in a fuel feed pipe in the core. While attempting to unjam the pellet, the plant released a large amount of radiation into the environment. Enough so that it was shutdown permanently several days later, and it was subsequently decommissioned.
68newyorker: The solar arrays on the roof of my workplace seem to be working just fine - in cloudy Seattle. They offset 10-megawatt hours annually of electricity, and have a payback period of 7 years. That is the power of the future.
http://www.jbdg.com/solar.html
OLMN Buy-One, Give-One program underway: Developing nations such as North Korea and Iran will recieve a low cost nuclear reactor for every unit purchased stateside
Why do people always freak and pee their pants when they hear "nuclear"? Micro-nukes and mini-nukes are relatively safe, and many countries get the majority of their power from nuclear.
You put freak and pee in their pants in the same sentence. You must be into some freakay stuff huh
It's common for people to fear what they don't understand. People (in the US at least) have this mentality that Nuclear is "bad" (think, 3 mile island, Indian point). But people need to learn that the technology has advanced enough that we can deal with the issues much better than we could all those years ago.
Because the US is a prime example of the saying "If you make something idiot proof, they'll make a better idiot."
People need to learn?
The "people" are stupid, lazy, irrational and governed by their herd instinct. Also, "people" have a very short memory span, and ultimately they never learn. And thus, people are gradually manipulated and eventually told what to do. All that remains to do is to pray those that do the telling are not idiots as well.
You kind of shot down your own argument by declaring mini-nukes "safe". How is something "safe" that can blow up several city blocks?
Hey, I have a truck full of TNT. It's perfectly safe!
This would be great for some of the small, remote towns we have. If combined with solar, you could probably take these communities off the grid. Reduced costs from not having to maintain power lines that stretch miles out into the mountains might drop electricity bills for everyone.
Better yet, leave them hooked up to the grid, and see if they can actually turn a profit on their energy use... thereby perhaps reducing local taxes.
Finally I can power my Xbox 360!
Quit stealing other people's uncanny wit, you unoriginal bastard.
I'm not a bastard. you're a bastard! you bastard!!!
I want one! Where can I buy?
thats not exactly true . . .
The matter-antimatter annihalation produces nothing but photons
I believe you because you typed THAT IS A FACT in all caps. If you hadn't typed in all caps, I'd think you were a wanker.
yeah, if by waste you mean helium.
That's not true, FUSION reactions (depending on what the fuel was) produces waste products. THAT IS A FACT.
There is no energy reaction which does not produce some waste product.
Cool, I only need about 700 of these to make the 1.21 gigawatts of power I need so I can go back in time and file my patent on the idea. Extra power is to run the cameras, laptops and iPod.
Though concerns about widespread, small-scale nuclear power generation are valid, there are also many examples of long term safe nuclear power usage. i.e. the US Navy. If this works as well as I dream it could, it could make for a good alternative to centralized power generation, and the inherent loss of energy experienced through transmission to the end user. Nice green alternative, unless it leaves you glowing green.
I totally would have one of these installed in my house.
lmao
Can't wait to pre-order two on ebay and sell em for $50,000,000 apiece.
meant to say "and tell them for $50,000,000 apiece on ebay"
*****SELL**** not TELL, meant to say "SELL them for $50,000,00 apiece on ebay"
%50,000,000 NOT $50,000,00 DAMMIT!
JESUS! Must be using one of those new Mac keyboards....
you took 6 tries to tell that joke, and it sucked everytime
"I'm sure in 1985 you can walk into any corner store and buy plutonium, but in 1955, it's a little hard to come by!"
I am still waiting for my Mr. Fusion...
Crap. you beat me to it!
That was the first thing I thought of, when i saw the article.
I assumed something like this would come from GE first. Really neat idea, I hope it takes off.
GE designed something like this many years ago. Given the nuclear hysteria in the US they abandoned the design. Even with the more friendly nuclear climate in the US today the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) groups would block any attempt to install one of these so I doubt GE sees any opportunity to produce and actually sell anything like it.
No more risky trips running out to the gas station to get fuel for generators! It's nice to know Toshiba is giving us the tools to make the Zombie Apocalypse a bright and powered one.
Yeah, or if you are a small town and survive the Nuclear apocalypse, you won't need to build any gay windmills, and you know what kind of trouble that gets you in. Damn you New Burn.
I so want a Mr Fission for my garage.
The point is that something like this could make more inhospitable areas habitable. Available power without the need for a large scale infrastructure. The ability to purify water as well. This is a very very cool thing.
I always imagined this sort of thing would be done by fuel cells and some sort of fuel supply. But this is much better...
I so want a Mr Fission for my garage.
The point is that something like this could make more inhospitable areas habitable. Available power without the need for a large scale infrastructure. The ability to purify water as well. This is a very very cool thing.
I always imagined this sort of thing would be done by fuel cells and some sort of fuel supply. But this is much better...
If you read the article carefully, you'll see that it uses uranium enriched to 20% to power the fission reaction. Lithium-6 is used in place of control rods to absorb excess neutrons. It is unfortunate that the article was written in a deceiving way to make unwitting readers think that it contains no radioactive material except for lithium-6, when in reality the device uses enriched uranium like a conventional reactor.
I should clarify the implications of this fact:
Powering small communities using uranium-based fission reactors is a neat idea, but by no means should these devices be sold to individuals. Uranium, as it should be, is a controlled substance. And it should only be sold to bodies capable of handling and safekeeping it. Even for a small reactor, there will need to be security needed to safekeep the uranium. This rules out any chances of devices like this being sold to individual users. But small communities with police forces can surely take advantage of these devices.
I don't see a shred of decption in the writing of this article. The sentance in question clearly states that lithium-6 is used in place of control rods, allowing the reactor to last up to 40 years. I know I went away from reading the article assuming that uranium was still invloved.
I'm afraid that you are seeing conflict here just because you want something to bitch about.
Read the other comments. Some readers are clearly left with the assumption that lithium-6 is used to power the device.
Woohoo -- mini Chernobyls in bedroom communities all across the world!
"We're moving on up, to the east side, to a DEE-Luxe apartment..."
Have you even considered the effects of some one stealing nuclear fuel (after it's been in the reactor for any amount of time)? Think of it as assured death within a matter of hours, if not less. The only way to safely handle it is either under 30+ feet of water using remote tools or in a lead-line concrete shipping cask which required the use of a large crane and semi truck. While it makes people sleep well at night to know there are men walking around safeguarding our nuclear industry, it's completely unrealistic to think that a group of individuals could safely steal nuclear fuel.
Just to add to what Tyler said, the expended fuel rods, or for that mater any fuel rod that's been in a reactor for any amount of time is going to be so radioactive (not in the useful heat generating way, but in the deadly gamma-ray way) that if you touch a bare rod you are going to have radiation sickness in probably 6 hours and probably be dead in 24-36 hours. And this isn't the kind of sickness that you can just tough it out and still go out on a suicide mission. In 6 hours you will be throwing up, pissing and shitting so much that you won't be able to even stand up. Radiation sickness causes massive dehydration. The radiation itself will have long term consequences but without immediate medical attention radiation sickness will dehydrate you to death in just a few days.
Now modern pebble bed reactors use fuel enriched to only about 5% and the pebbles themselves contain very little reactive material, you'd still need hundreds of pebbles to get enough material to be useful for any kind of dirty bomb. Not only that but uranium itself would make a lousy dirty bomb. Even though uranium is a heavy metal its probably less toxic chemically than lead and the radiation level of 5% enrichment even after being the in the reactor for a year isn't going to be very much to write home about (depleted uranium gives off almost no radiation above the baseline we're all exposed to). Plutonium makes the ideal dirty bomb, it's very very toxic chemically, to the point that inhaling even 1ppm of aerosoled plutonium could kill you. Although the radiation is a bit higher it's the chemical toxicity that you have to worry about.
The picture used is actually Toshiba's "SSS" reactor prototype. A small town in Alaska is currently pursuing getting it to replace it diesel-electric generators. The design is likely identical, just scaled down. The idea is to bury it and remotely monitor the reactor. The coolant will likely be liquid sodium in order to operate at high thermal efficiencies. Speaking for the SSS, it is designed, as I last saw, to operate for 30-40 years untouched (i.e. no refueling). The reality is that no nuclear reactor is maintenance-free. Valves leak. Pumps fail. It's just the nature of mechanical wear. A new-construction reactor would likely require significantly less attention than the existing 103 reactors in the US, however, the NRC would never...EVER...grant a license, let alone a construction permit, for a reactor designed for remote operation.
20-feet by 6-feet ! ?
shit , i was thinking of attaching this "micro" thing to my loptop !
Just the reactor itself is 6x20. Now the shielded reactor building and the power turbine building, that's a whole nuther matter....
...additionally, the limit for commercial reactor fuel enrichment is 5%. I don't ever forsee that changing.
I hope it comes with an IPOD DOC connector.
Mr Bush sez:
"every purchase of a HD-DVD player funds the activities of the Japanese Nukeelar terrorists and threatens the peace of our HomeLand (TM)"
So wait, this just sparked my thoughts of every movie with humans no longer able to reproduce more babies like that "children of men" or even "aeon flux with Charlize Theron"... could Toshiba be the culprit of sterilizing humanity in the future?
Before this post I didn't even know what a Nucular Panner Plant was!
Actually Toshiba's idea is now new. A Canadian reactor much like it was designed in 1967 and marketed from 1971. Here's the Wikipedia link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLOWPOKE_reactor
I love this idea! I'm not a Global Warming fanatic, nor am I a denier. I've always felt that if Global Warming IS partially caused by our technology, that the solution would be a technology solution, not a political one.
Tech all the way baby!!
Dorf
p.s. Is it just me, or is a personal nuke reactor the ultimate gadget? What can top that?
One word: Teleporter. :-)
Where do I sign up for that bad boy!
dude i want one to power moms camera the thing cant hold a charge.
Nuclear or nukular reactor? I've heard one of these is a bad thing.
Finally, enough energy to power my warp drive, time machine, transporter, ...
So that's 5 seasons - Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter and Nuclear Winter. Great.
Finnaly!
An easy way to lower the world population, without war or natural desaster. And folks will stand in line and PAY to get one!
So where are we going to put Christmas?
(Sorry, forgot to add this to the above
Let's build these everywhere and force those OPEC nations to start eating their overpriced crap.