Toshiba's building a "Micro Nuclear" reactor for your garage?

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)

[anderlan @ Jan 30th 2008 4:51PM]

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

[jmattick @ Dec 19th 2007 11:45AM]

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.

[Jared @ Dec 19th 2007 11:48AM]

Not necessarily, just because it has radioactive material doesn't make it weapons grade.

[Flashpoint @ Dec 19th 2007 11:49AM]

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.

[tom @ Dec 19th 2007 11:53AM]

Imagine the whole apartment's residences going impotent hahahahahha

[Phil Perman @ Dec 19th 2007 11:58AM]

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.

[Randy @ Dec 19th 2007 12:03PM]

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. ;-)

[Phil Perman @ Dec 19th 2007 12:12PM]

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.

[jus10 @ Dec 19th 2007 1:33PM]

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.

[Xzavier @ Dec 19th 2007 1:54PM]

@ 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

[IndiaTech @ Dec 19th 2007 2:00PM]

@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.

[Trent @ Dec 19th 2007 3:00PM]

@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.

[Zoesch @ Dec 19th 2007 3:47PM]

Not at all, all that Lithium in the air will make us happy as clams... weeeeeeeeeeee!

[John Doe @ Dec 20th 2007 1:06AM]

@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

[Jonathan-DBOSS @ Dec 19th 2007 11:45AM]

Will it come in black?

[mr friggles @ Dec 19th 2007 12:09PM]

Can't wait pre-order two and tell them for %50,000,00 a piece on ebay.

[mr friggles @ Dec 19th 2007 12:10PM]

I typed that wrong. See my post below for the create typing.

[Flashpoint @ Dec 19th 2007 12:57PM]

Finally, enough power for my Xbox360

[Larz @ Dec 19th 2007 1:56PM]

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.

[AlexP @ Dec 19th 2007 2:22PM]

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.

[AlexP @ Dec 19th 2007 2:26PM]

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.

[Larz @ Dec 19th 2007 2:48PM]

"Radioactivity takes millions if not BILLIONS of years to disappear."

All the more reason to switch. Burning coal produces more radioactive waste than nuclear.

[Trent @ Dec 19th 2007 2:49PM]

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.

[w00fy @ Dec 19th 2007 4:31PM]

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.

[fontendet24 @ Dec 19th 2007 4:21PM]

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.

[Redsyrup @ Dec 19th 2007 5:01PM]

If it's good enough for the sun, then it's good enough for me.

[aguiluz @ Dec 19th 2007 5:07PM]

And, It comes with a self destruct button too.

[AlexP @ Dec 19th 2007 5:18PM]

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.

[Mark Brakenhoff @ Dec 19th 2007 11:52AM]

As a bonus I bet it makes you sterile.

[Andrew @ Dec 19th 2007 11:50AM]

The short answer is "no".

[Jeebus @ Dec 19th 2007 12:49PM]

Luddite.

[Jack @ Dec 19th 2007 11:50AM]

That is brilliant! where do I sign?

[Ryan Trevisol @ Dec 19th 2007 12:07PM]

Pfft. Sell-out. I'm still waiting for Cuisinart's Mr. Fusion.

[shadyw @ Dec 19th 2007 11:51AM]

"... 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!

[starkruzr @ Dec 19th 2007 11:58AM]

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.

[68newyorker @ Dec 19th 2007 12:31PM]

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.

[newgalactic @ Dec 19th 2007 1:46PM]

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.

[SteveA @ Dec 20th 2007 10:43AM]

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

[Bubba @ Dec 19th 2007 11:53AM]

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

[packy @ Dec 19th 2007 12:07PM]

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.

[mr friggles @ Dec 19th 2007 12:15PM]

You put freak and pee in their pants in the same sentence. You must be into some freakay stuff huh

[Randy @ Dec 19th 2007 12:26PM]

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.

[Penguin Warlord @ Dec 19th 2007 4:02PM]

Because the US is a prime example of the saying "If you make something idiot proof, they'll make a better idiot."

[Burrrrp! @ Dec 19th 2007 7:09PM]

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.

[nikster @ Dec 19th 2007 7:09PM]

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!

[Marshall @ Dec 19th 2007 11:55AM]

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.

[Jacob @ Dec 19th 2007 12:43PM]

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.

[CharlieX @ Dec 19th 2007 11:56AM]

Finally I can power my Xbox 360!

[pokstad @ Dec 19th 2007 2:02PM]

Quit stealing other people's uncanny wit, you unoriginal bastard.

[CharlieX @ Dec 19th 2007 5:56PM]

I'm not a bastard. you're a bastard! you bastard!!!