Mini nuclear plant is safe, affordable and purifies water (but doesn't turn lead into gold)

This isn't the first time we've seen a micro nuclear reactor, and with the looming energy crisis it probably won't be the last. Designed by scientists at Los Alamos, the Hyperion Power Module will retail for $25 million, has no moving parts, is about the size of a hot tub (less than 5 feet wide) and should generate enough electricity for about 10,000 homes, running up to ten years before it needs refueled. And if all that isn't enough, the company claims that the module is meltdown proof (the small amount of enclosed fuel would immediately cool if ever exposed to open air), that the enclosed material is unsuitable for proliferation, and in addition to generating inexpensive power the HPM can be used to purify water. Are you sold? Be sure to hit that read link -- Hyperion is taking orders now!

[Via Switched]

[kr @ Nov 11th 2008 10:30AM]

Oh no! Not the dreaded Ebergy Crisis!

[Flashpoint @ Nov 11th 2008 10:45AM]

The way I see it, this is the reason we need corporations competing for new alternative energy technology.

Say what you might but I KNOW that with more breakthroughs in technology, FUSION ENERGY IS POSSIBLE !

I want fusion so badly. fusion is plenty safer than Fission because the radioactive half lifes of Fusion waste are far shorter and because a Fusion plant WON'T MELT DOWN like a Fission reactor will.

The added benefit is you can quickly PURIFY WATER like they do on board nuclear submarines.

This makes me SO EXCITED !

[absinthe party @ Nov 11th 2008 10:49AM]

LOUD NOISES

[Skyride @ Nov 11th 2008 11:09AM]

Ye, I totally agree kr.

FYI to people who don't know the difference, Fusion is combing atoms and Fission is destroying them. Current technology is Fission.

[Robotochan @ Nov 11th 2008 11:12AM]

Good news Flashpoint, there are 2 test fusion reactors being built so you should see the wonderful world of fusion energy in your lifetime... I won't say if you'll see it powering your home or melting your eyeballs out though :P

Remember kids...
In Thermonuclear Warfare, the only winning move is not to play.

[j_g_puff @ Nov 11th 2008 11:49AM]

If you love fusion so much, why not just marry it?

As for me, I know that coal is the way forward. There's loads of it and power stations that use it are easy to build. Coal and nuclear are the only sensible options for the time being.

[Wulile @ Nov 11th 2008 12:06PM]

Ya but I can warm my snow suit by farting.

[Major4Play @ Nov 11th 2008 12:25PM]

@ j_g_puff

And coal fired power stations pump out more radiation than a faulty reactor, the trace amounts of radium present in coal.
I'd rather have reactors, nuclear power is all we got, if petrol/gas/coal companies would stop lobbying against it we could get somewhere.

[j_g_puff @ Nov 11th 2008 1:06PM]

Maj,

I'm aware that they're fairly nasty, but they are very economical (it the sense of the economy, not necessarily in the sense of efficiency). nuclear is certainly part of the solution, but I understand that it's not always viable in certain locations/situations. The point is, these technologies should remain in use until renewable solutions become feasable - at present they are NOT feasable, and blindly promoting them over coal/nuclear/gas etc is only retarding the whole process.

[KarlW @ Nov 11th 2008 2:24PM]

The problem with Fusion is that, with current designs, you always use more power than you generate through the fusion process. Fusion has been going on for ages, it's just not a viable means of generating electricity yet.

I don't know about mini nuclear power stations. Surely you wouldn't be able to export them, and would be limited to US-based customers?

[SimbaDogg @ Nov 11th 2008 3:15PM]

@robotochan
nice wargames reference...i've always loved that movie. "would you like to play a game?"

[DirtyVegas @ Nov 11th 2008 3:36PM]

I'm still waiting for the day when crushed baby seals will be a source of energy.

[Cranius Lupus @ Nov 11th 2008 4:21PM]

@ Karlw

Actually thats a minsnomer. Modern fusion is sustained. It just only produces say (pulling stat out of my rump) 10000kwh over what it needs to sustain vs say (another stat pulled out of derrier) 1mw of a Fission reactor.

[romesh @ Nov 11th 2008 4:39PM]

As I recall, the fusion reactors at the moment do *not* produce any power, as KarlW pointed out. However, the reason for this is because all of the fusion reactors to date have been too small to be self-sustaining, hence some energy input has been required to keep the reaction going. ITER will be the first reactor with the (potential) capability of self-sustaining fusion (and hence the first with the ability to generate energy)

[Brad @ Nov 11th 2008 5:16PM]

@Cranius

1 milli-watt?? WTF

[Sam Finnigan @ Nov 11th 2008 5:18PM]

Fusion (commercially, anyway) is, at its earliest, going to be ready around 2060, and that's assuming that everything continues to plan. Remember that in the 1970's it was predicted that fusion would be live by the turn of the century.

JET at Culham Science Center, UK, is the world's current leading Fusion reactor, and even they can only get about 60% of the energy it takes to heat up the plasma back out from fusion process.

The ITER research reactor is the next step (it actually means "the next step" in Latin). Construction at Cadarache, France, started this year. It is assumed from the data collected from JET that ITER will be able to "break even"- that is, 100% of the energy required to start the process will be produced by actual fusion.

After that, DEMO (the Demonstration reactor), and after that, Fusion! So we're well on the way, but there will certainly still be a demand for energy sources that do not produce carbon dioxide (like the above Fission reactor) for a number of years yet.

[fischju @ Nov 11th 2008 9:40PM]

Power producing fusion is technically possible right now, it's just that you need Helium 3. The only usable quantities of which have come from the moon. Unless you want the human race to become the space-roaming resource eating aliens from Independance Day, you have to find another solution.

Also, 'Hyperion' is the name of many techs in Galactic Civilizations.

[thomasblair @ Nov 13th 2008 2:25PM]

This is all well and good, but you still need a turbine and generator plus a transformer and power conditioning equipment to get electricity out of it. It just makes hot water.

[Leindurstit @ Nov 11th 2008 10:30AM]

ebergy

[Loonie @ Nov 11th 2008 11:31AM]

Oh sure, you laugh now. You thibk current ebergy reserves will last forever.

You wob't be laughibg wheb all the ebergy is gobe.

[no_one @ Nov 11th 2008 1:55PM]

NO BLOODY WAY this will ever get approved. First, whole energy business is government and their pals secured, thats why you need a licence to produce any kind of energy to sell in the market that is controlled by them. Also the whole lobby of gas, crude, oil refineries and even the new green-energy zealots will scream in dismay just seeing this thing.

[joe23521 @ Nov 11th 2008 2:00PM]

currebt

[Loonie @ Nov 11th 2008 7:49PM]

bow.

[Drew @ Nov 11th 2008 10:31AM]

And Boom goes the Dynamite.

[Neoprimal @ Nov 11th 2008 11:31AM]

Don't you mean dynanite?

[brandon @ Nov 11th 2008 12:05PM]

Dybamite

[From My Cube @ Nov 11th 2008 10:32AM]

its ok guys, i loaded up my kart with extra ebergy at wally world on saturday

[bill cant fart @ Nov 11th 2008 11:36AM]

...Pervert

[redbellyman @ Nov 11th 2008 12:50PM]

this is so awesome, I need an ebergy machine for my house, I could see the ebergy to my neighbors!

[the tif @ Nov 11th 2008 10:34AM]

Thats pretty cool - and totally redefines "hot tub." Its a jacuzzi you can tan in!

[sip @ Nov 11th 2008 10:37AM]

also, cancer!

[BigD145 @ Nov 11th 2008 12:30PM]

That's a given when tanning is involved.

[Ryan @ Nov 11th 2008 10:36AM]

Can I expect symptoms of a third arm within 5 years? If so, count me in!

[Dorf @ Nov 11th 2008 11:14AM]

I got a third arm.... in my pants!!!

Sorry.. I can't help myself..

[John @ Nov 11th 2008 11:28AM]

That's what she said! That's what she said! That's what she said!

[Jake Tobak @ Nov 11th 2008 11:39AM]

She has a third arm in her pants? kinky

[joe23521 @ Nov 11th 2008 2:03PM]

He is the new she.

[jron @ Nov 11th 2008 10:44AM]

proofreading crisis

[Chris @ Nov 11th 2008 10:45AM]

$21/month for electricity, coolo! I'll take two!

[John @ Nov 11th 2008 10:58AM]

Wow, you're right, it works out to like $20.80 a month over 10 years with 10,000 contributing. What are we waiting for? Sign us all up!

[kal326 @ Nov 11th 2008 11:02AM]

Um, you could get two for that price. Assuming that you can get another 19,999 people on board with you.

$25,000,000/20,000(number from their site)=$1,250 cost per household served
$1,250/10=$125 per year
$125/12=$10.42 per month for electricity.

[FOREX @ Nov 11th 2008 11:05AM]

$25M / 10,000 households = $2500 up front for 10 years of electricity or $21/per month per household

Or...

$25M financed for 10yrs at 6% with an additional 50% of price in transmission costs and taxes = $41.63 per household/month for electricity. Very affordable.

[John @ Nov 11th 2008 11:23AM]

Oh, I was working off the quote from the CEO:

-- "Our goal is to generate electricity for 10 cents a watt anywhere in the world," said John Deal, CEO of Hyperion. "[The nuclear plants] will cost approximately $25 million each. For a community with 10,000 households, that is a very affordable $2,500 per home."

[Max Power @ Nov 11th 2008 12:03PM]

Actually Chris is right. While kal326 is right that website says the reactor will supply 20000 homes not 10000, the site also says the reactor lasts for about 5 years not 10. Which results in the same $21 per month number.

The reactor is probably capable of operating at half capacity for twice the lifetime, which would account for the different numbers out there.

[Bob P @ Nov 11th 2008 12:12PM]

Unfortunately It would cost more than that.

Everyone's forgetting about what it'll cost to get the power to the homes.

Lets say a community decides to purchase one. They'd either have to lease the copper wires from the local power company or put in their own. Then you'd have to either hire maintenance crews or sign a deal with the local power supplier to provide the maintenance. Also unless you just wanted to split the bill evenly, you'd have to hire people to read the meters, .....

Not sure how much all this would add. .

[JT @ Nov 11th 2008 4:04PM]

Power distribution lines are made of aluminum, not copper (though the same can't be said for some of the internals of the goodies on ground level). While not as conductive, it is FAR cheaper. I'd imagine that these plants are the sort of option you'd use if you were looking to supplement an existing power grid just as much as you would in a small community. How often are entirely new towns created/founded in this country? In either case, those infrastructure costs come into play whether your juice comes from starship engines or cracked out ex-con gerbils running on treadmills. So, yes...it would cost a bit more than $21/month/customer to build and run these plants, but any cost increases in infrastructure and maintenance would be spread across all the customers on that grid, not the 10,000 homes closest to the mini nuke plant. So....not much more. Certainly any savings would be passed on to all of the customers on that grid as well, assuming they're passed on along at all. All considered, the upsides sound as though they far outweigh the downsides.

As far as the assumption that "energy business" wouldn't all you to run something like this, that's been wrong for many years already. Private entities that generate their own power, run their own equipment, and sell surplus energy to the grid are a daily reality. That goes for private citizens (obviously on a smaller scale) and private companies. Granted, a mini nuclear plant would be harder than your average generation source to get approved, but that would change once the safety claims are proven (meltdown-proof and unsuitability of waste for weaponization).

[nobb @ Nov 11th 2008 4:24PM]

What about the cost of storing the used atomic fuel safely for a few million years?
Use the power of the sun, the wind, the water, do not go for the "easy" solution, nuclear fission, as it is never going to be safe. The more the USA and other western countries are promoting nuclear power, the more all other countries in this world are going to want that kind of power. Many of those do not have the stability to run nuclear power plants safely, not even those little ones. Can they handle their nuclear waste safely, or might they even be tempted to use it as a threat?
Please consider this when dreaming of nuclear power as the solution to all energy problems.

[foxdude0486 @ Nov 11th 2008 10:47AM]

Can I have one in my back yard? No really, someone has to be the guinnea pig. Stick it in my backyard and power the 10k homes around me as long as I get the power for free I'll live with the third, er.... wait, 4th eye growing on my ass.

[bill cant fart @ Nov 11th 2008 10:49AM]

Well, look at this way, you'll be able to see everything!!

[Mike C @ Nov 11th 2008 11:37AM]

So where is the third one???