There are two: fission and fusion. This would use fission. It would absolutely use the same exact fuel used in all US commercial reactors (U-238 enriched up to 5 w/o U-235) and would be licensed and regulated by the NRC. The difference between that and existing plants is zero. If the NRC finds the design to be acceptible in regards to the health and safety of the public then there would be no reason not to grant a license.
There have been some abstract designs employed throughout history both in the US and abroad. While most have been shut down, that doesn't mean the technology didn't work.
Pretty much everything you said is untrue. While Japan does have an NRC euqivalent (the exact acronym escapes me), they would have zero jurisdiction in the U.S. where any "Special Nuclear Material" is handled. That is, the NRC only tracks the use of nuclear material in commercial applications. The DOE controls all other applications (i.e. the nuclear navy). The reactor would have to go through the same application process as any other new design, such as GEs ESBWR, Westinghouse's AP1000, and AREVAs EPR.
Additionally, the "nuclear batteries" you're referring to are actually just a bunch of unstable isotopes gathered into a canister and the heat generated from their decay is used for energy.
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.
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.
"I need help! I want a small pocket camcorder but I'm not sure which one to get. I don't want to fall into the hype of the Flip because I worry two hours won't be enough. What should I be looking for when considering a small camcorder and where can I get a good quality one with expandable memory? Thanks!"
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
There are two: fission and fusion. This would use fission. It would absolutely use the same exact fuel used in all US commercial reactors (U-238 enriched up to 5 w/o U-235) and would be licensed and regulated by the NRC. The difference between that and existing plants is zero. If the NRC finds the design to be acceptible in regards to the health and safety of the public then there would be no reason not to grant a license.
There have been some abstract designs employed throughout history both in the US and abroad. While most have been shut down, that doesn't mean the technology didn't work.