.One reactor is enough for 20,000 homes, that makes 1 for Whitehorse and 1 for Yellowknife and that's all for the Canadian territories. Hard to make a living on that.
Hyperion?
Even if you install a reactor in Wasilla, you'll still need a long line to distribute electricity up to beautiful Chicken, AK. I'm not sure the community will like the idea anyway.
.
One reactor is enough for 20,000 homes, that makes 1 for Whitehorse and 1 for Yellowknife and that's all for the Canadian territories. Hard to make a living on that.
.One reactor is enough for 20,000 homes, that makes 1 for Whitehorse and 1 for Yellowknife and that's all for the Canadian territories. Hard to make a living on that.
I think ducted-fan type vehicles have a lot of promise, long-term, as a personal transport.The Moller vehicle is taking its time in development I grant you that, but at least we have seen prototypes hovering about in the air
I was an early Moller SkyCar enthusiast, almost to the point of being an investor. To their credit they made it clear it was very, very risky. I'm glad I didn't put any money into it.
Another link from September 22, 2008 that I've not seen on this thread.
This is an interview with John Deal, the CEO of Hyperion Power Generation:
http://www.techrockies.com/story/0017490.html
Note that he differentiates powering homes in the U.S. vs. homes outside the U.S.
This is an interview with John Deal, the CEO of Hyperion Power Generation:
http://www.techrockies.com/story/0017490.html
Note that he differentiates powering homes in the U.S. vs. homes outside the U.S.
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.
"Just because you can," doesn't mean "you should."
I wonder if thats the same girl I knew from high school.JohnP wrote:I'm still wondering who 'lorry' is, and why they're making her carry these things.Mini nuclear plants to power 20,000 homes
£13m shed-size reactors will be delivered by lorry
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.
update from psyorg.com:
Update (November 12, 2008): The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) contacted PhysOrg.com to state that the NRC has no plans to review the Hyperion design in the near future, although the NRC and Hyperion have had preliminary talks. Because the Hyperion design is unique, the NRC expects that it will take significant time to ensure safety requirements. In a response to a letter from October 2008, the NRC stated:
“Hyperion Power Generation is in the early stages of development of this design, and very little testing information is available for this design concept. Hyperion Power Generation has indicated that it will submit technical reports to support a pre-application review in late FY 2009. The NRC cannot engage in any meaningful, formal technical interaction with the potential applicant until we receive those reports. Because of the very limited amount of test data and lack of operating experience available for a uranium hydride reactor, the NRC staff anticipates that a licensing review would involve significant technical, safety, and licensing policy issues.”
To put things in perspective from a regulatory viewpoint, there is a licensed interim storage facility for 40,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel in Utah. It uses the standard dry storage technology. It took them 8 and 1/2 years to get the NRC license. Unfortunately, the only thing that exists there is the license. The Bureau of Indian Affairs disapproved the lease, and the Department of the Interior blocked rail access. See http://privatefuelstorage.com/Update (November 12, 2008): --snip--
“Hyperion Power Generation is in the early stages of development of this design, and very little testing information is available for this design concept. --snip--
Particular problems that I see with HYPE-rion is that the fuel is powdered and is continuously converting between Uranium and Uranium Hydride. The Hydrogen must be kept under pressure. A leak will vent all the radioactive gases including tritium. It will also be interesting to transport because both hydrogen and powdered uranium are flammable. A powdered fuel form is far from ideal from a transportation point of view because the fission products will not be strongly bound.
Fusion is easy, but break even is horrendous.
Hyperion is real and makes sense
I write nextbigfuture.com.
1. Obviously those who believed that Hyperion Power Generation is a
scam are wrong, since the company has been in discussions with the NRC and has been making presentations at respectable conferences. Then the issue is not if they are real but can they deliver and when would they deliver. The NRC had a powerpoint where they estimated review times.
There is less question about the viability of whether a new liquid metal nuclear fission reactor will work than the polywell reactor.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-colle ... mtg-r2.pdf
On page 8 of this PDF, the NRC is estimating 2008-2011 for hyperion
pre-application work and then 2012-2015 for license review. Hyperion
is shooting for June 2013. So Hyperion needs to helpt he NRC
accelerate by 18 months to meet their schedule. The NRC has indicated
that the schedule is tentative pending the actual application.
The NRC strategy is to use the licensee generated work for the
licensing. ie. NRC will make Hyperion do the work to answer NRC
questions. NRC just needs to have a few people who understand what to
ask and understand prepared answers. this is the same as building code
licenses at cities. The city department building people depend upon
the builders, architects and engineers highrises, buildings and
buildings to prepare the proof of safety and reliability.
Uranium hydride is real. Edward Teller tried to make bombs out of the
stuff back in the 1950s and got a disappointing 200 tons of explosion.
As you noted in a comment there is the question of how well the self
regulation and moderation of the hydrogen will work in the HPG
patented approach from LANL.
2. The system has the potential to save a lot of money for enhancing
oil and oilshale
For getting oil from oil shale this system can supply heat instead of
natural gas. Hyperion also offers a 70% reduction in operating costs
(based on costs for field-generation of steam in oil-shale recovery
operations), from $11 per million BTU for natural gas to $3 per
million BTU for Hyperion. Over five years, a single Hyperion reactor
can save $2 billion in operating costs in a heavy oil field. A lot of
the initial one hundred orders are from oil and gas companies.
Even taking an extra 5 years to full automation and having some higher
initially costs is not fatal to the company or the ideas. Being able
to sell to oil and gas firms internationally or in China while
awaiting full NRC approval could still work. ie. An extra few years to
really deliver but have some sales to keep things going until the full
vision is realized. I think it is somewhat comparable to SpaceX.
Trying to take an innovative approach to an older tech problem, with
an entrepreneurial effort. The superior approach should be result in
systems that have advantages, but execution will be only be seen as it
unfolds.
So the cost can go up a lot and this thing is still worthwhile. They will not place the reactor in "people's backyards". Initially at existing nuclear sites to enhance power as well as in suitable industrial zoned areas with reasonable precautions.
3. The concept of getting to factory mass production and shorter build
times makes a lot sense.
4. China is looking to factory mass produce their 200MW high
temperature reactor (first one going in 2009-2013). China seems likely
to push ahead to execute on this even if initial costs are higher than
expected. They have the money to stick with it and execute. 8+ units
with common control center.
Russia is looking to mass produce small breeder reactors that are
factory mass produced. Russia is building their 800MW breeder now
Beloyarsk-4 and is in an agreement to sell one like it to China.
Russia has had the 600MW breeder running for decades. Russia's oil and
gas money should fund this through to completion with the goal of
remaining an energy power after the oil and gas run out.
Mass produced
More automated design and new approach to safety
Deep burn fission (new types of reactors)
smaller systems for better economics
Are ideas that should be pursued along with innovative nuclear fusion.
Even if HPG fails, those new ideas for nuclear fission are good.[/url]
1. Obviously those who believed that Hyperion Power Generation is a
scam are wrong, since the company has been in discussions with the NRC and has been making presentations at respectable conferences. Then the issue is not if they are real but can they deliver and when would they deliver. The NRC had a powerpoint where they estimated review times.
There is less question about the viability of whether a new liquid metal nuclear fission reactor will work than the polywell reactor.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-colle ... mtg-r2.pdf
On page 8 of this PDF, the NRC is estimating 2008-2011 for hyperion
pre-application work and then 2012-2015 for license review. Hyperion
is shooting for June 2013. So Hyperion needs to helpt he NRC
accelerate by 18 months to meet their schedule. The NRC has indicated
that the schedule is tentative pending the actual application.
The NRC strategy is to use the licensee generated work for the
licensing. ie. NRC will make Hyperion do the work to answer NRC
questions. NRC just needs to have a few people who understand what to
ask and understand prepared answers. this is the same as building code
licenses at cities. The city department building people depend upon
the builders, architects and engineers highrises, buildings and
buildings to prepare the proof of safety and reliability.
Uranium hydride is real. Edward Teller tried to make bombs out of the
stuff back in the 1950s and got a disappointing 200 tons of explosion.
As you noted in a comment there is the question of how well the self
regulation and moderation of the hydrogen will work in the HPG
patented approach from LANL.
2. The system has the potential to save a lot of money for enhancing
oil and oilshale
For getting oil from oil shale this system can supply heat instead of
natural gas. Hyperion also offers a 70% reduction in operating costs
(based on costs for field-generation of steam in oil-shale recovery
operations), from $11 per million BTU for natural gas to $3 per
million BTU for Hyperion. Over five years, a single Hyperion reactor
can save $2 billion in operating costs in a heavy oil field. A lot of
the initial one hundred orders are from oil and gas companies.
Even taking an extra 5 years to full automation and having some higher
initially costs is not fatal to the company or the ideas. Being able
to sell to oil and gas firms internationally or in China while
awaiting full NRC approval could still work. ie. An extra few years to
really deliver but have some sales to keep things going until the full
vision is realized. I think it is somewhat comparable to SpaceX.
Trying to take an innovative approach to an older tech problem, with
an entrepreneurial effort. The superior approach should be result in
systems that have advantages, but execution will be only be seen as it
unfolds.
So the cost can go up a lot and this thing is still worthwhile. They will not place the reactor in "people's backyards". Initially at existing nuclear sites to enhance power as well as in suitable industrial zoned areas with reasonable precautions.
3. The concept of getting to factory mass production and shorter build
times makes a lot sense.
4. China is looking to factory mass produce their 200MW high
temperature reactor (first one going in 2009-2013). China seems likely
to push ahead to execute on this even if initial costs are higher than
expected. They have the money to stick with it and execute. 8+ units
with common control center.
Russia is looking to mass produce small breeder reactors that are
factory mass produced. Russia is building their 800MW breeder now
Beloyarsk-4 and is in an agreement to sell one like it to China.
Russia has had the 600MW breeder running for decades. Russia's oil and
gas money should fund this through to completion with the goal of
remaining an energy power after the oil and gas run out.
Mass produced
More automated design and new approach to safety
Deep burn fission (new types of reactors)
smaller systems for better economics
Are ideas that should be pursued along with innovative nuclear fusion.
Even if HPG fails, those new ideas for nuclear fission are good.[/url]
-
StevePoling
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 8:03 pm
- Location: grand rapids, MI
- Contact:
What he says...
Kudos to bwang. Two sites on my "check every day" list talk-polywell.com and nextbigfuture. If anything I've said about Hyperion contradicts bwang, believe him, not me.
The NRC.
The NRC mentioned Hyperion in a recent "release" :
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-colle ... -15-08.pdf
This doesn't bode well for anyone investigating new technologies that might fall under their auspices of the NRC. Its a little strange, since no new Light Water reactors have been commissioned for over a decade.
On the Plus side, extreme underachievers and foot dragging near'er do wells have a great government agency where they're sure to fit in.
I saw this release on the http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/
Jan 1, Charles Barton; The NRC bombs.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-colle ... -15-08.pdf
This doesn't bode well for anyone investigating new technologies that might fall under their auspices of the NRC. Its a little strange, since no new Light Water reactors have been commissioned for over a decade.
On the Plus side, extreme underachievers and foot dragging near'er do wells have a great government agency where they're sure to fit in.
I saw this release on the http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/
Jan 1, Charles Barton; The NRC bombs.