Portable Nuclear Battery in the Development Stages 439
Xight writes "The Santa Fe Reporter has up an article about a portable nuclear reactor, about the size of a hot tub. Despite it's 'small' size the company that is planning to develop the product (Hyperion Power Generation), claims it could power up to 25,000 homes. 'Though it would produce 27 megawatts worth of thermal energy, Hyperion doesn't like to think of its product as a reactor. It's self-contained, involves no moving parts and, therefore, doesn't require a human operator. "In fact, we prefer to call it a 'drive' or a 'battery' or a 'module' in that it's so safe," Hyperion spokeswoman Deborah Blackwell says. "Like you don't open a double-A battery, you just plug [the reactor] in and it does its chemical thing inside of it. You don't ever open it or mess with it."' If all goes according to plan, Hyperion could have a factory in New Mexico by late 2012, and begin producing 4,000 of these
reactors."
Spokesperson without a clue (Score:3, Informative)
Uh huh... Nuclear reactions are not chemical in nature... spokesperson without a clue.
But on a side note, am I the only one who thought of Asimov's Foundation series, when the Foundationers had nuclear reactors the size of walnuts??? [everything2.com]
Seriously, though I remember something similar made in Japan that would power a remote city in Alaska for 30 years without pollution. [adn.com]
Yay! Go Nukular!
Re:Perfect thing to fit on a truck to ram somewher (Score:3, Informative)
http://rndpic.com/ [rndpic.com]
Re:A lot of propaganda going on here ... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Spokesperson without a clue (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Energy vs Power (Score:2, Informative)
Error in summary (Score:5, Informative)
Re:A lot of propaganda going on here ... (Score:4, Informative)
This thing is called a "Radioisotope thermoelectric generator".
It is nothing new, they were used on the Voyager spacecraft.
They can be much smaller or larger than a bathtub, as the article says.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator [wikipedia.org]
This is wierd (Score:5, Informative)
Wierd. First, it's not a "nuclear battery". Those have been around since the 1950s, and they typically have quite modest power output, from a few watts to a few hundred watts. They're just some radioactive material decaying at its normal rate; they don't use a chain reaction. If this thing is supposed to produce 27MW, it has to be a real nuclear reactor.
And it is. Here's the patent application [uspto.gov], out of Los Alamos National Laboratory. The basic idea is this: "This present invention achieves control by utilizing the properties of a fissile metal hydride as a self-contained nuclear fuel and neutron energy moderator. If the physical size, fissile metal content and enrichment are appropriately selected, the metal will absorb ambient hydrogen, which moderates the neutron energies so that nuclear fission criticality is achieved. The temperature will then be increased by the fission reactions until the dissociation pressure of the hydrogen for that temperature is greater than the ambient pressure of the hydrogen, at which point the hydrogen dissociates from the hydride and the source becomes sub-critical." So that's the way it self-regulates. It's supposed to operate at a constant temperature; if you remove heat with a working fluid, it produces more heat; if you don't, it stabilizes at its normal operating temperature. It's a uranium reactor, using 5% enriched uranium. Runs at 350C to 800C. Uses heat pipes to get the heat out to a working fluid, probably water, used to make steam and drive a turbine.
It's not clear if this is a workable design. There's no prototype. But it's at least plausible. It's not a totally new idea; the TRIGA [ga.com] reactors are self-regulating in a somewhat similar fashion.
The "Los Alamos Study Group" that made critical comments has nothing to do with Los Alamos National Laboratories. Their director "worked as a transportation planner, natural foods manufacturing entrepreneur, high school teacher, hazardous waste investigator, and contaminant hydrologist." [lasg.org]
Re:Chemical Thing (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Fakey McFake (Score:5, Informative)
It is also pretty apparent that you've never seen a nuclear reactor. A reactor itself is pretty small compared to the overall size of a plant. It's the cooling loops, turbines, myriad of control and power equipment, and containment structure that take up space.
Re:A lot of propaganda going on here ... (Score:3, Informative)
You might want to do some basic research before proclaiming your ignorance to the whole wide internet like that.
Re:A lot of propaganda going on here ... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:A lot of propaganda going on here ... (Score:2, Informative)
It's not a good idea pretend you know what you're talking about on slashdot...
Re:A lot of propaganda going on here ... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Perfect thing to fit on a truck to ram somewher (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Perfect thing to fit on a truck to ram somewher (Score:3, Informative)
Prior to 9/11, hijackings occurred when people would just CLAIM to have a bomb. Why? Because all anyone ever wanted was to be flown somewhere or to have hostages for some political leverage. If you just did what they said, your chances of living we quite high. It never occurred to anyone that people would kill themselves and everyone on board in pursuit of virgins.
So, yes, we're obsessed with guns and nukes because you don't just sit around waiting for the next attack, you try to be proactive. The next attack probably isn't going to happen with airplanes, because no one is going to believe the next guy who stands up and says, "Do as I say and you will live!"
Don't confuse the attack on Iraq with 9/11, because the only connection is that Bush found Americans in a surly enough mood that it seemed like a good time to go in. The only place that the US has gone out "and start[ed] fucking up as many muslims as [they] can" is Afghanistan, and you'll have a hard time convincing me that Afghanistan was unwarranted. Also, the US is fairly tame when it comes to rolling into a country. Look into the US in the Philippines (250,000 - 1,000,000 civilians dead) or Japan in China (20 - 35 million dead) for how nasty one can be.
Re:Perfect thing to fit on a truck to ram somewher (Score:2, Informative)
So... you're suggesting that the events of 9/11 didn't count as murder, because small non-governmental groups should be able to kill whoever they want?
Is deposing a cruel tyrant bent on domination of the region, who is determined to produce nuclear weapons, and claimed to his generals that he had already done so, and providing for the foundation of democracy in his place sane? Yes, that is sane.
The military commissions act makes it possible for the US government to designate ANY PERSON an enemy combatant for terrorists acts or (more importantly) aiding or interacting with any other person who acts against the interests of the US. SIC.
That is wildly incorrect. See 928a.1. for the definition. The law provides that the government can only designate those as unlawful enemy combatants who have "engaged in hostilities or who have purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States" or its allies, and who is NOT a member of any regular armed forces or militia of any government, recognized or unrecognized.
Once designated, that person basically loses their rights and enters a kangaroo court system
A designated unlawful combatant has all the rights provided under the military commissions, including a court with a fully qualified and competent judge; a fully qualified and competent defense counsel, either hired by the accused, or else provided by the military; a competent court reporter who makes a verbatim transcript of the proceedings; to be informed of the charges against him, which are to be sworn and signed by a member of the court; the right to not incriminate himself, and any statements obtained by torture are inadmissible; the right to present evidence in his defense; the right to cross-examine the witnesses who testify against him, and to respond to examine and respond to evidence admitted against him; the right to challenge the qualifications of the judge or counsel, including one peremptory challenge; the right to any exculpatory evidence known by the prosecution; the right to a copy of the proceedings; the right to no cruel or unusual punishment; the right of appeal, including appeal of the final judgment to the federal circuit court and to the Supreme Court; etc, etc, etc.
that can include secret evidence, prosecutors talking privately with the judge, sealed testimony from anonymous accusers, etc etc etc. As I said, you have to go read it, carefully.
The only ex parte (talking privately with the judge) that is allowed, is a motion to claim that certain information is classified and should be excluded. No evidence itself is presented ex parte. For national security privilege to be invoked, the head of an executive or military department must find that (1) it is classified, and (2) disclosure would be detrimental to national security. In that event, the judge may delete certain classified items from the document being submitted for evidence, or substitute a portion or a summary of it, to protect sources, methods, or activities. In no case is a defendant tried without knowing the nature of the evidence or without having the opportunity to counter it. Does he have all the rights of a criminal defendant? Of course not. Nor would that be appropriate.
As for habeas corpus (I don't think you mentioned it,