Just to Answer the Most Basic Question: Yes, I'd Have One In My Back Yard

Hyperion Power Generation is bringing to market shed-sized nuclear reactors that will, initially, bring power to places remote from the modern world.

"There is a strong humanitarian bent to these reactors," said John "Grizz" Deal, Hyperion's CEO. "This was invented to provide electricity and hot water to remote locations, where people might not have electricity or clean water."

The reactors generate heat; their skins stay at a constant 500 degrees for seven years, and can be used to purify water or heat steam to drive electric generators.

If the idea of planting nuclear reactors in isolated parts of the world seems like it might be a security risk, consider the basic construction of what the Hyperion is calling the HGP -- the Hyperion Generating Module. (Note to Hyperion: get a marketing department. Translating "Hyperion Generating Module" into HPG does not inspire confidence in your attention to detail.)

The reactors are housed in a sealed steel shell, and are buried far beneath the ground. Extracting one would be a big job, and hauling away a 500 degree, multi-ton nuclear reactor would not be something even a skilled group of thieves could accomplish before a security force could be gathered, trained, take a couple of weeks vacation someplace sunny, catch a commercial flight to wherever and drive out into the hinterlands. And on the off chance someone did manage to steal one, for their trouble they would end up with exactly no weapons-grade uranium.

Max Carbon, author of the book "Nuclear Power: Villain or Victim," and a professor of nuclear engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, agrees that the security risk of Hyperion's reactor is minimal.

"This is low-enrichment uranium, which is not useful for making a bomb," said Carbon. "If terrorists wanted to get radioactive material they could get it elsewhere much easier."

I, personally, get a kick out of having a nuclear power expert named "Max Carbon." Next thing you know, Lou Mileage will be talking about gas prices. But Mr. Carbon's point is valid. If terrorists wanted to steal nuclear material for a dirty bomb, it would be a lot easier for them to raid hospitals and industrial sites than it would be to dig up one of the HPGs. 

The significance of this technology to remote places in search of electricity is vast, but that's not the most important thing, it seems to me. Instead, the fissionable material at the reactor's core is the real breakthrough.

Conventional reactors use highly purified uranium, which then must be controlled by the insertion of neutron-absorbing carbon rods. The rods are withdrawn or inserted to control the heat generated by the core, and the reactor can be operated at various speeds by manipulating the rods. Rods in, the nuclear chain reaction stops; rods out, it heats up. The problem is, if operators make a little mistake in withdrawing the rods the chain reaction can spin out of control and -- hey presto! -- you've got a meltdown.

The nuclear reaction in the HPG (really, I'm sure it's actually "HPM," and someone on the website made a mistake) is controlled by the fissionable material itself. Uranium is mixed with neutron-absorbent material (hydrogen) at just the right level to keep the reactor burning at a constant rate. Once the core is mixed in the lab, there's nothing for anyone to screw up.

That's the real breakthrough: by applying this same technology on a larger scale -- say, barn-sized rather than shed-sized -- we can resume building nuclear plants without risking catastrophe. Smaller, less obtrusive nuclear plants (no containment dome necessary) can be built closer to the cities where nuclear energy is needed and Jane Fonda won't have to make any more bad, earnest movies.

The drawback so far is cost: power generated in the HPMs is roughly 10 times as expensive as power generated in coal-fired plants. But seriously: anyone out there think it's going to stay expensive?  Does anyone want to claim that, in larger plants where economies of scale take hold, this kind of safe nuke isn't going to meet the rising cost of conventional energy somewhere in the middle?

This is, it seems to me, kind of a test case for how serious environmentalists are about global warming. Nuclear power, of this sort, is safe. It generates nowhere near the waste that fossil fuels generate, and doesn't have to be justified with an economic Rube Goldberg device of carbon offsets.

I'm betting serious environmentalists are going to be lining up in favor of this kind of thing in pretty short order.

Comments

[Wally]

Sure, they can make a personal nuclear reactor but but where's the jet-pack they promised me when I was seven years old? Not surprisingly, I'm skeptical about technological innovations that don't actually exist yet. I really hope this comes to fruition, but right now it sounds like trolling for venture capital.

[Tom]

I want a hovercar.

[Frank]

I'm definitely in line for the flying car. But my own personal reactor is right up there as well.

[Wally]

I think Squid's head must have really exploded when the CryptoIslamoCommuTerrorist got elected. Or, his physician finally found a combination of meds that work. Either way, he's gone and I kinda miss the lil fella.

[Andy]

Wally, you want a jetpack? This is aparently going on sale next year:

http://www.popsci.com/bown/2008/product/martin-aircraft-company-martin
-jetpack

This would make the most awesome commute into work EVER.

[Nate]

Heck yeah I want one in my back yard! I'd share the power with my entire neighborhood and vent off the heat to warm my house in the winter.

[Wally]

My commute is only 3 blocks, so the 46 second max flight time might work for me on my commute. I'm thinking you want to be careful where you are at second # 47.
33ft/sec² - it's not just a good idea. It's the law.