Comments on: Hyperion’s Nuclear-In-A-Box Ready By 2013 http://earth2tech.com/2008/08/01/hyperions-nuclear-in-a-box-ready-by-2013/ Helping the Earth with Technology Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:02:09 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: sb777 http://earth2tech.com/2008/08/01/hyperions-nuclear-in-a-box-ready-by-2013/#comment-37579 sb777 Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:36:28 +0000 http://earth2tech.com/?p=4654#comment-37579 <p>Whoops. Typo. The third sentence above was supposed to be, "Secondly the type of reaction that goes on in a reactor and the type of reaction that goes on in a bomb are very different."</p> Whoops. Typo. The third sentence above was supposed to be, “Secondly the type of reaction that goes on in a reactor and the type of reaction that goes on in a bomb are very different.”

]]> By: sb777 http://earth2tech.com/2008/08/01/hyperions-nuclear-in-a-box-ready-by-2013/#comment-37577 sb777 Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:34:05 +0000 http://earth2tech.com/?p=4654#comment-37577 <p>You can't make weapons out of nuclear reactors. To begin with, the fuel inside isn't nearly potent enough. Secondly, the type of reaction that goes on in a reactor and the type of reaction that goes on in a bomb. To make a weapon out of one of these, you would have to open it up, take out the fuel rods, separate the good fuel from the stuff that has already been used up, then somehow enrich the fuel to the point where it would be useful as a weapon. At this point the rest of the reactor is useless to you, and you would just be building the very expensive and highly technologically advanced bomb from scratch and putting the fuel you did an unnecessary amount of work to obtain into it.</p> <p>A person would be better off just purchasing some nuclear fuel (It's fairly inexpensive) and putting that into the bomb that they would have to make from scratch anyway.</p> <p>As for leaving the reactors in the ground, first of all, that wouldn't happen, as reactors are very expensive, and the company would lose billions of dollars by leaving them sit there. Secondly, the radiation would not be able to get through the water cooling the reactor and the canister surrounding it. If by some freak chance the reactor did break, the ground would work as a natural radiation shield, and the radiation would likely never get more than 3-6 feet through the dirt.</p> <p>And no, if a worm digs through that dirt, it won't grow 800 feet tall and rampage through Tokyo. That's just not how the world works. :)</p> You can’t make weapons out of nuclear reactors. To begin with, the fuel inside isn’t nearly potent enough. Secondly, the type of reaction that goes on in a reactor and the type of reaction that goes on in a bomb. To make a weapon out of one of these, you would have to open it up, take out the fuel rods, separate the good fuel from the stuff that has already been used up, then somehow enrich the fuel to the point where it would be useful as a weapon. At this point the rest of the reactor is useless to you, and you would just be building the very expensive and highly technologically advanced bomb from scratch and putting the fuel you did an unnecessary amount of work to obtain into it.

A person would be better off just purchasing some nuclear fuel (It’s fairly inexpensive) and putting that into the bomb that they would have to make from scratch anyway.

As for leaving the reactors in the ground, first of all, that wouldn’t happen, as reactors are very expensive, and the company would lose billions of dollars by leaving them sit there. Secondly, the radiation would not be able to get through the water cooling the reactor and the canister surrounding it. If by some freak chance the reactor did break, the ground would work as a natural radiation shield, and the radiation would likely never get more than 3-6 feet through the dirt.

And no, if a worm digs through that dirt, it won’t grow 800 feet tall and rampage through Tokyo. That’s just not how the world works. :)

]]> By: Dave http://earth2tech.com/2008/08/01/hyperions-nuclear-in-a-box-ready-by-2013/#comment-33408 Dave Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:31:51 +0000 http://earth2tech.com/?p=4654#comment-33408 <p>Its not the safety of the unit thats in question. Medical irradation devices are very safe - until a facility goes bust or something and someone gets hold of one, chops it up for scrap and releases the isotopes.</p> <p>What are the chances of one of these <em>not</em> becoming a terrorist target <em>or</em> getting dismantled by the wrong people?</p> <p>Nice idea, but if you think it'll end up in an unstable third world country or outside of a specialist facility elsewhere you're dreaming.</p> Its not the safety of the unit thats in question. Medical irradation devices are very safe – until a facility goes bust or something and someone gets hold of one, chops it up for scrap and releases the isotopes.

What are the chances of one of these not becoming a terrorist target or getting dismantled by the wrong people?

Nice idea, but if you think it’ll end up in an unstable third world country or outside of a specialist facility elsewhere you’re dreaming.

]]> By: Aaron http://earth2tech.com/2008/08/01/hyperions-nuclear-in-a-box-ready-by-2013/#comment-33395 Aaron Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:41:08 +0000 http://earth2tech.com/?p=4654#comment-33395 <p>Uranium production? We only use uranium in nuclear reactors to GET uranium for atomic bombs. That's the misconception. You can pursue nuclear energy without getting uranium if you use a thorium fuel, which is more common and more efficient.</p> <p>People are so hard on nuclear energy without ever doing any research on the subject. They just hear nuclear and shudder. If you have no qualms about driving around in your gasoline powered metal deathtrap (your car), then you have no right to be concerned about the safety of nuclear energy.</p> Uranium production? We only use uranium in nuclear reactors to GET uranium for atomic bombs. That’s the misconception. You can pursue nuclear energy without getting uranium if you use a thorium fuel, which is more common and more efficient.

People are so hard on nuclear energy without ever doing any research on the subject. They just hear nuclear and shudder. If you have no qualms about driving around in your gasoline powered metal deathtrap (your car), then you have no right to be concerned about the safety of nuclear energy.

]]> By: Nuclear Energy More Expensive Than Some Clean Power, Study Says | Eco Friendly Mag http://earth2tech.com/2008/08/01/hyperions-nuclear-in-a-box-ready-by-2013/#comment-23485 Nuclear Energy More Expensive Than Some Clean Power, Study Says | Eco Friendly Mag Tue, 06 Jan 2009 22:17:17 +0000 http://earth2tech.com/?p=4654#comment-23485 <p>[...] for energy from new facilities. As for next-generation nuclear technology (like Hyperion’s nuclear-in-a-hot-tub-sized-box device), Climate Progress considers it a fine idea — and worth pursuing — but not likely to [...]</p> [...] for energy from new facilities. As for next-generation nuclear technology (like Hyperion’s nuclear-in-a-hot-tub-sized-box device), Climate Progress considers it a fine idea — and worth pursuing — but not likely to [...]

]]> By: Nuclear Energy More Expensive Than Some Clean Power, Study Says http://earth2tech.com/2008/08/01/hyperions-nuclear-in-a-box-ready-by-2013/#comment-23449 Nuclear Energy More Expensive Than Some Clean Power, Study Says Tue, 06 Jan 2009 08:33:37 +0000 http://earth2tech.com/?p=4654#comment-23449 <p>[...] for energy from new facilities. As for next-generation nuclear technology (like Hyperion’s nuclear-in-a-hot-tub-sized-box device), Climate Progress considers it a fine idea — and worth pursuing — but not likely to [...]</p> [...] for energy from new facilities. As for next-generation nuclear technology (like Hyperion’s nuclear-in-a-hot-tub-sized-box device), Climate Progress considers it a fine idea — and worth pursuing — but not likely to [...]

]]> By: Nuclear Energy More Expensive Than Some Clean Power, Study Says « Earth2Tech http://earth2tech.com/2008/08/01/hyperions-nuclear-in-a-box-ready-by-2013/#comment-23411 Nuclear Energy More Expensive Than Some Clean Power, Study Says « Earth2Tech Mon, 05 Jan 2009 23:00:39 +0000 http://earth2tech.com/?p=4654#comment-23411 <p>[...] for energy from new facilities. As for next-generation nuclear technology (like Hyperion’s nuclear-in-a-hot-tub-sized-box device), Climate Progress considers it a fine idea — and worth pursuing — but not [...]</p> [...] for energy from new facilities. As for next-generation nuclear technology (like Hyperion’s nuclear-in-a-hot-tub-sized-box device), Climate Progress considers it a fine idea — and worth pursuing — but not [...]

]]> By: Top 10 Earth2Tech Stories of 2008 « Earth2Tech http://earth2tech.com/2008/08/01/hyperions-nuclear-in-a-box-ready-by-2013/#comment-23068 Top 10 Earth2Tech Stories of 2008 « Earth2Tech Tue, 30 Dec 2008 08:01:11 +0000 http://earth2tech.com/?p=4654#comment-23068 <p>[...] Hyperion’s Nuclear-In-A-Box Ready By 2013: Ah Hyperion… one of the more — how should we put it? — unusual clean power ideas [...]</p> [...] Hyperion’s Nuclear-In-A-Box Ready By 2013: Ah Hyperion… one of the more — how should we put it? — unusual clean power ideas [...]

]]> By: Carl Wodard http://earth2tech.com/2008/08/01/hyperions-nuclear-in-a-box-ready-by-2013/#comment-21623 Carl Wodard Tue, 02 Dec 2008 21:09:48 +0000 http://earth2tech.com/?p=4654#comment-21623 <p>The small nuclear reactor looks great. Electricity and power from nuclear reactors has always been the safest way to generate power for Submarines, shipe and electricty for public use. Those who doubt this should perform searches on their computers to obtain factual study reports made by independant qualified analyst. They should search for reports covering: The dangers of nuclear power, The relative risks of nuclear power, The dangers of fossil fuels to health, Reductions in life expantancy from various sources,etal. Coal is radioactive.</p> The small nuclear reactor looks great.
Electricity and power from nuclear reactors has always been the safest way to generate power for Submarines, shipe and electricty for public use. Those who doubt this should perform searches on their computers to obtain factual study reports made by independant qualified analyst. They should search for reports covering: The dangers of nuclear power, The relative risks of nuclear power, The dangers of fossil fuels to health, Reductions in life expantancy from various sources,etal. Coal is radioactive.

]]> By: Ben http://earth2tech.com/2008/08/01/hyperions-nuclear-in-a-box-ready-by-2013/#comment-16804 Ben Sat, 06 Sep 2008 21:49:21 +0000 http://earth2tech.com/?p=4654#comment-16804 <p>What is really scary about this is how little most people seem to know about nuclear power. If designed properly (like NEW ones are, but the hippies didn't want any new ones being built) nuclear reactors are about as fool proof as anything can possibly be.</p> What is really scary about this is how little most people seem to know about nuclear power. If designed properly (like NEW ones are, but the hippies didn’t want any new ones being built) nuclear reactors are about as fool proof as anything can possibly be.

]]> By: James Neal http://earth2tech.com/2008/08/01/hyperions-nuclear-in-a-box-ready-by-2013/#comment-16549 James Neal Sun, 31 Aug 2008 04:37:05 +0000 http://earth2tech.com/?p=4654#comment-16549 <p>Does this mean that i could have a nucleur powerd submarine in a few years...</p> Does this mean that i could have a nucleur powerd
submarine in a few years…

]]> By: Hyperion Signs First Customer for Nuclear Pods « Earth2Tech http://earth2tech.com/2008/08/01/hyperions-nuclear-in-a-box-ready-by-2013/#comment-15622 Hyperion Signs First Customer for Nuclear Pods « Earth2Tech Tue, 12 Aug 2008 15:26:19 +0000 http://earth2tech.com/?p=4654#comment-15622 <p>[...] Katie Fehrenbacher No Comments Posted August 12th, 2008 at 8:26 am in Startups A lot of the responses to our posts on startup Hyperion Power Generation and its nuclear-in-a-box solution have questioned whether this [...]</p> [...] Katie Fehrenbacher No Comments Posted August 12th, 2008 at 8:26 am in Startups A lot of the responses to our posts on startup Hyperion Power Generation and its nuclear-in-a-box solution have questioned whether this [...]

]]> By: rmark http://earth2tech.com/2008/08/01/hyperions-nuclear-in-a-box-ready-by-2013/#comment-15399 rmark Fri, 08 Aug 2008 12:00:42 +0000 http://earth2tech.com/?p=4654#comment-15399 <p>Actually, it's not a backyard nuke - it's looks to be a large electrical substation nuke, able to power a large number of homes. Two of these would supply most of the town I live in, with a very small footprint. An having the more dangerous components underground seems to be a very good choice, limiting chances of tampering.</p> Actually, it’s not a backyard nuke – it’s looks to be a large electrical substation nuke, able to power a large number of homes. Two of these would supply most of the town I live in, with a very small footprint. An having the more dangerous components underground seems to be a very good choice, limiting chances of tampering.

]]> By: doctorpat http://earth2tech.com/2008/08/01/hyperions-nuclear-in-a-box-ready-by-2013/#comment-15378 doctorpat Fri, 08 Aug 2008 02:46:33 +0000 http://earth2tech.com/?p=4654#comment-15378 <p>I can see the advantages. 27 MW of solar power for example destroys about 10 hectares of land, so clearly this is far more environmentally friendly.</p> <p>It doesn't solve the real problem of nuclear power though, which is that many people are irrationally scared of it.</p> I can see the advantages. 27 MW of solar power for example destroys about 10 hectares of land, so clearly this is far more environmentally friendly.

It doesn’t solve the real problem of nuclear power though, which is that many people are irrationally scared of it.

]]> By: Phil Henshaw http://earth2tech.com/2008/08/01/hyperions-nuclear-in-a-box-ready-by-2013/#comment-15363 Phil Henshaw Thu, 07 Aug 2008 23:02:34 +0000 http://earth2tech.com/?p=4654#comment-15363 <p>One of the reasons for backyard nukes is that the acreage of solar panels needed to supply the energy to produce and deliver our goods and services won't fit in anyone's back yard. It's huge, in case you haven't done the calculation. I think there will be regulatory problems, but we also have unanimous agreement from the political right, left and green that we all need to continually increase our rate of increasing everything people want (money), so ramping up the expansion of our energy sources is something everyone is going to have to figure out how to do. There just are not a lot of good options, so we're stuck with multiplying the less good ones...</p> One of the reasons for backyard nukes is that the acreage of solar panels needed to supply the energy to produce and deliver our goods and services won’t fit in anyone’s back yard. It’s huge, in case you haven’t done the calculation. I think there will be regulatory problems, but we also have unanimous agreement from the political right, left and green that we all need to continually increase our rate of increasing everything people want (money), so ramping up the expansion of our energy sources is something everyone is going to have to figure out how to do. There just are not a lot of good options, so we’re stuck with multiplying the less good ones…

]]> By: DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » Hyperion’s Nuclear-In-A-Box Ready By 2013 http://earth2tech.com/2008/08/01/hyperions-nuclear-in-a-box-ready-by-2013/#comment-15360 DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » Hyperion’s Nuclear-In-A-Box Ready By 2013 Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:42:16 +0000 http://earth2tech.com/?p=4654#comment-15360 <p>[...] Read it. [...]</p> [...] Read it. [...]

]]>