Comments on: Hyperion's Nuclear-In-A-Box Ready By 2013

By: The SunCube: Coming in Spring 2010 from Helios Solar

The SunCube: Coming in Spring 2010 from Helios Solar — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:10:46 +0000

[...] the idea of the neatly packaged product, even when it comes to clean power — biofuels, wind and nuclear all come in modular “in-a-box” sizes. In that same vein, Helios Solar, a 2-year-old startup [...]

By: The SunCube: Coming in Spring 2010 from Helios Solar

The SunCube: Coming in Spring 2010 from Helios Solar — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 08:00:33 +0000

[...] idea of the neatly packaged product, even when it comes to clean power — biofuels, wind and nuclear all come in modular “in-a-box” sizes. In that same vein, Helios Solar, a 2-year-old [...]

By: sb777

sb777 — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:36:28 +0000

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

sb777 — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:34:05 +0000

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

Dave — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:31:51 +0000

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

Aaron — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:41:08 +0000

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

Tue, 06 Jan 2009 22:17:17 +0000

[...] 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

Nuclear Energy More Expensive Than Some Clean Power, Study Says — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 08:33:37 +0000

By: Nuclear Energy More Expensive Than Some Clean Power, Study Says « Earth2Tech

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 23:00:39 +0000

By: Top 10 Earth2Tech Stories of 2008 « Earth2Tech

Top 10 Earth2Tech Stories of 2008 « Earth2Tech — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 08:01:11 +0000

[...] Hyperion’s Nuclear-In-A-Box Ready By 2013: Ah Hyperion… one of the more — how should we put it? — unusual clean power ideas [...]