[Jonny_C]

An interesting new development...

Quote:

The output of Toshiba's new small reactor will be 10,000 kilowatts to 50,000 kilowatts, about 1 percent-5 percent that of a regular nuclear reactor, according to the sources.

Steam generated in the reactor will be sent to strata located at a depth of about 300 meters, where oil sands are found, to turn the sand into slurry. The slurry will then be extracted from the strata using a separate pipe.

To ensure the reactor's safety, Toshiba reportedly plans to construct a nuclear reactor building underground, while the building itself will be equipped with an earthquake-absorbing structure.

Full details @

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/business/T130115004424.htm

[martin14]

Interesting idea, too bad our candu folks didnt think of it.

or develop it.

or copy it.

[Zipperfish]

Better than buring oil to get oil.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish wrote:

Better than buring oil to get oil.

[DanSC]

Sounds like a great idea. It will at least distract the "Fraking is Evil!" crowd.

[Zipperfish]

DanSC wrote:

Sounds like a great idea. It will at least distract the "Fraking is Evil!" crowd.

The "Fracking is Evil" crowd should be overjoyed, since nuclear technology will reduce oil sands use of shale gas (for which bedrock fracturing is generally used).

[Thanos]

Might happen a couple of years from now if Wildrose gets in. Will certainly never happen under the Pink Tories we have in charge right now. The chimpout from the environmentalists and Natives will be of Category 5 intensity for whoever puts the idea forward.

[DrCaleb]

Thanos wrote:

Might happen a couple of years from now if Wildrose gets in. Will certainly never happen under the Pink Tories we have in charge right now. The chimpout from the environmentalists and Natives will be of Category 5 intensity for whoever puts the idea forward.

Bruce Power already proposed one for North West Alberta, AKA:Peace Country. Of course, they had the good sense to locate it on the opposite side of the province from the Oilsands plants, and right next to a Provincial Park.

Then they abandoned the proposal, saying it wasn't economically viable.


Duh.

[Xort]

Still a solid fuel pressurized water reactor. Better than burning gas, but not worth the money when we have better nuclear options.

Would be nice, I hear you can burn the tears of enviromentalists for power too.

[DrCaleb]

Xort wrote:

Still a solid fuel pressurized water reactor. Better than burning gas, but not worth the money when we have better nuclear options.

Would be nice, I hear you can burn the tears of enviromentalists for power too.

Sodium as the coolant is better. Water can corrode reactor pipes, but molten salt won't. Which is why the Toshiba line use just that. It's much more maintainence friendly too.

And, it's the tears of African Children that are the better substitute.

[Jonny_C]

DrCaleb wrote:

And, it's the tears of African Children that are the better substitute.

You must have had a reason for writing that but I don't get it.

[DrCaleb]

Jonny_C wrote:

DrCaleb wrote:

And, it's the tears of African Children that are the better substitute.

You must have had a reason for writing that but I don't get it.

Partly sarcasm. Partly because I'm tired of seeing us burning oil and natural gas because environmentalists can't get past 3 Mile Island or Chernobyl and move into the 2000's where there are real safety protocols.

The estimate is that one teaspoon of Uranium or Thorium will produce the equivalent energy of 210,000 barrels of oil. Or some stagering figure. Why can we not exploit that energy??

[Gunnair]

DrCaleb wrote:

Jonny_C wrote:

DrCaleb wrote:

And, it's the tears of African Children that are the better substitute.

You must have had a reason for writing that but I don't get it.

Partly sarcasm. Partly because I'm tired of seeing us burning oil and natural gas because environmentalists can't get past 3 Mile Island or Chernobyl and move into the 2000's where there are real safety protocols.

The estimate is that one teaspoon of Uranium or Thorium will produce the equivalent energy of 210,000 barrels of oil. Or some stagering figure. Why can we not exploit that energy??

Fukushima was in the 2000s I believe.

[DrCaleb]

Gunnair wrote:

DrCaleb wrote:

Jonny_C wrote:

You must have had a reason for writing that but I don't get it.

Partly sarcasm. Partly because I'm tired of seeing us burning oil and natural gas because environmentalists can't get past 3 Mile Island or Chernobyl and move into the 2000's where there are real safety protocols.

The estimate is that one teaspoon of Uranium or Thorium will produce the equivalent energy of 210,000 barrels of oil. Or some stagering figure. Why can we not exploit that energy??

Fukushima was in the 2000s I believe.

And that topic has been done to death too. It was due to be decomissioned 2 months after the quake, because it wasn't earthquake proof. And the damage it caused, compared to other accidents, was pretty minimal.

Salt as coolant reactors wouldn't be prone to the things seen at Fukushima, or Monju. Japans Monju fast breeder was an example of an accident using Sodium metal coolant, not salt.

[Zipperfish]

The micro-reactor thing is interesting. Nuclear power plant accidents are low-probability, high-consequence events. The response by techno-folks such as myself has been to lower the risk even more through various preventiona dn preparedness measures. However, lowering the probability of an accident does not lower its consequence. And that's what, perhaps, makes people nervous--irradiating a good chunk of the atmosphere, or rasiing cancer rates in fallout areas for a generation or two. Those are signficant consequences, and pershaps, no matter how much we manage to lower the probability, we won't get people to accept the high consequence.

Smaller reactors though, may lower the consequence to something more oif the public will find acceptable.