I loved this article. Can you imagine the implications for cheap power for even huge nations.
PORTABLE POWER PLANTS It's not easy giving away nuclear power stations these days. Lots of countries want them, especially developing nations. But for countries like the U.S. that possess the technology, giving the gift of atomic energy can be a nail-biting experience. There's infrastructure to design, build, transport, and assemble, radioactive fuel to supply and then collect once spent. And, of course, there are pesky customers like North Korea and Iran who sneak uranium and use it to build bombs. But now the U.S. Department of Energy has a solution to the world's power needs: a portable, tamperproof nuclear power plant. The unit--called SSTAR, or small, sealed, transportable, autonomous reactor--will consist of an outer cask, 15 meters high and 3 meters wide, containing all the mechanics and radioactive fuel needed to provide 30 years worth of electricity. A boat or truck drops the unit off, and then purchasers simply hook up a turbine and hit the 'on' switch. This may seem improbable, given the gargantuan size of current nuclear plants in America, but several key factors make it possible. Firstly, most developing countries where SSTAR would be used don't need a lot of power. The units will only generate about 100 megawatts--about one-tenth the output of an average full-size reactor--and a "mini" 10-megawatt version is also envisioned. Less output means smaller size; the 100 MW version would weigh about 500 tons, the 10 MW unit perhaps less then 200 tons. Another space-saving feature of the SSTAR is the use of liquid metal rather than water for cooling. Much of the infrastructure of permanent nuclear plants is composed of steam vessels and piping, and thus the lead-based design is more compact. The fact that SSTAR uses fewer components will also likely mean less maintenance over the reactor's lifespan. In fact, the DOE suggests that the reactors will be able to run for decades on their own, without need even for refueling. An SSTAR would be delivered with enough radioactive material inside to get a nuclear reaction started, and from there the reactors would actually make their own fuel through a process called "breeding". As uranium decays, some of the neutrons given off will convert more uranium into plutonium, which will in turn become new fuel for the reactor. Eliminating the need for refueling will also deter rogue individuals and nations from using SSTAR's nuclear material to make weapons of mass destruction. Theoretically, a host nation will never handle any uranium or plutonium, with this fuel remaining sealed inside the unit. When the fuel is spent, the reactor will simply be returned whole to America for recycling. And if inquisitive souls try to pry open the shell and get hold of plutonium? The SSTAR will transmit an alarm, via secure satellite radio, to its makers, informing them of the break-in. But isn't it dangerous giving nuclear devices to countries that don't have the expertise to respond to malfunctions? DOE says that, in fact, SSTAR will be inherently meltdown-proof. In the event of a hardware or control systems failure, the reactor will automatically shut down and cool itself by way of natural convection. Part of SSTAR's licensing process will involve tests in which various systems are deliberately made to fail, with the reactor being required to demonstrate a safe response. While the DOE believes it can have a prototype ready for 2015, the project still faces several technical and political challenges. There are questions as to what building materials can withstand 30 years of neutron bombardment, and also concerns about how to package and transport the spent reactors back to the U.S. In a recent New Scientist article, nuclear expert Michael Levi also pointed out that SSTAR's "intruder alert" system won't deter terrorists or rogue governments that "don't care about we-think" from stealing fuel out of reactors. By the time an alarm is received and a team dispatched to investigate, the plutonium could be long gone. There has also been speculation that by recovering spent reactors, America could end up being responsible for a pile of the world's nuclear waste. On the other hand, the handy power plants might be the cleanest and best energy solution for many ailing countries. For more info, read the DOE's proposal for portable nuclear energy at
http://www.llnl.gov/str/JulAug04/Smith.html.
