Hi Justin,

I'm more worried by the news then you are.

To start with your final quoteBut apart from that, mini reactors sound like a really good idea.: well, the original press release does not mention the storage of the nuclear waste. You don't mention it neither, but I guess you are as concerned as I am on that issue.

Another quote that worries me is but who ever heard of anyone attempting to steal an operating nuclear reactor. They don't have the size now, but if they have the size of an emrgency generator they can be stolen like an emergency generator. And if they are fueled for the next 7 years, hey, that's a better deal then a gas generator where you need the pipeline.

Third: Hyperion is not the designer but the licensee. Los Alamos National Laboratories is the designer, and they tested the design. Hyperion does the commercialization.

Cheers,
Johan Steunenberg

Hi Johan

You are of course completely right. It's not to say we're not worried about mini nuclear reactors - it's just that they seem so far away from production and such an unrealistic proposition as to be a science fiction worthy of ridicule. There's so much wrong with this idea it was difficult to know where to stop.

On the issue of theft, I think these would be difficult to steal simply from the point of view that they are going to be incredibly hot while in operation. But you're right, somebody is probably going to be tempted. I wonder if security issues have been seriously considered. Does each reactor come with a free armed guard, I wonder?

While the technology has some advantages by comparison with the large scale nuclear reactors, the main concern is with the stability of such device and hence its safety. This is no mature technology and some people are making money here by flying kites. For this reason, this idea is now in the same category as the water engine and the perendev magnetic motor. The reactor needs extensive testing, and I will be convinced that it is opportune to install one in Romania after I see it running safely and reliably in New Mexico or in the Czech Republic first. Or, maybe, those planning about testing it first in Romania think about the ease with which one can do any kind of experiments and monkey business in this new economic colony in Eastern Europe, given the corrupt government, the endemic bribery and the weak public opposition. Otherwise, why not use it first in an energy-starved western country? So far, as you mentioned, the Romanian nuclear regulatory body has not received any application for the use of this technology... Let's keep
an eye on this story in the next couple of years. And when the strong fish smell dissipates, and this technology is proved as safe, then I will install one in my garden myself.

This would be based on the 1967 Slowpoke Research Reactors made by Canada's AECL. They're the only nuclear reactors in the world licensed for unattended operation. China made a knock off of the design so the Canadians didn't manage to sell very many of them and now it looks like the US are going to make another knock-off.

The technology is over 40 years old and is very mature. The Slowpokes only heat water up to 50 Celsius (about 135 Fahrenheit), if the water boils, the bubbles interrupt the chain reaction shutting down the reactor. The Slowpokes have been converted to use Low Energy Uranium (LEU) which is only 20% enriched and hence can't be made into weapons without additional enrichment.

The Canadian nuclear technology is for civilian use only. This has affected the sales of the Candu reactor because eventually the purchasing country figures out that you can't make nukes with it. The Candu can actually run on natural uranium and the spent fuel is less radioactive than natural uranium so it doesn't require any special storage. The Candu can also run on spent fuel rods from other nuclear reactors. Canadian nuclear reactors are the only ones not designed as part of a weapons program hence their poor sales.

The concept is very safe, very mature and you can order it off the shelf from Canada.

Hi John,

It seems indeed a good time to remember AECL’s Slowpoke (Safe Low-Power Kritical Experiment) – There is something assuring about the acronyms when one changes the words (hence critical here) to make the acronym easier to pronounce.

Slowpoke Energy System (SES) is a small 10 megawatt reactor intended to provide district heating in urban and remote areas. The problem is SES was was not able to commercialize in the 80s when AECL was trying desperately. Primarily because nobody wanted them in their backyard. Forget selling them, AECL could not even manage to give the reactor away for free. The University of Sherbrooke said no when it was offered free of charge. Another attempt to sell it to South Korea also fell through. Consequently SES never got off the design board, making it a rather well “Kritically Failed Market Experiment”.