Skip to main content

Someone Else’s Top Ten

oasys_x220 We know it’s getting to be top ten time of the year (and decade), but we’ve never really enjoyed these summary wrap-ups. After all, time like the tide is rather fluid and what seemed most important in the short term of a year fades before much more time has passed. Even the top ten movies or albums seem vagrant, the results of a passing fancy.

So, speaking for ourselves, we’ll probably bypass the mania for top ten and move right on to passing you along to someone else’s top ten list. It both confirms and spoils our potted formulation.

It is Greentechmedia’s Top Ten High Concepts of 2009. We actually like it because it focuses on items that may not come to fruition at all, but simply demonstrate the good work that goes on in industry and university labs all the time. The great thing about such projects is that they can be quite valuable even when not workable – the lessons learned can be quite instructive.

Take, for example, number 3:

Osmotic Pressure Gradients: In OPGs, fresh water passes through a membrane, drawn through by an inherent attraction to a vat of salty water on the other side. As the volume of water increases in the salty tank, pressure builds, which can be used to crank a turbine.

We’d have to read more about this to see how it decreases the pressure or what you do with the salinated fresh water – can’t put it back where you got it, presumably – but pretty neat.

But despite the interest in this and other entries like Instant Oil and a Solar Air Conditioner, we were interested in the first and second entries. Number 1:

Nuclear Goes Mod(ular): NuScale Power, Sandia National Labs, TerraPower and Babcock & Wilcox discussed plans to build and/or license small reactors that could produce 45 to 125 megawatts of power.

We’ve written about these a fair amount and they’ve picked up tremendous interest – both here, where a couple of bills encouraging their development are moving through Congress, and overseas, too, where their potential could be enormous.

If anything holds them back, it’s that no design has been approved by the NRC – none submitted, mind you, but still, such design licensing can take years and be a real business inhibitor. Hopefully, Congress can move on that, too, and provide resources so the NRC can review these units quickly.

And number 2:

Fusion: Livermore National Labs showed off a system in which 192 high powered lasers focused on tiny capsule of hydrogen could generate fusion power.

When we’ve written about fusion, it’s usually to make fun of it – not that it shouldn’t be taken seriously, even by us. But it’s been around long enough that it has inspired a fan base that has followed its travails for years and years (and inspires hobbyists to make their own fusion reactors). Maybe it’s that there’s a faint whiff of alchemy around fusion, as it takes the electricity generation of a small country to light a bulb. We joke, but getting the resource-to-result ratio right is a big stumbling block.

Here’s the next sentence in the entry on fusion: “Scientists hope to show it can work in 2010 or 2011.” As we always do (and have for years and years), we wish them luck.

Read the whole thing – lots of fun technology.

An osmotic pressure plant. Osmotic pressure works the other way, too, desalinating water.

[Oasys] is using what it calls engineered osmosis. Unlike conventional desalination systems, the Oasys system establishes an osmotic pressure gradient instead of using pressure or heat to force water through a purifying membrane. The approach exploits the fact that water naturally flows from a dilute region to one that's more concentrated when the two solutions are separated by a semipermeable material, thereby saving the energy normally needed to drive the process.

So, to answer our question above, we presume you can do a two way osmotic pressure exchange that both salinates and desalinates water. See here for more.

Comments

perdajz said…
Fusion has a huge stumbling: fission. When researchers first started looking at fusion decades ago, it seemed to offer advantages in safety and waste disposal. In the decades since, fission reactors (LWR in particular) have performed so well that it is not at all clear how fusion can ever become competitive. It will be impossible to beat the safetey record of the LWR, and waste disposal for current fuel cycles is a small, manageable issue. For the foreseeable future, uranium and/or thorium will stay cheap. There is no reason to think that a fusion reactor would be safer or more reliable than a LWR. With capacity factors well in the 90's for the current fleet, how could a fusion reactor be more reliable than a LWR?
Anonymous said…
Perhaps NEINN has already reviewed this, but Seife's "Sun in a Bottle" hammers fusion pretty hard. It's a good history book.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…