10 Comments

  1. The water quotas between Canada and US are going thru rough negotiations. In Beijing a barrel of water goes for 437$. The US only pays Canada 28$ per barrel. Next wars will be fought over water. Mark my words.

  2. Water, the blue gold and the provinces of Canada have more than 20 percent of drinking water supplies on the planet.

  3. Excuse me while I yawn. This group has been all smoke and no fire for years now. As well they are not in a position to compete with Toshiba or Babcock & Wilcox in this field; the pockets of the later two are just too deep.

    While I do support the notion that small enterprise should be able to enter the nuclear reactor market, the fact is that the regulatory atmosphere makes it almost impossible to make headway. Large corporations can afford to wait it out while they work the system, smaller entities cannot.

  4. Probably because the export rules wont allow them to take the tech outside the US. The HPM is based on a Los Alamos concept.

  5. How much electricity would be required from such a reactors to make water and how much electricity would then be leftover to sell on the market?

  6. Daniel:

    If done correctly you wouldn’t need any of the reactors electricity except for pumping maybe. The waste heat from the reactor would be more than sufficient to drive a desalination system.

  7. Well, Rod was looking for excitement in liaison with nuclear. The world is very thirsty (some are actually dying) and the US is in a net deficit of drinking water and must import enormous quantities.

    I sincerely think that there is a niche market for SMRs: energy and drinking water. This is how I would position this technology.

    Developed countries and the third world should line up and get the frigging message.

  8. The key is for people to realize that the nuclear energy systems will have an exceedingly low chance of actually contaminating the water (which is obvious to people who actually know about nuclear power).

  9. Perhaps the technology originated at Los Alamos National Labs and regulations won’t allow it to be taken out of the country

Comments are closed.

Similar Posts

  • Letter from the Editor: PM-3A, Pioneer in Anarctic Research

    Recently I took my family to the Tampa, Florida Museum of Science and Industry (MOSI), which had a traveling exhibit on Antarctica. The display included a great deal of information about the dedicated explorers and unique wildlife indigenous to that remote land with one of the harshest climates on earth. Several of the exploration groups…

  • B&W’s mPowerTM Reactor – Who Says America is Behind in the Nuclear Renaissance?

    Sometimes, games really do change while few people are watching. That is what happened yesterday when Babcock and Wilcox announced their mPowerTM modular nuclear power plant. The big difference is not the basic technology – after all, the mPower reactor is a pressurized water reactor using the same kind of coolant, the same kind of…

  • Army Nuclear Power Plants

    Designation Description of Reactors SM-1 This stationary military reactor was the Army’s prototype and training facility. It began operation in April 1957 at Fort Belvoir, VA, several months before the Shippingport reactor. SM-1 has the distinction of having been the first nuclear power plant to be hooked to an electrical grid. 2,000 kw. SM-1A Built…

  • Treasure trove of documents about the ML-1, the US Army’s trailer-mounted, nitrogen-cooled, atomic fission-heated generator

    I recently published an article featuring a video from the Army Nuclear Power Program that focused on the Army’s mobile, low power closed cycle nitrogen cooled nuclear reactor designated the ML-1. The article generated a good discussion that indicated a strong desire for more information about the program. My initial searches didn’t turn up a…