A Safer, Smaller Nuclear Reactor?

REPLAY VIDEO
Your next video will start in
Pause

Recommended Videos

  • Info

  • Comments

  • VIDEO TEXT

Aug. 5 (Bloomberg) -- Planet Forward host Frank Sesno examines how one company is working to shrink a whole nuclear power plant down to a self-contained, serviceable reactor that's smaller, cheaper and safer. He speaks on Bloomberg Television's "Bloomberg West." (Source: Bloomberg)

This could spark further building.

How would you like to have one of these in your neighborhood?

What if you could shrink a whole power plants, nuclear power, down to a self contained a serviceable reactor that smaller, cheaper, and safer?

One company, new scale power, says it's all in the design and they have a loaded their idea to planet forward.

It is safe, reliable, economical, simple reactor.

Producing half electricity of of a traditional plant, the design would be 60%-70% cheaper and could include up to 12 react or is built on site and shipped anywhere in the world.

We wanted to learn more and meet the band behind it -- the man behind it who was working at the nuclear regulatory commission when the infamous three mile island incident occurred in 30 years later, he hopes to lead a safe nuclear renaissance.

When i left the nrc, i went to oregon state to become a professor and there i taught my students the importance of safety.

Is developed a redundant safety system that can cool down a plant automatically in the event of an accident.

It could cool small modular reactors, a program with department of energy grants.

Our design can safely shut itself down.

The candle itself for an indefinite.

Of time without any action, and he aac or d.c. power, no in the configuration and without any additional power.

The next step, they are aiming for a plant online by 2024. if we could come up with a design that was safer and simpler, it would help not just the industry but mankind.

He thinks he can reduce the size, cost, and risk of nuclear energy and maybe move the planet forward.

Frank joins us now from washington.

You say the smaller design could he safer, but i say a smaller blown up nuclear plant is still a nuclear plant.

How could this be safer?

He has this passive safety design.

Unlike fukushima, you don't need an outside current, batteries.

The default is efficient, the failure position of the valve is to shut off and reroute some of this superheated steam we saw causing problems at fukushima into a tooling pool.

It's the size of a refrigerator in the reactors put underground.

Look.

This is not operational.

This only exists in theory but your hearing him say that it could survive earthquake, what happened in fukushima and it is smaller, cheaper, and essentially portable nuclear power.

What that would mean for greenhouse gases and other things, that could be chairman this, but still problems with nuclear waste from these kinds of devices, so clearly a lot of work to be done, but you know what?

To mix my metaphors, it seems to be in the pipeline.

It's the kind of idea that

This text has been automatically generated. It may not be 100% accurate.

Advertisement

BTV Channel Finder

Channel_finder_loader

ZIP is required for U.S. locations

Bloomberg Television in   change