Nuclear reactor coming to a store near you!

[Phobius]

http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=1363

Interesting so in about a year or so we could have our own nuclear reactor right in our own house. Now I'm curious how much this bad boy is going to cost.

 

[Arthos]

Unless it's Cold Fusion, get that crap away from my house.


Fission worries me.

 

[Brosiris]

Unless it's Cold Fusion, get that crap away from my house.


Fission worries me.

So? Gas burns in your car, so technically when you're driving your car there is a fire burning in your car the entire time you drive it. Does that not worry you?

 

[DaRkOwNs]

not nearly as much as the deadly radiation that could be seeping through your walls.

at least with fire theres somewhat of a distinguishing alarm phase too it.

 

[Brosiris]

not nearly as much as the deadly radiation that could be seeping through your walls.

at least with fire theres somewhat of a distinguishing alarm phase too it.

Funny I didn't realize that the deadly radiation that 'seeps through the walls' at power plants today kills the hundreds of people working there. You'd think if this was true that there would be no powerplants on earth.

I suppose it's kinda like radon. You'll have detectors if anything goes wrong. You act as though the people who work on this stuff don't know what they're doing, and would randomly put leaking radiation into your house.

 

[Phobius]

Its not really the fact that it could leak radiation, its more of the fact of what people could do with this technology. If it to help create a Flux Capacitor or to create some kind of weapon which could do harm to other people.

 

[Synth]

Yeah, let's have commercially sold uranium available to the next psycho with a vendetta.

Sounds like armageddon to me.

 

[Chakra-X]

Well if we want to fight Iran for having nuclear power, guess good old neighbor Jenkins better watch his ass.

 

[Zeonix]

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news-toshiba-micro-nuclear-12.17b.html

The 200 kilowatt Toshiba designed reactor is engineered to be fail-safe and totally automatic and will not overheat. Unlike traditional nuclear reactors the new micro reactor uses no control rods to initiate the reaction. The new revolutionary technology uses reservoirs of liquid lithium-6, an isotope that is effective at absorbing neutrons. The Lithium-6 reservoirs are connected to a vertical tube that fits into the reactor core. The whole whole process is self sustaining and can last for up to 40 years, producing electricity for only 5 cents per kilowatt hour, about half the cost of grid energy.

No uranium or weapons grade plutonium involved.

 

[Avenger]

I welcome this as a dawn of possibilities. I mean, we're talking a small nuclear reactor with very little waste, creating lots of wonderful power here! Imagine if we could replace fossil fuels with this? Although some economies might be ruined (not Norway's, as we'd probably use Thorium for this kind of thing anyway, and still be rich), imagine the environmental benefits.

Eventually, this technology could be adapted into cars and buses - trains and boats. Heck, even planes. Pollution could be drastically reduced, and if we focus on this kind of energy, odds are we'll come up with a way of ridding ourselves of nuclear waste as well. Awesome news. Can't wait to get one of those bad-boys into my PC. It'll help me lots in those "My pc owns yours" debates. "MY PC RUNS ON NUCLEAR ENERGY BEOTCH!"

 

[sub]

I welcome this as a dawn of possibilities. I mean, we're talking a small nuclear reactor with very little waste, creating lots of wonderful power here! Imagine if we could replace fossil fuels with this? Although some economies might be ruined (not Norway's, as we'd probably use Thorium for this kind of thing anyway, and still be rich), imagine the environmental benefits.

Eventually, this technology could be adapted into cars and buses - trains and boats. Heck, even planes. Pollution could be drastically reduced, and if we focus on this kind of energy, odds are we'll come up with a way of ridding ourselves of nuclear waste as well. Awesome news. Can't wait to get one of those bad-boys into my PC. It'll help me lots in those "My pc owns yours" debates. "MY PC RUNS ON NUCLEAR ENERGY BEOTCH!"

Calm down tiger, I don't think we'll see this going mainstream anytime soon.

 

[Avenger]

I didn't say that now did I? I think it will go mainstream, just not yet. It'll take years of convincing the ignorant public that nuclear energy isn't all bad, and then it'll take another twenty years to implement it. It's still an amazing bit of progress. Eventually, we won't even be needing power-wires, because we have our own power. Get excited, rainbow-man, 'cause this is something to get excited about.

Even Zeo would agree with that, as his hated smog would vanish if this were to be properly implemented (well not vanish, I suppose, but it'd at least dissipate a bit).

 

[Zeonix]

I don't hate the smog and it isn't even near as bad as it is in LA. The green/blue/red horizon is actually quite pretty.

If anything, this might replace the mini generators we use when our power goes out, or when I need to power my tools upstate. If this technology was nearly as revolutionary as you're making it out to be, I'd have read 40 articles on it by now.

 

[J-Dude]

Hmm...How do you use Lithium to create a nuclear reaction? Well anyway, I'm excited if it's safe and stable, but otherwise I HAVE to think of the many possible cons. While obviously lithium is probably too weak of a substance to even PRODUCE a truly destructive nuclear blast, I still can't help but wonder. This would have to be a perfect machine for it to autonomously run 40 years without maintanence. I somehow doubt something this sophisticated wouldn't be prone to break down, short out or need replacement parts. And so what, the friendly local nuclear physicist comes out to fix it? And what about nuclear waste? Are you telling me these things don't produce any? If that's true, then by all means, set me up, but otherwise you've got one Hell of a potential pollution nightmare.

And radiation leaks are pretty scary to me. I'd like to think people funding this technology would make sure such things are next to impossible, but still, I don't want gamma radiation to become a NORMAL health risk for the average Joe. I hear enough on the news without horror stories of couples who died in their beds of radiation overdoses because their reactor was leaking without them knowing. I want to assume that prudent measures were taken, but these days it's never safe to assume anything.

If all the above is proven to be a non-issue, then by all means, put an end to conventional powerplants, blackouts, the internal combustion engine automobile among other things. No more power lines, no more power outages crippling entire micro-economies for hours, no more filthy fossil fuel plants or gas-powered generators.

 

[Avenger]

I doubt they're lying when they say it doesn't require maintenance. It does what it's 'sposed to do - it produces electricity through nuclear reaction. If I were to guess, it doesn't need maintenance because it doesn't have those control rods. If I remember correctly, they cause trouble sometimes.

Radiation leaks are the least of your worries. You should start worrying about how frying food is dangerous too, then, as this creates poisons. You should start worrying how there's a super-bacteria taking a grip on your country that it's not likely to release.

It's not like normal electricity etc doesn't create radiation. Not sure what you call them, but we call them high voltage power lines over here, and they are known to cause cancer and various other ailments. Now, if instead of such power lines, one could have a nuclear reactor buried 30 metres under ones house, this would no longer be a problem (especially if it's contained by some means of protection, so if it fails, it still won't be dangerous).

I think Thorium is the way to go though, not Lithium-6. I don't know much about Lithium-6, but Thorium breaks down easy (in comparison to uranium and plutonium, it's a mere fraction), emits very little radiation, and creates more than enough energy. The problem is that the people profiting from nuclear power right now are the people who control a lot of the possible research - not to mention that nuclear power has been blacklisted by many countries, and of course, in public opinion.

The kind of radiation this could produce in an eventual leak is hardly worse than eating unhealthily, not exercising or using drugs/drinking. If people really were worried about their health, they'd instantly stop putting poisons into their bodies for pleasure and comfort. Just taking a walk in the city is dangerous, thanks to carbon-monoxide and other lovely things. Low levels of radiation upon an accident is hardly a dangerous thing.

I wonder if this technology could be useful for space-stations and the like? A steady supply energy is always useful in space.

 

[Zeonix]

I wonder if this technology could be useful for space-stations and the like? A steady supply energy is always useful in space.

Space stations take advantage of the giant ball of fire wobbling about in space.

 

[Avenger]

It's not a ball of fire, it's a ball of hydrogen and helium - the fire is only a result of chain reactions between these two. =o Anyway, I know that, but can you honestly say a small nuclear reactor wouldn't be useful, even if it's just a backup power-generator? Solar panels tend to be less than durable in space, considering that the debris hitting them often moves faster than bullets.

If I ever see the sun wobbling, I guarantee you, I intend on spending a lot of cash very fast, before tucking myself in for the final rest.

Edit: Oh, and another thing I forgot, since I know you often just skim through instead of reading - solar panels are likely to get pummelled by space-rock and various debris we sent up there ourselves, and are expensive to make. The reactors would only need to be put in the space-station, and after that, we have 40 years of maintenance-free energy.

 

[Zeonix]

This is why I rarely address your posts. It's one thing to actually state something the other person doesn't know, but when you try to teach a person his area of expertise, he (me) just can't help but shake his head at how ridiculous the other person is being. The Sun is constantly wobbling as a result of the gravitational pull of the planets and asteroids that orbit it. That's actually how we detect planets in other solar systems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station#Power_supply

Now compare the size and weight of the generator they plan to use to what is currently in use in orbit. It just doesn't make sense to switch to something that's going to die in 40 years if what we're using now isn't going to die for another 4 billion, and we can continue improving the panels indefinitely without having to throw out an entire generator. We've been using solar panels for quite some time, and space debris hasn't really posed much of a problem. I don't see the need for replacing something efficient and already in use with untested technology.

In any case, I'm not confident in this technology's capabilities.

http://www.primidi.com/2005/02/06.html

The article is dated 05, and we haven't really heard anything substantial since then, including the original article linked in the OP. If you go back to the original article, it states that the device they're speaking of is possibly a smaller version of a variation of the generator promised to the Alaskan village. I'm wondering why we haven't seen any public testing of the device or why there hasn't been any media coverage. Before you say "THE OIL COMPANIES AND NUCLEAR PEOPLE ARE COVERING IT UP!!", you should know that not every person on this planet is on their payroll. We should have seen something more than just a drawing by now. If it actually works and is exactly as it is described to be, awesome, but even then I highly doubt it'll be powering cities any time soon.

I'd much rather we focused on the alternative energy sources we have now, and once we've made the change from oil to electricity, hydrogen or wind, we can begin searching for something that lasts longer and is cheaper. I guess you could argue it doesn't make sense to switch to one form of energy to another, only to discover a new form, forcing everyone to change to that. Personally, I believe that's a cop out and if hydrogen-powered cars are any indication of the length of time it takes to research and build a viable product, we're probably better off in the long run if we walk across the bridge, rather than try to hop over the river.

 

[Avenger]

I took my statement from what was said by the scientists, not for myself. The oil companies would not be interested in nuclear energy, so I am somewhat confused on why you even bring that up. It's not a cover-up, it's just that they're more interested in continuing their currently less-than-environmentally-safe projects than spending a lot of cash setting up a new one. Don't jump to conclusions like that, as you don't really know anything about the subject.

When I said it didn't "wobble", it's of course a matter of definition. Technically, there is no way for you to prove that it does so as mostly everything in astrophysics is theory. For all you know, the universe could have made a tiny little wobbly bit around the sun and given it the illusion of wobbling. The point is, the sun does not "wobble" to the extent that "wobbling" is an appropriate word. Of course it moves, but "wobble" seems inappropriate. "Area of expertise", well, then you should add "astrophysicist" to your occupation, because I was unaware you had a degree in this (since you're an expert, you must have some kind of degree, that is my logic.

I think you are taking things out of context. The sun is not a means for extracting energy, the solar-panels are. They break easily. They are expensive to replace. They have to be replaced something like what, every two years? Three years? Four years? It doesn't really matter. The point is, that in the future, this technology will become lighter and easier to use - and at that point, it will be a likely candidate for backup power in space.

The problem on Earth with solar-power is our pesky atmosphere. It filters out a lot of the energy we could otherwise have gained from the sun. That, and the fact that the solar-panels we're making is currently too expensive to use on a massive scale, and hardly efficient enough to be a good alternative to say, water-power.

 

[Zeonix]

I took my statement from what was said by the scientists, not for myself. The oil companies would not be interested in nuclear energy, so I am somewhat confused on why you even bring that up. It's not a cover-up, it's just that they're more interested in continuing their currently less-than-environmentally-safe projects than spending a lot of cash setting up a new one. Don't jump to conclusions like that, as you don't really know anything about the subject.

When I said it didn't "wobble", it's of course a matter of definition. Technically, there is no way for you to prove that it does so as mostly everything in astrophysics is theory. For all you know, the universe could have made a tiny little wobbly bit around the sun and given it the illusion of wobbling. The point is, the sun does not "wobble" to the extent that "wobbling" is an appropriate word. Of course it moves, but "wobble" seems inappropriate. "Area of expertise", well, then you should add "astrophysicist" to your occupation, because I was unaware you had a degree in this (since you're an expert, you must have some kind of degree, that is my logic.

I think you are taking things out of context. The sun is not a means for extracting energy, the solar-panels are. They break easily. They are expensive to replace. They have to be replaced something like what, every two years? Three years? Four years? It doesn't really matter. The point is, that in the future, this technology will become lighter and easier to use - and at that point, it will be a likely candidate for backup power in space.

The problem on Earth with solar-power is our pesky atmosphere. It filters out a lot of the energy we could otherwise have gained from the sun. That, and the fact that the solar-panels we're making is currently too expensive to use on a massive scale, and hardly efficient enough to be a good alternative to say, water-power.

I didn't say it was a matter of fact. That was my reason for halting anyone from bringing the evil corporate cartels who do nothing but hold back certain technologies from ever seeing the light of day in an attempt to keep their profits at an all time high. And then of course you brought them into the conversation, and then stated that I don't know anything about the subject. I am sure your justification for such an ignorant statement is that I'm American and I can't possibly know anything about anything.

No, it isn't a matter of definition. It's a matter of observation. They called what they observed a wobble, because it does indeed wobble. You're playing around with words and failing miserably at it, so I'll just leave it at that. If you want to learn more about the wobble that some stars exhibit as a result of nearby planets and other celestial objects, I suggest you do a little research. You have the internet at your finger tips. Use it. Do I have a doctorate in astrophysics? No.

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/10/20/biodiesel-turbine-super-capacitor-series-hybrid-hummer-60/

Did this man get a doctorate or degree in whatever the hell he does? No, he didn't even go to high school. That doesn't change the fact that he obviously knows what he is saying and doing. If you believe obtaining a piece of paper is the only way to learn and comprehend material that any person can research, then perhaps you're not as different from the "sheep" as you like to believe you are.

And as time goes on, solar panels will become cheaper and more efficient and easier to use. I'm sure the world would be happy to foot the bill to further our knowledge of the Universe. The solar panels used have been tried and tested. Where is this generator we've heard so little about? Oh. Right. Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and continue supporting the use of solar arrays in space until something better comes along.

No one is talking about using solar power for everything we use on Earth. I was specifically speaking of the space station when you mentioned using a generator for the space station and whatever else we may have up there. To put all of your hopes on a technology that hasn't proven itself yet just doesn't seem like good sense. Until the generator proves itself, we're better off just researching alternative energies and taking baby steps towards breaking the shackles linking us to oil.