Current Events

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

332 | 333 | 334

 ... 484

Next

MetaTag

MetaTag

United Kingdom
September 2002

SEP 07, 2004 04:07 PM

Would you like your own portable nuclear reactor?

American scientists at the DoE's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California have proposed a solution to provide nuclear energy to underdeveloped countries with less risk of proliferating nuclear weapons.

The solutions is a sealed, tamper proof reactor called the "small, sealed, transportable, autonomous reactor" or SSTAR.

A version producing 100 megawatts would be 15 metres tall, three metres in diameter and weigh 500 tonnes. A 10-megawatt version is likely to weigh less than 200 tonnes.

The US will deliver the sealed unit by ship and truck and install it. When the fuel runs out it will collect the old reactor for recycling or disposal. The DoE hopes to have a prototype by 2015.

The project faces political objection, because it is not guaranteed to prevent abuse. For example, the lighter version could be dropped with explosives as a dirty bomb, or dismantled to extract the plutonium.

Trevallion

Trevallion

Murfreesboro, TN
February 2004

SEP 07, 2004 04:15 PM

They could just run the reactors to the point where the IAEA considers the fuel to be "self-protecting" and then give them to the underdeveloped countries.

Clunk

Clunk

I'm lost
August 2004

SEP 07, 2004 04:16 PM

Wouldn't a load of wind turbines be safer? It's the maintainance issues that worry me...

68stretch

68stretch

Portland, OR
March 2003

SEP 07, 2004 05:02 PM

Clunk said:
Wouldn't a load of wind turbines be safer? It's the maintainance issues that worry me...


That's just silly, what happens when they run out of wind?

68stretch

68stretch

Portland, OR
March 2003

SEP 07, 2004 05:12 PM

Idjiit said:

68stretch said:

Clunk said:
Wouldn't a load of wind turbines be safer? It's the maintainance issues that worry me...


That's just silly, what happens when they run out of wind?



* insert snide remark about one of the less popular CE participants blowing hot air here *


Or something about a steady diet of beans and raw broccoli.

thelost

thelost

United Kingdom
June 2004

SEP 07, 2004 05:56 PM

you'd think we would have learned our lesson now about nuclear power. i guess people have forgotten what happened in 1986.



I can imagine 20 years from now the eventual outcome. "Hey lads, I've come up with this great new way to power everything from radios to torches. Nuclear batteries!"

"But isn't that a little dangerous?"

"Don't be stupid, we'll make a killin' with these!"

sppchhhaaa-ka-booom.

[Edited on Sep 07, 2004 6:00PM]

ferrofluid

ferrofluid

Brooklyn, NY
February 2004

SEP 07, 2004 05:57 PM

sounds like asimov.

ItwasDuke

ItwasDuke

New York, NY
March 2004

SEP 07, 2004 06:02 PM

This month HBO will have 2 documentaries on nuclear issues. One is on Chernobyl and the other will discuss Indian Point. skull

thelost

thelost

United Kingdom
June 2004

SEP 07, 2004 06:13 PM

One excellent documentary I saw about Chernobyl was 'Days that shook the world', a BBC program I think. It was kind of chilling because it tracked the events leading up to and during the meltdown using characters based on people who were involved in the real thing. The firefighters were especially amazing as they just charged in and exposed their selves to the radiation to try and stop the fires, even though they knew they would die. Scared me silly.


[Edited on Sep 07, 2004 6:15PM]

Projecta119

Projecta119

Stewartstown, PA
January 2004

SEP 07, 2004 06:18 PM

sync said:
you'd think we would have learned our lesson now about nuclear power. i guess people have forgotten what happened in 1986.



I can imagine 20 years from now the eventual outcome. "Hey lads, I've come up with this great new way to power everything from radios to torches. Nuclear batteries!"

"But isn't that a little dangerous?"

"Don't be stupid, we'll make a killin' with these!"

sppchhhaaa-ka-booom.

[Edited on Sep 07, 2004 6:00PM]



geeze do you even know the first thing about nuclear power?

pananarama

pananarama

Worcester, MA
August 2003

SEP 07, 2004 06:19 PM

I still like the idea of using methane, tee hee hee cow poopies

thelost

thelost

United Kingdom
June 2004

SEP 07, 2004 06:22 PM

Projecta119 said:

sync said:
you'd think we would have learned our lesson now about nuclear power. i guess people have forgotten what happened in 1986.



I can imagine 20 years from now the eventual outcome. "Hey lads, I've come up with this great new way to power everything from radios to torches. Nuclear batteries!"

"But isn't that a little dangerous?"

"Don't be stupid, we'll make a killin' with these!"

sppchhhaaa-ka-booom.

[Edited on Sep 07, 2004 6:00PM]



geeze do you even know the first thing about nuclear power?



lol that was a parody. But I do seriously doubt our sanity when we start coming up with ideas like portable-nuclear stations.

YAWG

YAWG

Victoria, BC
November 2003

SEP 07, 2004 06:51 PM

I want one. Can anyone loan me the cash?

highcontrast

highcontrast

San Francisco, CA
March 2003

SEP 07, 2004 07:21 PM

not to be callous, but when you compare the numbers of human deaths and accidents related to nulcear energy, and those of the coal industry, you may reconsider. and that's not just the coal miners from 100 years ago. it's still a very dangerous industry. the oil industry is not particularly safe either. and the pollution and political comparison should be obvious.

the technology is available to make nuclear a safe alternative until scientists can increase the efficiency of the 'green' sources of energy....



edited to add: fuck george w. bush


[Edited on Sep 07, 2004 by highcontrast]

TheRealTexaSGuy

TheRealTexaSGuy

Tacoma, WA
December 2003

SEP 08, 2004 05:54 AM

Yeah, nuclear power is extraordinarily safe and reliable. The biggest problem with nuclear power is the Human Factor.

Chernobyl, for example, was caused by some technicians doing a wildly dangerous experiment any and every nuclear technician will tell you would lead to a melt down. They were testing the boundaries of their system and they found 'em.

Three Mile Island. If we hadn't have had anyone in the control room when things first went wrong, say everyone had been on a smoke break outside, absolutely nothing bad would have happened. One person in the control room SHUT OFF one of the water fill valve, thus allowing the water level in the core to reach such a low level that we came within minutes, if not less, of a total nuclear melt down. All because someone had a piece of paper laying on top of a warning light that would have told them to let the water keep running into the core and to not touch anything.

As for 'pocket sized' reactors. Yeah, i think that's kinda stupid. Maybe if they weighed 1,000 tons and had all kinds of GPS tracking and were under constant military satellite survelliance and the donar countries knew that if a satellite came overhead and someone was playing with the unit or trying to move it, a US military airstrike would be inbound in ten minutes - plus a lot of live camera feeds, or course...yeah, with all that I'd agree to them. Oh, and bombs that went off the second someone tried to crack one of these bad boys open. Which means you'd have to put them in very remote places far away from human habitation.

thelost

thelost

United Kingdom
June 2004

SEP 08, 2004 06:57 AM

the human factor sucks. Remember what happened in Japan 3 years ago.



The Japanese public is highly nervous about the safety of nuclear plants, especially since a radiation leak at a uranium processing facility in Tokaimura three years ago, which killed two and exposed 600 to radiation.

Afterwards it was discovered that workers at the power station had been illegally mixing uranium in buckets.

TheTimebomb

TheTimebomb

I'm lost
July 2003

SEP 08, 2004 07:09 AM

Interesting link on newer safer reactor design known as a "pebble bath" reactor that removes the need for a human element in the event of an emergency.

Let a Thousand Reactors Bloom

mrpenbrook

mrpenbrook

Oak Park, IL
February 2004

SEP 08, 2004 07:16 AM

Even its critics acknowledge that nuclear power has the potential to ease or stop global warming. For some critics, the "threat" is not so much from the reactors or the waste, but from the actual power generated:

"Giving society cheap, abundant energy ... would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun."

-Paul Ehrlich, "An Ecologist's Perspective on Nuclear Power'', May/June 1978 issue of Federation of American Scientists Public Issue Report


Of course, one could make the case that nuclear power is just a step in a process, from one imperfect, polluting power-generating technology to a much cheaper yet still imperfect, polluting power-generating technology. The resulting abundance of power will likely be needed to unlock the next cheap, less-polluting power-generating technology.

Besides, any resourceful person can build a nuclear reactor: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1111/is_n1782_v297/ai_21281407/pg_1

FlotsomandJetsom

FlotsomandJetsom

Waban, MA
November 2003

SEP 08, 2004 07:54 AM

What about a self-destruct mechanism if they try to open it?

thelost

thelost

United Kingdom
June 2004

SEP 08, 2004 08:01 AM

FlotsomandJetsom said:
What about a self-destruct mechanism if they try to open it?



lol that made me laugh. how exactly do you safely self destruct a nuclear reactor? I think that's what a dirty bomb is skull skull