NEWS: Take Away Nuclear Reactor

GEEK: Take Away Nuclear Reactor

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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]

sounds like asimov.

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

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]

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

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

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

I want one. Can anyone loan me the cash?

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]

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.

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

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

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

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