Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sounds great in theory, except that uranium is expensive and time consuming to enrich for use in a reactor.
There's also the issue of accidents, manufacturing flaws, safety failures leading to disastrous meltdowns. The risk of these accidents occuring would jump dramatically if reactors were mass produced for the mainstream market.
Plus the little matter of people who want to build atomic bombs, who know how (you can get the details in any college nor technical library) but can't get the fissile material that goes boom. Having nuclear-driven cars around, would solve that problem for them nicely. Just hijack a few, or even buy your own, thank you very much.
Why do they not use thorium instead of uranium? It doesn't go boom.
All of our nuclear programs back to the 1940s were keyed toward making weapons. So uranium and plutonium were the materials of choice. Power plants were just a handy spinoff.
Plus the little matter of people who want to build atomic bombs, who know how (you can get the details in any college nor technical library) but can't get the fissile material that goes boom. Having nuclear-driven cars around, would solve that problem for them nicely. Just hijack a few, or even buy your own, thank you very much.
Why do they not use thorium instead of uranium? It doesn't go boom.
All of our nuclear programs back to the 1940s were keyed toward making weapons. So uranium and plutonium were the materials of choice. Power plants were just a handy spinoff.
That's not quite true.
The type of uranium used in this 10KW plant can't go boom either, even if collected in large quantities. Highly-enriched and unstable U-235 is the only isotope capable of going boom, and power plants are used to enrich it.
But that still does not mean the uranium isotope used in these small power plants is not highly dangerous if released into the environment.
I see too many problems with uranium being used for personal power. I think other technologies will win out when it comes to the small and simple power plants of the future.
Yep. Improved solar and battery technology is probably the future of mainstream renewable energy. Solid state batteries, for example, offer a lot of advantages over lithium based batteries... much longer lifespan, shorter charge times, higher energy density. These batteries are nearing maturity for mainstream production.
100 years ago people would have said the same thing about a microwave oven.
False analogy. It’s somewhat difficult to make nuclear weapons out of microwave ovens. I’m also not aware of any nuclear waste products coming from my microwave. If there are, the NRC should probably pay me a visit.
Yeah, it minimizes the problem, it does not eliminate it. The risk of an accident leading to a meltdown is simply too great for this type of technology to exist on the mainstream market. It's not like a solar electrical system where, if there is was a mechanical failure, the system simply stops working and causes no harm... if a nuclear reactor fails, it kills people and renders the immediate area virtually uninhabitable for years, even decades.
You also have the issue of people who know very little/nothing about nuclear reactors wanting to tinker with their reactors, further increasing the risk of disasters occuring.
The other risk is someone developing uranium based dirty bombs, or even a nuclear weapon if these were cascaded together or concentrated fission decay isotopes were used.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.