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.
It collects heat from the reactor with sodium, transfers the heat to 2 stirling engines which generate electricity. It's light so it can be easily transported. Solar works even worse on Mars than here because Mars is farther from the sun, has longer nights, and has planet-wide dust storms that can last months. And it's simpler: plug it in and use. It's will also shut off automatically if it needs maintenance
"The cylinder of uranium is the size of a coffee can. Even with its shielding and detectors, the device is still no larger than a wastepaper basket. But this little prototype, soon to be tested in the Nevada desert, fuels a dream of an off-world future for humanity."
A house uses 5 kW on average. Two of these reactors should be able to handle the demand of any but the largest of houses. It would be at least as reliable as a heating system, more if two reactors were used.
Wouldn't it be grand if these could be commercialized for use on Earth? No more natural gas or oil heat. No more gasoline for cars. No more 30 minutes or 3 hours to charge a battery. Just start up and drive. (I know there are engineering problems with load following, but say these reactors charged a battery continuously and the battery powered the motors. Then those problems would go away.)
In fact, no more fossil fuels anywhere for anything.
Wouldn't this end global warming right away (forget about 2 degree limit by 2050 or whatever) or as soon as it could be implemented? And people wouldn't have to give up a thing. They could live just the way they are now.
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.
I’ve read about “small nuclear reactors” and I hope that they will become economical enough to complete with fossil fuels soon. Humanity is in a bit of a pinch right now with the global warming problem.
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.
You think so? I'm inclined otherwise. It's typically the one-offs that have reliability issues. Standardization minimizes quality problems.
Anyway, it would shut down if there were a problem.
I don't know what the costs are. But gas isn't free either. On a total resource basis, solar and wind are very expensive. And they say global warming costs a lot of money.
You think so? I'm inclined otherwise. It's typically the one-offs that have reliability issues. Standardization minimizes quality problems.
Anyway, it would shut down if there were a problem.
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.
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.
I’m fairly certain that you’re never going to be able to buy a nuclear reactor at Target.
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.
There isn't enough uranium to melt down.
I could see them being used like 20lb. propane tanks. When it's time for a new one, you turn in the old one. Propane tanks are at least as hazardous as these things and they haven't been a problem.
And they last years. Up to 10. So this technology is like one of those "set and forget" cookers on TV.
Other countries are working on bigger reactors: modular 50 mW ones that can be power cities, Al plants, etc. Russia and China are big on these. But with size comes complexity. Small and simple might win.
I could see them being used like 20lb. propane tanks. When it's time for a new one, you turn in the old one. Propane tanks are at least as hazardous as these things and they haven't been a problem.
And they last years. Up to 10. So this technology is like one of those "set and forget" cookers on TV.
Other countries are working on bigger reactors: modular 50 mW ones that can be power cities, Al plants, etc. Russia and China are big on these. But with size comes complexity. Small and simple might win.
Propane tanks are at least as hazardous a coffee can sized chunk of uranium? Where did you learn science?
Regardless of its inability to melt down, if the uranium got into the environment it could contaminate a considerable chunk of real estate. I'm not even thinking about accidents as much as I am terrorists.
How about a suicidal teenager who doesn't have access to a gun? If he has a sledge hammer he has access to what he needs in the home's power plant, with the resulting contamination.
These days, if a kid brings a mercury thermometer to school it is placed on lock down and the hazmat crew is called in. Yes, that is ridiculous. But until science can somehow make a resurgence in society, we have to live with that type of hysteria because people are so out of touch with reality. Can you imagine the panic these things would cause?
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.
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.
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.
