• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Nuclear Reactors

ManyBeers

ManyBeers

Platinum Member
I think a good start to America's energy needs would be all buildings should have there own individual nuclear reactor for power. No more power lines or grids. They can be made pretty small and efficient. In fact the latest Mars rover is nuclear powered.
 
are you assuming every single person in america is sane and wont try to sabotage their personal reactor?
 
We already have an immense amount of infrastructure set up around centralized power plants. At this point it would make more sense to build a large-scale plant and take advantages of the efficiencies of scale.

Besides, we'll need breeder reactors to pull this off, due to the fairly low supply of fissile material, and do you want Joe Moron in the nuclear fuel production business?
 
Originally posted by: jagec
We already have an immense amount of infrastructure set up around centralized power plants. At this point it would make more sense to build a large-scale plant and take advantages of the efficiencies of scale.

Besides, we'll need breeder reactors to pull this off, due to the fairly low supply of fissile material, and do you want Joe Moron in the nuclear fuel production business?
Click to expand...

Who wants to be on a grid. Not me if i could help it and still have clean reliable power.
 
If they were fusion reactors yeah. You're gonna be waiting a while though.

If you mean fission then you're smoking crack.
 
Originally posted by: ManyBeers
Originally posted by: jagec
We already have an immense amount of infrastructure set up around centralized power plants. At this point it would make more sense to build a large-scale plant and take advantages of the efficiencies of scale.

Besides, we'll need breeder reactors to pull this off, due to the fairly low supply of fissile material, and do you want Joe Moron in the nuclear fuel production business?
Click to expand...

Who wants to be on a grid. Not me if i could help it and still have clean reliable power.
Click to expand...

what's wrong w/ being on a grid
 
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Originally posted by: ManyBeers
Originally posted by: jagec
We already have an immense amount of infrastructure set up around centralized power plants. At this point it would make more sense to build a large-scale plant and take advantages of the efficiencies of scale.

Besides, we'll need breeder reactors to pull this off, due to the fairly low supply of fissile material, and do you want Joe Moron in the nuclear fuel production business?
Click to expand...

Who wants to be on a grid. Not me if i could help it and still have clean reliable power.
Click to expand...

what's wrong w/ being on a grid
Click to expand...

Terminators can find you.
 
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Originally posted by: ManyBeers
Originally posted by: jagec
We already have an immense amount of infrastructure set up around centralized power plants. At this point it would make more sense to build a large-scale plant and take advantages of the efficiencies of scale.

Besides, we'll need breeder reactors to pull this off, due to the fairly low supply of fissile material, and do you want Joe Moron in the nuclear fuel production business?
Click to expand...

Who wants to be on a grid. Not me if i could help it and still have clean reliable power.
Click to expand...

what's wrong w/ being on a grid
Click to expand...

Terminators can find you.
Click to expand...

It benefits from economies of scale. Down with efficiency!
 
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AGUFM.P54A..02W

The MMRTG is one of two new radioisotope power systems (RPSs) currently being developed for space missions, and is capable of operating in a range of planetary atmospheres and in deep space. It has a mass of approximately 45 kg and produces more than 110We at beginning of mission (BOM), with a design lifetime of two years on the surface of Mars and fourteen years in deep space.
Click to expand...


www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/MMRTG.pdf

The MMRTG contains a total of 4.8 kg (10.6 lb) plutonium dioxide that initially provides approximately 2,000 watts of thermal power and 120 watts of electrical power.
Click to expand...

You're not going to run much off 120 watts. Plus you have a lot of heat to dissipate. RTG's are not very efficient in their conversion to electricity.

Oh, and the small fact that we don't need a bunch of radioactive material in the hands of Joe Six Pack.

 
A better solution would be a combination of cost effective and efficient solar and wind with hydrogen (fuel cell?) backup. The time frame for that technology is more feasible than personal nukes. My neighbor can't even pick up after her messy and evidently sick dog -- no way I want them trying to maintain a reactor.
 
Originally posted by: Mo0o
are you assuming every single person in america is sane and wont try to sabotage their personal reactor?
Click to expand...

No i'm not,Virginia tech ,Columbine and god knows how many other examples are out there showing the nuts are very prevalent. But progress has it's price. Plus if we are ever to get off of gasoline to power our cars, that reactor would come in pretty handy for charging up electric vehicles at night. If cars go that route.
 
I see you read the small article in the new Wired magazine.

I think I'll pass on running my own nuclear reactor. Now if you could get me a Mr. Fusion, like in Back to the Future, I'm all in.
 
Originally posted by: ManyBeers
Originally posted by: Mo0o
are you assuming every single person in america is sane and wont try to sabotage their personal reactor?
Click to expand...

No i'm not,Virginia tech ,Columbine and god knows how many other examples are out there showing the nuts are very prevalent. But progress has it's price. Plus if we are ever to get off of gasoline to power our cars, that reactor would come in pretty handy for charging up electric vehicles at night. If cars go that route.
Click to expand...

There's not enough fissile material (U235 etc) to support large-scale nuclear, especially with the very inefficient reactors you propose.

There is a lot of fertile material (U238), but you need a breeder reactor to convert this to fissile material. Which basically means large-scale, centralized reactors.
 
Originally posted by: ManyBeers
Originally posted by: jagec
We already have an immense amount of infrastructure set up around centralized power plants. At this point it would make more sense to build a large-scale plant and take advantages of the efficiencies of scale.

Besides, we'll need breeder reactors to pull this off, due to the fairly low supply of fissile material, and do you want Joe Moron in the nuclear fuel production business?
Click to expand...

Who wants to be on a grid. Not me if i could help it and still have clean reliable power.
Click to expand...

"Grids" are a common method for enhancing reliability for electricity, as well as for other commodities like natural gas, sewer, and water (and communications).

And the answer to the original question is absolutely not! I can only imagine what unique disasters society's finest could trigger through the accidental release of a few years of stored energy in the reactor's fuel.

Hey, Earl... Let's pry the top off of this thing... Just cut the wires to that alarm bell... Dang! I wish you hadn't spilled my beer in there...
 
Originally posted by: SampSon
I see you read the small article in the new Wired magazine.

I think I'll pass on running my own nuclear reactor. Now if you could get me a Mr. Fusion, like in Back to the Future, I'm all in.
Click to expand...

What article? The one about the Rover? As for the reactor idea. I've always thought that was the way to go.
 
What you're talking about in the Rover, I don't think it's nuclear in the traditional sense of the word (i.e. fission). I'm pretty sure they're batteries that work on the principle of radioactive decay of a material.

It makes a lot of sense in space, but is surely not practical for power generation on the Earth. I think we are better off sticking with grid power and offloading as much as possible on local wind/solar as the technologies advance.
 
Sounds great! Then we can increase home security by passing out rocket launchers, and make health care cheaper by distributing heroin and MRI machines.
 
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Originally posted by: ManyBeers
Originally posted by: jagec
We already have an immense amount of infrastructure set up around centralized power plants. At this point it would make more sense to build a large-scale plant and take advantages of the efficiencies of scale.

Besides, we'll need breeder reactors to pull this off, due to the fairly low supply of fissile material, and do you want Joe Moron in the nuclear fuel production business?
Click to expand...

Who wants to be on a grid. Not me if i could help it and still have clean reliable power.
Click to expand...

what's wrong w/ being on a grid
Click to expand...

Well, no more electric bill and gas bill too.
What about in natural disasters all that infrastructure gets destroyed and has to be rebuilt.
and where i live there is a maze of unsightly power lines all over.
 
Originally posted by: ManyBeers
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Originally posted by: ManyBeers
Originally posted by: jagec
We already have an immense amount of infrastructure set up around centralized power plants. At this point it would make more sense to build a large-scale plant and take advantages of the efficiencies of scale.

Besides, we'll need breeder reactors to pull this off, due to the fairly low supply of fissile material, and do you want Joe Moron in the nuclear fuel production business?
Click to expand...

Who wants to be on a grid. Not me if i could help it and still have clean reliable power.
Click to expand...

what's wrong w/ being on a grid
Click to expand...

Well, no more electric bill and gas bill too.
What about in natural disasters all that infrastructure gets destroyed and has to be rebuilt.
and where i live there is a maze of unsightly power lines all over.
Click to expand...

so who pays for teh creation and maintenance of these nuclearreactors?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top