Civilian mini nuclear reactors in 5 yeras???!!!!

[vene-nemesis]

Its sounds good in theory but hell id be worried to have an unatended mini nuclear bomb close to my house if it ever comes true, but as things are going nowadays I see no other good solution to cheap power:

http://www.megagames.com/news/html/h...in5years.shtml

[DigMe]

Originally Posted by vene-nemesis

but as things are going nowadays I see no other good solution to cheap power:

I think time and energy would be better spent looking into making solar and wind power production more efficient.

bc

[vene-nemesis]

Originally Posted by DigMe

I think time and energy would be better spent looking into making solar and wind power production more efficient.

bc

Wind power is the crapiest form to obtain energy...

[ehque]

You don't need weapons-grade fissile material to make a dirty bomb.

Originally Posted by vene-nemesis

Wind power is the crapiest form to obtain energy...

Agree. Solar is way better.

The wind moves because of solar energy, incurring heavy conversion losses. Better to get the energy from the source.

[Tsal]

Originally Posted by DigMe

I think time and energy would be better spent looking into making solar and wind power production more efficient.

I assume that nuclear reactors can be downscaled pretty easily for wider use - they have put the things even on ships and submarines. Developing proper solar/wind technology, however, seems to be more difficult.

[vene-nemesis]

Originally Posted by ehque

You don't need weapons-grade fissile material to make a dirty bomb.



Agree. Solar is way better.

The wind moves because of solar energy, incurring heavy conversion losses. Better to get the energy from the source.

Plus mechanical losses on the energy obtention plus the size of the machine itself wich is huge...

Oh you wrote conversion, i thought i read convection...

[ehque]

Originally Posted by Tsal

I assume that nuclear reactors can be downscaled pretty easily for wider use - they have put the things even on ships and submarines. Developing proper solar/wind technology, however, seems to be more difficult.

Last time i checked, no terrorists have attempted to remove the reactor from a aircraft carrier or nuclear sub.

[machine gewehr]

Yaay next generations will have 3 arms,2 heads,5 legs etc etc...

Besides,nuclear stuff beneath homes:Nuclear bombs to trigger for bad guys.

[Deacon_Blues]

5 years? Well, I didn't read that article (read about it somewhere else earlier though) but that's nothing but BS. The technology might not require much development work, but to change the legislation to allow those things would not be as easy. I'm convinced the resistance against them would be rather significant.

50 years seems more realistic, but OTOH not, because other energy sources will be better developed. I bet solar power will be far more used then than it is now. It's actually stupid not to take more advantage of the enormous amount of solar energy that arrives to our planet continuously, instead of using non-renewable sources that pollute the planet.

[vene-nemesis]

Originally Posted by Deacon_Blues

5 years? Well, I didn't read that article (read about it somewhere else earlier though) but that's nothing but BS. The technology might not require much development work, but to change the legislation to allow those things would not be as easy. I'm convinced the resistance against them would be rather significant.

50 years seems more realistic, but OTOH not, because other energy sources will be better developed. I bet solar power will be far more used then than it is now. It's actually stupid not to take more advantage of the enormous amount of solar energy that arrives to our planet continuously, instead of using non-renewable sources that pollute the planet.

I HIGHLY DOUBT that any testing of this would happen in a developed country, somehow China might be one of the very first countries to implement this and if it hapens to work... its only way to sucseed its on a short basis before solar energy gets to be on every single rooftop of the world.

[mvw356]

dirty bombs for the masses, yay. don't we already have enough problems?

[FL Knifemaker]

I'm going to trade in my propane powered emergency generator for one

[Asa Samuel]

Doesn't sound too bad, wind power is very very difficult and far too expensive to develop but solar power is the way to go methinks, until the sun blows up of course

[mvw356]

Originally Posted by Bass Junkie

Doesn't sound too bad, wind power is very very difficult and far too expensive to develop but solar power is the way to go methinks, until the sun blows up of course

solar power is not very cost effective. windenergy is much better, but the initial investment is substantial.

[L-A]

Originally Posted by mvw356

dirty bombs for the masses, yay. don't we already have enough problems?

Thanks for not calling it a nuclear bomb.

[Gard]

While I find the concept of thousands of small nuclear reactors strewn about the world TERRIFYING, let's not lose sight of the fact that in the end, ALL energy sources are at their root, nuclear.

Nuclear power needs to be a part of a coordinated solution for the coming energy crunch, but done in a safe and secure way. Dotting the globe with 1-10 mw nuclear generators is definitely not a secure concept! However, using the modern designs that now exist to create larger, centralized power production stations, coupled with using solar, wind, geothermal, and wave/current/tidal sources makes sense in a long view.

None of the "green" sources can produce power 24/7, and our power needs are not always tied to times with the necessary sunny/windy/correct ocean conditions timing. For example, neither solar or wind are useful after dark, but we all sit at our computers or televisions in the evenings, don't we?

Unless someone develops a truly useful supercapacitor (which is it's own nightmare scenario as a terrorist target! ), how do we store the energy and distribute it when these sources are "off line"? They work great as a peak demand source, because the majority of electricity demand is during the best times to harvest these sources, but as a "baseline" production of energy, they are less than desireable.

Fission or hopefully one day fusion generation however, is not tied to the time of day, it can produce power at demand at any time. We should develop a solid baseline nuclear capacity (with very good security and safety oversight), and utilize the other sources as a high-demand source, as it lends itself very well to this type of use.

[L-A]

Originally Posted by Gard

None of the "green" sources can produce power 24/7, and our power needs are not always tied to times with the necessary sunny/windy/correct ocean conditions timing. For example, neither solar or wind are useful after dark, but we all sit at our computers or televisions in the evenings, don't we?
...
Fission or hopefully one day fusion generation however, is not tied to the time of day, it can produce power at demand at any time. We should develop a solid baseline nuclear capacity (with very good security and safety oversight), and utilize the other sources as a high-demand source, as it lends itself very well to this type of use.

Ever wondered why Canada sells electricity to the United States?

Hydroelectricity does a lot of what you mention, with a pretty nifty power output. The potential threat here is basically flooding, but the dams are pretty solid and subject to a lot of attention and monitoring.

[invader3k]

Yeah, I'm sure some guy will just be able to walk up to it and detonate, guys.

Come on.

[jazzy grille]

Didn't they just find come out with some technology that will make the current style of nuclear reactors history?

I remember reading a magazine and they said some scientist found a way to make solar cells that can capture radiation from heavy metals and convert it into energy. No more boiling water.

*edit*

Here it is:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13545

[flipper_gv]

wave power ftw!!