Nuclear power at your backyard.

Z

zioburosky13

Vault Senior Citizen
That's right folks. Gilber Bates I mean Bill Gates is planning to have a mini nuclear reactor install at every household.

An energy start-up backed by Microsoft Corp. co-founder Bill Gates is in discussions with Toshiba Corp. on developing a small-scale nuclear reactor that would represent a long-term bet to make nuclear power safer and cheaper.
Click to expand...

It gets better.
TerraPower has publicly said its reactor technology could run for decades on depleted uranium without refueling or removing spent fuel from the device. The reactor, the company has said, could be safer, cheaper and more socially acceptable than today's reactors.
Click to expand...

The thing is going to lock inside a vault. So no need to worry about having 2 head dog/cat/mouse/[insert any pet you want]
In interviews, Mr. Gates has described the device being able to run buried deep in the ground without human intervention. The reactor would likely take years to develop and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission doesn't have a certification process for such reactors.
Click to expand...

I wonder what would be the price of uranium in the future...until we can get the damn fusion power they have been talking for decades.

:ugly:
 
And you'll have to install Windows in your house too, otherwise there will be a meltdown.
 
So I guess the appearance of giant insects/arachnids and mutated moles in your backyard would be the indication that the shielding of the reactor has been compromised.
 
Lets imagine american middle class districts streets, filled with houses that look alike completaly. Every house has its own nuclear reactor. Miles and miles of houses, one beside the other, with reactors... Now, if one explode... Its going to be worse than a nuke! Yay!
 
You played FO3 A BIT TOO MUCH... The danger with nuclear accidents is poisoning, not mushroom explosions...
 
It would be impossible to have a nuclear reactor for each house, maybe a reactor for each city.
 
A reactor for every town and city seems cool. It's good to see that nuclear energy is making a comeback.
 
Silencer said:
And you'll have to install Windows in your house too, so the reactors will have meltdowns
Click to expand...



Fixed.

Seriously though, isn't this a joke article? It reminds me of the happy '50s when they wanted to put nuclear reactors in everything from bikes to airplanes.

And why the fuck is Bill Gates involved in this? Does being the richest man alive qualify you for expertise in nuclear physics?

While I'm for nuclear power at a national scale, they should instead spend their resources on developing renewable energy sources like hydro (NOT fusion) and wind power at a household level.

Dragula said:
Heh, Gilbert Bates made me smile.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_Bates?


Radiated Heinz said:
Now, if one explode... Its going to be worse than a nuke! Yay!
Click to expand...

The explosion won't be so bad, but the ensuing radioactive contamination will be.
 
Wind power is for hippies. You can disrupt them with a stick....and it's not that productive.

Hydro disrupts a river's ecosystem...

Nuclear can be underground and airtight. You don't need anything for nuclear...and it works 24/7.

Hydrogen needs to exist first. To obtain hydrogen from water you spend the same amount of energy from burning it.
 
Wind and solar power at a household level is very doable, actually, and is improving.

Hydro, however, isn't really realistic on a small scale, but very good at a national level.

Fusion is nearly as bad as fission, and it's definitely not possible (at least not for maybe a century) on such a small scale.

The ability to disrupt wind turbines with sticks is not really a good argument against them, though.
 
Silencer said:
And you'll have to install Windows in your house too, otherwise there will be a meltdown.
Click to expand...
but if you install it on your house it will still cause a meltdown ...

so we are fucked either way :crazy:

anyway. This sounds more like a joke. Uranium doesnt grow on trees so any future plans on it particularly in relation with either a house or car should be carefully considered.
 
Also, I'm guessing it's a bad idea to have depleted uranium being freely traded in public, considering one of its alternative uses.
 
though the danger of dirty bombs like simple explosives in combination with unranium without any fusion or fission so they simply "just" contaminate a large area is much higher then nuclear weapons in my eyes. But yeah ... its not good to see such things in civilian hands. Imagine a situation like the Oclahoma bombing with Uranium involved. You would not have only a just a few buildings dissapearing but also half of the citiy contanimated for a quite long time wit radiation.
 
That's my point. It's nearly impossible for a civilian to build a fissionable weapon, not to mention they'd have to use depleted uranium, which doesn't even really serve that purpose (you can use it to build a fusion bomb, but that's a level of complexity unreachable even for most states).

Dirty bombs, however, can be built by a 5-year old.

But no, actual fission/fusion nuclear weapons will always be more potent than a dirty bomb, but that's off-topic.
 
1) you do not have to use uranium for nuclear reactors

2) you need to have a bit of the stuff to get an explosion, you can make reactors that function with less amounts than allow explosion

3) you do know that hospitals and medical offices and lots and lots of places have "nuclear material" to make dirty bombs? its in the x-ray machines and other such machines. last i heard, if you removed the materials from 3-5 you could make a dirty bomb.

4) these are called micro-reactors. they are so small relatively that the amount of material in them is not enough to create an explosion

5) beware the nuclear laptop batteries! they last for 10 years! they blow up easily! ( oh wai... they dont... )
 
Still waiting for ITER and the proper use of deuterium etc. That will pwn every nuclear powered plant!
 
TheWesDude said:
1) you do not have to use uranium for nuclear reactors

2) you need to have a bit of the stuff to get an explosion, you can make reactors that function with less amounts than allow explosion

3) you do know that hospitals and medical offices and lots and lots of places have "nuclear material" to make dirty bombs? its in the x-ray machines and other such machines. last i heard, if you removed the materials from 3-5 you could make a dirty bomb.

4) these are called micro-reactors. they are so small relatively that the amount of material in them is not enough to create an explosion

5) beware the nuclear laptop batteries! they last for 10 years! they blow up easily! ( oh wai... they dont... )
Click to expand...



How did you reply to anything in my post?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top