ylexot
Super Genius
With his backing, it might get done! 
Bill Gates, Toshiba in early talks on nuclear reactor - Yahoo! News
Bill Gates, Toshiba in early talks on nuclear reactor - Yahoo! News
Bill Gates pushes small-scale nuclear
- Thread starter ylexot
- Start date
ylexot
Super Genius
Well, they're working with Toshiba who has the 4S reactor and it mentions "could be introduced by cities or states or in developing countries more easily." I'd guess that the reactors would be about the same size as the 4S reactor...so in between Calvert Cliffs and backyard. More like town/neighborhood-size.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
We are a sad collection of individuals;
Bavarian
New Member
Do you forget some of Westinghouse's home of the future ideas made in the '50s? Each house would have its own nuclear reactor. They are in Popular Science.
We were also to have flying cars and automated highways, cars would drive themselves. This was the future we would have in the 1960's.
Check out GM's Futurama display at tne 1939-1940 New York World's Fair.
It was updated for the 1964-65 New York World's Fair.
We were also to have flying cars and automated highways, cars would drive themselves. This was the future we would have in the 1960's.
Check out GM's Futurama display at tne 1939-1940 New York World's Fair.
It was updated for the 1964-65 New York World's Fair.
GWguy
*
Hasn't been updated much in TomorrowLand either. I laugh when I go thru there.... underwater habitats, living on space stations.....
With his backing, it might get done!
Bill Gates, Toshiba in early talks on nuclear reactor - Yahoo! News
My main worry about this is, could it be sabotaged to make a "dirty bomb"? As in, could terrorists plant enough C-4 around one to make it really dangerous?
ylexot
Super Genius
No.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Of course it could. Given the amount of energy the things produce, there is danger.
The questions to ask, in my view, relate to comparing the dangers and the benefits to what we do now and come up with intelligent answers. So, that won't happen. But, yes, if there is radiation, you could make a dirty bomb with them. How bad? I'm not sure, but, as I understand it, it is impossible, given the fuel, to create a nuclear reaction.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Reading the article, it appears that they're talking about small plants, but not backyard reactors.
This was MIT's suggestions decades ago for the rebirth of American nuclear.
There have also been tests on using the radiation of the spent fuel to power photovoltaic cells. This was actually a test they'd considered attempting years ago, but I don't know if they ever have.
This was MIT's suggestions decades ago for the rebirth of American nuclear.
There have also been tests on using the radiation of the spent fuel to power photovoltaic cells. This was actually a test they'd considered attempting years ago, but I don't know if they ever have.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
And that's the point these goofs try to totally ignore! As long as it is still hot, waster or not, there is still energy, there is still value and, from 40 years ago to today and into the future, we just might, maybe, find an economical and safe way to use it!
This_person
Well-Known Member
I actually hope this works. No moving parts, doesn't matter if it's sunny or dark, consistent continuous supply....
I doubt it could ever even come close to matching the actual power output of a reactor, but it would be a great anciliary use of the waste!
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Sounds like a job for capitalists.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Yes! And have been for some time.
See, as a small business owner, I see the shortest point between A and Z, the most direct, shortest, most efficient route.
That is not how big corporations work nor is it how government works. 'Big' things get big by offering a place at the table for more folks, lawyers, advertisers, analysts, experts, more people with more clip boards and charts and more ideas and opinions on how to get from A to Z.
Over time, an awful many people are tied into the success of that larger organization. Over time, those clip board people become entrenched and their costs become out of whack with the original goal.
What's the first thing that happens when a large company gets taken over? Pretty much everyone gets whacked and the new people start over and make each new person or process that gets added justify itself to the bottom line; they don't trim the fat, they hack it off.
That does NOT happen in government.
Successful business's, over time, continually trim fat, keep making process's and people justify their role.
That doesn't happen in government either.
So, getting to the point, no one, at least no one big business and big government oriented, wants nuke BECAUSE it is cheap and it is efficient and it does not provide the opportunity for mobs of clip boards. SO, nuke has been made big through massive regulation and studies and over engineering and all the clip boards associated with making it big and complex. That's lots of jobs and lots of votes.
This is one of the key things I think people miss between business and BIG business. Totally different mind sets, totally different ways of going about things, same for local vs. state and national government. The interests are very different.