What is Digg?84 Comments
- Elderon, on 01/18/2009, -3/+62You nitwits thinking nuclear = bomb or huge mushroom clouds need to get a grip. crash standards aside this thing would probably be safer after an accident then a normal car. No flammable fuels spilling all over means less risk of fire after an accident. Also take into account if this thing could power a normal type car for as long as they say, you would be polluting way way less than you are today.
People talk about finding alternative fuels and then they stick there ***** heads in the sand when we DO have viable alternatives. Look at the voyager probes. They are still working, wanna know why? NUCLEAR POWER. Not every nuclear device turns into Hiroshima or Chernobyl. I'd love to have portable nuclear batteries. Laptop that never has to be recharged? yes please!
My only requirement would be that there would have to be some collective recycling program so we don't have nuclear waste material sitting in old junk in landfills. - thatoneguydunno, on 01/17/2009, -0/+53Plug to your house to recharge the house.
- dracostimpy, on 01/18/2009, -0/+38More about thorium reactors and why the thought shouldn't terrify you:
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/348/
Key points:
"First of all, unlike U-235 and Pu-239, thorium is not fissile, so no matter how much thorium you pack together, it will not start splitting atoms and blow up. This is because it cannot undergo nuclear fission by itself and it cannot sustain a nuclear chain reaction once one starts. What makes thorium suitable as a nuclear fuel is that it is fertile, much like U-238. "
"...the waste produced from burning thorium in a reactor is dramatically less radioactive than conventional nuclear waste. Where a uranium-fuelled reactor like many of those operating today might generate a tonne of high-level waste that stays toxic for tens of thousands of years, a reactor fuelled only by thorium will generate a fraction of this amount. And it would stay radioactive for only 500 years - after which it would be as manageable as coal ash."
"But wait, there's more: thorium has another remarkable property. Add plutonium to the mix - or any other radioactive actinide - and the thorium fuel process will actually incinerate these elements. That's right: it will chew up old nuclear waste as part of the power-generation process. It could not only generate power, but also act as a waste disposal plant for some of humanity's most heinous toxic waste." - Bobby1978, on 01/18/2009, -0/+23Awesome car. Great for post-apocalyptic futures where gas is a precious commodity.
- snagra, on 01/18/2009, -0/+20***** concept cars. They just show you really cool cars that have amazing features and then say you can't have one for another 7 years...maybe. In the meantime here is a Ford Fiesta...
- sigmaman2, on 01/18/2009, -0/+16Thanks, but I'll wait for the one powered by Dilithium Crystals.
- NinjaGod, on 01/18/2009, -0/+15You've obviously never played Fallout 3. The cars make an excellent boom, and they are great for controlling crowds.
PREPARE FOR THE FUTURE. - hwy9nightkid, on 01/18/2009, -3/+15SO that is where my bailout money went...?
- liquisoft, on 01/18/2009, -1/+11Concept cars are always a bit too far-fetched. I get that the whole point is that it's conceptual, but I think people ought to try to be realistic. Okay, so it has a radioactive power plant in the back of it. Can't that be the mind-blowing thing? Why does the car have to look like a whacked-out Gillette razor?
- rune420, on 01/18/2009, -3/+13You CAN NOT make a bomb out of Thorium, it ISN'T FISSILE!
- inactive, on 01/18/2009, -1/+11It's only a matter of time until we have engines made of mithril!
- 4degrees, on 01/17/2009, -0/+9great information about the power plant!
/sarcasm - jjremy, on 01/18/2009, -0/+9I, for one, welcome our new thoriumian saviour!
- curtisag, on 01/18/2009, -1/+10Only girly men drive non-radioactive cars. Real men go green, and even glow at night to let everyone know.
- dbzssj44676, on 01/18/2009, -0/+8Radioisotope thermoelectric generator, not a new concept, not even new for a car concept. That doesn't mean its a bad idea.
- noahhoward, on 01/18/2009, -0/+7Idiots like you are the reason we didn't move away from gasoline years ago.
- masterofshadows, on 01/18/2009, -0/+6Thorium, while radioactive is nowhere nearly as dangerous as other radioactive elements. It also isn't fissile, which means its non-weaponizable. Don't go crazy just because its "radioactive" we have had watches for years that are radioactive (radioactive luminescent paint, recently abandoned because it wasn't the safest thing for people to have on them due to an increased cancer risk).
- gustsomejuy, on 01/17/2009, -1/+7WTF? Oh, its a WTF.
- TheAbsintheHare, on 01/18/2009, -0/+5Good luck mining any thorium to fuel it; basement nerds always got Un'goro and Silithus on farm...
- benitojuarez, on 01/18/2009, -0/+5someone needs to mod this into fallout 3 with the geck
- SuckMyDigg, on 01/18/2009, -0/+5"The fact that World Thorium Concept adds up as WTF is at the same time humorous and exact: it is a little bit far-fetched, but a futuristic concept has to be."
Reading that I would have to say, no it "adds up" to WTC. - CeeJayDK, on 01/18/2009, -0/+5It makes it look SHARP !
- NinjaGod, on 01/18/2009, -0/+5I wish my Caddy had a nuclear plant in it.
- TheRealDj, on 01/18/2009, -0/+5Needs more Mr. Fusion.
- itsJALbert, on 01/18/2009, -0/+4I think it was a typo in that they omitted the word fuel. World Thorium Fuel Concept = WTF Concept.
- inactive, on 01/18/2009, -0/+4Small nuclear based power cells would make sense for many applications. They do not use materials which are highly radioactive. They can supply clean power for decades with basically zero maintenance. Like Elderon said space probes and satellites are powered with nuclear power systems. Proper disposal after their useful life has ended is a concern but I'm certain something could be worked out.
We already manufacture and dispose of millions of batteries every year which contain numerous hazardous materials. I don't see people railing against them. - inactive, on 01/18/2009, -1/+5It has just modified flux capacitor, nothing more.
- gnotDigger, on 01/18/2009, -1/+5Looks incredible! Available: never.
- qwertydvorak, on 01/18/2009, -0/+4@rune420: he doesn't mean mushroom cloud bomb. he said dirty bomb:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb - dsmx, on 01/18/2009, -0/+4now imagine if we gave this technology to iran they would have nuclear power and we wouldn't need to worry about nuclear weapons.
- AmyVernon, on 01/18/2009, -2/+5If you can get past the nuclear concept, it's a really funkdaelic car.
- kyle90, on 01/18/2009, -1/+4They need to build it with retro-50's styling, for sure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon
- inactive, on 01/18/2009, -0/+3look inside your smoke detectors to
http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=340 - geffo, on 01/18/2009, -0/+3@noahhoward that's a bit rich coming from the land of the SUV, and oil burning winter home heating.
my opinion is coming to you from a land that uses 80% renewable energy sources for the national grid.
also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transuranic_waste
do you really think this is good idea. - noahhoward, on 01/18/2009, -0/+3No it's not. What will we do with all the CO2 we'll use instead? What will we do with all the toxic substances from hybrid car batteries we'll use? What will we do with the waste from the millions upon millions of alkaline batteries we use?
What is worse, tossing out a chunk of used up barely radioactive material once every few decades or toss out a toxic battery every few years? - haikuFU, on 01/18/2009, -0/+3You mean despite the fact that the headline clearly tells you it's nuclear?
And, how are jets cooler than nuclear? - fcbarca8, on 01/18/2009, -1/+4I totally agree with you that we neglect the viable alternative energies available to us. However, as far as I am concerned nuclear power is not the way to go until we can come up with a better way of reusing, recycling, or disposing of waste material than tossing it into a hollowed out mountain. As far as energy extraction, nuclear energy is much cleaner and energy dense than traditional methods, and I would agree that history has proven it to be relatively safe when properly handled. The problem is still what to do with the waste.
Also, specifically with this concept, I find it hard to believe that thorium is actually a viable energy source. It may be packed with energy, but how much thorium is actually out there? - noahhoward, on 01/18/2009, -0/+3Batteries were already grandfathered in when the media-fed masses were told we need to be 'green'.
- noahhoward, on 01/18/2009, -0/+3If you want to see this get some attention, please head over to the Obama Administrations 'Citizens Briefing Book' http://citizensbriefingbook.change.gov/ideas/viewI ... and vote the topic up before it's buried by the anti-nuclear crowd.
- fcbarca8, on 01/18/2009, -0/+3Hey, I never said electric vehicles were the best way to go either. I just said I wasn't a fan of nuclear energy until the waste can be handled properly. Personally, I am an advocate of biofuels like biodiesel (not corn ethanol) for transportation energy for the very reasons you pointed out. Batteries aren't sustainable and renewable, unlike algae, which hopefully will be commercially utilized in the near future. Electric vehicles create an entirely new problem. Instead of relying on dirty fossil fuels, now we are going to have to do extensive mining in order to get the massive amounts of lithium that will be necessary for car batteries, which will only last a few years and then be about as useful as nuclear waste.
And as far as CO2 from biofuels, biodiesel has been shown to be carbon neutral, and some studies suggest that biodiesel from alage actually remove CO2 from the air, which is even better than carbon neutral. - TheAbsintheHare, on 01/18/2009, -1/+4What did you gain in exchange for the twenty minutes it took you to type that out?
- ScottMcIntyre, on 01/17/2009, -4/+7Goes like a bomb...
- CaptOblivious, on 01/19/2009, -0/+2PrometheusBorn
Buried for willful scientific ignorance (the anti-google) as demonstrated by the entirely incorrect statement,
"but it most certainly has the ability to melt a hole in your garage floor and contaminate your neighborhoods drinking supply if it relies on fission."
Nope, Wrong. Do some research. the entire point is that it only gets just so hot and no hotter, even without external cooling.
For extra credit you could look up "Pebble bed reactors". - wipis, on 01/20/2009, -0/+2Well at the time I didn't know Thorium was a nuclear Isotope.
- mbraynard, on 01/19/2009, -0/+2To get you to RTFA.
- daveybee, on 01/19/2009, -0/+2That's an awesome car. Cadillac never ceases to deliver on their concept vehicles, and very recently on their real cars too.
- SirBruce, on 01/18/2009, -1/+3The satisfaction of a job well done?
- Mullinator, on 01/18/2009, -0/+2Look at the last two pictures. I dare you* to tell me that doesn't look like a variation of the Batmobile.
*I don't really dare you. - PrometheusBorn, on 01/18/2009, -1/+3I'm always somewhat suspect when authors write amazing break through articles that if only the world would listen we'd be in such a better place.
I'm curious how a thorium 'incinerates' another element. As much detail in the other reactions presented by the author, the part I really wanted to know about is left at 'incinerate' which isn't what happens to atoms.
Also, this article does little to say that a car that contains one of these reactors shouldn't 'terrify' you. It may not breed weapons grade plutonium, but it most certainly has the ability to melt a hole in your garage floor and contaminate your neighborhoods drinking supply if it relies on fission.
And if GM makes it, I'm sure that's exactly what it'll do.
Now I'll be prepared to be buried because diggers always hate when someone is being realistic and doesn't believe every new miracle technology just around the corner. - Protonz, on 01/18/2009, -0/+2You don't need a collective recycling program. There would be a market incentive to sell your used batteries back to someone who has a market use for them, especially since they last so long.
-
Show 51 - 85 of 85 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is