What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
262 Comments
- DCMacHead, on 11/09/2008, -2/+96Sounds pretty cool. Who wants to be a beta tester?
- CamZak, on 11/09/2008, -3/+94$250 to power my house for 7 years? Count me in. I'll pay 4x that.
- inactive, on 11/09/2008, -4/+77This type of cheap electricity will explode around the globe in the next 20 years. Think of all the African countries that could benefit from this. Think of the USA that could benefit from this! Too bad it will never happen here because of all the anti-nuclear energy people here.
- CatsAreGods, on 11/09/2008, -0/+54Er, that's $250/year actually. But still pretty much what I pay now per month in the summer.
- CatsAreGods, on 11/09/2008, -5/+37Iran and North Korea, I bet.
- psevium, on 11/09/2008, -3/+32If by "explode" you mean "won't explode" and "irradiating 4 square blocks" you mean "help energy demands" then yes, I'd agree with you
- filldeviant, on 11/09/2008, -3/+30Fallout 3?
- Charlotte_Web, on 11/09/2008, -7/+32Barack Obama opposes nuclear energy now, and the latest generation of nuclear power plants are very safe.
A lot of our nuclear energy policy has been based on irrational fears. - Charlotte_Web, on 11/09/2008, -0/+24Our energy demands are growing, and will reveal how old and outdated our powerline infrastructure is. The last two decades have seen an explosion of consumer electronic devices, and just wait until plug-in electric cars hit the mainstream!
Dropping these mini power plants into neighborhoods bypasses a lot of that infrastructure. - Barackalypse, on 11/09/2008, -3/+25Well, that pretty much crushes the economic viability of any grid tied solar power installs , doesn't it? If it powers 20,000 homes for 7 years for a cost of $25 million, that works out to $1250 per household, or $179 a year. $1250 in solar panels won't even buy you 300 watts of solar panel (ignoring installation costs), which is just barely enough to power your refrigerator for a day (assuming 5 hours of sunlight each day, a perfectly loseless storage mechanism, and a fairly efficient refrigerator).
- inactive, on 11/09/2008, -1/+20As long as I'm not a gamma tester.
- inactive, on 11/09/2008, -4/+23Damn You George Bush. At least this didn't happen a year or two ago, at least this late in the administration Obama will get credit for this but it may all be un necessary because Obama is going to unclassify and reveal Alien Technology which will make petro and nuclear energy aswell as solar, wind and hydro completely and totally obsolete.
- kanabiis, on 11/09/2008, -1/+19Nuclear powered ships have been around since the early 50's. There has never been a US naval incident directly related to the nuclear reactor. Infact, the US Navy has only lost 2 nuclear powered vessels in its entire history, both of them submarines and neither incident was as a result of any malfunction or failure of the nuclear reactor.
While it sounds scary to the uninformed, the truth is small nuclear reactors like this are quite safe when they are monitored and maintained by trained, qualified personnel.
The economic potential of such an endeavor is incredible, hundreds of thousands of jobs. From engineers designing them, skilled laborers building them, security, to the skilled technicians operating them.
- PrometheusBorn, on 11/09/2008, -3/+21Then that would be the ***** design of a nuclear plant ever built.
I may be going out on a limb here, but I'm willing to stake a few bucks that the concrete is not a pressure barrier of any sort. And if it is going through NRC approval, there will have to be many layers of defense against that sort of release.
I'm just wondering about what kind of monitoring is required. Running a reactor unsupervised is unheard of. Does that price include someone to watch it? Does it include passive safety systems? Hmmm... - jboitnott, on 11/09/2008, -3/+19Well that will certainly be a hurdle .... however - if the nuclear industry is able to demonstrate a near-perfect degree of safety and consumer happiness.... it could change everything.
- buuundy, on 11/09/2008, -1/+15Maybe gamma tester...
- unknownpoltroon, on 11/09/2008, -2/+16BUT ITS NUKULAR!! WITH atoms!!! Well all DIE!!! Think of the children!!!!
/Why this will never work. - doublefelix, on 11/09/2008, -1/+14http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/
needless to say, not my site - MrSlumberjack, on 11/09/2008, -0/+13I'll take ten of them. They'll make great stocking stuffers!
- inactive, on 11/09/2008, -0/+12No, because I'm on Digg and I talk out of my arse.
- inactive, on 11/09/2008, -0/+11All we need are some Vault-Tec vaults.
- WileyK, on 11/09/2008, -2/+13Good. Nuke power is the future for most of the planet, not solar or wind.
- trainer, on 11/09/2008, -0/+11Cheap as hell to charge your car overnight when the load is low. Yes please!
- TheJimid, on 11/09/2008, -1/+11Mr. Burns is rolling in his grave...in money.
- adamdigg, on 11/09/2008, -0/+10The problem is approximately half the people in this country are afraid of certain words, such as "socialist", "gay", and "nukular".
- inactive, on 11/09/2008, -8/+18I wish I understood why this wasn't dangerous. What happens if, for example, there is a crack in the concrete and radioactive ***** drips into your drinking water in the aquifer below?
- Yookji, on 11/09/2008, -1/+11RTFA: you would need to enrich the uranium in order to use it as a weapon.
- Farik, on 11/09/2008, -2/+11For all the stupid ***** comments which talk about safety, why don't you RTFA then comment. Do you not think the security of such a reactor would be a top priority in the construction?
- doublefelix, on 11/09/2008, -0/+9I liked that part of his platform about opening up Area 51.
- inactive, on 11/09/2008, -0/+8As long as I'm not an alpha tester.
- thereisnospork, on 11/09/2008, -2/+10You're an idiot.
repeat after me: fuel cells are not a power source, fuel cells are not a power source, fuel cells are not a power source... - inactive, on 11/09/2008, -0/+8Until everyone is charging their cars at night ;)
- johnvbrennan, on 11/09/2008, -0/+8Doc: "Unfortunately it requires something with a little more kick: plutonium!"
Marty: "Whoa, you mean to tell me this sucker's nuclear?"
Doc: "No, no, no, no. This sucker's electrical, but I need the nuclear reaction to generate the 1.21 jigowatts of electricity I need." - prisoner24601, on 11/09/2008, -3/+11I was curious so I found a link to the company:
http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/ - mikeymondavi, on 11/09/2008, -1/+9I would remind you all that France has been more than 70% nuclear powered for a long time now and they havent had one leak, meltdown and (gasp!) rioting Islamic citizens who oddly enough didnt blow up any of them. Why is it that when people hear the world nuclear they automagically associate it with bomb. We should have nuclear reactors popping up all over the country like Starbucks instead of this fear that anything nuclear is going to blow up. If you don't skimp on building a quality plant and protections for emergencies (Chernobyl) and have a good plan in place in case an emergency happened (Three Mile Island, which was not only contained safely but also no one died, nothing blew up, world didnt end) then there's not a whole lot to worry about. Bring on the nuclear power, i got tons of servers i want to power for fractions of pennies on the dollar.
- woofer1125, on 11/09/2008, -1/+8"***** you"..?
- kanabiis, on 11/09/2008, -0/+7Well 3 rectors have been built in the past 8 years for just Nimitz class aircraft carriers, USS Regan, USS HW Bush, and the refitted USS Ford.
9 Virginia class nuclear submarines will be completed by 2014, making a total of 12 all together built since 1998.
We are not talking about 2 Mile Island size reactors that take decades to build. Infact, the reactors the article discusses are smaller then any of the reactors in either the Nimitz class carriers or the Virginia class subs.
Knowing is half the battle..... ;) - weeFred, on 11/09/2008, -0/+7Sanman - Dirty bombs are pretty much useless, most major studies have concluded that hardly anybody would be killed by one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb#Effect_of_ ...
- NathanLoehlein, on 07/27/2009, -0/+7So it needs to be "recharged" every 7-10 years, but how? Dig it out of the ground and replace it, or just drop some more uranium in, or what? A little detail would be helpful :/
- mikeymondavi, on 11/09/2008, -1/+7It's supposed to go to Yucca Mountain, but oddly enough people think its better to house waste on site at the reactors than it is to put the ***** in a secure facility underground away from water and other things, thus, they do everything to block it from starting up operation.
- trghpy, on 11/09/2008, -0/+6Hmm, 20,000 homes... times say my lower than average power bill... 20 bucks a month...
I'll take one!
Maybe they can replace that fugly substation with one. How about that, no more substations because the power is created where its needed! No transfer losses. - CatsAreGods, on 11/09/2008, -2/+8Tell me again how we fund Al Queda?
- Amazetbm, on 11/09/2008, -0/+6You won't see those on anything but paper for another century, if that soon.
- ncrep, on 11/09/2008, -0/+6you are an idiot
im a nuclear engineer and i can tell you that the nuclear fears are totally irrational
the three mile island and Chernobyl accidents could not ever happen today with the advanced technology
nuclear power plants simply do not have the concentration of uranium to explode like a bomb, know what you are talking about dumbass - ilikeeggs8877, on 11/09/2008, -1/+7not to mention, the purpose of this is that not only would it be difficult to attack (buried under ground (much like you're about to be)) but if there are so many small ones, whats the point of attacking any single one?
- mrzeero, on 11/09/2008, -0/+6This is great news. No point in changing anything about the coal industry since these babies are coming out in 5 years. Heck, we would be lucky if the coal plant upgrades were even completed by then. Why bother when we will be able to just stop using coal in five years. More empty promises so that people will not push for cleaner power NOW. I will bet everything I have that these will NOT be available to the consumer in 5 years.
- Spetz, on 11/09/2008, -0/+6Not all reactors produce plutonium as a by-product. These are known as fast-breeder reactors or otherwise. These are the ones that are unsafe. Reactors designed only to produce electricity can be perfectly safe.
Nuclear power got a bad reputation because it just so happened to coincide with the cold war when the nations wanted the nuclear material to put in missiles. These were the unstable type of reactor, Chernobyl, three misle island etc. - Charlotte_Web, on 11/09/2008, -4/+9I think this pretty much does away with terrorist concerrns, to decentralize the nuclear power plants
- S1ngular1ty1, on 11/09/2008, -0/+5These things probably use a thermal to electric solid state generator of some sort that does away with the need for steam generation. Typically, the heat from nuclear plants is used to heat water and create steam which is used to run steam turbines that generate the electrical power.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermogenerator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peltier-Seebeck_effec ... - tgc1, on 11/09/2008, -0/+5Educating the masses about the safety of these systems is key.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 271 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is