What is Digg?Sponsored by Amazon.com
Kindle(TM) - Give the Ultimate Last Minute gift view!
amazon.com - Order Kindle now and receive it in time for Christmas. Free Expedited shipping. Click to learn more.
80 Comments
- macguy815, on 10/10/2007, -4/+43That analogy really doesn't work... I know the submitter was trying to compare it to atomic energy, but cmon, nuclear power has nothing to do with exploding. It's capturing the heat given off during the radioactive decay of uranium into a plutonium isotope. A nuclear reactor meltdown wouldn't explode, give off lots of cancer causing radiation, sure, but no explosions. Quit trying to put down a great alternative energy source that could realistically power the entire planet, without giving off CO2, end global warming, and have a smaller physical foot print than a solar power plant. Also if perhaps the general public was less turned off to nuclear power, then we might already be building thorium reactors, which practically eliminate the need to designate a place to store the radioactive waste, as the waste has a half life of 50 years instead of thousands of years. India is already working on building a thorium reactor. http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2005/07/68045
- doctorfungi, on 10/10/2007, -3/+25I hate the way that "nuclear" is associated with "explosion".
- doctorfungi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16Well then stop posting stupid *****.
- BigSax, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14Tesla also claimed he could split the earth in half with a series of well timed explosions.
He had a lot brilliant ideas, but some of them where bat-***** insane. - Sangatious, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Forget if it gets out of control, wouldn't it be damaging if it actually worked? I mean it seems like it would be messing with weather patterns and they are pretty delicate, no?
- wendelgee2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+777% of France's power is nuclear and you don't hear about horrible three-tailed babies there, because they reprocess their "spent" fuel rods to make more fuel rods, where as we just throw them away. "Spent nuclear fuel - the stuff intended for permanent disposal at Yucca Mountain - retains 95 percent of its energy content."
Here's a good article on the subject:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.02/nuclear.html?pg=1&topic=nuclear&topic_set= - arcangelgabriel, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Kinda reminds me of the folks who scream RADIATION! when you mention the word microwave. Should've paid more attention in science class.
- Pilot85, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5this is on such a local scale it would be impossible to "mess with the local weather patterns". And it sounds like a pretty contained solution - tornadoes can't survive just anywhere.
- ToadLeg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5"Right now the water from [nuclear power] plants has to be cooled in $20 million towers. Michaud expects to replace these towers with tornadoes"
The best place to put the tornado? Right on top of the nuclear power plant! - Timmmm, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Might work if the earth were a giant weightless sphere, but it's not. Gravity holds the world together, not material strength. To 'split the world in two' you'd presumably have to put in enough energy to separate two halves of the world. That amount of energy is, as the above poster pointed out, bat-***** insane.
- sgtbutterscotch, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6When I first read the headline, I thought it said we could power cities by creating tomatoes.
- ayeroxor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I never knew Paris Hilton was a Cindy Lauper fan...
- satanatnmtedu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3No. A meltdown is NOT an explosion unless you are referring to a STEAM explosion. And, the idea that the controlled nuclear reaction is creating heat is a far more valid explanation than yours.
Controlling a tornado would be much more dangerous than a nuclear reaction. We have a good idea about what is happening in a nuclear reaction. But, the mechanisms associated with tornadoes are far less well understood. - ayeroxor, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Which, just so everybody knows, is fake, otherwise the world would be nothing but 50,000,000 mph windstorms due to the first breath taken millions of years ago. Causal reactions LOSE impact each time, in the form of heat. It's called entropy, and it's not just a good idea, it's the law. The second law, in fact.
- orlyfactor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3He also had wicked cool hair!
- ayeroxor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -Clarke's Third Law
Some people don't fear that which they don't understand. Fear is an understatement. Some people are TERRIFIED by that which they don't understand. - ronin691, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2No need to generate some fake ones, they are daily occurrence here in Texas. Please come and "harness" them for some useful purpose other than annoying me.
- Piggycow, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It's supposed to make the plants more efficient and It also touched on the possibility of geothermal heat to power it.; did you even read the article?
- init100, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2There are significant differences between nuclear reactor cores and bomb cores. Bomb cores require highly enriched (>90% U-235) uranium or plutonium to actually be able to explode. Nuclear reactor cores also use enriched uranium, but to a much lower enrichment level (~10% U-235), and cannot explode. They melt and become very hot (like 5000 degrees C) fore sure, but the core does not explode. What can explode is the cooling solution, usually water. Ever tried dropping water on a hot plate? Then take that reaction and size it up a thousand times and multiply the temperature by 30, and you've got a nice steam explosion.
- AgentAce, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Somehow I think this would require more energy than it would produce.
- sbassoli, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3So they want to put tornadoes right next to power plants? I don't see what could go wrong.
- lesty420, on 10/10/2007, -15/+17I hate the way that "Digg" is associated with "idiots".
- Tyr7BE, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power
- init100, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"the original 'idea' was to capture the energy of atomic explosions. We had the explosion first, then we had to figure out how to harness its power."
That's silly. We had nuclear reactors before the Trinity Test, although they didn't generate electical power. I'm pretty sure that the involved scientists could think of ways to generate electrical power when they saw all that heat generated in the reactor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Pile_1
The nuclear reactors were required to generate the plutonium used in the Trinity Test "gadget" and in Fat Man (Little Boy used Uranium which is produced without the help of a nuclear reactor). - jayhawk88, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2When tornadoes take over the world
There'll be no time for fretting
No fussing or complaining anymore
When tornadoes take over the world
You won't have your folks
To blame for all the stuff that's your fault
Your friends will be swirling
Right above your disembodied head
When tornadoes take over the world
All the things in the fridge
That fell on the floor
Will dissapear
And all of your neighbors
Will be waving their flashlights at your house
Your friends will be swirling
Right above your disembodied head
When tornadoes take over the world. - re0turin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2that would be such a cool thing to see off the back porch, why the hell wouldn't you want it in your back yard.
think about it, build a house to the west of that thing and it'll look like the damned thing is on fire every evening, i won't be a tornado like you see in movies or in nature because it would likely be on a large cement slab and wouldn't have all the dust, but on a cloudy day you would have this swirling vortex of terror.
then again I just want to shoot fire works into the thing - JackMacBastard, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Follow the Yellow Brick Road to renewable energy!
- VitriolAndAngst, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Sounds actually like a great idea. You are creating conditions for a continuous tornado -- you provide some heat and steam, and the environment gives you more energy in return. If weather conditions arise where there is MORE heat around the plant -- then shut it down. This would be a great way to make energy where the sun isn't always shining.
You are essentially creating a vortex -- it's pretty controllable, but you'd want to set it up far from other property if one escapes. Chances are, without the conditions that your plant provides, any tornado would quickly die.
Again, this does equate pretty well to nuclear energy. These are powerful and chaotic forces that you apply well understood physics to control. Either can get out of control if you don't constantly monitor the inputs and outputs. However, there is no long-lasting fallout from a tornado -- so this is actually safer.
I think the critics aren't really understanding what is going on. It makes a lot of sense in systems where you already generate waste heat and could actually cool a nuclear power plant. Definitely more testing should be done -- but I don't see how it is very dangerous -- if the Tornado were to survive or be able to move outside of your controlled area, you already have conditions for a tornado, and in those cases, you throttle it down. You'd do the same thing if a power plant were getting too hot. - TheWhiteOtter, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Erm, microwaves are a type of radiation (a radioactive source is completely different).
"A microwave oven, or microwave, is a kitchen appliance employing microwave RADIATION primarily to cook or heat food. Microwave ovens have revolutionized food preparation since their use became widespread in the 1970s." - Wikipedia
"Should've paid more attention in science class." - you - LogicBomB, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Seeing as any tornado requires proper heat and air conditions to operate, if it were to escape it would very quickly die.
Personally I LOVE the idea. Maybe they could use geothermal as a future heat source? - sliptech, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1it looks like tomado, *****
- UlicBelouve, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"where the sun isn't always shining"...I think that'd be about 98% of the earth. Yes, there are few places the sun doesn't go down at night.
- init100, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"It's capturing the heat given off during the radioactive decay of uranium into a plutonium isotope."
Read up on nuclear fission. Nuclear fission uses a neutron to split uranium into several fission products and a few more neutrons. The energy is released as motion in the fission products. The fission products collide with the molecules in the cooling solution which heats them up, and the generated steam or superheated water is led to a turbine that generates electricity.
Your description is more akin to a Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG), a type of nuclear power source used in space probes that are supposed to go far away from the sun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission_power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator - re0turin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I thought that was to follow orders unless it entailed breaking the first law
/asimov - re0turin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Look up HAARP they've been doing it for years
- blathersby, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I do not fear this technology; I'm from Texas. Tornadoes are nothing. Pfft.
- blueskydiver76, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I read the headline wrong...thought it said "Creating Tornadoes to Power Cities?!" and started laughing my ass off.... oh wait
- Matteos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Chuck Norris could contain it while blindfolded, with one arm tied behind his back.
- 0crabby0, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Wait a minute, instead of using a tornado - Just use a regular thunderstorm?
And instead of just generating electricity from wind - Why not use the rain as well?
An inch or two of rain an hour, funneled into a pumped storage system could also power turbines too.
There's tons of water available in a thunderstorm - Seems a shame to not use it. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Although tornadoes have been observed on every continent except Antarctica, most occur in the United States. Other areas where they commonly occur include south-central Canada, south-central and eastern Asia, east-central South America, Southern Africa, northwestern and central Europe, Italy, western and southeastern Australia, and New Zealand. - Wikipedia
- MrSlumberjack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If this can be done in a safe and controlled manner, this would ***** incredible. Using natural processes at their fullest energy extent is the key to free energy
- kellymahan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1more information on current projects and past tests.
http://www.solarmissiontechnologies.com/index.html - CalmLlama, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You know that some cities, like New York, already use the surplus heat energy from power plants in the form of compressed steam pipes... Seems like it would be a lot easier to make a steam powered turbine attached to the coal power plant to reclaim the heat. Nuclear power would be a little different because, from what i understand, thats essentially how nuclear power is produced in the first place.
- CalmLlama, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Every energy source puts off radiation, microwave radiation isn't super harmful outside the microwave because of its wavelength.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You say tomato, I say Tomado
- KnightWhoSaysNi, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3No three tailed babies but isn't Frenchness a bad enough mutation in and of itself. :)
- init100, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"the build up of trapped hydrogen gases (which are released from the cooling water when it is struck by neutrinos)"
First, normal reactor operation does not generate hydrogen, as that would increase pressure in the completely sealed reactor system, which alone makes your hypothesis false. In addition, you must be thinking of neutrons, as neutrinos are almost massless and cannot affect matter to any significant extent. Neutrinos from the sun pass completely though the Earth all the time, and to detect them, they needed millions of gallons of pure water just because the neutrino is so weakly interacting. - kellymahan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm not a scientist but I've given this idea some thought before. It is very close to this http://www.reuk.co.uk/200MW-Solar-Tower.htm except the vortex is contained in the tower. The downside is that the tower is costly to build and takes up a lot of ground to produce enough heat to be feasible.
A tornado could easily be contained as long as the ambient temperature on the surface isn't too different from the ambient temperature at the top of the funnel. Once started a funnel can easily feed off of the ground temperature if the funnel extends high enough. Thats how tornadoes form in the first place. If such a situation occurs a tornado could move off the base and move anywhere on it's own until it dissipates naturally. Since the ambient ground temperature normally only gets so high, if the vortex is given enough energy i'm sure a tornado could be produced that would dwarf anything else ever before witnessed.
With the proper precautions and designs I'm sure that containing a vortex would be quite easy. But to get to the point where it produces enough energy on it's own to be worthwhile may be giving the vortex to much energy and make it dangerous. Of course the only real way to determine that is with some fancy math, physics, and scale testing. In any case i hope they succeed. - AggieFalcon01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This story is nothing but linkbait. He gives scant details on a crazy idea, and mentions some guy who claims "if I can make a 2m tornado, then I can make a 20 km tornado" ... you'd think SEO masters could do better than this.
- whitedragon33, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Sounds like an old 'Sliders' episode.
-
Show 51 - 80 of 80 discussions
