Slashdot Mirror
US Plans "Disposable" Nuclear Batteries
holy_calamity writes "A US government program is in the works to design small nuclear reactors for use by developing countries. The work continues despite fears about security and nuclear proliferation. Plans include having reactors supplied with fuel by the US and other trusted nations, or to build reactors with their whole lifetime of fuel packaged securely inside — like a giant non-user replaceable radioactive battery.' '"
The work continues despite fears about security and nuclear proliferation.
Fer crying out loud. It's bad enough that we're running out of fossil fuels, but between the hardcore environmentalists and paranoid first world countries, we're not making much traction on the nuclear issue, which is a shame. Talk up your fave green project all you want, but all of us need to get on the nuclear power plant bandwagon sooner rather than later. cheap fusion's not going to be here for a while.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Don't forget powering desalinization plants.
If you can build desalinization plants around the nuclear device, it would be easier to secure, and immediately noticed if someone started tampering with it. i.e. the loss of power.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
In many countries their is a severe need for cheap plentiful energy to do things that we take for granted like water purification. It's a given that before a country starts receiving these reactors that they will have to ratchet up a lot of the infra-structures to distribute the energy and maintain security. I can't help but see this has the potential to help everyone involved.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
I'll be able to take my N95 away for a weekend without the charger.....
"Be light, stinging, insolent and melancholy"
I like the Nuclear Batteries idea. It at least tries to solve a difficult, but important, problem with a creative solution that might help create a compromise between our needs for energy secure neighbors and want of nuclear non-proliferation. Sadly, we have people in our own country who protest and actively try to stop transport of our own nuclear wastes. I imagine, sadly, that the uproar of transporting "live" material in this form will be even greater. It is not at all about the actual hazards of the "batteries," but it is all about the perception of hazards. I like the direction, but there are elements missing in the formula.
Demented But Determined.
With very few, if any, exceptions, developing countries are governed by corrupt or easily corrupted leaders. A chance to "lose" a reactor and gain a few $M is really hard to pass up. May as well just bypass the bullshit and put them on the open market.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
The Candu reactor is a good export for Canada. AND it can use depleted uranium and other non-weapon-grade fuel.
Is Apple going to be building these things?
(Not that I don't like Apple products, I just wish the batteries on iPods were replaceable.) :)
I think TFA misses the point entirely: the main reason for the work is to address security and nuclear proliferation fears. Packaging reactors that are not particularly useful in an arms program with a complete lifetime of fuel and making them available to developing countries is intended as a minimize both the reality and the appearance of a legitimate need for developing countries to have their own civilian (or merely "civilian") nuclear programs, which could more easily be converted to (or covers for) military programs.
Clearly, they aren't proliferation proof, but traditional reactors, especially built and developed locally (even if with outside assistance) are even less proliferation-proof, and those are spreading in the absence of any effort to provide an alternative. This is an attempt to lessen the both the actual need and the political viability of the claim of a need for those kind of independent programs.
The alternative to this program is not that the developing world gets no nuclear material and no reactors.
Nuclear Energy is good for everyone. So let everyone use it as long as they don't make atom bombs and kill lots of innocent people.
Ohm's Law
Plans include having reactors supplied with fuel by the US and other trusted nations
Trusted by who?
1. In today's economy, energy availability is one of the keys to economic growth and a reasonable standard of living, especially for developing nations.
2. The general consensus is that carbon fuels are harming the environment.
3. "Alternative" energy sources such as solar and wind are much more expensive per unit of energy than carbon, and developing nations have little interest in them.
Therefore, AFAIK, the only feasible source of energy that can lift people to western standards of living without burning huge amounts of fossil fuels is nuclear. Even so, developing nations have no interest in nuclear (except Iran and DRK) because it is still more expensive than coal. To spread nuclear power will require incentives and R&D taylored to small nations.
Nuclear power is by far the safest source of energy that can be deployed anywhere in the world (sorry hydro and thermo), and I think a program such as this one could be one of the greatest developments for the world's poor. Even the US could use 100 new nuclear plants today to achieve its environmental goals.
Ahhh the good ol' double standard.
Do nothing and a hue and a cry goes up for leadership. Do something and a hue and a cry goes up because we're insufferable bastards forcing or will on the rest of the world.
You don't get it both ways. Either we lead the way or we don't. I haven't seen a plan like this put out by any other first world nation, though I suppose I could be lacking information.
The US Government is not the USA.
Why would we give away free power to the rest of the world?
...But I digress. TREMBLE PUNY HUMANS!ONE DAY MY SPECIES WILL DESTROY YOU ALL!
How much is it worth to have an Aircraft carrier parked off-shore, providing food, clean water, and air-transport after a tsunami wipes out a large chunk of your infrastructure?
How much is it worth to have a massive floating hospital visit your shores, treating tens of thousands of people in the course of a few weeks?
A US government program is in the works to design small nuclear reactors for use by their international military deployments.
The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.
The rest of you - we can't go on like this. Other countries are "coming on line" soon and will need their share of oil, too. There's just not enough to go around; not in the long term. All the wishful thinking in the world isn't going to change this - we need to find another energy source, go back to the stone age, or fight World War Three to secure what's left of a disappearing resource.
Those who think that hydrogen or ethanol are the solution - go to the back of the bus. There's no free hydrogen on this planet and to obtain free hydrogen you need to add energy. Current methods for obtaining hydrogen: electrolyse water (big energy) or catalytically extract it from natural gas (limited supply). There's no free energy here, hydrogen is an energy storage medium, not an energy supply.
The ethanol solution is also based on mostly fantasy. Sure, you can ferment carbohydrates at virtually no cost other than the carbohydrate source. But distilling it to obtain the ethanol is a high energy operation. Can ethanol be distilled using less energy than can be obtained by burning it? Maybe someday, but using today's technology it's a losing proposition. And don't forget that the carbohydrate source is the same one that we call "food". Our government's current push for ethanol is the reason that Mexican farmers are plowing under their agave crops and planting corn instead. When you notice that the price of your tequila has skyrocketed, thank your government.
When looking for an energy source, forget just looking at things you can burn to release energy. Look at things that can be found naturally in a state where they can be burned to release energy; these may be useful energy sources. That eliminates hydrogen and ethanol, both of those require energy input to manufacture.
Until something else is discovered, other than oil the only primary source of energy we know of is nuclear power. You can demonstrate against it - and it is indeed an imperfect source of power; disposal of the "exhaust" is a very difficult problem. But it's the only thing that we've got to work with in the long term.
Wind and water may provide some energy, but they won't be enough. If you don't want nuclear energy, suggest something else that will provide a positive energy result.
keep re-reading what you wrote until you understand how crazy it is -> "The problem with Chernobyl wasn't nuclear power." Oh ya, right, it all had to do with cheese and pastrami sandwiches! No, wait, it was about bicycles!
(hint-yes, in fact, nuclear power was involved, man makes stuff, sometimes stuff happens with what man makes, because "man" has an amazing proclivity to FUCK UP on a pretty regular schedule, we have just as many failures as we do successes with this or that technology eventually. What you wrote is like saying software code has nothing to do with malware infections, or airplanes have nothing to do with airplane crashes.)
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Interesting?!?!?! Dude, parent made a leap from "we fuck things up" to "stop development"? How's that mod-worthy? To me that's the sign of a mind that isn't on its rails. The point here is that yes, we fuck things up. When we're working with materials that have radioactive lives longer than human civilization, we just need to be really careful with it. We shouldn't stop research by any means, but we can't just hand this shit out like cup-cakes.
So, like, they'd open a chain of free health clinics or something? Using Peruvian tax dollars? Okay.
Foreign aid is better given as specific goods and services, rather than cash. Money has a way of disappearing when gifted to 3rd-world governments. (Or any government, really, but it's worse in some places.)
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
sorry, bad attempt at a joke...
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
wrong. the PROBLEM with chernobyl wasn't the fact it was nuclear, it was abysmal safety regulations and poorly trained staff.
A better comparison would be saying "The Car was not at fault" when someone drives it off a bridge
What I wouldn't do for the ability to mod "-1, Plain Wrong"