The Toshiba 4S (Super Safe, Small and Simple) reactor solves all these problems:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S
It's a mini-sized fast neutron reactor...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_neutron_reactor
It can burn thorium or depleted uranium, and actually help to eliminate the current stockpile of nuclear waste.
This was invented several years ago, but has yet to be deployed anywhere. It's mainly the fear of anything with the word "nuclear" that prevents use of this technology. Ironically, the failure to build more nukes means we'll be building more coal-fired power plants, with disastrous effects on climate.
Yeah, I know, the anti-nuke people say that "wind and solar is all we need." And they are right - all we've got to do is reduce the world's population by 90% and move everybody to a place that is windy or very sunny. So, if you live in the Aleutian Islands, the never-ceasing howling wind can provide lights for your hut. Or if you live in Death Valley solar will keep your cell phone and laptop recharged. See, we don't need nukes.
I'm surprised that nobody has yet mentioned nuclear-powered spacecraft, which propels itself with an ion thruster:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster
Such a spacecraft would not have a problem carrying enough fuel to make the return trip.
I do need to point out that that space vehicle would not lift off from earth using its nuclear-ion thruster, nor would it land on Mars. It would have to first be propelled into earth orbit with conventional hydrogen-oxygen rockets. The nuke engine would then "go live" propelling it to Mars, where it would stay in orbit. It would drop a module down to Mars (which uses parachutes and the "beachball" technique to land safely). After collecting samples, it would lift off Mars using a conventional rocket and rendezvous with the nuclear-powered craft in orbit, which would return to earth (but stay in orbit). Conventional rockets would be used to recover the payload and take it back to earth.
Think of this nuclear-powered rocket like a kind of miniaturized Starship Enterprise, though unmanned. It doesn't land or take off from a planet, it just ferries payloads between planets, never getting any closer than an orbit.
Putting the powerplant underwater (as opposed to on a floating platform) would have a big advantage in protecting it from storms. Once you submerge about 60 meters, you are pretty much immune to the effects of even the biggest hurricanes or tsunamis.
No, nukes are evil! What we need is wind power, biodiesel and hybrid engines. If NASA wants to explore Europa, then a Toyota Prius is the way to go.
Now excuse me while I get back to my home energy project (I'm building a windmill, driven by an electric fan - why did nobody else think of us?).
cheers,
DB
Environmentalists are going to be really outraged just as soon as birds start flying into these. The Audubon Society will start filing lawsuits. You may need to submit an environmental impact statement before you can recharge your cell phone.
An SUV weighs about twice as much as a small economy car, but I sincerely doubt it has twice the tire surface area in contact with the road.
Maybe if you installed 8 wheels instead of 4...
I'd like to ask the same question of OpenBSD. They are still using XFree86. Does anyone know when they'll move to Xorg? FreeBSD has already moved to Xorg, and I'm surprised the other BSDs haven't.
Common sense would agree with you, but the law doesn't necessarily. Under the DMCA, looking at something you're not supposed to is a crime.
The guy appears to be a good citizen - he tried to report the problem, but no one would listen. Now that he's gone public, don't be surprised if the legal beagles hunt him down and prosecute without mercy. Let no good deed go unpunished.
Don't you feel so much safer knowing that we can fill the jails with "dangerous" criminals like white hat hackers? We'll only be really safe when everyone is in jail.
Just keep repeating to yourself that we need laws like the DMCA, Patriot Act, and software patents to keep us free.
Speaking of Gillette, maybe NASA could sell them (and other big companies) advertising space on the Hubble. This would help finance NASA's goals, and should be a popular idea with the private-enterprise model of the Bush administration.
Imagine a future Hubble with a big billboard on it extolling the virtues of Gillette Shaving Gel, or Preparation H...
The problem existed on all Unix (and Unix-like) systems, but it was solved a few years ago. Any recent Linux distro behaves the same way as the recent BSDs - you have to type the entire password, not just the first 8 characters. I'm trying it right now in Fedora Core 3, and I can confirm that my 12-character passwords require that I type all 12 characters.
If it was anyone else but Zubrin, I might think the idea had merit. Unfortunately, the more ideas I read from this guy, the more convinced I am that he's a nut case. Take a look at this article:
http://space.com/news/aps_report_041123.html
Zubrin's comments are down at the bottom. In this case, he's insisting that the Hubble Space Telescope was only made possible thanks to the space shuttle (Zubrin is a space shuttle fan - that ought to tell you something). In fact, Hubble was launched on the space shuttle only because NASA was desperately looking for a way to justify the cost of the space shuttle - it would have been much cheaper to send up Hubble on an unmanned rocket. And Hubble was deliberately designed so that it would need constant servicing by the space shuttle, again to justify the space shuttle (and now that the shuttle is grounded, Hubble is falling apart).
Zubrin has an agenda. His agenda is not to support good space science, his agenda is to promote Buck Rogers gee-whiz "technology".
Actually, DU (which us U238) is slightly radioactive. But only a little. You are right in that the harm to human health is mainly caused by the fact that it is a toxic heavy metal. Breathing uranium dust is definitely not good for you.
Yes, it's got great insulation. Rather like a super-Thermos jug. But even the best Thermos jug eventually fails to keep your drinks hot/cold forever. I don't think there is any insulation that is 100% energy-leakproof. So back to the car - if you burn off the hydrogen quickly, it should be no problem. But park the car in a sunny place for a few days, and an explosion seems like a distinct possibility (unless of course the tank can withstand 1000X atmospheric pressure). It would have to be a pretty strong tank.
"...the specially insulated 140-liter tank for the liquid hydrogen provides a range of 400 kilometers....By cooling hydrogen to -253 degrees Celsius, hydrogen is shrunk to a thousandth of its original volume. 70 layers of aluminum and fiberglass sheets between the exterior and interior vehicle walls insure that the liquid hydrogen remains at extremely low temperatures."
What I don't understand is how they manage to keep it at such a low temperature. If the tank warmed up to the normal temperature of the surrounding environment, the pressure inside the tank would be 1000 times greater than sea level. Wouldn't that pose a danger of explosion?
I've been trying to interest Slashdot in a story about breeder reactors. I still think it's the best way to build a nuke. It doesn't create plutonium waste, it burns it up. If we built breeders, we wouldn't have a nuke waste problem.
Some stories...
One of the most fascinating things I've read on this topic is how a Boy Scout working on a science merit badge managed to build a working breeder reactor in his backyard, and got into considerable trouble for doing so. The whole story is here: http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1111/n1782_v297/ 21281407/print.jhtml
This essay (http://www.argee.net/DefenseWatch/Nuclear Waste and Breeder Reactors.htm) strongly argues the pro-breeder position. A basic explanation of how LMFBRs work can be found here (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/fasbre.html).
The USA built an Experimental Breeder Reactor at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. It no longer functions, but it's open to public visitors:
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:9sr2-vf-QQsJ: www.inel.gov/publicdocuments/factsheet/ebr1-fsheet.pdf+%2Bbreeder+%2Breactor&hl=en&start=7&ie=UT F-8
India is the latest country to build a breeder reactor, and this article sums up the current situation well:
http://www.thehindu.com/2003/09/17/stories/2003091 703770800.htm
Slashdot Mirror
The Toshiba 4S (Super Safe, Small and Simple) reactor solves all these problems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S It's a mini-sized fast neutron reactor... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_neutron_reactor It can burn thorium or depleted uranium, and actually help to eliminate the current stockpile of nuclear waste. This was invented several years ago, but has yet to be deployed anywhere. It's mainly the fear of anything with the word "nuclear" that prevents use of this technology. Ironically, the failure to build more nukes means we'll be building more coal-fired power plants, with disastrous effects on climate. Yeah, I know, the anti-nuke people say that "wind and solar is all we need." And they are right - all we've got to do is reduce the world's population by 90% and move everybody to a place that is windy or very sunny. So, if you live in the Aleutian Islands, the never-ceasing howling wind can provide lights for your hut. Or if you live in Death Valley solar will keep your cell phone and laptop recharged. See, we don't need nukes.
I'm surprised that nobody has yet mentioned nuclear-powered spacecraft, which propels itself with an ion thruster: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster Such a spacecraft would not have a problem carrying enough fuel to make the return trip. I do need to point out that that space vehicle would not lift off from earth using its nuclear-ion thruster, nor would it land on Mars. It would have to first be propelled into earth orbit with conventional hydrogen-oxygen rockets. The nuke engine would then "go live" propelling it to Mars, where it would stay in orbit. It would drop a module down to Mars (which uses parachutes and the "beachball" technique to land safely). After collecting samples, it would lift off Mars using a conventional rocket and rendezvous with the nuclear-powered craft in orbit, which would return to earth (but stay in orbit). Conventional rockets would be used to recover the payload and take it back to earth. Think of this nuclear-powered rocket like a kind of miniaturized Starship Enterprise, though unmanned. It doesn't land or take off from a planet, it just ferries payloads between planets, never getting any closer than an orbit.
Putting the powerplant underwater (as opposed to on a floating platform) would have a big advantage in protecting it from storms. Once you submerge about 60 meters, you are pretty much immune to the effects of even the biggest hurricanes or tsunamis.
No, nukes are evil! What we need is wind power, biodiesel and hybrid engines. If NASA wants to explore Europa, then a Toyota Prius is the way to go. Now excuse me while I get back to my home energy project (I'm building a windmill, driven by an electric fan - why did nobody else think of us?). cheers, DB
It's those Christian fundamentalists again. They saw the word "naked" and they decided to get it banned.
Environmentalists are going to be really outraged just as soon as birds start flying into these. The Audubon Society will start filing lawsuits. You may need to submit an environmental impact statement before you can recharge your cell phone.
How about wearing one of those propeller caps, but with a generator built in? Gives new meaning to the term "propellerhead".
An SUV weighs about twice as much as a small economy car, but I sincerely doubt it has twice the tire surface area in contact with the road. Maybe if you installed 8 wheels instead of 4...
I'd like to ask the same question of OpenBSD. They are still using XFree86. Does anyone know when they'll move to Xorg? FreeBSD has already moved to Xorg, and I'm surprised the other BSDs haven't.
Common sense would agree with you, but the law doesn't necessarily. Under the DMCA, looking at something you're not supposed to is a crime. The guy appears to be a good citizen - he tried to report the problem, but no one would listen. Now that he's gone public, don't be surprised if the legal beagles hunt him down and prosecute without mercy. Let no good deed go unpunished. Don't you feel so much safer knowing that we can fill the jails with "dangerous" criminals like white hat hackers? We'll only be really safe when everyone is in jail. Just keep repeating to yourself that we need laws like the DMCA, Patriot Act, and software patents to keep us free.
If Bill finances Hubble II, he'll insist that it run Windows XP. Just imagine a Hubble with viruses. And I don't even want to think about spyware...
Speaking of Gillette, maybe NASA could sell them (and other big companies) advertising space on the Hubble. This would help finance NASA's goals, and should be a popular idea with the private-enterprise model of the Bush administration. Imagine a future Hubble with a big billboard on it extolling the virtues of Gillette Shaving Gel, or Preparation H...
The problem existed on all Unix (and Unix-like) systems, but it was solved a few years ago. Any recent Linux distro behaves the same way as the recent BSDs - you have to type the entire password, not just the first 8 characters. I'm trying it right now in Fedora Core 3, and I can confirm that my 12-character passwords require that I type all 12 characters.
If it was anyone else but Zubrin, I might think the idea had merit. Unfortunately, the more ideas I read from this guy, the more convinced I am that he's a nut case. Take a look at this article: http://space.com/news/aps_report_041123.html Zubrin's comments are down at the bottom. In this case, he's insisting that the Hubble Space Telescope was only made possible thanks to the space shuttle (Zubrin is a space shuttle fan - that ought to tell you something). In fact, Hubble was launched on the space shuttle only because NASA was desperately looking for a way to justify the cost of the space shuttle - it would have been much cheaper to send up Hubble on an unmanned rocket. And Hubble was deliberately designed so that it would need constant servicing by the space shuttle, again to justify the space shuttle (and now that the shuttle is grounded, Hubble is falling apart). Zubrin has an agenda. His agenda is not to support good space science, his agenda is to promote Buck Rogers gee-whiz "technology".
Actually, DU (which us U238) is slightly radioactive. But only a little. You are right in that the harm to human health is mainly caused by the fact that it is a toxic heavy metal. Breathing uranium dust is definitely not good for you.
Is Bush running again in 2008?
Yes, it's got great insulation. Rather like a super-Thermos jug. But even the best Thermos jug eventually fails to keep your drinks hot/cold forever. I don't think there is any insulation that is 100% energy-leakproof. So back to the car - if you burn off the hydrogen quickly, it should be no problem. But park the car in a sunny place for a few days, and an explosion seems like a distinct possibility (unless of course the tank can withstand 1000X atmospheric pressure). It would have to be a pretty strong tank.
From the BMW web site:
"...the specially insulated 140-liter tank for the liquid hydrogen provides a range of 400 kilometers....By cooling hydrogen to -253 degrees Celsius, hydrogen is shrunk to a thousandth of its original volume. 70 layers of aluminum and fiberglass sheets between the exterior and interior vehicle walls insure that the liquid hydrogen remains at extremely low temperatures."
What I don't understand is how they manage to keep it at such a low temperature. If the tank warmed up to the normal temperature of the surrounding environment, the pressure inside the tank would be 1000 times greater than sea level. Wouldn't that pose a danger of explosion?
I've been trying to interest Slashdot in a story about breeder reactors. I still think it's the best way to build a nuke. It doesn't create plutonium waste, it burns it up. If we built breeders, we wouldn't have a nuke waste problem. Some stories... One of the most fascinating things I've read on this topic is how a Boy Scout working on a science merit badge managed to build a working breeder reactor in his backyard, and got into considerable trouble for doing so. The whole story is here: http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1111/n1782_v297/ 21281407/print.jhtml
This essay (http://www.argee.net/DefenseWatch/Nuclear Waste and Breeder Reactors.htm) strongly argues the pro-breeder position. A basic explanation of how LMFBRs work can be found here (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene /fasbre.html).
The USA built an Experimental Breeder Reactor at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. It no longer functions, but it's open to public visitors:
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:9sr2-vf-QQsJ: www.inel.gov/publicdocuments/factsheet/ebr1-fsheet .pdf+%2Bbreeder+%2Breactor&hl=en&start=7&ie=UT F-8
India is the latest country to build a breeder reactor, and this article sums up the current situation well:
http://www.thehindu.com/2003/09/17/stories/2003091 703770800.htm