Skip to comments.
Rick Perry's vision of hot tub-sized nuclear power plants isn't so far-fetched
washingtonexaminer.com ^
| John Siciliano
Posted on 10/09/2017 5:38:11 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-48 next last
To: RoosterRedux
They work safely and well in submarines, under the control of 18-24 year old techs, supervised by 25-30 year old officers. Sounds like a workable system to me.
21
posted on
10/09/2017 6:42:55 AM PDT
by
JimRed
( TERM LIMITS, NOW! Build the Wall Faster! TRUTH is the new HATE SPEECH.)
To: RoosterRedux
22
posted on
10/09/2017 6:42:58 AM PDT
by
bigbob
(People say believe half of what you see son and none of what you hear - M. Gaye)
To: Chickensoup
Check out ‘HOLTEC’ in Camden NJ
23
posted on
10/09/2017 6:44:39 AM PDT
by
aumrl
(let's keep it real Conservatives)
To: RoosterRedux
Cool! Where can I get me one with auto-Chlorine, captains chairs, and 8 stainless steel jets?
24
posted on
10/09/2017 6:47:10 AM PDT
by
C210N
(It is easier to fool the people than convince them that they have been fooled)
To: JohnnyP
Thorium is such high temperature (molten salt, think about how hot that has to be) is already at thermal run away
I am all for thorium when it’s ready but material Science has a ways to go for a commercially sustainable reactor. We have decades of experience with uranium fission that could be leveraged right now.
25
posted on
10/09/2017 6:50:41 AM PDT
by
infool7
(Pray, Think, Pray, Act, Pray Pray Pray...)
To: Paladin2
26
posted on
10/09/2017 7:04:20 AM PDT
by
null and void
(The internet gave everyone a mouth. It gave no one a brain.)
To: alloysteel
Mostly not true.
The “thorium cycle” is actually a uranium cycle, just a different uranium isotope. Thorium is mostly Th-232 (non radioactive). Neutrons convert Th-232 into U-233, which IS fissile, and which CAN be made into bombs. It is just much more difficult to isolate the fissile uranium from the fertile thorium due to the much higher level or radiation involved. IIRC, U-233 is highly gamma radioactive. Plutonium is not.
Thorium is being sold as an energy panacea.....it isn’t.
(Note....I am all in favor of fission power, even using current technology, but believe in being accurate about what is possible.)
27
posted on
10/09/2017 7:07:45 AM PDT
by
Wonder Warthog
(The Hog of Steel and NRA Life Member)
To: norwaypinesavage
“Nuclear electricity,” thats pretty silly. I think we all know better now but, how do we deal with all the giant ants and 50 foot women?
28
posted on
10/09/2017 7:18:52 AM PDT
by
gnarledmaw
(Hive minded liberals worship leaders, sovereign conservatives elect servants.)
To: null and void
I assume it is still on the moon.
29
posted on
10/09/2017 7:21:33 AM PDT
by
Paladin2
(No spelchk nor wrong word auto substition on mobile dev. Please be intelligent and deal with it....)
To: gnarledmaw
Track down every colony and "burn them, burn them all!"
30
posted on
10/09/2017 7:26:36 AM PDT
by
null and void
(The internet gave everyone a mouth. It gave no one a brain.)
To: Paladin2
Ah. The dust looked wind swept. It must have been close enough to the LEM take off to disturb the regolith.
31
posted on
10/09/2017 7:28:32 AM PDT
by
null and void
(The internet gave everyone a mouth. It gave no one a brain.)
To: RoosterRedux
A small nuke reactor is a very good idea with just one down side. Terrorists, terrorists would just love to get their hands on the fuel and make some really nasty bombs. Should start using lots of small nuke reactors like the one described in this article terrorists will acquired fuel from some of them and results will not be pretty.
32
posted on
10/09/2017 7:42:05 AM PDT
by
jpsb
(Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. Otto von Bismark)
To: JimRed
They work safely and well in submarines, under the control of 18-24 year old techs, supervised by 25-30 year old officers. Sounds like a workable system to me. It's only workable while under military guard.
The nuclear reactors in submarines use highly enriched (96% U-235) uranium. I.e. weapons grade. This is fine as long as it's under military guard, but is not something you could leave unguarded.
33
posted on
10/09/2017 7:46:13 AM PDT
by
PapaBear3625
(Big governent is attractive to those who think that THEY will be in control of it.)
To: PapaBear3625
The nuclear reactors in submarines use highly enriched (96% U-235) uranium. I.e. weapons grade. This is fine as long as it's under military guard, but is not something you could leave unguarded. I was talking about the concept of small reactors, not the specific type.
34
posted on
10/09/2017 8:01:47 AM PDT
by
JimRed
( TERM LIMITS, NOW! Build the Wall Faster! TRUTH is the new HATE SPEECH.)
To: RoosterRedux
35
posted on
10/09/2017 8:07:32 AM PDT
by
nuke_road_warrior
(Making the world safe for nuclear power for over 20 years)
To: null and void
The Moon is a harsh mistress.
36
posted on
10/09/2017 8:19:26 AM PDT
by
Paladin2
(No spelchk nor wrong word auto substition on mobile dev. Please be intelligent and deal with it....)
To: Chickensoup
"there is a compay in Texas pioneering small reactors. Underground power, can power a small city for up to 20 years. For peanuts.
Replace and Remove every 20 years. Great technology and would remove the grid from being a national issue."
Now you have a hot tub full of seething radioactivity - lethally radioactive for the next 50 to 100 human generations.
So what does one do with the radioactive trash? Have the taxpayers foot the bill for disposal?
If the **ratepayers** had to foot the bill for the entire fuel cycle, the only nuke plants that would exists would be military - for power or for weapons.
Until the multiple issues of how to safely dispose of the nuke trash is resolved, I have to be a non-supporter.
This, if for no other reason, than to *not* leave a mess behind for my grandkids......
37
posted on
10/09/2017 8:27:11 AM PDT
by
ASOC
(If you're forced to give a man a fish, he eats one day. Deport him and you'll never feed him again.)
To: Paladin2
Indeed she is. You have to tow the (Hein)lein exactly to survive...
38
posted on
10/09/2017 9:23:51 AM PDT
by
null and void
(The internet gave everyone a mouth. It gave no one a brain.)
To: Renegade
doesn’t Voyager have one ? (small nuclear power generator)
39
posted on
10/09/2017 9:29:35 AM PDT
by
Mr. K
(***THERE IS NO CONSEQUENCE OF REPEALING OBAMACARE THAT IS WORSE THAN OBAMACARE ITSELF***)
To: RoosterRedux
I thought I had read somewhere that Sweden or one of those other places with remote mountain villages already has something like this?
40
posted on
10/09/2017 9:30:24 AM PDT
by
Mr. K
(***THERE IS NO CONSEQUENCE OF REPEALING OBAMACARE THAT IS WORSE THAN OBAMACARE ITSELF***)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-48 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson