Navigation | ||
My WhyNot? | ||
Icon Key | ||||||||||||
The community's level of support for this idea is...
| ||||||||||||
Practical atomic power | |||||||||||||||||
Early in the last century and up to the Second World War there was a good deal of speculation over Einstein’s discovery that each atom of matter contained prodigious quantities of energy. Theoretical scientists and science fiction writers spoke frequently of the possibility of thimblefuls of matter converted to energy which could power vehicles for decades. But when the reality of atom to energy finally was accomplished it proved far too dangerous to be useful in ordinary life.The abundance of energy emitted by radioactive materials has, in the end, proved deadly as there is no way in our current technology to restrict and control its steady output to make it safe for the average untrained consumer to handle. Even the so-called atomic waste from reactors still maintains energy outputs far outside the capabilities of control by what might be termed ordinary methods. All major current power sources have disadvantages in regard to the environment and most portable sources of power are bulky and clumsy and basically inefficient in that they are of low concentration. If it became possible to control and utilize the concentrated power stored in atoms with no danger to the environment in a way that one could incorporate a power source into almost any device that would last for the life of the device even though that might be decades a new era in human technology would be born. The Manhattan Project opened the way to produce atomic energy in a semi-useful way but left the most important half of the job undone so that radioactive wastes have become a plague to society. What is needed is a tremendous effort to continue the project to completion to permit safe and plentiful energy that can be directed to useful avenues but remain contained and safe in everyday life. A further benefit would be the creation of shielding materials or devices to make interplanetary flight economical and safe from the violently destructive radiation that bathes the universe outside the Earth’s magnetic field.
sand, Aug 13 2006
What do you think of this idea or comment?
| |||||||||||||||||
I agree
No opinion
I disagreeUsers who liked this idea also liked: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Add your comment
The current state of atomic power is on hold due to cold-war nonproliferation laws and bad public reaction to anything with the word "radiation" attached to it. People don't understand what atomic power is, how it occurs, or how it turns a generator. The research is still going on in other countries, with cleaner, more powerful, and safter reactors going into testing phases. The spent fuel will also be radioactive for a far shorter period of time. Alternative fuels arn't just an option for gasoline engines. There are alternative fuels in nuclear power, as well.
In the end, I have but one thing to say to people with strong feelings on nuclear power. If you don't understand how a reactor works or what beta decay is, attempting to enforce your misinformed viewpoint into legislation is a bad idea for the rest of us.
Really, the issue isn't with nuclear power itself, that is pretty safe.
The issue is where to put these stations, and getting power from them to the users of the power.
Good-why not we also take the idea from the space programs/terrorists and make use of explosives to create micro/mini explosions in the automobile combustion chanmer to propell the car? Two or more independent mini tanks of combustible material mixed in a catalytic chamber should be controllable and practical. Depending on the "power" needed, you may be able to buy cheap or expensive fuel.
I am not concerned with large power ststions which defecate dangerous material that produce a threat lasting longer than the existence of the human species. I am disappointed that tiny batteries producing power for a couple of hundred years have not yet proved practical. I would like to have a car that never has to be refueled, an aircraft that could hover for a century providing a cheap alternative to communication satelites, a concentrated power source that could dependably produce fresh water from sea water at almost zero cost, a rocket engine to travel to the planets without the dangerous nuisance of huge tanks of combustibles - and all of these with no danger of polluting the world with dangerous radioactivity.
Sand, what you want is something that every nuclear engineer wants too. Do you have a suggestion on how to do it? Engineers have been wrestling with this challenge for over 50 years and haven't found a solution. Radioactive breakdown of plutonium and uranium inevitably produces very troublesome waste products. No fissionable materials known are able to avoid this problem.
Actually, the most hazardous waste products have shorter half-lives than you might think. Strontium 90 has one of the longest half-lives of the dangerous products, but its half-life is only 28.8 years. Still, it would take some 600 years for it to breakdown enough to be safe.
Nuclear reactors currently produce a very large percentage of the world's electricity. However, these plants are run by professional. I don't see anybody seriously considering putting nuclear power in the hands or ordinary folk. I know how stupid and irresponsible people can be. I don't think I would want people being able to buy nuclear powered devices any time soon.
Nuclear power does not account for a large percentage of the worlds power. In North america, the area of largest consumption it accounts for five percent. Coal accounts for 50-55%. The main issue with nuclear power besides the fact that we have yet to intern any of the high level waste permanently, is the fact that it is not economically feasible. If it were, private reactors would not have required the massive public funding to build them. It may indeed be possible to come up with a waste free power, but this is a search for the nuclear holy grail. If you want to see how out of hand this line of thinking can get, look into the nuclear program entitled ploughshare. It was worked on by Ed Teller et al. and was a program for using high level nuclear explosives to excavate large tracts of land. Obvious problems with this one. The most promising power technology out there right now is germanium based solar panels that they are working on in Australia, which convert solar energy to electricity at roughly 30% efficiency. The main problem with this technology however is, how can Edison Electric put a meter on it?
actualy the government had already make nuclear aircrafts that can fly for weeks without the need of fuel i read it in a old book of science in Spanish in that book they explained HOW a mobile nuclear generator works and that the military has sent satelites whit this technology instead of solar panelsso its possible to put this tecnology to cars but nuclear energy dont stop it continues generating heat and shielding its not a problen what its a problem its wen you crash and nuclear wasted get in the way but what its real and its a shame its that nuclear energy can be used instead of coal and its more environmental good
According to the World Nuclear Association at nuclear power generates 20% of the electricity in the US, and 30% in Europe and Japan. More than 15 countries rely on nuclear power for at least a quarter of their electricity. I would call that a large percentage of the world's electricity.
Sand, I like your idea. I believe nanotechnology or any sort of evolution of it will make it possible to have small, discrete and fully controlled nuclear reactions to power cars, planes, etc. Keep the faith!