American teenager designs compact nuclear reactor

page: 1
31
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+6 more 
posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   

American teenager designs compact nuclear reactor


www.rawstory.com

Eighteen-year-old Taylor Wilson has designed a compact nuclear reactor that could one day burn waste from old atomic weapons to power anything from homes and factories to space colonies.

The American teen, who gained fame four years ago after designing a fusion reactor he planned to build in the garage of his family’s home, shared his latest endeavor at a TED Conference in southern California on Thursday.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Something special about a fresh mind. This lad is only 18 and he has just invented a new type of reactor. It is capable of eating all sorts including unwanted bombs.

I do not really like nuclear energy. Fukishma says it all. But these things on paper are a lot safer than the conventional reactors we use and can be turned off with ease. In the event of an accident you drain the core off..

We are facing an energy crisis and we need to move away from fossil feuls. Windmills, wave, solar and geothermal all help. But you cannot put all you eggs in one basket

Maybe one day we will see small reactors powering homes and alike.

www.rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


I would feel more comfortable with a clean energy reactor! Nuclear stuff is all bad IMO.....

This just let's the government know they can continue to make nuclear bombs and test them because they can dispose of the materials with something like this!!

I like people making new things, but nuclear stuff I think we need to stay away from!

Would you really feel comfortable having one of these powering your home? Knowing you have a mini nuke right outside your house?
edit on 3/1/2013 by Chrisfishenstein because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Chrisfishenstein
 


I agree but I can not see us reducing our dependency on energy. I think a better alternative would be to turn off the power for an couple of hours a day apart from vital services or reduce our level of consumerism. That does not look like it is going to happen anytime soon.

Here in the UK we may well have an energy crisis within three years. Alternative energy methods are on the increase but we are still short What can we do about that. Build more coal powered stations to pollute the atmosphere and worsen global warming.

No magic fairy is going to wave a wand. We need to do something until we have fussion reactors up and running on a commercial scale and that is a way off yet. I would rather see these things dotted around than full scale nuclear reactors.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   
The only reason we do not already possess clean energy solutions for the modern age, is that every time a truely effective, clean energy production technique gets developed, some oil baron buys it, and either buries it, or finds a way to charge for it on an ongoing basis.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Hmm a real life Tony Stark





posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   
IMO, even if your not a fan of nuclear power, people should still appreciate a safer method being discovered. (potentially any way)Nuclear power isn't going anywhere so we might as well embrace the positive steps.
And kudos to this kid. He's only 18, imagine what he can give humanity in his lifetime at this rate.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


Yep you do have to wonder why in this modern age we do not have access to cleaner energy sources..



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Greetings Folks,
Now move along, nothing to see here. Don't worry, us Major corporate Oil and Power companies own this kid and his inventions. So move along and prepare for ever higher and higher bills, while we suppress all new tech



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   
A mini sodium cooled reactor on every block. Great idea.

Um. What happens to all the spent fuel?



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer


Something special about a fresh mind. This lad is only 18 and he has just invented a new type of reactor. It is capable of eating all sorts including unwanted bombs.

I do not really like nuclear energy. Fukishma says it all. But these things on paper are a lot safer than the conventional reactors we use and can be turned off with ease. In the event of an accident you drain the core off..

We are facing an energy crisis and we need to move away from fossil feuls. Windmills, wave, solar and geothermal all help. But you cannot put all you eggs in one basket

Maybe one day we will see small reactors powering homes and alike.

www.rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


Fusion reactors are different than typical nuclear reactors. The concept behind a "fusion" reactor is considerably less radiation and waste. At least that's what I've been lead to believe. A fusion based reactor uses radioactive material and produces non radioactive materials(or materials considered safe for handling,use, storage, disposal.) If he's truly done such a thing, I'm very interested to see where this goes. The idea of a fusion reactor has been around for a very long time, I'm surprised it's taken so long for someone to come up with a working design. All attempts up until now seem to come to dead ends, or aren't true fusion reactors.


EDIT TO ADD!!!

After giving the article a thorough look through this is a design for a small FISSION reactor. It's not a fusion reactor as mentioned early in the article. This is essentially miniaturized Current nuclear reactors. Much like I assume is found in Nuclear powered marine vessels. Whether they are of similar design to the marine reactors, I do not know but the idea has been done before. These are still potentially hazardous devices to place throughout the country. It's taking the Large risks involved with full scale Nuclear facilities, and miniaturizing them to be placed in higher numbers through out the country, sorry article says " Through out the world." I suppose it's a neat idea towards solving energy needs or more hard to reach/maintain areas in the world, but they could still pose serious health risks in the event of a malfunction, or mini-meltdown. Large scale facilities attempt to employ neutron absorbers as well, and they don't always prevent calamity or nuclear spill over.

I'm officially concerned, more than impressed.
edit on 1-3-2013 by Hijinx because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Excellent point.

And who will remove it and transport it to the proper facility?



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Hijinx
 

This isn't about a fusion reactor.

“It’s about bringing something old, fission, into the 21st Century,” Wilson said. “I think this has huge potential to change the world.”

www.rawstory.com...



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
A mini sodium cooled reactor on every block. Great idea.

Um. What happens to all the spent fuel?


In 18 years another kid will find a way to turn it into an even safer fuel for mass use. Don't worry.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
A mini sodium cooled reactor on every block. Great idea.

Um. What happens to all the spent fuel?


We put them in a rocket and fire them at the sun... That should work....maybe



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer

Originally posted by Phage
A mini sodium cooled reactor on every block. Great idea.

Um. What happens to all the spent fuel?


We put them in a rocket and fire them at the sun... That should work....maybe


Ha ha, that would work, but why bother the costly procedure of production and installation of facilities all over the globe, to later go around and collect all that fuel to shoot at the sun. We could skip this whole fantasy and just shoot the unwanted nukes at the sun. They would burn up before getting close to the sun anyways. Problem of unwanted nukes solved, and you only have to pay for the rocket to take it there rather than trying out this potentially dangerous idea, and all the clean up costs that would go with them.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Hijinx
 

This isn't about a fusion reactor.

“It’s about bringing something old, fission, into the 21st Century,” Wilson said. “I think this has huge potential to change the world.”

www.rawstory.com...


I did catch that and edit my post as I read further on in the article. Thanks for pointing it out Phage
The article claims it's a "Fusion" reactor in the beginning of the article, but as I read further, catching the very same line you quoted, I came back to correct myself.

Cold Fusion future, is still far off it seems.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Hijinx
 




Cold Fusion future, is still far off it seems.

Even further than "hot" fusion I'm afraid.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 07:10 PM
link   
This is a molten salt reactor. It is old technology, from the 50s. There is no "spent fuel" because you leave the fuel in the reactor until it is all used up. There is no radioactivity left. That is why it can use the old-style nuclear waste as fuel. Lots of radioactivity left in that and it gets used up and rendered pretty much inert. With molten salt reactors powered by thorium, we don't need fusion.

There is no reason why this technology can't be modernized and be the answer to our prayers of clean, safe, abundant, cheap energy. The Chinese are building these as the West drags their feet.

www.dnaindia.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 1-3-2013 by TheComte because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by TheComte
 


There is no "spent fuel" because you leave the fuel in the reactor until it is all used up. There is no radioactivity left.

No.

The products of nuclear fission include 235U and 239PU. Both radioactive but not fissionable.

Once the amount of fissionable fuel falls below critical mass the chain reaction stops and no power is produced. But there is still radioactive material remaining.

Normally inert materials (including the body of the reactor itself) become radioactive through neutron bombardment.

edit on 3/1/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
31
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join