On 4/15/2011 8:52 AM, Invisible wrote:
> On 15/04/2011 16:28, Darren New wrote:
>> On 4/15/2011 2:21, Invisible wrote:
>>> Nuclear power works in theory. In practise, if you make even the tiniest
>>> mistake, just once, everything is ruined forever.
>>
>> It's possible (in theory) to build a plant where such isn't the case.
>> It's just that afaik nobody is doing that, because nobody has already
>> done it.
>
> I'd be rather surprised if you can build a system powered by radiation
> such that it doesn't use much radiation.
>
There is a battery for small devices in the works that "does" that. The 
problem, in most cases, is that its not the radiation that is used, its 
the heat. That is why the reactors are made the way they are. They have 
to heat water, and the water runs turbines. Find a material that can 
readily transfer electrons, and restore itself, at a decent rate, such 
that you only need something "hot" enough to generate the current you 
need, and you would be way better off.

The closest to a "safe" reactor I think anyone is amounts to two pieces 
of radioactive material in opposite ends of a tube, where you have to 
"heat" one of them, to initiate the reaction, and the reaction them 
generates enough heat during decay to run a small scale turbine. The 
output being higher than needed to maintain the reaction. So.. Cut the 
power, and the reaction slows, and you no longer get "any" output (or 
nothing higher than it would produce without the input energy). But, I 
haven't read anything on that design for some time. And, at that time, 
they had only managed to detect radiation of the type generated during 
such a reaction, so I have no idea if they got the design to actually 
work at all or not (it was very preliminary).

Post a reply to this message