blou04

For a large enough building, what is the difference between a tanker-sized diesel generator and a nuclear submarine-sized nuclear reactor. Of course leaving isotopes behind a simple door is asking for a disaster. Each of those autonomous reactors are buried 10 or 20 m deep (judging from his schemaics) inside a dedicated building and is to be kept under permanent overwatch. But i suppose datacenters don't stay open to the public, there's already a security system. Odds are, they have on site engineers taking care of the idling generators, remplace them with nuclear engineers. It's totally the same structural foootprint. Current solar panels rely quite heavily on rare earth, wich a a ecological nightmare. Wait before we get ZnO based ones before praying them.

In Belgium, we have fears of blackout during winter. But we still use our forty-years-old nuclear power plants (they were designed to work for 30 years). Medias keeps making fun of the decision of the government to keep using reactors that have 18cm (micro)-cracks. For those the other side of the ocean, it's 7 inches. Having a reliable and carefree nuclear energy would be a solution to the energy crisis we are currently in. PS: even if you think energy is still cheap enough no to call it energy crisis, wait 50 years when we'll be out of petrol.

Can someone please mail Elon Musk ?

That's the question. Large power plants like today's are well protected(in most cases). Here, the idea is to put a encapsulated nuclear reactor underground where it's needed (factories, data center, and whatnot). If those reactors become widespread, some dumb suicidal person might access one. As it would work on nuclear waste, there would be no potential bomb material(as i understand, but not exactly sure) the only threat would be a voluntary radiation pollution. In french, it's "bombe sale", it's an explosive device containing radioactive material.

To sum up, it's a viable idea that's just no going to happens because of the stigmatization of nuclear power?

I only called goofy because i think laying nuclear reactors all over the place seems strange. The host lengthy explain why his reactor is so safe to operate. But what happens after those 30 years? Is there gonna be a radioactive junkyard in every spot there was a reactor? Because even if there is no leak risk. Multiplying the location where you store(or use) nuclear fuel doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

I recently watched this: http://www.ted.com/talks/taylor_wilson_my_radical_plan_for_small_nuclear_fission_reactors It appears a really safe and reasonable idea. 30years of co2 free energy, without byproducts and virtually no pollution risks. My question to you is this: Would it really be a good idea to use those reactors? Please discuss. English isn't my native language, please forgive any misused word.

I love this mod (and flying vtol's). I really think stock lacks helicopters. and this is a gyroplane (the motors aren't powered up)

t- 10 minutes, i should really be studing now, but's it's so exiting...

I designed a concept for an air launch shuttle. The craft comes in two part: a drone carrier powered by 7 rapier engines that leap into space and a shuttle that detach while over 70km and circularize with around 2G's acceleration http://imgur.com/iHuXaVj,x74liXI I took inspiration from the Lucifer shuttle. note that the carrier isn't stable in reentry, i aded a fuel tank and canard since the screenshots were taken, i didn't had time to test it afterwards.