Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

hunter

(40,513 posts)
10. This is not a radioisotope thermoelectric generator.
Mon Feb 16, 2026, 11:59 AM
9 hrs ago

It's a nuclear reactor that's about the size of a shipping container.

A complete power plant can be assembled from components that can be delivered anywhere an ordinary shipping container can.

The dangers of nuclear waste are comparable to other non-nuclear hazardous wastes modern industry generates. Many of these dangerous non-nuclear wastes have a half life of forever. After a few hundred years used nuclear fuel has about the same total radioactivity of the ores that it was mined from. Some of the radioactive elements in this used fuel are more mobile in the natural environment than those in natural ores but it's not a huge technical problem to contain them. This used fuel can also be recycled into new fuel and other useful elements.

Of course the most dangerous energy wastes humans produce come from fossil fuels. The most dangerous fossil fuel by far is natural gas because many people think it's clean (or at least better than coal) and it supports their renewable energy follies. We are well trained to completely dismiss natural gas accidents which kill people every year, accidents that smother people with carbon monoxide, explode entire buildings, or incinerate entire neighborhoods. What's far, far worse are the greenhouse gasses dumped recklessly everywhere as combustion products and methane leaks.

Natural gas will be the energy resource that destroys the natural environment as we know it and possibly cause the collapse of our current civilization.

Recommendations

2 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

It says a C-17 was used. I am curious if other planes-maybe the military also flew along side riversedge 12 hrs ago #1
It says in the OP "without nuclear fuel" muriel_volestrangler 12 hrs ago #4
Thanks. I did not read carefully -- riversedge 12 hrs ago #5
From the first paragraph: discntnt_irny_srcsm 11 hrs ago #6
"I do not have access to the article. Sorry." - Sometimes I can find the msn repost of Reuters articles at post time BumRushDaShow 11 hrs ago #9
What could go wrong? orangecrush 12 hrs ago #2
There is no business case for microreactors, --- Yes there is.. LiberalArkie 12 hrs ago #3
Good idea if someone could show facts as to it being cheaper energy Bengus81 2 hrs ago #16
There is one other very strong use case.... reACTIONary 2 hrs ago #17
Looks like the AI bros want to make a wasteland of scattered RTGs and ADRs like the Soviets did. Hugin 11 hrs ago #7
This is not a radioisotope thermoelectric generator. hunter 9 hrs ago #10
A few hundred years... Hugin 9 hrs ago #11
Any of our great grandchildren who survive will be cursing us for our addiction to fossil fuels. hunter 7 hrs ago #13
I am not tremendously confident in this administration to test the viability of this energy solution... EarthFirst 11 hrs ago #8
Dear leader has been reading comics again and wants a nuclear air force pecosbob 8 hrs ago #12
Bell Laboratories demonstrated the first practical photovoltaic cell in 1954. hunter 7 hrs ago #14
The cost of the nuclear waste is billions DougBee 2 hrs ago #15
Places with aggressive renewable energy programs have the most expensive electricity. hunter 52 min ago #19
Every one of our nuclear submarines .... reACTIONary 2 hrs ago #18
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»US conducts first air tra...»Reply #10