Inhabitat's Week in Green: nuclear power, body heat electronics, and Greener Gadgets
The Week in Green is a new item from our friends at Inhabitat, recapping the week's most interesting green developments and clean tech news for us.
We also saw signs of the inevitable cyborg uprising as researchers unveiled energy generating gadgets that may one day be implanted within our bodies. MIT is working on a range of heat harvesting electronics that could power biomedical devices such as heart rate and blood sugar monitors. Meanwhile, the University of Michigan has developed an energy recycling prosthetic foot that makes walking easier for amputees. Even the planet is getting wired, as HP gets set to roll out its Central Nervous System for the Earth -- an array of billions of sensors that are paving the way for smarter cities, healthier humans, and the "Internet of Things".
Finally we took a look at two more entries from the Greener Gadgets Design Competition that will be taking the stage next Thursday for live judging: an energy generating glider lounge for public spaces and bass-kicking subwoofer made from recycled car tires.
"MIT is working on a range of heat harvesting electronics that could power biomedical devices such as heart rate and blood sugar monitors."
Kind of sounds like one step closer to 'The Matrix' becoming a reality...
@Thiran I was thinking the same thing
@Thiran
The Human body becomes a living battery. That's a somewhat unsettling thought.
Hmm.... that "special" GE process sounds an awfully lot like the UREX process.
Oh, and there's nothing forward thinking about Wind Farms. Welcome to the grain processing machine of the olden days. That doesn't mean they're as great as everyone thinks they are.
And thanks to your article I can now place you in the camp of "Wind Power will solve all our energy needs" Lunatics. You guys should go have a barbecue with the solar guys. They provide the light to roast the meat, and you guys can provide the power to rotate it.
@M3
I'd have to agree. These people that believe wind, solar, hydo, etc alone can provide enough power simple don't look at the numbers. Though each of them are a good source of power, imagine if ever home had a solar panel roof, none of them combined would be able to support the demands of the entire grid.
The only other somewhat "clean" form of power that can do that right now is nuclear. And even than, I think we can rely on fission long enough until we get fusion under control. But its a little dangerous depending on technology that is no where near tested, but it is the best we got.
I do have to say that I like solar power. Mostly because its somewhat dependable, and it can be used in space. The only pure renewable that can do so. Than again, nothing is technically renewable. The sun will explode one of these days.
@M3
This actually reminds me of a talk I heard about 15 years ago about what to do with Hanford, they called it MOX fuel. The problem is, what comes out the other side of a MOX fuel reactor, is so toxic, it raises the concerns for disposal exponentially. Their solution at the time was to encase it in glass, vitreous encasement or something. Sounds like a total boondoggle to me, and the last thing we should be doing is making more waste that we can't rid ourselves of.
@M3
Come on, that's not really fair. Too many people counter with the view that "green" energy cannot fulfill our total demand, but that's not it's purpose. No one is claiming that switching entirely to wind or solar could satisfy our current need or is capable for providing enough for future need. It's a compromise; where we are able to minimize resource draw to produce energy, we can. In situations that need massive amounts of power, less renewable energy is used with the hope that our dependence can switch to a cleaner source.
Yes, if everyone had a turbine and solar roof, energy demands might still not be met. Yes, fossil fuels could probably support the grid by themselves. But neither is the case, because we aren't looking for a singular source. We push for these advances to increase our total supply of energy. Please consider that the total amount of energy, rate of energy production, cost of production, ease of production, risks involved in processing, and waste disposal are all weighed and compared to fit different situations. By definition, as long as we have myriad and varying requirements, no one source could efficiently serve the energy demand.
@doccutter
Yes, mixed oxide fuels yield waste as dangerous as oralloy waste, but you must keep in mind that MOX comes from oralloy waste. It's not a kill-two-birds-with-1-stone, but it definitely helps considering that you get two source of energy and only 1 net waste product after processing.
@Hung
I never said that. In fact, I like solar when it's used in combination with other technologies such as nuclear. In fact, I would say that using nuclear for base load and solar for variable load is probably the best combination. The two technologies are suited for different things.
The problem is that a good portion of the anti-nuclear nuts want ONLY solar or only Wind. I know many people, including academics in the area, who support combination, and almost all want nuclear to be an important part of that combination.
@doccutter
Right MOX reactors kind of suck. All of the MOX concepts have been in the past thermal spectrum LWRs. Fast concepts like Spectrum would be much better at burning most of the transuranics and even activating many medium and long lived isotopes into short lived ones. Any closed fuel cycle has to use this.
On that note, up until recently one of the interesting concepts at Livermore has been a project called LIFE. The idea would be to use a fusion source for neutrons only and use a Transuranic/waste blanket for power. Rather then producing net power, the whole arrangement would act as burner, producing just enough energy to sustain the fusion source, and thus burning the crap in the process. Think of it as a last step before final storage, either in Dry-Cask or in a repository like WIPP ( which is 100000000000 x better then Yucca ).
@Aurailious
Agreed! Take a look at this article, you can't argue with the numbers!
@AQG
.http://www.cleanenergyinsight.org/energy-insights/what-does-renewable-energy-look-like/
It's not just a loan guarantee - taxpayers are also providing the actual loans, through the Federal Financing Bank. and $8bil is just the start - the Dems have proposed tripling the loan guarantee program for new reactors in the FY 2011 budget, to $54 billion.
As for the GE hype, take it with salt. For over 50 years, the nuclear industry has gleefully reported to be on the verge of a solution to the growing unresolved global problem of nuclear waste, and the dawning of an age of electricity to cheap to measure. We shouldn't allow that familiar story to distract us from the very real risks and long term impacts of an expanded reactor program.
@justinTNT
Uh..... what rock did you crawl out from under? Yes they are loan Guarantees. If you're talking about the ridiculous deal that Florida Power and Electric got, then you're still talking about something else.
Other then that, all current operating reactors have been funded through loan guarantees. This means, they get a loan from private investors, but the risk is hedged by a guarantee from the government. Of course, the company building the reactor has to PAY for the Loan Guarantee. It's like an Insurance policy. The government isn't providing any loans through the guarantee. They may have other programs that do, but these also apply to Solar, Wind, Coal, Gas, etc. Power Plants.
As for waste. Yes, the Nuclear Industry has had a solution. It's called reprocessing. You know, what both Japan and France do. Our stupid congress banned us from reprocessing years ago to appease the USSR. We could reprocess, significantly reduce the mass of waste, as well as the necessary time it takes for the radioactivity to die off to the range of few hundred years.
People also cite Yucca mountain like it was a good idea. It wasn't. It was the government's way of trying to make good on a law they passed in the 80's. This amendment also started taxing all Nuclear Power Plants to pay for a repository to a collective amount in the 10's of Billions of dollars already. At the same time, if you want to know about a good Repositroy, google WIPP. That is a good idea. Figures the Millitary was the one to get it. Our Civilian Nuclear Industry has been screwed by the enviro-nazi's in the government way too many times now.
In other words, get the morons out of managing the Nuclear Industry and it would work very well. Too bad we have a bunch of clowns telling us how to operate reactors. Thanks again Congress.
G'day @M3 : my rock is in the NT of Australia, now targeted for a nuclear dump.
um, reprocessing simply separates the wastes. The fission products removed from the fuel are a concentrated form of high-level waste, as are the chemicals used in the process. You still end up those unwanted long-lived high-level radioactive materials on your hands.
You know, like both Japan and France do.
BTW: I think Reagan lifted the Carter ban on reprocessing. Since then, I know some fuel rods from aUStrAlia have been reprocessed in the us[a].
as for the loans, I read about them here : http://www.nirs.org/press/02-17-2010/1
@justinTNT
Wonder full, quote an anti-nuclear organization about anti-nuclear propaganda. I understand that you're obviously mad that you're area is being targeted as a Nuclear Dump. Would you be happier if it was being targeted as a dump for Fly Ash? You know the stuff that comes from coal plants, has no nuclear regulation, from which you're likely to get dangerous levels of radioactivity from?
As for the loans, since when were two reactors headed for more rural communities considered to be all the current candidates? If you put a Solar Power Plant, a Wind Farm, a Coal Plan, a Natural Gas Plant, etc. in Burke Country ,which is where the Southern Company Reactor is going to be built, then you are eligible for funds because it's technically 'Rural Electrification'. This is not linked with the Loan Guarantees. This is purely a side product of the location of the reactor. It's a benefit that ANY electricity generating project in the area could receive.
Duh, reprocessing separates out the waste. It separates out the real waste. You know the stuff that could all fit within an Olympic swimming pool. The current problem is due to quantity, not so much time. We have too much sitting around in places like Hanford to manage well.
If you're telling me that reducing the amount of waste, that has to be managed, to small amounts is not satisfactory, then I'm fine with you wallowing around in the mountains of radioactive fly ash those coal plants generate. Have fun convincing industry that your 25% capacity factor solar and wind farms can actually provide consistent power.
PS: Most of those highly radioactive long lived isotopes are transuranics. They can be burned in breeder reactors or fast flux reactors which have been demonstrated. The remaining stuff is basically a non-issue.
Damn I thought this article was about the release of a new conumer's product allowing you to view the world like a predator :(
I personally wouldn't mind a suit of these heat harvesting electronics to charge stuff up with. Just think how many calories it takes to raise your body those few degrees that these things would be sapping away. It could be a clever way to burn calories for lazy people like me.
There are only 55 sites in the US that produce nuclear power but it's still 20% of the power needed in the country. And this is from plants that are incredibly old for what they do. The US can't afford to lose them, but thanks to the rest of the world there are plenty of much, much better designs for reactors that have been built and tested. Fission now and fusion 50 years from now is what should be generating power.
Can anyone seriously imagine hundreds of thousands of individual turbines for power generation, completely reliant on the weather?
Yes. THANK YOU! As a physicist all I can say is it's about time they are going back to nuclear energy. I say they as I'm proudly Canadian ;)
@Rocket Raccoon
Sweet, since you are Canadian and loving some nuclear good times can you whip over to Cameco and offer them a uranium mine site 25km from your town above the only source of drinking water with oh say 500km.
Cause we in Alice Springs, NT AU don't want another Cigar Lake fiasco destroying the entire population base of Central Australia just so your precious Cameco can make a small return for 20 years, use up the water (regardless of an accident) and then disapearing to find some other place to kill.
Go on, offer up your children for their daily radioactive dust storm if you are so keen.
Not saying nuclear has no place okay just the grabbers running it aren't in the electicity business rather the business of exploitation and leaving their waste on exit
@Cy Starkman
Okay! :D
@touchmygadget
That is reaching really far. What people mean is that nuclear power generation in and of itself is very low CO2 producing. Come on.
By your "logic," nuclear is still much cleaner, since other processes have the same, if not more, side CO2 emissions yet still emit CO2 during the actual generation process.
Nuclear is the future until we figure out mass scale cold fusion. Stop standing in the way of progress.
noobs using a thermal scope
Tritium is massively produced in Canadian (Cndu) reactors. It cannot be contained. It cannot be filtered out of drinking water or water vapour. What Hitachi proposes is to increase tritium in the environment. Once ingested it can become organically bound. Your body cannot filter it out as chemically it is hydrogen, radioactive hydrogen.
HITACHI, Tell us just how you would undo the doo doo from a CANDU?