![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Technology Friday
Apr. 3rd, 2009 09:25 amI have a couple of thoughts on technology, and since neither of them can sustain a full blog post, I'll mash them together here.
Coal 2 Nuclear
Via![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
bdunbar I found this interesting site, Coal2nuclear. The basic premise of the site is that we should convert existing coal-fired power plants to nuclear. The author, a retired power plant engineer, suggests burying pebble-bed reactors in the coal yard area of existing power plants, and piping the superheated steam to drive the existing prime mover turbines. It appears (at a quick glance) well-researched, and the proposal has a couple of big advantages, namely:
1) Pebble-bed reactors don't melt down. If they lose coolant, the nuclear reaction stops.
2) You don't need to shut down a pebble-bed reactor to refuel it.
3) By physically burying the reactor, security problems are simplified.
Rate of Technological Change
We are used to thinking that the rate of technological advancement is increasing. That's frequently not the case. For example, the Boeing 707's first flight was in 1957, a mere 54 years after the Wright brothers. That was 52 years ago. Has the rate of change in aviation been as great from 1957 to now as from 1903 to 1957?
Coal 2 Nuclear
Via
bdunbar I found this interesting site, Coal2nuclear. The basic premise of the site is that we should convert existing coal-fired power plants to nuclear. The author, a retired power plant engineer, suggests burying pebble-bed reactors in the coal yard area of existing power plants, and piping the superheated steam to drive the existing prime mover turbines. It appears (at a quick glance) well-researched, and the proposal has a couple of big advantages, namely:1) Pebble-bed reactors don't melt down. If they lose coolant, the nuclear reaction stops.
2) You don't need to shut down a pebble-bed reactor to refuel it.
3) By physically burying the reactor, security problems are simplified.
Rate of Technological Change
We are used to thinking that the rate of technological advancement is increasing. That's frequently not the case. For example, the Boeing 707's first flight was in 1957, a mere 54 years after the Wright brothers. That was 52 years ago. Has the rate of change in aviation been as great from 1957 to now as from 1903 to 1957?
