The MMRTG is a cylinder 25" in diameter and 26" high, it's going to seriously impact space in your 'fridge. Plus it weighs nearly 100 lbs.
It outputs around 100W of power, which might be enough for a small refrigerator, but it also emits around 2000W of thermal energy, so your kitchen's going to get a little warm (probably a good thing in the winter, not so much in summer).
Though probably the biggest drawback is the cost -- the MMRTG costs around $100M to manufacture. The US Department of Energy makes the plutonium for it.
Not just the obvious ones (checking if you aren't selling plutonium or making a dirty bomb), but also health agencies (what if it leaks and someone eats it?), environmental agencies (what if it leaks and gets into groundwater?), child protective services (are you really storing nuclear material in reach of children?!), drug enforcement (are these parties near your "glo fridge" legal and above board?)...
On the bright side, as the joke goes, being on the radar of government agencies is a good way to deter criminals from robbing your house.
https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/spacecraft/rover/electrical-p...
So the question stands and extends to include this: "why not?"
That is my basic opposition. Happy to be flexible on energy in almost every way. Cost, type, uptime...
But error with nuclear tech tends to endure for a very long time. Fukushima will be raising ocean radiation for a long time, just one example.
These are many lifetime events. Some minor, or recoverable, some profound.
Given we can reasonably run the fridge on solar, and other tech, that risk does not seem to make sense to a lot of people.
Doesn't to me.
Now, that said I am not ideologically opposed. Other tech could very seriously improve risk profile. Maybe it becomes worth it.
Then again, the fridge in my RV can run on a small flame, or a very low current source. And no moving parts!
So, we could make fridges differently too. Make tradeoffs.
Will it? The ocean is very, very big. Contaminated water from Fukushima is a literal drop in a bucket.
The solution to pollution is dilution.
I say that in jest, because dilution involving radioactivity works on much longer timelines than many things do.
But it’s also hideously expensive. Plutonium is, apparently, one of the safer ways to build these things, because it is easy to shield, and the power density is good. But plutonium, as it’s not naturally occurring, is stratospherically expensive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_ge...
I wish I could say that’s a good thing. But no, after the first of them, nuclear weapons seem to have justified their own existence, no matter the cost.
I would rather see remaining weapons material repurposed as deep-space power sources. If that were to solve problems.
Anyhow, Perseverance makes me happy.
Unfortunately this is not possible, nuclear weapons make use of pu-239, which has properties that does not make it a useable RTG fuel.
No, at least union's ones were priced at around $100000-$120000 a pop in materials.
Giant amount of money back in seventies union for an individual, enough to live on for a lifetime.
Note: With alpha emitters, it's 'safe' if it's outside your body, your skin can absorb it. But once you eat or inhale it, you get the full blast right into the quickest dividing cells in your body.
The main reason this are used vs (or sometimes along!) other technologies is that they function rather happily in super crappy conditions we don't -unless some world-ending event happens soonish- usually have on Earth.
The real reason you don't want an RTG powering your fridge is that it costs on the order of one million dollars per watt.
https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/pu50yc.html
https://mjosefweber.medium.com/nasa-needs-plutonium-ea3bbaad...
It's hard enough getting rid of an old lead-cell battery.
I went searching and this website on watch lists appears to be real, whilst also seeming like a joke.
“Since there are many reasons why a traveler may seek redress, DHS TRIP works with the TSC, as appropriate, when an inquiry appears to be related to the watchlist.
The TSC does not accept redress inquiries directly from the public. Instead, members of the public should contact the relevant screening agency with their questions or concerns about screening.”
https://www.fbi.gov/about/leadership-and-structure/national-...
If that shield fails for any reason, including tampering, you're looking at the radiological contamination and likely deaths of everyone nearby at the very least.
Yes. Sounds like something a child would do.
a conventional fridge has electric motors/pumps , live a/c wiring, and gas under pressure. It's not radiation-spilling-everywhere unsafe, but it's not really safe for the kid, either.
Everyone who went near this thing is likely to become ill at the very least.
Indeed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident
A caesium-137 radioactivity source was left behind and eventually stolen. The thieves successfully dismantled it despite sustaining severe injuries in the process, exposing the radioactive material contained in the shielded capsule. They were fascinated by the strange light emitted by it.
Eventually it was sold to a scrapyard. The owner also became fascinated with the blue glow. He brought the thing home to show everyone. He distributed parts of the material to friends and family. Eventually sold it to another scrapyard but not before his brother took some of the beautiful radioactive dust and smeared it on the concrete floor. Where his daughter sat and ate a contaminated sandwich. She also applied he powder on her own body.
The only reason this unfortunate chain of events stopped is the scrapyard owner's wife noticed everyone was getting sick and notified the authorities. She died later along with the girl. Attempts to bury the child also led to a riot. Scrapyard workers also died attempting to extract the lead from the radiation shielding component.
The Wikipedia article and the Portuguese source it links to seems ambiguous on the matter of whether it was because she notified the authorities, or because a visiting scientist thought to use radiation detectors on other people reporting to the hospital a day after her notification.
People already dope silicone bands and fabric (including underwear!) with Thorium and sell them as "negative ion" "wellness" products. Some are still available to buy on Amazon.
Because there's nothing like "wellness" than exposing your gonads to ionising radiation!
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Litvinenko [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_detector
There were terrestrial exceptions though, like "the Beta-M is a radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG) that was used in Soviet-era lighthouses and beacons." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta-M
But people happened across them and got radiation poisoning, so imagine that happening a lot more often if they were powering all manner of home appliance. Also a lot more dirty bombs.
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/s...
There's probably a way to get a little more power out of it without being too dangerous. But then we'd have ordinary citizens buying things over-the-counter that could be abused in bulk. And I don't see any hassle being worth an extra free outlet or not replacing batteries.
(I don't know how much power the probes actually use, but anyway the wattage of the RTG itself is pretty close to the steady state power consumption of a fridge.)
I got to talk to one of the engineers who worked on KRUSTY[1] a 10kW nuclear reactor. This combined with some batteries for peak load could run pretty much any house for a couple of decades. (they talk about several houses in the article but realistically the peak load of a single house when the oven, refrigerator/freezer compressor, and central AC are running is a bit north of 10kW. I would seriously consider a way off grid ranch house if I could have one of these to power it :-)
[1] https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/moon-mars/a20127140/n...
RTGs are also large, too large to power a fridge given the power draw for a fridge. There were microRTGs used in some pacemakers, but the long term safety concerns were never overcome.
The decay rate is high enough that you'd need to augment or refuel your house every handful of years. Halflife of 87 years, 25% energy loss in 40ish, 10% loss in just over a decade, etc.
Also, they've got little plutonium pellets in them, which is both expensive and dangerous.
[0] https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-most-expensive-element-606...).
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sci....
It is very unlikely that the production of Pu-238 would cost less to produce than the container and the apparatus that harvests the energy.
Let alone the issues with the waste products of U-234 hanging about in the kitchen or basement. If you think climate change is bad as is, add in what people will do when faced with surplus uranium waste removal costs.
Which is? Not cheap. And it's not like you can buy in any corner store.
And no, while an "economy of scale" would make it cheaper, it doesn't mean it would be cheap.
I would think the major use for them beyond space probes would be providing last resort backup power/heat for life support on outside earth orbit space habitats/crewed vehicles as the cost will still be at least $500/watt.
The current power structures in the world (petrodollar, etc) and world economy as a whole (massive employment within oil industry and throughout supply chains catering to oil industry) are too intertwined with the oil industry to allow any other technologies to swiftly disrupt that.
Stop mocking questions. It solves nothing.
Per https://www.wired.com/story/nasas-mars-rover-will-be-powered... we currently have a lab dedicated to producing it, and it makes 3.5 pounds per year.
Per https://www.npr.org/2011/11/08/141931325/the-plutonium-probl... the cost of getting the lab restarted was a bit shy of $100 million. And once running fully it costs millions of dollars to run.
At those cost points it would be cheaper to deliver you a brand new fridge each month for the next 20 years than to deliver you a single fridge using plutonium to run without external electricity for the same 20 years. Not to mention that the plutonium itself is toxic.
Though FWIW I was more commenting on the mocking of a legitimate question. Not everyone has the same background as everyone else. There are no stupid questions.
I suppose if we're looking for a Randall Munroe / "What If?" style explanation of why powering consumer equipment with plutonium is a bad idea, then it was the right question to ask.