Enron.com Announces Pre-Orders for Egg-Shaped Home Nuclear Reactor (msn.com) 50
"Nuclear you can trust," reads the web page promoting "The Egg, an at home nuclear reactor."
Yes, Enron.com is now announcing "a micro-nuclear reactor made to power your home." (A quick reminder from CNN in December. "A company that makes T-shirts bought the Enron trademark and appears to be trying to sell some merch on behalf of the guy behind the satirical conspiracy theory "Birds Aren't Real....")
Does that explain how we got a product reveal for "the world's first micro-nuclear reactor for residential suburban use"? (Made possible "by the Enron mining division, which has been sourcing the proprietary Enronium ore...") Enron's new 28-year-old CEO Connor Gaydos insists they're "making the world a better place, one egg at a time."
The Houston Chronicle delves into the details: Supposedly a micro-nuclear reactor capable of powering a home for up to 10 years, the Enron Egg would be a significant leap forward for both energy technology and humanity's understanding of nuclear physics — if, of course, such a thing were actually feasible. "With our current understanding of physics, this will never be possible," said Derek Haas, an associate professor and nuclear and radiation engineering researcher at the University of Texas at Austin. "We can make a nuclear reactor go critical at about the size of the egg that I saw on the pictures. But we can't capture that energy and turn it into useful electric heat, and shield the radiation that comes off of the reactor." [Haas adds later that nuclear reactors require federal licenses to operate, which take two to nine years to procure and "typically require several hundred pages of documentation to be allowed to build it, and then another thousand pages of safety documents to be allowed to turn it on."]
The outlandish claims Enron has made in the weeks since its brand revival have left many to speculate that the move is part of some large-scale joke similar to Birds Aren't Real — a gag conspiracy movement that Connor Gaydos, Enron's 28-year-old CEO, published a book on alongside co-author and movement founder Peter McIndoe. In an exclusive interview with the Houston Chronicle, Gaydos asked that people look past the limitations — be they in the form of regulations or physics — and embrace the impossible....
Several since-deleted blurbs — both on the company's website and on social media — have alluded to Enron potentially expanding into the world of cryptocurrency. Gaydos said he hasn't ruled it out, but the company currently does not have any plans in the works to debut an Enron-themed coin. "I think in a lot of ways, everything feels like a crypto scam now, but thankfully, we are a completely real company," Gaydos said.
When announcing the Egg, Gaydos stressed Enron was now revolutionizing not just the power industry, but also two others — the freedom industry, and the independence industry. And Gaydos reminded his audience that their home micro-nuclear was "safe for the whole family."
"Preorder now," adds the Egg's web page at Enron.com. "Sign up for our email newsletter and be the first to know when we launch..."
Yes, Enron.com is now announcing "a micro-nuclear reactor made to power your home." (A quick reminder from CNN in December. "A company that makes T-shirts bought the Enron trademark and appears to be trying to sell some merch on behalf of the guy behind the satirical conspiracy theory "Birds Aren't Real....")
Does that explain how we got a product reveal for "the world's first micro-nuclear reactor for residential suburban use"? (Made possible "by the Enron mining division, which has been sourcing the proprietary Enronium ore...") Enron's new 28-year-old CEO Connor Gaydos insists they're "making the world a better place, one egg at a time."
The Houston Chronicle delves into the details: Supposedly a micro-nuclear reactor capable of powering a home for up to 10 years, the Enron Egg would be a significant leap forward for both energy technology and humanity's understanding of nuclear physics — if, of course, such a thing were actually feasible. "With our current understanding of physics, this will never be possible," said Derek Haas, an associate professor and nuclear and radiation engineering researcher at the University of Texas at Austin. "We can make a nuclear reactor go critical at about the size of the egg that I saw on the pictures. But we can't capture that energy and turn it into useful electric heat, and shield the radiation that comes off of the reactor." [Haas adds later that nuclear reactors require federal licenses to operate, which take two to nine years to procure and "typically require several hundred pages of documentation to be allowed to build it, and then another thousand pages of safety documents to be allowed to turn it on."]
The outlandish claims Enron has made in the weeks since its brand revival have left many to speculate that the move is part of some large-scale joke similar to Birds Aren't Real — a gag conspiracy movement that Connor Gaydos, Enron's 28-year-old CEO, published a book on alongside co-author and movement founder Peter McIndoe. In an exclusive interview with the Houston Chronicle, Gaydos asked that people look past the limitations — be they in the form of regulations or physics — and embrace the impossible....
Several since-deleted blurbs — both on the company's website and on social media — have alluded to Enron potentially expanding into the world of cryptocurrency. Gaydos said he hasn't ruled it out, but the company currently does not have any plans in the works to debut an Enron-themed coin. "I think in a lot of ways, everything feels like a crypto scam now, but thankfully, we are a completely real company," Gaydos said.
When announcing the Egg, Gaydos stressed Enron was now revolutionizing not just the power industry, but also two others — the freedom industry, and the independence industry. And Gaydos reminded his audience that their home micro-nuclear was "safe for the whole family."
"Preorder now," adds the Egg's web page at Enron.com. "Sign up for our email newsletter and be the first to know when we launch..."
Satire meets Reality (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
We do like the privatize things that probably shouldn't be privatized though so there's that
Re: Satire meets Reality (Score:1)
Totally wrong, excellent track record. (Score:1)
They're perfectly safe when properly maintained the problem is America isn't exactly well known for maintaining its infrastructure.
They are with nuclear infrastructure...
Which is why you didn't even know there are 94 licensed nuclear reactors in the United States, which have operated for decades without issue.
And they are of course planning to re-start Three Mile Island [reuters.com]...
The only danger historically of nuclear power in the U.S.. has been when people like you sabotaged new plant builds in the seventies and
Re: (Score:2)
SMRs require refuelling more often, and produce more waste as a result. So there is greater risk due to more high level waste handling and storage. They are more dangerous than standard reactors.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything I can find tells me
What did you find, and where did you find it?
that SMRs are
There's your first problem, SMRs aren't. Nobody has built even a single prototype of these alleged next-generation SMRs. The only company which has got permission to build one decided not to because there was no profit in it.
And a large part of this safety being that the smaller reactor cores hold less high level waste?
They hold less waste because they hold less fuel, but they require more highly enriched fuel to begin with so they start out with more potential hazard.
And that they burn up the fuel and some of the fission products more efficiently than a solid fuel reactor?
They use a solid fuel, except they don't use fuel, because they don't exist. Therefore the
Re: Satire meets Reality (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They claim that they will be more safe, but they haven't built one yet, so it's all just marketing.
If we can't prove them more safe because they don't exist then how can anyone claim they are less safe? They don't exist, right? It's just marketing to call a nonexistent reactor less safe than current designs.
What people seem to lose track of in this is that energy shortages are not safe. Is a nonexistent nuclear power plant safer than a shortage of energy? I don't believe so. Then this will bring claims that we have better options for energy than nuclear fission. If that's true then why are a half d
Re: (Score:2)
. Nobody has built even a single prototype of these alleged next-generation SMRs.
Russia and China have operational reactors, and several more under construction. But i guess commies don't count.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything is safe if it was properly maintained.
The problem is, "proper maintenance" costs money, and that hurts profits (and bonuses).
Even public infrastructure suffers from this, because everyone wants "Tax cuts" and those cuts generally include less maintenance because
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, "proper maintenance" costs money, and that hurts profits (and bonuses).
Do you know what also hurts profits? Seeing a power plant cause injuries because of improper maintenance, which then brings lawsuits, rising medical insurance costs, lost productivity (being both from employees and the power plant itself), government fines, bad public relations, and more.
Even public infrastructure suffers from this, because everyone wants "Tax cuts" and those cuts generally include less maintenance because it gets costlier and costlier as time goes on
The issue of improper maintenance is largely a public infrastructure issue. Private businesses will have a number of motivating factors to keep their structures and workplace safe. One motivator is that governments love
Re: Satire meets Reality (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Enron" should tip it off, just a few months early for 4/1
Missed Advertizing Opportunities (Score:2)
Their next product should be a nuclear powered tanning bed, for when you want a tan that's more than skin deep.
Re: (Score:2)
Your home will quite literally glow in the dark!
So will everyone who lives in it. Hard pass.
Fallout (Score:2)
Fingers crossed (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
I just hope it performs better than my Mr. Fusion.
It probably won't provide enough juice for the flux capacitor...
Re: (Score:3)
I just hope it performs better than my Mr. Fusion.
It probably won't provide enough juice for the flux capacitor...
I haven’t been this upset since later today.
Yesterday's Tech (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Banana peals are easy to find than uranium.
Enron? (Score:2)
:"Enron Egg"? I'll go with satire or art project.
Re: (Score:2)
So clearly satire.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know, they do have the advantage of Enronium© ore!
Hopefully Elmo Musk teams up with them and ensures every Cybertruck has its own fusion reactor! It will make driving so much more exciting!
Needs Ken Lay (Score:2)
Gaydos ain't no Lay.
So it's a stupid marketing joke (Score:2)
And here is Slashdot, giving it up for free.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot is a Cryptocurrency marketing tool and ad impression real estate. Anything else it does is in service to one or both of those things, so this story is either just to get clicks from dumbshits or to distract from their cryptocuckery, or both. If they're smart it's both, so it's probably just one of those things. Pick your favorite.
Re: (Score:3)
If it actually had fissile material in it, I suppose it would make a great payload for a dirty bomb. But don't worry, the reactor they describe is physically impossible so it's not a real product.
but useing one with my flux capacitor can do all k (Score:2)
but useing one with my flux capacitor can do all kind crazy shit
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if such a reactor can be used to do damage.
Any power source can be used to do damage. Think about it.
This could be a real upgrade for all terrorists in the world, could it not?
Since this is not a working device then no, it would not be a real upgrade.
Trust Enron (Score:3)
For all your energy needs from home and BEYONNNNNddddd
If you can't trust Enron (Score:2)
Satire is getting difficult (Score:3)
Satire relies on the audience appreciating that it's not true. Otherwise the message is lost. In our new post-truth society starting next week, stories like this will be picked up and run as true with very few people understanding it's satire.
Re: (Score:2)
This has been a serious proposal for years. People here periodically propose SMRs that are "like batteries" that a home or neighbourhood can plug in and enjoy cheap, safe power.
It's apparently believable enough that a lot of people think it's a real thing, like Belgium.
This isn't a joke? It's Enron, right? (Score:2)
It's not like everybody else wouldn't sell the same if they could. Why would you use the Enron brand name to sell it even if you had it?
Re: (Score:2)
It is Enron, what's left of it anyways. And it is a joke.
Where's the NFT?!? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For the next four years, every day's the first of April ... but we'll take your money too.
Yours for the low, low price (Score:2)
of 19.95*
*per 551,557,906,200 cesium cycles a minute (shipping and handling extra).
Or I could see this as a subscription model to take with you while roughing it in the great outdoors.
Now that I think about it, a subscription model should be complimentary to communism.
meanwhile... (Score:2)
Sounds like an art poject (Score:2)
One that serves to illustrate how stupid, uneducated and easy to trick most people are. Because something like that is not actually possible except as RTG and these are excessively expensive and very dangerous when taken apart. Or it may simply be a scam.
I'm working on thermonuclear sperm (Score:2)
Meanwhile in the rest of the world (Score:2)
Germany approaches around 50% wind+solar+water in its grid. Storage gets cheaper by the month and is now at around 3 cents per kWh.
The island of conditions where nuclear reactors make sense is rapidly shrinking, even for more efficient (money wise) large reactors.
Or put differently, if you have a house and want to go (mostly) of grid, solar+storage already is a viable option.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/poli... [msn.com]
https://oilprice.com/Latest-En... [oilprice.com]
Sure, energy supplies are just "peachy" in Germany right now.
I can follow that it's nearly trivial to have a house off the grid. I've seen some YouTube videos of people doing just that, and I can see how this kind of life can be attractive to some, as well as potentially saving money long term. Since I live where the winters can be quite cold I'd have to rely on LPG or some other fuel for heat since solar power, batteries, and a heat pump a
Re: (Score:2)
Well not really, of course there are still coal plants as those are heavily subsidized, plus the article clearly says that they are used as a reserve.
The other article is a typical example of missing political will in Germany. While we subsidize coal and cars, we stopped doing that for solar. Add some inefficiencies to it, and you'll have Chinese suppliers taking over the market.
If you want to see how the grid is doing, get some actual data, not just articles:
https://app.electricitymaps.co... [electricitymaps.com]
And next ... (Score:1)
... the DIY nuclear device conversion kit, build your own nuke.