Enron.com Announces Pre-Orders for Egg-Shaped Home Nuclear Reactor (msn.com) 84
"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: Satire meets Reality (Score:1)
Totally wrong, excellent track record. (Score:2)
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:3)
Three Mile Island is a cluster of reactors. Are you sure they are restarting the one that had issues?
From TFA: "The effort to restore Unit 1 at Three Mile Island is expected to take four years."
The shut-down reactor is Unit 2.
Re: (Score:3)
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:Satire meets Reality (Score:5, Informative)
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 they are not more or less safe, they are nonexistent.
They claim that they will be more safe, but they haven't built one yet, so it's all just marketing. There are zero facts about them being safer in operation because there are zero in operation.
Re: Satire meets Reality (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
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)
The proposed designs are less safe due to needing more fuel and waste handling, and not having any safety features that larger reactors can't implement (but tend not to for cost reasons, so SMRs won't either).
For energy security you want generation distributed and a well connected grid that can move energy long distances. Nuclear isn't the first thing, and the second thing makes renewables even more attractive.
Re: (Score:1)
The proposed designs are less safe due to needing more fuel and waste handling, and not having any safety features that larger reactors can't implement (but tend not to for cost reasons, so SMRs won't either).
You are just restating your earlier premise, not providing any more insight on where this concern comes from. If this is some universal concern for all variants of the SMR then there must surely be someone writing about this somewhere on the internet, and have done so recently on a website that is known to at least make some attempt at unbiased reporting.
For energy security you want generation distributed and a well connected grid that can move energy long distances. Nuclear isn't the first thing, and the second thing makes renewables even more attractive.
I've been hearing how nuclear power can't compete with renewable energy my entire life, and I ain't a spring chicken no more. If this claim had any merit
Re: (Score:2)
The Democrat party in the USA
The Democratic party.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the poster is right. There is only 1 Democrat :)
Re: (Score:2)
is it thou?
No, it is not me at all; it is a political party.
Re: (Score:2)
It's just marketing to call a nonexistent reactor less safe than current designs.
Now that is funny!
Re: (Score:2)
Assertion of a problem (energy shortages) without evidence: Check. ("We got big trouble! Right here in River City!")
Willfully, maliciously ignoring the obvious solution to the putative problem: Check.
Assertion without evidence: Check.
Historical revisionism: Check.
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:3)
Show us the new design in operation.
Also, neither of those nations are communist, HTH HAND
Re: (Score:2)
Show us the new design in operation.
Depending on what you mean by "show us". Taking pictures of an operating nuclear power plant isn't practical; but Wikipedia lists SMRs and finds 2 of them operation, 4 in construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:3)
Why Illinois paid $694 million to keep nuclear plants open [cnbc.com]
Subsidies to Nuclear Power in the Inflation Reduction Act [cato.org]
U.S. Nuclear Plant Shutdowns, State Interventions, and Policy Concerns [congress.gov]
Report: $50 Billion Nuclear Bailout Would Undermine Biden Climate and Infrastructure Goals [foe.org]
Re: (Score:2)
This story has to be from the Onion, right?
Re: Satire meets Reality (Score:2)
Re:Satire meets Reality (Score:4, Insightful)
"Enron" should tip it off, just a few months early for 4/1
Re: (Score:2)
I know it's difficult to tell the difference at times, but don't confuse a scam with satire. They're not making a joke, they honestly want to grab a lot of money before they pack up the bags and move to the next scam.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
No more fanciful than some of the other "cheap safe small nuclear reactor" proposals ...
No. This one is far more legit. By calling the company Enron at least they admit they will take your money and run.
Re: (Score:2)
Except this is clearly a fraud. And because it almost certainly is off shore, is out of US law enforcement jurisdiction. There are enough people to send in money that this will be profitable, even if no devices are ever delivered.
Re: (Score:2)
Enron: "Trust us! We've never screwed anyone over!!!" *eron crosses fingers behind back*
Fallout (Score:2)
Fingers crossed (Score:5, 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:Fingers crossed (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Mr. Fusion is over 10 years late to market now...
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:1)
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.
Any terrorism concerns? (Score:1, Offtopic)
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:1)
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:4, Funny)
For all your energy needs from home and BEYONNNNNddddd
If you can't trust Enron (Score:5, Funny)
Satire is getting difficult (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Satire relies on the audience appreciating that it's not true.
The infamous company called Enron, known for taking money and running, creating a product that is a fantasy known for taking investor money and running is about as obviously satire as anything you read on the Onion. Just because someone reads something on The Onion and calls their senator in a panic doesn't make the Onion less satire, it makes the person stupid. Stupid people will always exist, they don't invalidate satire.
I do wonder how many people are calling our local council today to complain though. I
Re: Satire is getting difficult (Score:2)
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:3)
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]
Re: (Score:1)
coal plants as those are heavily subsidized
There are no subsidizes for coal plants there used to be for lignite mining.
And now the "subsidizes" are for coal exit.
And next ... (Score:1)
... the DIY nuclear device conversion kit, build your own nuke.
Database of Non-Thinkers? (Score:1)
There's two reasons I can think of for this, (a) collect money from gullible people, (b) collect addreses of gullible people and then sell them even more impossible things.
Either way it's yet another scam along the lines of "save 90% of gasoline by installing this pair of otherwise-useless magnets. [Small Print] You also need to drive a lot less. [large print] Only $499,999! Supplies limited [Small Print] by the number of people who can't and/or don't want to understand basic physics [large print]!!!11!"
phew (Score:2)
The idea of a small in-home nuclear reactor can be rather concerning so it''s a relief to see it attached to a company as trustworthy as Enron...
Got to read those URLs carefully (Score:2)
I've mistaken the Onion and Babylon Bee for real news occasionally. Not to be confused with realizing satire and irony turn out to be real.
and yet I'd be a fool to trust (Score:2)
sigh (Score:1)
The world has grown so absurd that apparently we cannot tell a joke from reality any more.
Re: (Score:2)
1) All they need is 1 fox-news anchor to mention them or a Trump and they will turn a profit.
2) It's entirely possible, but not as a reactor. Nuclear fuel cells existed for a long time but are expensive and low power density; but will run half a century. We just had news of a diamond based nuclear "battery" that ran a very long time but was around a watch battery worth of power. I forget the size.
3) If you name yourself ENRON and think that is a good idea; then you are a scam. The amount of cynicism you mus
Re: (Score:1)
1) hey, Trump didn't hand Solyndra $570 MILLION for...what, again?
Trump didn't hand Big Pharma NINETY $BILLION in profits - and a permanent income for mandated vaccine use in a host of government agencies! - over what amounted to something that was really an amped-up flu virus? Because I expect you'll react to this, facts and links below.*
2) yes, scams come out all the time. I think slashdot covers 'breakthrough new battery tech" about every 90d that hasn't amounted to shit in 20 years.
3) the Enron.com is
Missing apparel (Score:2)
The "store" tab doesn't yet have any T-shirts or jackets featuring the egg. Clearly, their marketing team is behind the curve.
1/4/25 (Score:2)
Has April 1st arrived early this year??
Even if you could make a core that small go critical in a controlled way, the radiation dose would kill everyone in the building in a matter of seconds. Check out some of the reports from accidental criticality events. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Nuclear eggs, menopause came early (Score:2)