On 17/06/2016 12:09, charles wrote:
In article , GB
wrote:
On 17/06/2016 11:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/06/16 10:15, GB wrote:
On 17/06/2016 10:07, charles wrote:
In article , GB
wrote:
On 17/06/2016 09:09, Nightjar wrote:
On 16-Jun-16 9:58 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
Nightjar wrote:

In the 1970s, the Soviet Union built a series of remote
lighthouses along their northern coast, which ran off individual
subcritical reactors.

Yes, but with enough juice for a light bulb ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator#Terrestrial





Isn't a light bulb basically all that a lighthouse needs?


Not a very powerful light bulb, though, according to the figures on
WP. Even allowing for it flashing on and off, so it's not powered
all the time, you are looking at a couple of hundred watts, maximum.

in most light houses, 'flashing' is created by a revolving lens
assembly. That revolving would need a motor - more power.

True, indeed. So, I don't see how one of these generators could
produce anything like enough power? They seem to be in the range
10-100 watts.

Solar power makes more sense nowadays, even with redundancy built in
to allow for degradation due to dust build up.


Solar power makes no sense at all. Its completely unsustainable

How much does a TNG cost? (£100k? £1m? £10m?) Then compare that to half
a dozen solar panels.

You probably ought to read the thread before commenting on it.

Solar panels don't work at night. That's the time most people wany to turn
their lights on.

Charge batteries during the day.

A TNG does make sense along the North coast of the USSR, where it's dark
for months on end in the winter.