Actually, at the end she says; "since our report first aired in Feb 2010." Which would suggest that this is an update.
PS; Love the inventors enthusiasm. For him, and indeed all concerned, I hope it is a huge success because maybe we can then rip down the awful blight - and sheer waste of space and money - that are wind turbines.

Your video, Bold Stunts With an RC Turbine Jet, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Ok, so is the giant clear ball with it's mount, the specialized miniature solar cells able to handle focused sunlight, and the tracking device cheaper than normal PV cells with normal trackers? I can't imagine it is, so while neat, I fear this tech won't fly in normal applications. Maybe in designer homes and places with high wind, but high wind areas should probably be using windmills/turbines and flat mounted solar.

Your video, Dropping a Screw in a Turbine Engine, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 2 Badge!

Uhhh, all you folks are wrong about what kind of damage (if any) this guy's 'electric motor' RC plane could do to one of those turbines, even if it became lodged in the hub of one of those monsters. If the blade would have hit his toy, it would have been completely trashed with little or no damage to the precious turbine-Who says he was trespassing anyhoo?

I'm wondering how much their cobalt, phosphorous, oxygen, nickel, molybdenum, and zinc cost.
What does he mean "light harvesting infrastructure"? It seemed the whole idea was it removes the need for infrastructure and allows a small setup to make enough power for a small home.
The obvious issue seems to be the cost of a fuel cell that can power a home which probably means it will not ever be cost effective over solar cells/turbine/micro-hydro and batteries/flywheel/hydro storage.
Neat though.

It's explained in a link from the yt vid, which I overlooked when posting (sorry!):

http://blogs.agu.org/geospace/2012/10/05/rare-upward-lightning-videos/

In 99% of cases the current flows the other way, from the clouds to the ground. This vid is related to a study by atmospheric scientist Tom Warner of the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology in Rapid City. He says companies running wind turbines are particularly interested in why 1% of lightning strikes go upwards, wanting to know what conditions favour it and how the effects can be mitigated. There is a link to the paper in the blog article linked above.

The camera zooms out.

On a more general note: These sort of videos are what they are; one side of the argument. Nothing more. Nothing less. This shows a very direct incident. The problem with other methods of energy creation (mainly burning fossil fuels) is that the majority of the casualties are from indirect incidents. Pollution causing a loss of fertility in the breeding population would be a good example of where a population could be massively affected, but it wouldn't be obvious what was happening and there wouldn't be the opportunity for such an attention grabbing video.

No-one is saying these wind turbines are perfect, but despite what we see in this video we'd need data from both sides of the equation to make an informed decision. What might ave been catastrophic for that bird may actually be the saviour of the species.

In the same way there are people who have been permanently deafened by airbags or injured or even killed by tem going off accidentally in cars. But I'm pretty sure no sane person would argue that they are a harmful addition to a car as they have demonstrably saved many, many thousands of lives. What we're seeing in this video is the equivalent of watching an airbag go off when it shouldn't a causing a crash. It's a terrible thing for sure, but without the overall figures you can't say it means airbags are bad (or good).

Tags for this video have been changed from 'jet, fire, water' to 'jet, turbines, mig 21, tank, fire fighters' - edited by kulpims

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for this sort of defense, but did anyone else think it was a little disturbing when they talked about the debris of the shot down missile falling on the country that fired it as a plus.

That's all fine and dandy, but there is no guarantee that the debris will damage anything that will impede the enemy war machine, if anything it will probably fall on the civilians of that country. Civilians whose only crime is living in the wrong country.

Still, I hate to say it, but it's a small price to pay to stop a potential attack of large magnitude.

Now...that out of the way. what the heck powers the lasers? The jet turbines couldn't be enough could it?

A supercharger is driven directly by the motor, whereas a turbocharger is driven by exhaust gases. So yes, a turbo requires higher revs to produce enough exhaust gas to spin the turbine - thus "boost lag".

Apparently it was an engine failure.

http://www.leftlanenews.com/top-gear-korea-cobra-helicopter-turbines-fail-crashes-in-arizona-desert-video.html

You can afford...being the prime question here.
Most cars these days (read: not performance cars) are made on the cheap.
Forged connecting rods, and billet valves / cam shafts / high tensile head bolts are not cheap, therfore they dont go into the vast majority of modern engines.

Putting a turbo on your engine alone would vastly increase compression ratios, stressing just about every internal part in the car. The poverty pack econo-cars can not handle any more than about 4-6lb's of boost before things start heating up, warping, and shaking themselves apart violently.

Cost to get things up to spec?

erm....well a good set of H beam forged con-rods can cost you anywhere from 600 upwards (generally upwards...a lot upwards), and thats just the part, not including installation. Getting the valves reworked, vavle springs, cam shaft....thats ~2k+ if youre doing it on the cheap.

Then you need an intercooler to take the heat out of the intake air (as the turbo compresses intake air, and therfore heats it up) so as to keep the economy levels up....and piping to go with it, your looking at another 1k at least.

Then you need an ECU mod, piggy back if you can get away with it, around the 1k figure, otherwise a full standalone can cost upwards of 1.5k.

Then you need to program and tune, upwards again of 1.5k.

To turbo a non-turbo economy engine povery-pack car, you are looking at LEAST 5k+, and thats doing it on mega budget, you wont get any reliability or safety out of it.

Before you even get to put the turbo on, which itself is about 300-1.5k depending on what turbine you purchase, you also need a turbo manifold to redirect all of the exhaust gas into a turbo, and have an outlet pipe that allows waste-gate dumps into your exhaust. So you also need to get your cat-back system redone too, which is about 700-1500 to get it done right.

Doing it right? Start counting from 10k....and keep going.

Doing it right would be to upgrade the breaks (bigger discs, bigger calipers, bigger master cylinder), the suspension (coilovers), and doing some serious chassis strengthening to take the increased loads (front/rear sway bar upgrades, front/rear strut tower bars etc..)

Its not cheap unfortunately

Look no further.

@GeeSussFreeK

I tried to stay way from issues specific to the use of nuclear technology for a reason. There's very little in your reply that I can respond to, simply for a lack of expertise. So bear with me if I once again attempt to generalize and abstract some points. And I'll try to keep it shorter this time.

You mentioned how construction times and costs are pushed up by the constant evolution of compliance codes. A problem not exclusive to the construction of power plants, but maybe more pronounced in these cases. No matter.

What buggers me, however, is what you can currently observe in real time at the EPR construction sites in Olkiluoto and Flamanville.
For instance, the former is reported to have more than 4000 workers from over 60 nations, involving more than 1500 sub-contractors. It's basically the Tower of Babylon, and the quality of work might be similar as well. Workers say, they were ordered to just pour concrete over inadequate weld seams to get things done in time, just to name an example. They are three years over plan as of now, and it'll be at least 2-3 more before completion.
And Flamanville... here's some of what the French Nuclear Safety Authority had to say about the construction site: "concrete supports look like Swiss cheese", "walls with gaping holes", "brittle spots without a trace of cement".

Again, this is not exclusive to the construction of NPPs. Almost every large scale construction site in Europe these days looks like this, except for whatever the Swiss are doing: kudos to them, wonderful work indeed. But if they mess up the construction of a train station, they don't run a risk of ruining the ground water and irradiating what little living space we have in Europe as it is.

Then you explain the advantages of small scale, modular reactors. Again, no argument from my side on the feasability of this, I have to take your word on it. But looking at how the Russians dispose of their old nuclear reactors (bottom of the Barents Sea) and how Germany disposes of its nuclear waste (dropped down a hole), I don't fancy the idea of having even more reactors around.

As for prices, I have to raise my hands in surrender once again. Not my area of expertise, my knowledge is limited to whatever analysis hits the mainstream press every now and then. Here's my take on it, regarding just the German market: the development, construction, tax exemption, insurance exemption, fuel transport and waste disposal of the nuclear industry was paid for primarly by taxes. Conservative government estimates were in the neighbourhood of €300B since the sixties, in addition to the costs of waste disposal and plant deconstruction that the companies can't pay for. And that's if nothing happens to any of the plants, no flood, no fire, nothing.

That's not cheap. E.ON and RWE dropped out of the bid on construction permits for new NPPs in GB, simply because it's not profitable. RWE CEO Terium mentioned ~100€/MWh as the minimum base price to make new NPPs profitable, 75.80€/MWh for gas-powered plants. Right now, the base (peak) price is at 46€/MWh (54€/MWh) in Germany. France generates ~75% of its power through NPPs, while Germany is getting plastered with highly subsidized wind turbines and solar panels, yet the market price for energy is lower in Germany.

Yes, the conditions are vastly different in the US, and yes, the next generation of NPPs might be significantly cheaper and safer to construct and run. I'm all for research in these areas. But on the field of commercial energy generation, nuclear energy just doesn't seem to cut it right now.

So let's hop over to safety/dangers. Again, priorities might differ significantly and I can only argue from a central European perspective. As cold-hearted as it may sound, the number of direct casualties is not the issue. Toxicity and radiation is, as far as I'm concerned. All our NPPs are built on rivers and the entire country is rather densely populated. A crashing plane might kill 500 people, but there will be no long term damage, particularly not to the water table. The picture of an experimental waste storage site is disturbing enough as it is, and it wasn't even "by accident" that some of these chambers are now flooded by ground water.

Apologies if I ripped anything out of context. I tried to avoid the technicalities as best as I could in a desperate attempt not to make a fool of myself. Again.

And sorry for not linking any sources in many cases. Most of it was taken from German/Swiss/Austrian/French articles.