Nuclear Propulsion - The best way for space travel

soph · 2003-01-03 05:46:20

They've stopped any new construction Josh. You cant see a clean nuclear power plant.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-03 11:47:03

Hmm, environmentalists actually have enough clout to stop an economic growth project? I find that pretty hard to believe. There's more there than meets the eye. I've talked to ome rather green environmentalists about clean reactors. They seem to think they're reasonable if implemented properly.

I suspect all they really need is a lot of convincing. I don't really buy this theory that they're aligned with the fossil fuel industry. Could you cite a source where environmentalists successfully stopped the building of a nuclear power plant?

Seriously, that would surprise me. They can be a pain in the nexk often times, but when it comes to clean efficient energy, they are totally ineffectual.

Preston · 2003-01-03 13:21:47

I think it was Jimmy Carter that stopped all new nuclear plant construction for decades.

soph · 2003-01-03 14:22:32

http://www.lihistory.com/9/hs9shore.htm

the very same island i live on ???

Bill White · 2003-01-03 17:55:32

Are you saying Lloyd Harbor is filled with radical green nut cases?

Then, LILCO made the first of many mistakes. Swept away by the enthusiastic response to Shoreham and the nuclear boosterism of the federal Atomic Energy Commission, and mindful that demand for power was rising by more than 10 percent per year on Long Island, LILCO bought land for a second nuclear plant, this time in affluent Lloyd Harbor. Appalled, the peninsula's residents organized a well-funded opposition effort that by 1969 had killed the proposal.

soph · 2003-01-03 18:00:40

Lloyd Harbor is rich. what uptight rich snobs want a nuclear plant in their backyard, regardless of its safety. There should be a five mile buffer around a plant anyway, regardless of how safe it is...a power plant is a power plant.

mauk2 · 2003-01-03 19:35:25

Josh Cryer: The shrieks of the greenies, combined with idiotic "counter culture" rebelliousness and the "anything for ratings" ruthlessness of the liberal media in the 70's combined to stop nuclear power dead in it's tracks.

Fortunately, California just got a nice taste of the fruits of those labors, and the simple facts of nuclear power's superiority for our needs are still there as the hysteria fades.

Yes, the current crop of nuclear reactors are horrible dinosaurs, and they are STILL the safest, cleanest, and most secure form of power we have, due to the 4 orders of magnitude energy density advantage nuclear has over fossil fuels.

We could build new plants hundreds of times safer than the current crop. such as the Westinghouse AP-600 and 1000.

http://www.ap600.westinghouse.com/

Show that info to your "green" friends and see what they say.

Auqakah · 2003-01-04 15:39:48

It might just be me, but I think there is something a little wrong when you factor energy producing efficiency into safety considerations.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-05 07:38:49

Hmm. soph... you gave me a reference to how nuclear reactors weren't built after the three mile island accident. Can't say I can't blame them. Who knows, I might have protested too. I don't care what they tell me. Ford was telling everyone that their Ford Explorers were safe during the summer where 200 people died from rollovers, you think I would have listened to that croc? It's almost instinctual to be cautious towards someone who will profit from your continued trust.

My main problem with this reactionary stance against environmentalists, and so on, is that, as far as I know, there isn't really a law banning or making it difficult to build nuclear reactors. It may be true that the fossil fuel industry successfully created a fossil fuel enegry hegemony due to undesirable criticisms back in the 70s (which we can't say were unwarrented), but nuclear reactors can still be built, especially since there aren't major restrictions on them.

And mauk2, one should point out that California's energy crisis was more due to illegal activities, than too much strain. Though I admit that CA could use some more power plants. The question is why no one has yet to build them. And I don't see anyone justifying it by saying that environmentalists have lobbyed and stopped them from being built, and so on. I bet it's more due to economic hardships from the fossil fuel enegry hegemony. But please, feel free to enlighten me.

And as I said, my green friends see no problem with safe nuclear reactors. I actually consider myself somewhat of a green. I'm not way left of the line, but I'm on it. But you have to wonder if these safe efficient reactors would have ever been designed were it not for the criticisms back in the day. What we would have probably had, is a lot of reactors that weren't efficient at all, creating so much waste we wouldn't know what to do with it. That's what we have with the fossil fuel industry, after all.

soph · 2003-01-05 08:04:09

the radiation from TMI didnt kill, or even injure anyone. the reaction was purely psychological.

http://www.libraries.psu.edu/crsweb/tmi/accidnt.htm

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-05 08:29:52

Probably.

My Ford example wasn't necessarily intended tobe a direct comparasion. Just that if peoples fears can be justified, they will be.

Auqakah · 2003-01-05 09:17:02

I'm split on the nuclear thing, really.

I'm an avowed environmentalist, and yet, I find that nuclear power is an attractive way to provide energy to the masses.

Yet there are other, equally good ways. There must be balance, I think. Too many nuclear reactors would be counter-productive - the more of them that people see, the more they think about them. And the majority of people are idiots. Sorry if you disagree, but its true.

But still, the figures do show a correlation (admittedly with the ageing power stations we have today, it is no surprise) between say, leukemia (did I spell that right?) and a nuclear power plant being nearby. In fact, I live quite close to a nuclear power plant. Three, actually. Dungeness A, B, and C, are all within fifty to a hundred miles, I'm pretty sure. And over a hundred thousand people live here. None of them care. But there is an increased cancer rate, nonetheless.

All I call for is common sense. Build the power plants out at sea, on oil-rig-esque islands, wherever possible. Ferry the people out in shifts, so they don't have to work there for too long at any one time. Also, you could build tidal generators at the base of these nuclear rigs - further increasing the efficiency. Land based power would then be things like geothermal power, wind power, solar power, and limited fossil fuels for back-up generating. Or am I bonkers?

soph · 2003-01-05 09:20:35

solar panels on every home is something i advocate. wind power is nice where possible, same with geothermal. nuclear power plants could also be put in regions with a very low population density, like upstate new york, parts of the midwest, etc.

nuclear islands is a good idea. it might be a good idea to store hot water for a while so it can cool off before releasing the water back into the ocean, sea, etc.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-05 14:45:51

Nothing can compete with solar power within the inner solar system. It's just... so friggin abundant! The problem has always been, and always will be, storing solar energy. Hydrogen has shown good promises, but from a density to energy standpoint, I believe it is still greatly beaten by biomass. There are some hydrogen compounds that compete with biomass from an electrochemical point of view, but again, I believe biomass still wins in most useful situations. As a fuel for cars, heating, etc.

And actually Auqakah, these cases of cancer near power plants have actually been more related to the high voltage power lines next to those power plants. http://www.google.com/search?....+Search

I think that the science still isn't complete, but this is largely due to one side (as usual) having evidence completely in contridiction to the other, and basically going at war with one another. If only science weren't spurred by profit and emotion, we might actually know whether or not the high voltage power lines are the cause. I peronsally think the claims that children who have playgrounds, or go to schools near high voltage power lines have an increased risk of cancer, are legit.

mauk2 · 2003-01-05 18:05:04

Also, Auqakah, how many cancer deaths can be PROVEN to be caused by nuclear powerplants? Not inferred. PROVEN.

Sure, that's an unreasonable request. But I can go find data on Black Lung deaths and every one of those can be PROVEN to be caused by coal.

Why do we just shrug and accept the bloody toll caused by coal, while idiot greenies like YOU spend untold efforts to infer possible casualties that might be caused by a cleaner alternative. If this statement bothers you, go look up Black Lung. I have had family members die of Black Lung, and it is not pleasant.

Here's a little taste:

Coal workers' pneumoconiosis, also known as black lung disease, is caused by the inhalation of coal dust. An estimated 4.5 percent of coal miners are affected; about 0.2 percent have scarring on the lungs, the most severe form of the disease. Between 1979 and 1996, 14,156 deaths were attributed to black lung disease.

From here.

If nuclear power had killed a thousand people a year for 15 years in a totally uncontrovertible manner, it'd be on the news every night. Why isn't coal treated that way?

Please note, this does not even begin to address the crap that coal spews into the air you're breathing right now.

Josh Cryer:

The problem has always been, and always will be, storing solar energy.

You have just put your finger on the root of the problem. Until we have a VERY fundamental breakthrough in either power storage or power transmission, solar will never be a viable replacement for more than 20 percent or so of our power needs. Wind and hydro could possibly supply another 20 percent between them. That leaves 60 percent of our generating capacity to be supplied by nuclear.

And I would be perfectly happy to see that sort of an energy mix, to be honest. Anything that stops us pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is a good thing.

Also, in the USA, it would be amazingly easy to get to 60 percent nuclear generation. An AP-1000 PWR is designed to be built in three years for 1.1 billion in capital costs. It produces 1090 megawatts in a very safe fashion.

We could build about 250 of these guys in the next ten years for the cost of one years Medicare and Medicaid payments.

They would completely displace coal generators, and to be blunt, if we built 250 of them, they'd probably be quite a bit cheaper.

This would not be difficult to do folks.

robcwillis · 2003-01-05 23:37:22

I'm all in favor of small "slow poke" type reactors for surface power on early manned Mars missions. There is not much opposition to this. However, we should remember that nuclear power is unnecessary for relatively cheap and efficient transport between Earth and Mars. Of course nuclear thermal and nuclear electric propulsion, as well as rotating tethers and Mars beanstalks should be used in the long run, but in the short term, why bother with the expense of development and production, as well as serious political opposition to nuke powered rockets? We must expose claims like "We can't go to Mars yet because there has not been enough funding for advanced drive research" or "We can't go to Mars yet because I need millions of dollars for hyperbaric plant growth research" for what they really are. Building an Energia derived ultra HLLV is cheap and easy, so we don't have to spend billions of dollars on exotic new propulsion systems in order to squeeze each mission onto a dozen Delta IV heavies. Americans should be telling their politicians public servants to divert two percent of the $480 billion a year war machine budget to build some spaceships and GO NOW! Once the programme is well underway, several manned landings have been made, and the momentum is unstoppable, then we can get to work on increased utilization of nuclear power in space.

As far as I know there are something like two dozen early model SSMEs and an unknown number of RD-0120s literally sitting on the shelf, waiting to be scrapped or farmed out to museums. They would make excellent TMI motors. Let's use these up first.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-06 00:15:16

Please note, this does not even begin to address the crap that coal spews into the air you're breathing right now.

If this a problem with coal itself, or a problem with the process in which that coal is converted into useable energy? Can there be a clean process in which pure CO2 is the only by-product? If so, where is the issue?

Now, I can't say I can predict the past if certain things happened, but do you really think that if the nuclear industry really did get popular, they'd have moved over to more efficient technology when it came available? Nope, they'd have done the same thing coal factories do to maximize profit. Nothing. Frankly, I would rather have acid rain, than so many tons of nuclear waste we wouldn't know what to do with it.

Until we have a VERY fundamental breakthrough in either power storage or power transmission, solar will never be a viable replacement[.]

What do you think biomass is? Candy? It was always thought that the ?fuel of the future? was going to be biomass. The first engines were powered by it.

The fundamental breakthrough would have to happen with the way people think about energy, and honest politicans to support the facts rather than corporate entities.

Solar is a more viable replacement, due to the fact that it's avaliable everywhere, and citizens and towns around the country would be able to use it in a totally unregulated, decentralized manner.

Where are your statistics coming from, BTW?

And I would be perfectly happy to see that sort of an energy mix, to be honest. Anything that stops us pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is a good thing.

Oh, I agree. But CO2 is good for biomass. Mother nature tends to repair itself quite well. If we want, we could stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, and pipe it into large greenhouses which grow biomass. The biomass would grow faster, and there would be reduced emissions into the atmosphere. The biomass could be converted to burn in the coal factory (and unlike coal, only emits CO2- no sulpher or other similar nasty by-products).

Also, in the USA, it would be amazingly easy to get to 60 percent nuclear generation.

Like I said in that other thread about Greenpeace... I don't have a problem using nuclear where it's applicable. Keep it to colder cloudier regions, and let the sunny areas grow biomass. It's only logical to use your regions local energy resources to gain energy. Of course, it's arguable that the sunny regions on the planet could grow enough biomass to power the whole planet, but we won't argue that right now.

Those points aside, it would be about, well, a billion times easier (not to mention cheaper) for the US to convert to biomass. All it takes is tractors and seeds. Whereas nuclear facilities tend to be, well, complex. Pyrolysis (the biomass conversion process) has been around for thousands of years. It's so simple, I could build one in my backyard.

Nuclear should be used for highly populated areas. Like cities.

soph · 2003-01-06 05:29:00

However, we should remember that nuclear power is unnecessary for relatively cheap and efficient transport between Earth and Mars. Of course nuclear thermal and nuclear electric propulsion, as well as rotating tethers and Mars beanstalks should be used in the long run, but in the short term, why bother with the expense of development and production, as well as serious political opposition to nuke powered rockets? Building an Energia derived ultra HLLV is cheap and easy, so we don't have to spend billions of dollars on exotic new propulsion systems in order to squeeze each mission onto a dozen Delta IV heavies. Americans should be telling their politicians public servants to divert two percent of the $480 billion a year war machine budget to build some spaceships and GO NOW! Once the programme is well underway, several manned landings have been made, and the momentum is unstoppable, then we can get to work on increased utilization of nuclear power in space.

nuclear power is cheaper, can release more payload, and is ready now. id like to know where youre getting your information from. theres no multi billion dollar research or exotic technology. This is also 1960's proven work, some of it even ground tested. Chemical propulsion, in the end, will cost us far more, and do far less.

mauk2 · 2003-01-07 01:08:55

Josh Cryer:

Those points aside, it would be about, well, a billion times easier (not to mention cheaper) for the US to convert to biomass. All it takes is tractors and seeds.

Wellll.... and topsoil. Care to speculate on the amount of topsoil we'd lose trying to provide the energy needs of the world with crops of hemp and bamboo?

Personally, I'd rather use that topsoil for more important things, like FOOD.

Call me crazy.

Oh, but I suppose we could just raise biomass hydroponically, right? How big would that greenhouse have to be....

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-07 01:57:30

I really really hate hijacking treads! Especially ones I agree with.

I mean, I totally love the idea of nuclear propulsion, and I think that those against it are reactionists. So I don't mean to hijack this thread and change the subject, I'm just trying to point out that nuclear isn't ?the? bonified solution. There rarely ever is. That's why I'm a major supporter of Dusty-M2P2 in the inner solar system, and can see nuclear being useable outside if the, or in the, outer solar system.

Wellll.... and topsoil. Care to speculate on the amount of topsoil we'd lose trying to provide the energy needs of the world with crops of hemp and bamboo?

Of currently used topsoil? At least in the US, it would be zero. The US has a land bank, which has some 100 million acres of land that is going unusued. I'm not sure I could speculate about the worlds useable land area, but hemp could grow in any almost place in the world where there is soil.

Personally, I'd rather use that topsoil for more important things, like FOOD.

Well, like I said, at least in the US's case, we have the resources. At least, to become independent from foreign oil and so on. This is using solar alone, though, if we did go nuclear (say all cities were nuclear, and all towns used local solar energy), we would have a much higher capacity, and we wouldn't have to use as much land.

Oh, but I suppose we could just raise biomass hydroponically, right? How big would that greenhouse have to be....

Oh... well, sure, why not? You don't need a big greenhouse, you could have small greenhouses. And they could be made of plastics derived directly from biomass...

...and anyway, hydroponic growth is at least three times faster than regular growth. By that logic, these greenhouses could be three times smaller, and take up three times as less area, than regular soil based biomass.

Any estimates on how much useable nuclear fuel the earth has left? (Excluding fission, of course).

John_Frazer · 2003-01-07 11:01:54

The whole point of advocating Nuclear pulse propulsion here is that if we don't keep it favorably in mind as the mid-to-long-term way to go, then we'll forever be held up because we need to spend billions on R&D for new ways to live with long duration space flight.
With nuclear pulse more than any other option, long duration space flight becomes a thing of the past -at least certainly for travel to Mars. With 6 weeks trajectories (~100km/sec delta-V missions with less mass in the "propellant" than as useful cargo), it's a stroll in the park.
For instance, using nuclear pulse engines, the crew gets less radiation exposure than with a chemically powered ship!

While nuclear is unnecessary for "relatively cheap and efficient transport between Earth and Mars", it is absolutely essential for rapid, rugged, and routine travel.
The first explorers can risk their lives on flimsy, slow and dangerous chemically powered interplanetary stages, but by the time 3 Mars Direct missions have flown, we've got the political clout and funding to build a real interplanetary ship -even if it's only a 10 meter engine module with HLV lifted parts assembled to it.

> in the short term, why bother with the expense
of development and production, as well as serious
political opposition to nuke powered rockets?

Quoting the article about Orion by Flora, Dyson estimated in the '60s that over half of the cost would be the Saturn-V booster.
Even if he's off by several times, the cost of developing a small NPR driven ship for a space-only use Orion stage is entirely within reason.
The extremist political opposition is going to eliminate themselves for us. Once we have an interest in space (say, the first few Mars Direct missions comitted to), they'll either be overwhelmed by reason (you can't hurt anything in interplanetary space by setting off a string of sub-kiloton bombs), or they'll be made irrelevant by their insistence that there's no moral difference between building, stockpiling, and using city-killing nuclear weapons, and a peaceful probe using a bit of Pu for a power source (as protestors of the Cassini mission said).

I for one, don't care to even dignify that viewpoint by not thinking of using nuclear power in space. Minimize them from the start, and with every utterance on the way to space, because they're not worth any more of our attention.

http://nuclearspace.com/a_orion_and_empire.htm

robcwillis,Jan. 06 2003 we should remember that nuclear power is unnecessary for relatively cheap and efficient transport between Earth and Mars.
... in the short term, why bother with the expense of development and production, as well as serious political opposition to nuke powered rockets? We must expose claims like "We can't go to Mars yet because there has not been enough funding for advanced drive research" or "We can't go to Mars yet because I need millions of dollars for hyperbaric plant growth research" for what they really are.
Once the programme is well underway, several manned landings have been made, and the momentum is unstoppable, then we can get to work on increased utilization of nuclear power in space.

TJohn · 2003-01-07 12:30:05

I agreee, robcwillis. If only the politicians would actually listen to the voters on the nuclear issue instead of the anti-nuke crowd. It never ceases to amaze me that if NERVA would have continued, we could have manned exploration of the outer planets right now. I've said it in other threads, but we need to rejuvenate the "Operation Congress" again and keep it actively going. Let's overwhelm them on the manned Mars mission and use of nuclear power in space! Maybe we'll actually convert a few to our side!

Bill White · 2003-01-07 16:04:40

I agreee, robcwillis. If only the politicians would actually listen to the voters on the nuclear issue instead of the anti-nuke crowd. It never ceases to amaze me that if NERVA would have continued, we could have manned exploration of the outer planets right now. I've said it in other threads, but we need to rejuvenate the "Operation Congress" again and keep it actively going. Let's overwhelm them on the manned Mars mission and use of nuclear power in space! Maybe we'll actually convert a few to our side!

Lets overwhelm them? With what, the 359 members of NewMars?

Sorry for the sarcasm but IMHO - US public support for space efforts can be said to be 1000 kilometers wide and maybe a millimeter deep. Name a single US Congressional race that was won or lost in 2002 election because of support or opposition to either (a) humans in space or (b) nuclear power in space.

Near Houston both Democrats and Republicans generally support increased NASA spending, for example. Name a race where the candidates differed on space policy and it affected the outcome.

For the record - I favor both NERVA and maybe Orion (but not a ground launched Orion) - but I believe that if we say Mars "needs" NERVA or Orion we sell out our pro-Mars position to those who wish to postpone humans to Mars until the 22nd century.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-07 16:29:50

Bill White has it right on target. American interest in space in and heck, science in general, is at an all time low. It would take some sort of space race to get us interested in space again.

John Frazer says that nuclear is basically necessary for routine [human] Mars travel. Though at the moment it may be true, I'm confident there will be solar breakthroughs which are cheaper, and more effective than nuclear, at least in the inner solar system.

Knowing NASAs history, I can see the adoption of nuclear technology in two ways. The first being by NASA itself, in a sort of space race to Mars. China or some other world power announces that they're going to Mars (hey, maybe Russia could get some pride back by attempting), and they give a date which is only a couple of years. The US and NASA will obviously kick themselves into high gear, and will probably adopt an Orion or similar transport vehicle.

The other way it could happen, is if private industry thought that interplanetary travel could be profitable in some way, and privately funded their own line of ships and so on. Think about it as the ?great steamships? of the future.

At the momment, though, I don't see what could compell NASA to go nuclear other than tons of money just magically apearing on their doorstep. NASA has shown that they don't need nuclear to get the job done, and NASA has shown that probes are the best candidates for planetary exploration, and NASA has shown that they can do it for much less than nuclear. NASA has shown that they're not in the business of sending people into space. This won't change until something compells the American people to get out there.

TJohn · 2003-01-07 16:30:10

Maybe "overwhelm" was the wrong word to use. But, I still feel that we should continue to write to our politicians and express our ideas to them. (Whether they actually listen is another story!) I understand that we should not say that it must be a nuclear propelled spacecraft to get us to Mars but it will greatly help any mission that may occur.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2003-01-03 05:46:20

Re: Nuclear Propulsion - The best way for space travel

#52 2003-01-03 11:47:03

Re: Nuclear Propulsion - The best way for space travel

#53 2003-01-03 13:21:47

Re: Nuclear Propulsion - The best way for space travel

#54 2003-01-03 14:22:32

Re: Nuclear Propulsion - The best way for space travel

#55 2003-01-03 17:55:32

Re: Nuclear Propulsion - The best way for space travel

#56 2003-01-03 18:00:40

Re: Nuclear Propulsion - The best way for space travel

#57 2003-01-03 19:35:25

Re: Nuclear Propulsion - The best way for space travel

#58 2003-01-04 15:39:48

Re: Nuclear Propulsion - The best way for space travel

#59 2003-01-05 07:38:49

Re: Nuclear Propulsion - The best way for space travel

#60 2003-01-05 08:04:09

Re: Nuclear Propulsion - The best way for space travel

#61 2003-01-05 08:29:52

Re: Nuclear Propulsion - The best way for space travel

#62 2003-01-05 09:17:02

Re: Nuclear Propulsion - The best way for space travel

#63 2003-01-05 09:20:35

Re: Nuclear Propulsion - The best way for space travel

#64 2003-01-05 14:45:51

Re: Nuclear Propulsion - The best way for space travel

#65 2003-01-05 18:05:04

Re: Nuclear Propulsion - The best way for space travel

#66 2003-01-05 23:37:22

Re: Nuclear Propulsion - The best way for space travel

#67 2003-01-06 00:15:16

Re: Nuclear Propulsion - The best way for space travel

#68 2003-01-06 05:29:00

Re: Nuclear Propulsion - The best way for space travel

#69 2003-01-07 01:08:55

Re: Nuclear Propulsion - The best way for space travel

#70 2003-01-07 01:57:30

Re: Nuclear Propulsion - The best way for space travel

#71 2003-01-07 11:01:54

Re: Nuclear Propulsion - The best way for space travel

#72 2003-01-07 12:30:05

Re: Nuclear Propulsion - The best way for space travel

#73 2003-01-07 16:04:40

Re: Nuclear Propulsion - The best way for space travel

#74 2003-01-07 16:29:50

Re: Nuclear Propulsion - The best way for space travel

#75 2003-01-07 16:30:10

Re: Nuclear Propulsion - The best way for space travel

Board footer