Nuclear power is safe

kbd512 · 2021-07-17 17:23:11

Robert,

I'm arguing against throwing anything recyclable into a landfill, even if it's not absurdly toxic the way Arsenic is, but that's what we're presently doing at alarming rates. It's not sustainable at all. Parts of Asia won't be inhabitable for decades to centuries due to the improper disposal of toxic waste from electronics manufacturing and recycling. I think Iron, Copper, Aluminum, Lithium, and all other metals are much too valuable to chuck in a landfill after we've had our fun. Gallium is not nearly so toxic as Arsenic, but most of the panels I see are Gallium Arsenide, because those are "cheeep". Either way, we need to include the total lifecycle costs into our accounting matrix, along with the quantity of energy consumed and produced for every energy generating technology, because if the math doesn't work out, it's a T-R-A-P!

This is not ideological for me. We can either make it work or we can't, but if we can't make it work with current technology, then we use the best methods for generating the most power for the least environmental, energy, and monetary cost. As of right now, that is nuclear. That could change tomorrow or it may not change for 100 years, but we need to stop burning things to make electricity because we haven't figured out how to store enough power to make "green energy" work the way the zealots want it to, when we have these heavy atoms that release so much more energy that it's not even funny, and we're in no danger of running out for the next few thousand years or so.

SpaceNut · 2021-07-17 18:01:30

Well the town I live in had a collection of one stream but that stop as it was costing them to have it taken from the collection site so now all recyclables are in the trash instead with no other location to bring them too. The trash is a pay by bag for its disposal as there is no dump anymore to have it placed into a landfill.
The items which are collected fall into batteries, appliances, yard waste, building construction all of which the customer is paying for the disposal costs.

tahanson43206 · 2021-07-20 08:19:59

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-army-trie … 04173.html

For Calliban (primarily) and all welcome to comment (Louis... have a field day!)

The article at the link above is by an author who ( I ** think ** ) did scientific work at a base supported by a nuclear reactor developed by the US Army.

A better representation of what I remember from the article is that the author has worked on ice cores collected at the time.

The US Navy has been working successfully with small, powerful reactors throughout the time period of the Army experiments.

It is possible the conditions faced by engineers working for the Army were more difficult.

In any case, the article is difficult to read for anyone wanting to be able to support nuclear fission for home power production.

The US Army is (according to the article) once again studying the potential of small portable reactors, with (hopefully) 50 years of additional experience and (hopefully) wisdom.

The U.S. military’s first attempts at land-based portable nuclear reactors didn’t work out well in terms of environmental contamination, cost, human health and international relations. That history is worth remembering as the military considers new mobile reactors.
[Get our best science, health and technology stories. Sign up for The Conversation’s science newsletter.]
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It was written by: Paul Bierman, University of Vermont.

Wrapping this up for Calliban ... while there may be others in the membership who could comment in this field, you are the ** only ** member who has been willing to invest time in detailed support of fission power plants for Earth, Mars and anywhere in the Solar Systems that humans will venture in years to come.

The challenges faced by the US Army (and probably the Russians and Chinese) in developing tactical fission reactors are not ** too ** different from the challenges to be faced by designers for off-Earth sites.

(th)

Calliban · 2021-07-20 11:04:06

The SL-1 reactor was actually sabotaged by an operator, who was disgruntled at the fact that his CO was screwing his wife. So he manually withdrew a control rod during refuelling. The resulting reactivity excursion fault produced a steam explosion that tipped the reactor vessel on its side. The idiot that pulled the control rod ended up impaled through the gut by the forementioned control rod and pinned to the ceiling. Two of his colleagues (including his CO) were steamed to death in the explosion.

It is worth remembering that for something to be 'safe' does not imply that accidents are impossible, or that an idiot cannot sabotage even a safe system if he tries hard enough. It is still possible to crash a safe car or a safe aeroplane. It merely means that risk is tolerable and small compared to other risks that we face in life. But there are always ways in which things can go wrong, no matter how many safeguards are in place. So the question is, how safe is safe enough? That is a question that can only ever be answered by weighing risks against benefits.

For small modular reactors, one might reasonably make the point that 1000 small reactors, have a greater potential frequency of accident than a single much larger reactor. But the radiological consequences of a reactor accident in a 1MWe reactor, are 1000 times smaller than those of an accident in a 1000MWe reactor. Consequences are proportional to the amount of fission products in the core. So all things being equal, risk is the same. But are all things equal? Most micro-reactor concepts that I have seen proposed are enclosed units, which are not vulnerable to tampering. They are better able to rely on natural heat loss for decay heat removal, which would make them safer from a loss of heat sink type accident. The main objections against micro-reactors are poorer neutron economy and poorer economics, due to lower scale economies. The first problem is undeniable, the second is more debatable.

A core melt accident, whilst never a good thing, is also not the end of the world. At its worst, iodine and ceasium isotopes can escape the containment structure contaminating surrounding land. For a large nuclear reactor, this pollution might ultimately result in several thousand early fatalities. But it needs to be remembered that fossil fuel air pollution results in millions of early deaths worldwide every single year, including hundreds of thousands in Europe and the US. That is like having a Chernobyl style nuclear accident in a 1000MWe powerplant every 12 hours. How incompetent would nuclear safety need to be before we run that sort of risk? I would argue that with nuclear energy meeting all of our energy needs, the danger from nuclear accidents could never approach the danger that we all face from the air pollution resulting from fossil fuel burning. Using more numerous smaller reactors does not change the maths, because as power goes down, so do radiological consequences.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-07-20 11:24:15)

tahanson43206 · 2021-07-20 11:15:11

For Calliban re #229

Thanks for this additional glimpse of the history of nuclear fission on Earth.

I'm hoping that you will continue working out a design for a reactor that can be installed in the sub-basement of homes in Nations on Earth able to manage the risks involved. I get the impression from recent reports (in the forum and elsewhere) that teams are working hard to solve the problem of mass producing safe small reactors, but (I'm pretty sure) no one is imagining distribution of these systems the way gas, oil, electric and even a few coal furnaces are distributed today in the US, Europe and other developed nations.

We will achieve a degree of social stability when citizens are co-contributors to the energy flux of their communities, and (perhaps more importantly) a degree of resilience as we (humans) are buffeted by the forces of Nature.

SearchTerm:Reactor sabotage
SearchTerm:Sabotage Reactor see post #229

(th)

Calliban · 2021-07-20 11:40:48

tahanson43206 wrote:

For Calliban re #229
Thanks for this additional glimpse of the history of nuclear fission on Earth.
I'm hoping that you will continue working out a design for a reactor that can be installed in the sub-basement of homes in Nations on Earth able to manage the risks involved. I get the impression from recent reports (in the forum and elsewhere) that teams are working hard to solve the problem of mass producing safe small reactors, but (I'm pretty sure) no one is imagining distribution of these systems the way gas, oil, electric and even a few coal furnaces are distributed today in the US, Europe and other developed nations.
We will achieve a degree of social stability when citizens are co-contributors to the energy flux of their communities, and (perhaps more importantly) a degree of resilience as we (humans) are buffeted by the forces of Nature.
SearchTerm:Reactor sabotage
SearchTerm:Sabotage Reactor see post #229
(th)

A home sized reactor would be rather like the Kilopower units: ~1kWe. I don't think that would ever be a cost effective use of fissile material because of poor neutron economy of small reactors. The shielding solution would be inefficient for the same reason. Also, there needs to be some level of regulation over the use of fissile materials as even a crude nuclear weapon could results in thousands of deaths.

But the production of modular units with a power output of 1MWe, I.e sufficient for a small town, industrial facility or mining facility, is certainly feasible. The best way of doing this is to build high temperature reactors, which can lose their decay heat via natural heat loss through external casing. It would be very difficult for such a reactor to meltdown, even if someone wanted to produce that effect. These might ultimately be small enough to put into shipping sized containers. Control systems would need to be sealed and tamper proof. You could deliver a powerplant like that using a single truck. It would produce power for 10 years and then you use a truck to ship it out.

I ran an interesting thought experiment a while back. Global electricity production is a tad over 25,000TWh per year. A single large nuclear reactor (1200MWe) produces about 10TWh per year. We would need 2500 of these to produce all of the world's electricity. How many people would die if we let them all melt down and didn't bother evacuating anyone? I worked out that without any evacuation, the Fukushima accident, resulting from 3 core melt events, would have led to ~10,000 early fatalities, mostly external radiation from ceasium-137 decay in the soil. So 2,500 meltdowns, might lead to 8.3 million early deaths. This compares to about 7 million annual deaths that currently occur due to air pollution on Earth. Even if we produced all of electricity from nuclear energy and all of the nuclear reactors in the world melted down in the same year, we might just about manage to exceed the number that already die as a result of air pollution from fossil fuels. This is why I don't live in fear of nuclear accidents.

Even those old Gen II LWRs, with a core melt frequency of 1 in 10,000 reactor years, are 10,000 times safer than coal based electricity. Continuing to rely upon fossil fuels (even for backup power plants) to avoid the risk of nuclear accidents is retarded thinking. It condemns people to breath poison to avoid a radiation risk which will always be at least 1000 times smaller. This is what nuclear engineers mean when they describe anti-nuclear fanatics as 'ignorant'.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-07-20 12:08:40)

tahanson43206 · 2021-07-20 21:04:51

For Calliban re *231

OK ... 1 Mw seems like a nice round number to me, and the size you've suggested certainly sounds do-able for a great number of communities in the US and (i suspect) around the world. Can you put together a plan for one or more designs that funders might evaluate?

You're in a competitive field, but (I get the impression) have the background to lead a team to earn a small part of the potential market.

There are communities away from major metropolitan areas where coal fired power plants remain in operation, and small, modular nuclear plants that could be installed for 10 years of operation and swapped out with no fuss and no mess sure does sound like a winning combination to me.

You'll need a funder with deep pockets, but the first step is a design.

SearchTerm:Megawatt reactor request for design for
SearchTerm:MW reactor modular

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2021-07-23 05:41:12

For Calliban .... In a recent post (which I lost track - it might have been in a different topic) you mentioned a reactor design that uses Zirconium.

Since I needed a refresher on the properties of Zirconium, Google came up with this as a preliminary result:

Zirconium(IV) oxide is used in ultra-strong ceramics. It is used to make crucibles that will withstand heat-shock, furnace linings, foundry bricks, abrasives and by the glass and ceramics industries. It is so strong that even scissors and knives can be made from it.
Zirconium - Element information, properties and uses | Periodic Table
www.rsc.org > periodic-table > element > zirconium

The aspect of the design you described that is interesting is the use of molten lead as a heat transfer medium ... That is a ** good ** use of lead, which has managed to achieve a dubious state in the human experience because of it's wide use in lead water pipes which are so injurious to human health.

Lead has achieved some success as a component of batteries. However, I think that a fitting application for the element is as a member of the "team" providing abundant nuclear power to the people of Earth.

In the post that I am remembering, but which I cannot find, I ** think ** you indicated there is at least one company working on the design you described.

Would you be willing to develop that subtopic a bit more?

I was surprised by this report of relative abundance from Google:

Zirconium (Zr) - Chemical properties, Health and Environmental effects
www.lenntech.com › periodic › elements › zr
Zirconium is more than twice as abundant as copper and zinc and more than 10 times ... World production is in excess of 900.000 tonnes per year of zircon, ...

Good grief! That report implies to me that it should be possible to build a great number of these reactors, given the abundance of the three key elements your design included.

Can/would you develop this concept a bit further?

The entire assembly would need to be well protected from both accidental and intentional human contact. Is it practical to do that?

Are there other costs that would come into play?

This is a rhetorical question for readers to ponder ... is the human race mature enough to deploy this technology on a wide scale?

(th)

kbd512 · 2021-07-23 13:04:50

tahanson43206,

Humanity has already deployed many thousands of nuclear weapons, far more than is required to wipe out more than 90% of humanity, yet nearly all of us are still here, and nearly all of us die from common diseases or starvation and pollution totally unrelated to nuclear power. Someone could simply press a button at any time and end humanity as we know it, yet nobody has opted to do so despite having the means to do so for more than half a century, so there must be some base level of understanding as to why destroying ourselves is an utter waste of time, despite our capacity to do so. If we were truly that hell-bent on wiping ourselves out, then there's been ample time for that to happen- and one could argue at least several thousand years. Nothing else in the world provides a lifetime's supply of energy from a golf ball sized piece of energetic material. The issues with radiation poisoning are wildly blown out of proportion by people with ideological or economic incentives to do so.

All nuclear accidents to date have involved nuclear weapons production, bad designs that the designers were repeatedly warned not to pursue (US warning the Russians over Chernobyl), or ignoring repeated warnings (US warning the Japanese over Fukushima) to strengthen safeguards against natural disasters. Here in America we haven't had to build our own Chernobyl design to recognize a good versus bad basic reactor design. We have had one commercial reactor that partially melted down due to a severe communications and operator training error, but immediately afterwards we put controls in place to ensure that that never happens again, and three decades later, it still hasn't happened again. It's almost as if intelligent humans are capable of learning from past mistakes and not repeating them. Consider the use of nuclear weapons as an example. They were used one time to end one war, but haven't been used in anger since then, because everyone saw what happened (twice in a row- so no one could discount what happened as a fluke), recoiled in horror at the implications, and realized that they did not want to be the people on the receiving end of a nuclear weapons attack.

During the height of the Cold War, nuclear reactor designs and space-based nuclear reactor designs were jointly reviewed by both the US and Russian nuclear scientists. We actually flew Russian scientists to Los Alamos National Laboratory to discuss and review our space-based nuclear reactor design, and they flew our scientists to Russia to review their space-based nuclear reactor designs. Despite any animosities, both countries recognized that the dangers of not having independent review by qualified scientists posed an unacceptable risk to the public. There are no secrets between first world countries possessing nuclear technology. If you know how to make a nuclear weapon and have the resources to actually do it and have actually done it, then there's no point in being secretive about it, such that a simple accident or misunderstanding could serve as the trigger a nuclear war. In short, whatever perceived advantage is not worth the risk. Other types of conventional military technology were very secretive, but inevitably everbody's solution to a problem looks remarkably similar to the next, because there are only so many ways to solve a specific problem that comes down to physics and engineering.

To their credit, Missile Officers from multiple countries have told their commanders to take a flying leap or that whatever their stupid computer was telling them was clearly "wrong", at the risk of their own execution for failure to obey orders and sometimes the execution of their families as well, rather than make a mistake regarding a nuclear weapons release. It's not as if a bunch of wild cowboys with no family and thus no clue about what's at stake are making the decisions these days. Each of these men or women has a spouse and children no more than a couple of miles from a place that will be the target of a prospective nuclear attack. You have to get two people to agree to a launch and release authority must come directly from the head of state, prior to doing so. That's baked into every nuclear weapons control protocol.

US / EU / Russia / China / India / Pakistan / Israel all follow the same protocols. North Korea may be the only exception, yet I doubt that anyone but the head of state has launch authority or personal control over the nation's nuclear arsenal, either. Accidents and terrorist attacks are always possible and nuclear weapons are intrinsically dangerous by design, but no unauthorized releases have occurred to date. Zero unauthorized releases or nuclear attacks in more than half a century is not a fluke, it's intentional! It's not a freak accident that we're all still here. It's a conscious decision.

If you carry a gun every day for 40+ years as a Police Officer, yet never once shoot yourself or anyone else by accident, then that's a better than average indicator that you're both competent at what you do and conscious of what you're doing while you're doing it, to the point that you don't make lethal mistakes with firearms. That takes training, skill, and maturity, but a plethora of people have done it over centuries, and they were not uniquely physically gifted or unusually intelligent, so it can obviously be done by anyone with the proper training and maturity and mindset. Evaluating maturity and mindset is the tough part. I can't simply look at a person and judge whether or not he or she is competent and mindful enough to carry a gun. I would argue that nuclear technology requires the same level of dedication to training and maturity. While basic intelligence is highly prized in nuclear power and weapons usage, maturity and conscious competence is equally important.

louis · 2021-07-23 16:05:10

The article certainly underlines there are many issues to be addressed in dealing with nuclear reactors on Mars.

There are certainly no nuclear reactors ready to begin work on Mars. The Kilowatt reactors are the closest we have and they are only scheduled for an experimental lunar outpost towards the end of the 2020s. If you want to get to Mars by 2027, you have think solar plus storage.

I personally see nuclear power as a later potential addition to the energy economy of Mars. I can see the case for nuclear reactors in that (a) they could definitely add net "active" energy to the regolith and atmosphere, and so might have a useful role in terraformation, and (b) Mars will have vast tracts of uninhabited land where reactors could be located and if they became dangerous, it wouldn't be a particularly big deal (in contrast to Earth). However, they will be a big draw on labour time, which will be one of the scarcest factors on Mars, so if we can find other ways of terraforming and powering Mars then we should probably pursue those paths.

tahanson43206 wrote:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-army-trie … 04173.html
For Calliban (primarily) and all welcome to comment (Louis... have a field day!)
The article at the link above is by an author who ( I ** think ** ) did scientific work at a base supported by a nuclear reactor developed by the US Army.
A better representation of what I remember from the article is that the author has worked on ice cores collected at the time.
The US Navy has been working successfully with small, powerful reactors throughout the time period of the Army experiments.
It is possible the conditions faced by engineers working for the Army were more difficult.
In any case, the article is difficult to read for anyone wanting to be able to support nuclear fission for home power production.
The US Army is (according to the article) once again studying the potential of small portable reactors, with (hopefully) 50 years of additional experience and (hopefully) wisdom.
The U.S. military’s first attempts at land-based portable nuclear reactors didn’t work out well in terms of environmental contamination, cost, human health and international relations. That history is worth remembering as the military considers new mobile reactors.
[Get our best science, health and technology stories. Sign up for The Conversation’s science newsletter.]
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It was written by: Paul Bierman, University of Vermont.
Wrapping this up for Calliban ... while there may be others in the membership who could comment in this field, you are the ** only ** member who has been willing to invest time in detailed support of fission power plants for Earth, Mars and anywhere in the Solar Systems that humans will venture in years to come.
The challenges faced by the US Army (and probably the Russians and Chinese) in developing tactical fission reactors are not ** too ** different from the challenges to be faced by designers for off-Earth sites.
(th)

kbd512 · 2021-07-23 16:10:57

Louis,

There are no commercial solar panels that will work on Mars, either. The kinds of photovoltaics that NASA uses there cost a million dollars per kilowatt of output. That's fine for a tiny rover with a few hundred watts of installed capacity at most. That's not going to work for a colony that requires gigawatts of power. Look at the operating temperature range on any commercial panels. None of those are going to survive when the night temperatures on Mars are mildly cryogenic in nature.

louis · 2021-07-23 18:11:41

Well obviously I think any PV panel system is going to be space-rated and tested for the temperature swing on Mars. I can't see anything that suggests PV panels can't operate on Mars.

No one's going to be using your ordinary domestic panels on Mars, I think we can agree on that but I think there are several companies producing PV system that can work on Mars.

kbd512 wrote:

Louis,
There are no commercial solar panels that will work on Mars, either. The kinds of photovoltaics that NASA uses there cost a million dollars per kilowatt of output. That's fine for a tiny rover with a few hundred watts of installed capacity at most. That's not going to work for a colony that requires gigawatts of power. Look at the operating temperature range on any commercial panels. None of those are going to survive when the night temperatures on Mars are mildly cryogenic in nature.

SpaceNut · 2021-07-23 20:51:45

power density is why, not that they do not work...

edit
our nuclear side of the use of power creation for a residence, neighborhood, small towns are all just that as some one must be able to foot the construction costs for any of these sizes. Its that investment to greed for getting ones money back that has lead to the current power supplier and equipment problems.
Was going to post about the fact for California fire reduction that at least one will bury the power lines underground to lessen those in the future but there will be a permit regulation process which will interfere with that construction which would benefit and reduce for all that chance of life and property loss due to having so many fires sparked by that electrical damaged.

rather than zirconia I am waiting on the star treks dilithium crystals power system...

tahanson43206 · 2021-07-23 21:32:18

For SpaceNut re #238

Louis has a tendency to ignore the purpose of a topic, if there is any chance to talk about solar panels.

Your reply in #238, while certainly appropriate for one of the many topics Louis has created with solar in the topic title, it is most definitely NOT a good fit for Calliban's topic here.

I am hoping that Calliban will follow through on his (to me very) interesting proposal for a compact modular fission reactor that would incorporate uranium, zirconium and ? iron ....

Louis' has introduced solar panels into the flow of the topic, just as Calliban was about to say more about his concept.

Let's all try to help Louis keep focus on at least ONE of his many solar topics.

Here is where Louis introduced a branch to solar, in post #235:

If you want to get to Mars by 2027, you have think solar plus storage.

The best strategy for dealing with one of these solar digressions by Louis is to let it flow quietly under the bridge.

If we say nothing, then the post will be out of sight within 24 hours and the original topic can continue.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2021-07-23 21:38:14

For Calliban .... please continue developing your thoughts about the modular reactor design you've reported as optimum in a number of respects.

It would be helpful to know which companies are actively pursuing the design, in which countries, and the state of play for each.

(th)

Calliban · 2021-07-24 03:33:06

Will do. It will be tomorrow before I can look into this in detail.

tahanson43206 · 2021-07-24 05:04:22

For Calliban re topic ...

There are several worth while initiatives under way in this forum. Some are receiving more attention by their sponsors than others, but all have potential to bring useful results into the public arena.

Of them all, I see ** this ** one as having by far the greatest impact, because it addresses energy requirements for an advanced civilization. I agree with your off expressed conviction that the amount of energy available to a society underlies the prosperity of that society, even though the distribution of the benefits of that flow are frequently uneven.

***
Update at 9:37 ... primarily for Calliban but all are welcome and invited to comment ...

The replacement of existing fossil fuel power plants at thousands of locations around the world should be achievable in some defined period of time.

This is a classic organizational change problem, that Americans (and certainly other capitalist nations) have been carrying out with varying degrees of success for many years. Among the issues to be addressed is the question of how to implement replacement of hardware (ie, coal plants, etc) while retaining the existing incomes of the workers and investors who depend upon them.

The principle of Abundance from Increased Energy ** should ** guarantee that **everyone** comes out a winner in the transaction, but this can happen only if the leadership is Enlightened ....

Enlightened Capitalism used to be a "thing" ... hopefully it still has a shred of existence upon which to build.

The process starts with Calliban's vision of a modular fission plant that can deliver 1 Mw for 10 years before it has to be swapped out.

As such plants are produced in mass production facilities, they can be installed right next to and interfaced with existing fossil fuel facilities.

The personnel who previously attended fossil fuel plant can now serve as security for the fission plant.

A suitable mission plan would call for implementing education for the security personnel, so we do not perpetuate the image of people operating at a tenth or less of their mental capacity serving in security roles for years.

There are many other aspects of an organizational change plan for an entire planet that need to be identified and addressed.

However, I am confident that **none** of the challenges to be addressed have not already been dealt with on numerous occasions by American companies and (surely) many organizations in other nations.

Where there exists no power infrastructure, plants can be introduced to lift the lives (and therefore productivity) of millions of people around the world.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2021-07-24 10:08:37

The issue with energy is the more we make the more we make use of it for the many toys we desired to own for pleasure or to make life easier.
Mars needs to be realistic in that we need the energy first for life to remain sustainable with toys coming last....

tahanson43206 · 2021-07-25 16:26:18

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/chin … 10381.html

Jon Fingas·Associate Editor
Sun, July 25, 2021, 5:42 PM
Are you intrigued by the possibility of using nuclear reactors to curb emissions, but worried about their water use and long-term safety? There might be an impending solution. LiveScience reports that China has outlined plans to build the first 'clean' commercial nuclear reactor using liquid thorium and molten salt.
The first prototype reactor should be ready in August, with the first tests due in September. A full-scale commercial reactor should be ready by 2030.
The technology should not only be kinder to the environment, but mitigate some political controversy. Conventional uranium reactors produce waste that stays extremely radioactive for up to 10,000 years, requiring lead containers and extensive security. The waste also includes plutonium-239, an isotope crucial to nuclear weapons. They also risk spilling dramatic levels of radiation in the event of a leak, as seen in Chernobyl. They also need large volumes of water, ruling out use in arid climates.
Thorium reactors, however, dissolve their key element into fluoride salt that mostly outputs uranium-233 you can recycle through other reactions. Other leftovers in the reaction have a half-life of 'just' 500 years — still not spectacular, but much safer. If there is a leak, the molten salt cools enough that it effectively seals in the thorium and prevents significant leaks. The technology doesn't require water, and can't easily be used to produce nuclear weapons. You can build reactors in the desert, far away from most cities, and without raising concerns that it will add to nuclear weapon stockpiles.
China is accordingly building the first commercial reactor in Wuwei, a desert city in the country's Gansu province. Officials also see this as a way to foster China's international expansion — it plans up to 30 in countries participating in the company's "Belt and Road" investment initiative. In theory, China can extend its political influence without contributing to nuclear arms proliferation.
That might worry the US and other political rivals that are behind on thorium reactors. The US-based Natrium reactor, for instance, is still in development. Even so, it might go a long way toward fighting climate change and meeting China's goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2060. The country is still heavily dependent on coal energy, and there's no guarantee renewable sources will keep up with demand by themselves. Thorium reactors could help China wean itself off coal relatively quickly, especially small-scale reactors that could be built over shorter periods and fill gaps where larger plants would be excessive.

This article seemed worth quoting in it's entirety.

(th)

kbd512 · 2021-07-25 19:02:51

SpaceNut,

SpaceNut wrote:

The issue with energy is the more we make the more we make use of it for the many toys we desired to own for pleasure or to make life easier.
Mars needs to be realistic in that we need the energy first for life to remain sustainable with toys coming last....

Mars is certainly not the only planet that that bit of wisdom applies to.

kbd512 · 2021-07-25 19:11:58

Louis,

louis wrote:

Well obviously I think any PV panel system is going to be space-rated and tested for the temperature swing on Mars. I can't see anything that suggests PV panels can't operate on Mars.
No one's going to be using your ordinary domestic panels on Mars, I think we can agree on that but I think there are several companies producing PV system that can work on Mars.

Given your own admission about that point, your assertions about what they will cost / how much they will weigh / how much labor is required to install and maintain them, should all be revisited by you.

The cost of simple production, never mind the high cost of transport, is well in excess of what KiloPower cost to build and operate. Ultimately, someone has to pay for this and I don't see the British government putting any money towards Mars colonization. In the near term, America alone will not be able to afford the entire cost of a million colonists living on Mars. Then again, maybe we'll just print more money. That's been our solution thus far and nobody has challenged it in any serious way. I can't imagine that remaining the case into perpetuity, though.

tahanson43206 · 2021-07-26 07:07:35

For Louis .... you have created a great number of topics about solar panels.

This topic is NOT about solar panels. It will NEVER be about solar panels.

As you can see by post #246 by kbd512, your insertion of solar panels into a topic NOT about solar panels leads to other members responding to the branch topic. Please use one of your many Solar Panel topics for future posts about solar panels.

It is possible that Calliban may have significant updates to this topic in weeks ahead. Let's all try to keep this topic clear of clutter as a sign of respect for the contributions Calliban has already made, and in anticipation of his future investment in the content of this forum.

I am hoping for a Western response to the challenge shaping up as described in post #244.

A well designed solution for a modular fission reactor that could be mass produced and distributed world wide would be a source of massive employment, and the increase of energy available for distribution to the population would (if Calliban's theories about energy and the economy are correct) lead to increased well-being for the population of Earth (on one hand) and reduced damage caused by use of fossil fuels on the other.

(th)

Calliban · 2021-07-26 16:39:39

The reactor concept that comes closest to what I had in mind for a small modular fast reactor, is the SSTAR concept.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small,_ … us_reactor

Unfortunately, the project appears to have ground to a halt, in spite of it's obvious promise. In the western world, it is now so expensive to develop a new nuclear system, that very few ventures like this have a chance of getting off the ground.

The entire nuclear steam supply system is housed within a single cylinder, some 3.2m wide and 12m long. This makes it small enough to transport by road or rail.

The core is designed to produce power for 30 years, after which the entire powerplant is shipped to the reprocessing plant. More information is contained in this IAEA reference.
https://www.world-nuclear.org/informati … ctors.aspx

A 10MWe unit is expected to weigh 200 tonnes. A 100MWe unit would weigh 500 tonnes. These units can be used individually as remote power sources for settlements or as industrial heat sources, or installed in banks of 10 or more at a single large power facility. A 100MWe electric SSTAR unit, would make a good power source for a growing Martian base.

A number of other interesting technologies are described within the report. On of them is a description of the smallest possible reactor: an aqueous homogenous reactor. This would be have a core volume of just 5 litres, containing 0.7kg of Am-242, with a core radius of 10cm. It's power output would be just a few kW. Very small reactors like this, would have a total volume comparable to an armchair, when lead shielding is included. On Mars, tiny reactors like this, could power rovers with truly global reach. The only limit to their range would be the amount of food they could carry.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-07-26 16:52:22)

SpaceNut · 2021-07-26 17:58:40

kbd512 wrote:

SpaceNut,
SpaceNut wrote:
The issue with energy is the more we make the more we make use of it for the many toys we desired to own for pleasure or to make life easier.
Mars needs to be realistic in that we need the energy first for life to remain sustainable with toys coming last....
Mars is certainly not the only planet that that bit of wisdom applies to.

I have been able to knock our home use to just 500 w hrs average use but even that is costing to much but it is a far cry from paying $300 plus for half the year a month with the cost dropping to that new monthly average of $80....

SpaceNut · 2021-07-26 18:04:41

Calliban wrote:

A number of other interesting technologies are described within the report. On of them is a description of the smallest possible reactor: an aqueous homogenous reactor.
This would be have a core volume of just 5 litres, containing 0.7kg of Am-242, with a core radius of 10cm. It's power output would be just a few kW.
Very small reactors like this, would have a total volume comparable to an armchair, when lead shielding is included. On Mars, tiny reactors like this, could power rovers with truly global reach. The only limit to their range would be the amount of food they could carry.

Now that would be the ticket for a residential use for a disposable material which is already used in smoke detectors and for a much more probable cost to have.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#226 2021-07-17 17:23:11

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#227 2021-07-17 18:01:30

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#228 2021-07-20 08:19:59

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#229 2021-07-20 11:04:06

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#230 2021-07-20 11:15:11

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#231 2021-07-20 11:40:48

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#232 2021-07-20 21:04:51

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#233 2021-07-23 05:41:12

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#234 2021-07-23 13:04:50

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#235 2021-07-23 16:05:10

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#236 2021-07-23 16:10:57

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#237 2021-07-23 18:11:41

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#238 2021-07-23 20:51:45

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#239 2021-07-23 21:32:18

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#240 2021-07-23 21:38:14

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#241 2021-07-24 03:33:06

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#242 2021-07-24 05:04:22

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#243 2021-07-24 10:08:37

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#244 2021-07-25 16:26:18

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#245 2021-07-25 19:02:51

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#246 2021-07-25 19:11:58

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#247 2021-07-26 07:07:35

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#248 2021-07-26 16:39:39

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#249 2021-07-26 17:58:40

Re: Nuclear power is safe

#250 2021-07-26 18:04:41

Re: Nuclear power is safe

Board footer