New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: As a reader of NewMars forum, we have opportunities for you to assist with technical discussions in several initiatives underway. NewMars needs volunteers with appropriate education, skills, talent, motivation and generosity of spirit as a highly valued member. Write to newmarsmember * gmail.com to tell us about your ability's to help contribute to NewMars and become a registered member.

#326 2021-09-16 17:54:07

tahanson43206
Moderator
Registered: 2018-04-27
Posts: 7,580

Re: Nuclear power is safe

https://currently.att.yahoo.com/att/sma … 00850.html

Deployment, Connectivity, Location, Application and Region - Global Forecast to 2026
Research and Markets
Thu, September 16, 2021, 5:18 AM
Dublin, Sept. 16, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The "Global Small Modular Reactor Market by Reactor (HWR, LWR, HTR, FNR, MSR), Deployment (Single, Multi), Connectivity (Grid, Off-grid), Location (Land, Marine), Application (Power Generation, Desalination, Process Heat), and Region - Forecast to 2026" report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.

The small modular reactor market is projected to reach USD 11.3 billion by 2026 from an estimated USD 9.7 billion in 2021, at a CAGR of 3.2% during the forecast period.

Off-grid SMRs located in remote communities, islands, and mining sites can be used for power generation and other non-electric applications.

Despite the high cost of electricity generation, deployment of SMRs is beneficial in remote regions, especially in Russia, owing to the higher cost of alternatives such as power grid extension and fossil fuel-fired generators.

The article at the link above appears to be an overview of the the market potential for SMR's.

If a company is serious about investing, the fee for the report may be considered reasonable.

SELECT AN OPTION 
$4,950
Single User License PDF 

(th)

Offline

#327 2021-09-16 18:14:51

tahanson43206
Moderator
Registered: 2018-04-27
Posts: 7,580

Re: Nuclear power is safe

Question to Google ... does Arizona have a nuclear power plant?

Answer! Boy! Does it!

Palo Verde Generating Station (PVGS) is considered the largest nuclear energy facility in the United States. It is located approximately 55 miles west of downtown Phoenix near the community of Wintersburg, Arizona.

Palo Verde Generating Station | Maricopa County, AZ

and

Nuclear power plant in Maricopa County, Arizona
The Palo Verde Generating Station is a nuclear power plant located near Tonopah, Arizona, in western Arizona. It is located about 45 miles due west of downtown Phoenix, Arizona, and it is located near the Gila River, which is dry save for the rainy season in late summer. Wikipedia
Address: 5801 S Wintersburg Rd, Tonopah, AZ 85354
Hours:
Open 24 hours
Phone: (623) 393-5757
Reactor supplier: Combustion Engineering
Nameplate capacity: 3937
Size: 4,010 megawatts burbankwaterandpower.com

and finally ...


How big is the Palo Verde nuclear plant?

How much water does Palo Verde nuclear use?
Image result for does arizona have a nuclear power plant
The plant's three nuclear reactors each require 20,000 gallons of water per minute.Jan 1, 2016

I wonder how this existing plant compares to the water supply scenario of recent posts.

My calculator translates 20,000*3*60*24 as: 86,400.000  ... that is 1/23rd (or so) of the water consumption of Phoenix per day.

(If the estimate of kbd512 is close to the mark). 

A plant that size might be loafing if it were asked to push water up from the Gulf of California and desalinate it.

(th)

Offline

#328 2021-09-16 21:07:11

kbd512
Administrator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 4,702

Re: Nuclear power is safe

tahanson43206,

1 US gallon of water weighs 8.345lbs

1 acre-foot of water is 325,851 US gallons

8.345 ppg (pounds per gallon) * 325,851 US gallons = 2719226.595lbs

Moving 2,719,226.595 1 foot up in the air requires 2,719,226.595 ft-lbs of mechanical work

1kW = 737.56 ft-lbf/s (foot-pounds per second)

737.56 ft-lbf/s * 3600 seconds per hour = 2,655,216 ft-lbf/h

1kWh = 2,655,223.72 ft-lbs (I used more rounding above, and that's why this number is different)

2,719,226.595 / 2,655,223.72 = 1.0241kWh

1.0241kWh / 0.70 = 1.463kWh (I obviously forgot this step or used the number before I did it, but didn't double check my work, so that's what I get)

1.463kWh * 1,000 foot pumping height = 1.463MWh

1,463,000Wh * 2,300,000 acre-feet = 3,364,900,000,000Wh = 3.365TWh

There, I did it on paper instead of doing it all with a calculator, which caught my mistake of not taking pump efficiency into account.

It's a lot slower to write it out on paper (or type it out in my case), so I prefer the machine (which doesn't check my work, obviously).

Anyway, I checked my work this time.  Final answer.

Edit: I forgot to label some of my units, hence the edit, but the numbers are what they are.

Edit #2: Ask GW about pumps if you want more info about them.

Last edited by kbd512 (2021-09-16 21:15:14)

Offline

#329 2021-09-17 05:15:15

tahanson43206
Moderator
Registered: 2018-04-27
Posts: 7,580

Re: Nuclear power is safe

For kbd512 re #328

Thanks very much for the calculations you provided!

SearchTerm:Phoenix power required to move/lift water 1000 feet

Todo: (later today hopefully) ... compare power required to power delivered by existing nuclear plant (largest in nation)

Size: 4,010 megawatts burbankwaterandpower.com

As of 7:37 local time, I have no idea how this inquiry is going to turn out.  Thanks again to kbd512 for providing a major boost to finding out.

Looking ahead, 4010 megawatts of continuous output should translate to some number of megawatt hours over the course of a year.

That number will be more or less than the amount of power needed to move the annual consumption of water by Phoenix from the Gulf of California.

Depending upon how the numbers come out, Arizona could supply fresh water for the entire American Southwest (with the cooperation of Mexico), by replicating the reactors and building the needed infrastructure.  I suppose it is conceivable for supply to extend further West and even a bit North.

Once in place, such a system would provide a reliable supply of fresh water of consistent (high) quality for as many years as the planners wish to consider.

This could (** could **) be a triumph of American Capitalism, but I don't know how the numbers will turn out.

(th)

Offline

#330 2021-09-17 07:21:15

kbd512
Administrator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 4,702

Re: Nuclear power is safe

tahanson43206,

Multiply 4.01GW * 8,760 hours per year to arrive at the yearly power output figure.

4.01GW per hour of output * 8,760 hours per year = 35,127.6GWh per year = 35.1276TWh per year

That assumes 100% "up-time", but most nuclear reactors are 90% to 95% up-time, so you get less than that.

35,127.6GWh * 0.9% up-time = 31,614.84GWh per year = 31.61484TWh per year (the expected real world yearly power output figure)

Offline

#331 2021-09-17 11:19:30

tahanson43206
Moderator
Registered: 2018-04-27
Posts: 7,580

Re: Nuclear power is safe

For kbd512 re #330

Thank you for extending the power output of the Palo Verde Station to a full year's production (as adjusted).

The figure is greater than the amount of energy that would be needed to bring a year's supply of sea water from the Gulf of California to Phoenix.

However, moving the water is only part of the problem to be solved.

The water must be processed to separate desirable substances into their useful categories.

I predict that nothing found in sea water has no value.

Edit: Inverting logic: I predict that everything found in sea water has value and can be marketed with patience to find the right customer.

The highest priority for the short term customer is fresh water, and they won't care about anything else.

However, the managers of the facility will have a sharp eye on:

1) Deuterium (for stock pile to be ready when needed)
2) Minerals of many kinds
3) Potentially carbon based substances, if a way can be found to use them effectively. 
4) Suspended matter I'm not aware of but which must be valuable to someone.

In short, with a bit of effort, the idea of building a duplicate of Palo Verde to produce water (and other substances) instead of electricity ought to interest the long term investment community.

kbd512, you have been doing the heavy lifting for this initiative, and I am a bit embarrassed, but on the ** other ** hand, grateful that you've stepped in to help to move the concept along.

Now that you've provided a broad brush confirmation that Palo Verde is large enough to deliver fresh water for Phoenix with energy to spare, I am emboldened to add the next category of expense ...

I'm not looking for ordinary desalination .... the scope of ** this ** project is more ambitious than that ....

I'm looking at this as a mining operation, with value to be secured from ** every ** substance available in the input stream.

***
Dr. Amelia Greig gave a lecture the first Saturday of the Month, for the North Houston chapter of the National Space Society.

Her topic was a method of extracting desirable elements from Lunar Regolith by teasing the molecules with electric arc bursts so they are liberated from the solids with which they are associated.  What is intriguing about the result is that the atoms are sorted using a combination of magnetic fields and electrostatic force to deliver the atoms/molecules into buckets.  This works well in a vacuum.

For the Phoenix water application, I'd like to be able to sort sea water at industrial scale, comparable to the flow of the water pushed up the pipe from the Gulf of California.

Here is a detail ... pure water is not suitable for human consumption.  Humans have evolved to thrive on water that has filtered through the surface of the Earth

Output of the fresh water feed needs to be augmented for the intended customer.

(th)

Offline

#332 2021-09-17 15:14:27

kbd512
Administrator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 4,702

Re: Nuclear power is safe

tahanson43206,

You need to figure out how much heat is required to flash that water to steam, because that is also a considerable figure.

1 BTU = energy required to raise the temperature of 1 pound of water 1F.

So...

65F = water surface temperature of Pacific Ocean near San Diego

212F - 65F = 147F

8.345 ppg * 147F temperature rise = 1,226.715BTU to boil sea water

Electric water heater average efficiency is 92.7%, some are 90.4% and some are up to 95%, but let's use a national average.

1,226.715BTU / 0.927 (92.7% efficiency) = 1,323.317BTU

1kWh = 3,413BTU

1,323.317BTU / 3,413Wh per BTU = 0.38773kWh

Flashing 1 gallon of water to steam requires 0.38773kWh of energy using practically achieve energy efficiency.  It could be a bit less with really expensive equipment and very good insulation, but let's talk about this in terms of economics and pragmatism.  If it costs 10X more to achieve that last bit of efficiency, then it's probably not worth it.

750,000,000,000 (750 billion gallons) * 0.38773 = 290,797,500,000 = ~291GWh

There will inevitably be more losses unaccounted for with the electrical equipment, but that's a pretty good ballpark estimate.

Heating the water along the way to the power plant using solar thermal would be a very good idea.  The hotter the inlet temperature is, the less additional energy needs to be imparted.  Since the Sun will be shining down on the pipe anyway, it'd be a good idea to bake that thing using the Sun.  If we can get the water temp up to 120F (Death Valley temperatures), then half as much energy input, and 145GWh is nothing to sneeze at.

Offline

#333 2021-09-17 17:08:18

kbd512
Administrator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 4,702

Re: Nuclear power is safe

Large sea water reverse osmosis plants vary in capital / construction costs between $0.79 and $2.38 per 1,000 gallons here in the US, so we should estimate the per-day processing rate and then determine what our capital cost is.

For ~2.05 billion gallons per day, our cost at $2 per thousand gallons would be $4.1M but maybe that capital cost figure is based upon yearly processing rates, so it would be $1.4965B, which seems much more believable, since large but much smaller high throughput capacity plants seem to be in the realm of $75M to $250M.

I still think flash evaporation, followed by reverse osmosis, is the way to achieve qood quality / taste.  We should use the salts and metals extracted, especially Lithium and Magnesium, as a revenue source to help fund plant maintenance, as well as provide a local source of metals used in batteries, aerospace, and automotive applications.

Offline

#334 2021-09-17 20:30:14

tahanson43206
Moderator
Registered: 2018-04-27
Posts: 7,580

Re: Nuclear power is safe

for kbd512 #333

Thank you for your detailed follow up on the question of use of atomic power to deliver fresh water to US citizens in the Southwest and West.

This post is to acknowledge your posts.  I set this sequence in Nuclear power is safe in hopes that it would be of interest to those who support the idea of advancing the use of atomic power to meet human needs at the present time, and certainly going forward.

I'm expecting to have time to try to put everything together this weekend.

The Draft 6 of the Lander proposal also deserves time this weekend.

(th)

Offline

#335 2021-09-17 21:03:37

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 23,328

Re: Nuclear power is safe

I took a look at the water costs delivered from town wells near by

For water furnished outside the City limits of the City of xxxx without connection to City sewer:

Minimum rate per month not in excess of two hundred (200) cubic feet $ 13.55 All water over two hundred (200) cubic feet, per one hundred (100) cubic feet Operation and Maintenance Rate $ 2.87

https://www.metric-conversions.org/volu … allons.htm

roughly 135 cubic ft is 1000 gallons

I get bottled water for drinking at 4 gallons for $3 at a per 1000 gallon cost of $750... ouch well if it was drinkable is the cost of electricity to draw it out of the well...

Offline

#336 2021-09-18 06:15:19

tahanson43206
Moderator
Registered: 2018-04-27
Posts: 7,580

Re: Nuclear power is safe

For SpaceNut re #335

Thanks for this data point to add to the topic! 

The city where I live draws water from underground (amazing it is still possible after all this time) and from surface sources (ie, rivers).

The surface water has to be treated before it is delivered to customers.  I don't know what treatment is given to aquifer water but assume it is minimal.

SearchTerm:Water rate for delivery of in New Hampshire (one sample)

(th)

Offline

#337 2021-09-18 09:32:30

tahanson43206
Moderator
Registered: 2018-04-27
Posts: 7,580

Re: Nuclear power is safe

https://www.iter.org/newsline/167/631

The deuterons that survived the stellar furnaces eventually combined two-to-one to oxygen atoms and are now found in seawater in the concentration of 33 milligrams per litre.

Hydrogen, deuterium and tritium are very close cousins. From a chemical point of view, they are quite similar. When it comes to physics however, their properties are very different. (Click to view larger version...)
Hydrogen, deuterium and tritium are very close cousins. From a chemical point of view, they are quite similar. When it comes to physics however, their properties are very different.
Extracting this deuterium from seawater is a simple and well proven industrial process. "Heavy water", or D2O (water in which deuterium substitutes for hydrogen), is first separated from regular water by chemical exchange processes, and is then submitted to electrolysis in order to obtain deuterium gas.

The market for deuterium is small: it is used in electronics as a replacement for hydrogen in certain industrial processes; in biochemistry as a non-radioactive tracer; in "deuterium arc lamps" for spectroscopy; and, of course, in fusion research.

Of all possible fusion reactions, the one that involves deuterium (D) and the other heavy isotope of hydrogen tritium (T) is the "easiest" to achieve in the present state of technology. Despite some downsides—such as the production of highly energetic neutrons, and the fact that tritium is a slightly radioactive element—the DT reaction will probably remain for a long time to come the only way to produce viable fusion energy.

I'm intrigued by the possibility of changing the primary business objective from delivering fresh water to harvesting Deuterium. the Deuterium harvest is an investment for the not-too-distant time when fusion experiments transition to productive power plants.  The fresh water would be a byproduct of the harvesting process which could be sold on the open market at whatever rate the market will support.

All the other substances to be captured from sea water are a bonus.

sodium chloride can be converted to sodium and chlorine and sold on the spot market immediately.

If you (builder/designer/owner) have enough power anything (known to science) is possible.

(th)

Offline

#338 2021-09-18 12:03:00

tahanson43206
Moderator
Registered: 2018-04-27
Posts: 7,580

Re: Nuclear power is safe

This post is about politics, but I don't intend for it to be a Chat item....

The intention for the current study in this topic is to determine the feasibility of building a dedicated atomic power station to pull sea water from the Gulf of California and separate it for multiple purposes, including but not limited to providing fresh water to the City of Phoenix.

My investigation of the governorship of Arizona revealed there will be a turnover in 2022 (in November).

At this point, the only announced candidate I found is a woman running as a Democrat. There ** must ** be others!

2022 Arizona gubernatorial election - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Ariz … l_election

The 2022 Arizona gubernatorial election will take place on November 8, 2022, to elect the next governor of Arizona. Incumbent Republican Governor Doug Ducey is not eligible to run for a third consecutive term, as Arizona is one of twenty-seven states that prohibits its governors from serving more than two consecutive terms.

Whoever is running would be (presumably) interested in the Atomic Water proposal.

Some voters in the United States might be upset by the association of Atomic Power with Fresh Water, but I am counting on Arizona being of a different state of mind.

(th)

Offline

#339 2021-09-19 04:12:59

kbd512
Administrator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 4,702

Re: Nuclear power is safe

tahanson43206,

This proposal will go nowhere if a Democrat is elected, and you should know that by now.  It wouldn't matter in the slightest to a Democrat politician if everyone in their state would be dead within the next 48 hours unless they deviated from their religion just long enough to save their own rear ends.  Their dogma must be satisfied, come hell or no water, and they're already most of the way there.  I've been to Phoenix during the summer.  It's not quite as miserable as Houston is during the summer, but the heat is still no joke.  Hot is hot, and Phoenix has no shortage of heat, except at night, and then it can get surprisingly cool.  That 60 degree temperature drop is killer.  I still think Death Valley is probably the hottest place I've ever been, including the Middle East.  The only two places my boots actually melted to the rock / pavement was Death Valley and the Middle East.  I was well hydrated and felt fine, but my Bates Lights were not happy.  The issued boondockers seem to have no problems with the heat, but they're also twice as heavy and uncomfortable in other ways.

I've read that the Sonoran desert along the border with Mexico and the Lut desert in Iran have Death Valley beat, with the hottest temperatures recorded in both places being just over 177F.  For comparison purposes, the fire room on my first ship was around 160F in front of the AC vent during summers in Southeast Asia.  Whereas both of those deserts are dry as a bone, the fire room temperature is with ocean humidity so high breathing feels like sucking concrete through a soda straw.  Fun times, especially wearing full FFE.

Since Oxygen has already been taken care of here on our pale blue dot, unless you happen to live in communist China, that leaves water, food, and shelter.  Once we have taken care of those necessities, then we can move on to better education, basic health care, and forms of energy generation that people with poor math skills fetishize, despite the fact that they don't work at a global scale.  We have a lot of people who think we can do multiple tasks simultaneously.  All evidence to the contrary is religiously ignored.  We haven't taught people to think for themselves since long before I was born, so ignorance of what life was like for the average person before industrialization was a natural result.  After people start dying, those minor little details work themselves out.

Offline

#340 2021-09-19 07:31:40

tahanson43206
Moderator
Registered: 2018-04-27
Posts: 7,580

Re: Nuclear power is safe

For kbd512 re #339

The opportunity exists for someone to follow up my post with a candidate of another party.  I have no idea who that might be, but I hope it is someone who would live up to your expectations for positive attitude, belief in the capability of humans when they work together, and above all, honesty and good character.

While you are looking for that candidate, I hope you will be looking for intelligence sufficient to sort through the cloud of misinformation and misdirection that are present in the public discourse these days.  I suppose these unfortunate elements may have always been present in human interactions in past times, but they are certainly made worse by the convenience of the Internet to create false data and then to spread it like wild fire.

(th)

Offline

#341 2021-09-19 07:35:26

tahanson43206
Moderator
Registered: 2018-04-27
Posts: 7,580

Re: Nuclear power is safe

For Calliban .... this is a topic you created .... if you still have time to check it's progress, please comment upon whether it is going in a direction you'd like to see extended, or if you want to provide some guidance.

For SpaceNut .... I'm thinking about setting up a dedicated topic for the Nuclear Water Supply opportunity.

The forum is ultimately developing under your direction.  What do you think?

(th)

Offline

#342 2021-09-19 11:41:23

tahanson43206
Moderator
Registered: 2018-04-27
Posts: 7,580

Re: Nuclear power is safe

Update regarding topic development ... I have captured Posts #322-#341 in a text file.

My hope is to be able to work with all the facts and figures provided by kbd512, to compile a concise picture of what may be possible.

It sure ** looks ** as though a plant the size of Palo Verde could supply all the fresh water needed by Phoenix for many years to come, leaving the unreliable Natural flows (or not) for others to worry about.

Most of all that fresh water would eventually find it's way into the surrounding country side as grey water suitable for agriculture.

What is ** more ** encouraging is that replication of such plants to supply fresh water for the US Southwest, far West, and even some points Northwest is possible.

Dependence upon the vagaries of Nature would be eliminated, and the economy of Arizona would be assured.

(th)

Offline

#343 2021-09-24 17:29:02

tahanson43206
Moderator
Registered: 2018-04-27
Posts: 7,580

Re: Nuclear power is safe

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-military- … 23143.html

The department said it uses 30 terawatt-hours of electricity per year and more than 10 million gallons (37.9 million liters) of fuel per day. Powering bases using diesel generators strains operations and planning, the department said, and need is expected to grow during a transition to an electrical, non-tactical vehicle fleet. Thirty terawatt-hours is more energy than many small countries use in a year.

The department in the 314-page draft environmental impact statement said it wants to reduce reliance on local electric grids, which are highly vulnerable to prolonged outages from natural disasters, cyberattacks, domestic terrorism and failure from lack of maintenance.

Modular Nuclear Reactors here we come!

(th)

Offline

#344 2021-09-24 19:22:28

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 23,328

Re: Nuclear power is safe

Another source
US military eyes prototype mobile nuclear reactor in Idaho

The U.S. Department of Defense is taking input on its plan to build an advanced mobile nuclear microreactor prototype that could produce 1 to 5 megawatts of power at the Idaho National Laboratory in eastern Idaho.

The department said it uses 30 terawatt-hours of electricity per year and more than 10 million gallons (37.9 million liters) of fuel per day. Powering bases using diesel generators strains operations and planning, the department said, and need is expected to grow during a transition to an electrical, non-tactical vehicle fleet. Thirty terawatt-hours is more energy than many small countries use in a year.

That demonstration would include startup testing, moving the reactor to a new site, and testing at the second location. The second location would mimic a real-world situation by testing the reactor's ability to respond to energy demands.

The department said the microreactor would be able to produce power within three days of delivery and can be safely removed in as few as seven days.

Thats a pretty quick turn on and off cycle.

Offline

#345 2021-09-29 07:58:00

louis
Member
From: UK
Registered: 2008-03-24
Posts: 6,909

Re: Nuclear power is safe

Why are small nuclear reactors a terrorism risk? This is why:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k3NJXGSIIA

Unless you are going to have round the clock protection for your microreactors  involving maybe 16 heavliy armed personnel to give 24/7 cover, you are creating a terrorism risk.

Terrorists could bring a large city to a halt and require the evacuation of millions of people if they got their hands on nuclear material and went driving around a city sprinkling it around.

It's not worth the risk.


Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com

Offline

#346 2021-09-29 08:27:33

tahanson43206
Moderator
Registered: 2018-04-27
Posts: 7,580

Re: Nuclear power is safe

For Louis re #345

Thanks for bringing this series of videos to our attention.

SearchTerm:HalfLife video series on the dangers of nuclear material

This particular video (link in post #345) is about a container of Cesium 137 that was "orphaned" by human neglect.

The human race can expire without having settled space.  That is certainly possible. The Universe won't care, one way or the other.

However, if the human race ** does ** settled locations away from Earth, it will most ** certainly ** do so with the aid of atomic power.

The neglect shown by Louis is a risk of significant proportions.  There are all kinds of chemical and biological agents that would have an effect similar to or worse than the Cesium 132 carelessly neglected in Brazil in 1987. 

The lesson that ** I ** draw from the incident reported by the Half Life producer is that nuclear material ** must ** be in the care of knowledgeable humans throughout it's life, however many centuries that may be.

A challenge for the human race is to produce and sustain a population intelligent enough and educated enough to incorporate dangerous materials into the environment, and to manage them safely.

Not long ago, a ship load of Ammonia Nitrate was carried from an impounded vessel and stored onshore in Beirut, Lebanon.

The chemical eventually exploded.  Lives were lost, destruction of property was massive, and the economy was damaged severely.

Most humans don't know much (if anything) about Ammonia Nitrate.  There have been multiple incidents of massive explosions of chemically stored energy.

Human ignorance and neglect are surely responsible for the loss of life and property in each and every instance.

The solution would ** appear ** (at least to me) to be to address human ignorance, in order to avoid chemical, biological or nuclear disaster.

However, dealing with human ignorance requires more work than the average person wants to invest.

A few extraordinary individuals are apparently "called" to try to alleviate human ignorance, but they are few and far between.

It is most certainly NOT clear that humans are capable of managing chemical substances, let alone biological or nuclear ones.

The current astonishing ignorance displayed by many millions of humans on Earth regarding the safety, effectiveness and importance of vaccines is an example of how unlikely it is that the human race will survive.

Calliban launched this topic with the optimistic point of view that "nuclear power is safe".

Louis has quite rightly reminded us that it is not nuclear power that is the danger, it is the unceasing and persistent expression of stupidity and ignorance by human beings in vast numbers that threatens the entire population.

(th)

Offline

#347 2021-09-29 08:44:45

tahanson43206
Moderator
Registered: 2018-04-27
Posts: 7,580

Re: Nuclear power is safe

The pessimism of Louis about the ability of humans to safely work with nuclear power seems well justified.

On the ** other ** hand, there ** are ** examples of individual tribes of humans who have achieved demonstrated control over atomic power devices.

The demonstration of human incompetence recently reported to this forum by Louis certainly shows that there are ** some ** tribes of humans who should most certainly NOT take on the responsibility of managing dangerous substances, whether they are chemical, biological or nuclear.

It takes a ** lot ** of work to build and sustain a human population capable of managing dangerous substances, regardless of their nature.

The worry of Louis about particular substances that exist in Nature is certainly justified.

It takes competence and sustained performance on the part of those responsible for dangerous substances to sustain a technological civilization.

My guess is that those tribes that succeed in the challenge of expanding into space will solve the problem of raising children who are competent and trust worthy.

The Earth is an excellent proving ground to separate tribes from each other.

(th)

Offline

#348 2021-09-29 14:41:40

louis
Member
From: UK
Registered: 2008-03-24
Posts: 6,909

Re: Nuclear power is safe

A lot of  considerations that apply on Earth don't apply on Mars. On Mars it appears we have vast tracts of probably lifeless regolith where you could site nuclear power stations well away from human settlement. . (Of course if there are ecosystems on Mars then all bets are off.)

However trying to ship out radioactive material from Earth is problematic. A rocket failure could have unpleasant implications. Ideally one would need to find a source of suitable radioactive material on Mars. I am not sure if any deposits have been confirmed.

That said I personally doubt the Mars colony will go down that route. Solar plus storage is so simple a solution that I think it will be readily adopted.


Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com

Offline

#349 2021-09-29 17:26:00

tahanson43206
Moderator
Registered: 2018-04-27
Posts: 7,580

Re: Nuclear power is safe

With a nod to Louis re Post #348 ...

Here is the contrarian view ...

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/era- … 00482.html

A New Era Of Innovation Is Coming To The Nuclear Sector
Editor OilPrice.com
Wed, September 29, 2021 3:00 PM
When it comes to clean energy, solar panels and wind power usually dominate the conversation, while cutting-edge and unproven technologies from green hydrogen to nuclear fusion feature prominently in headlines. But the actual powerhouses of the climate-friendly energy revolution receive far less lip service.

However, there are some innovations and advances taking place in the nuclear energy sector that may be able to bring the industry into the 21st century and make increased adoption more appealing for nations that are on the fence about nuclear power. One of the key advances in nuclear technology that is close to becoming a reality is the deployment of small modular reactors (SMRs), a smaller-scale version of nuclear reactors which would be mass-produced and assembled on-site, improving efficiency and making building new reactors far more cost-effective.

The nuclear industry has also been hard at work finding ways to make the sector even safer. Some of the solutions are quite futuristic, from employing drones with radiation sensors to keep nuclear plant employees safe, to getting rid of humans entirely and replacing workers with robots equipped with machine-learning capabilities.

The idea that anyone would try to run a settlement with solar power on Mars seems (to me at least) quite fanciful.

Solar power may well play a minor role.

I see Solar lighting as important psychologically, for those who grew up on Earth.

For those who grow up on Mars, in underground habitats well away from cosmic radiation, the natural light from Sol will not seem as important.

Never-the-less, the spectrum of Sol may well prove irresistible to everyone, so I would expect plentiful use of light conduits to bring the spectrum of Sol indoors.

(th)

Offline

#350 2021-09-29 18:55:53

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 23,328

Re: Nuclear power is safe

The smoke detector them is a dirty bomb just waiting for the terrorist to build with its tiny amount of material....

Nuclear power plants are guarded with old school fencing usually barbed at the top as well as angled and high tech sensors plus camera's with security monitoring them 24/7 ... sure I would bet there are security lapses but they should be few and reacted to quite quickly so as to not lose any materials or to be damaged in a way to make them melt down.

Warm Light VS Cool Light - Daylight and Natural LED Light

Lumen to Watt Comparison - Energy vs Brightness

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight

Direct sunlight has a luminous efficacy of about 93 lumens per watt of radiant flux. Multiplying the figure of 1050 watts per square meter by 93 lumens per watt indicates that bright sunlight provides an illuminance of approximately 98 000 lux (lumens per square meter) on a perpendicular surface at sea level.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daylight


Recommended Light Levels (Illuminance) for Outdoor and Indoor Venues

Mars natural light is 43% that of earths so we can do the same intensity to wattage for the LED lights and get as we have been indicating that you still require approximate 2.5^m of panels to collect the energy for earth conditions for lighting. So now it comes down to the led light efficiency as to how much wattage you need for that level.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB