Nuclear power plant on orbit....

[Darnok]

Nuclear power plant on GEO connected with Earth using cable, something like space elevator, except it wouldn't be lifting anything, it would only transfer energy from orbit to Earth.

It would be clean and alternative way of producing power

Do we have technology needed for that kind of construction?

Would power transfer be limited to few countries near equator or not?

[Shpaget]

No, we can't drop a cable from GEO. We don't have materials strong enough.

How do you propose to cool the water for the steam turbine?

[Albert VDS]

The problem is that the max distance for a power line is 7000km.

[Lukaszenko]

The problem with a space elevator is not that it's not strong enough to lift anything, it's not strong enough to lift ITSELF.

But more to the point, instead of putting a nuclear power plant 36,000 km away in space and dealing with the countless problems and billions of dollars that this entails, why not just...put it on earth?

[PB666]

The problem is that the max distance for a power line is 7000km.

You can use a focal microwave transmitter and a ground based steam plant. Although there is no particular utility of doing this in space.

[Yourself]

You can use a focal microwave transmitter and a ground based steam plant. Although there is no particular utility of doing this in space.

However, if we were talking a large solar array rather than a fusion reactor, there would be certain advantages to it. Firstly it'd be in direct sunlight for 95% of its orbit (compared with a ground-based collector which is only in direct sunlight approximately 50% of the time). Secondly, it'd avoid atmospheric attenuation of the sunlight itself, allowing more energy to be extracted.

[PB666]

But the light would have to be converted to microwave, and in the vacuum of space that has proven to be problematic. Third there are losses on the ground due to spread, absorption/radiation, reflection and thermal conversion.

In space microwave power might prove useful for directing power to polar power stations, basically 3 inclined satellites that deliver power. 1/3 of time each to a power station.

Other uses are redirecting light over the moon to a polar solar facility.

The basic problem with power here on earth is that we have alot, but the current investment drive is weak. Lithium production needs to be ramped up several fold, fuel cell technology needs to be improved.

[Nibb31]

Nuclear power plant on GEO connected with Earth using cable, something like space elevator, except it wouldn't be lifting anything, it would only transfer energy from orbit to Earth.

It would be clean and alternative way of producing power

Do we have technology needed for that kind of construction?

Would power transfer be limited to few countries near equator or not?

Nuclear plants require massive quantities of water for cooling. How do you cool a nuclear reactor in space?

Also, nuclear power is as clean as it gets in term of emissions. How would it be cleaner in space?

[sgt_flyer]

Given the efficiency of nuclear power plants, you would need absolutely huge radiators arrays (no convection in space !) to dissipate the waste heat. And then, because of the microgravity, you would have to design more complicated pumps (using the various densities coming from differential temperatures in the coolant) and gravity based SCRAM systems. You'll needto find a way to keep the used fuel cooled down until the decay heat dropped low enough, and to send the replacement fuel from time to time. (Plus having to worry about micrometeorites / debris impacts)

I'd see a huge orbital solar power plant with beamed power as much more feasible and interesting (as other said, lower losses due to atmosphere, and increased time exposed to light vs ground based solar) (actually, orbital solar power plant has been researched since quite some time - it's just that the cost / ton of payload to GSO / SSO is not at all competitive at the moment)

[RainDreamer]

If a nuclear reactor on the ground blow up, at worst we get something like Chernobyl. If a nuclear reactor in space start to de orbit and break up during reentry , the fallout can be global.

[PB666]

If it were at GSO it would take 1000s of years for the radioactivity to reach earth, much would have decayed. Spread over most of the surface if the earth it woukd hardly be noticed. If it broke up on reentry over the pacific most of the waste would end up going to the bottom of the sea.

The worst case scenario would be someone was dumb enough to put a reactor in LEO say 150 miles, then some one else came along and detonated it from all sides causing a brief prompt critical event, very unstable and very inefficient nuclear bomb. Unlike chernobyl, the is no ground to meltdown into, there is nothing closeby in space, fallout is spread globally. Its a mess but except for a limited area where the largest material comes down, not to much of a problem.

The US and russia detonated a large number of bombs in the 60s, many of the were Large hydrogen bombs whose waste goes intonthe stratosphere, C14 levels bumped up afterward, largely the effects went unnoted. The not so big secret is that the earth is constantly being bombarded with radioactivity, things like tritium, c14' iridium are not from earth, a nice size asteroid of the type that hits the earth every few thousand years will bring more radioactivity than the typical nuclear mishap.

[Streetwind]

Also, nuclear power is as clean as it gets in term of emissions. How would it be cleaner in space?

Perhaps he is referring to the disposal of nuclear waste, which is a huge problem on Earth but easily done in a dedicated, far graveyard orbit in space.

But yeah, even with that, there's a million reasons why this idea is worse than space based solar power. Which is already worse than ground based solar power

[Shpaget]

Perhaps he is referring to the disposal of nuclear waste, which is a huge problem on Earth but easily done in a dedicated, far graveyard orbit in space.

So launch only the waste, not entire power plant.

Or be clever about it and return the radioactive stuff where it belongs - in the ground. Drill into a subduction zone and the waste will be thoroughly mixed and neutralized in, geologically speaking, short time. Cheap, safe, eco friendly.

[PB666]

So launch only the waste, not entire power plant.

Or be clever about it and return the radioactive stuff where it belongs - in the ground. Drill into a subduction zone and the waste will be thoroughly mixed and neutralized in, geologically speaking, short time. Cheap, safe, eco friendly.

Breeder reacters, reuse the radioactivity.

[Nibb31]

So launch only the waste, not entire power plant.

The nuclear power industry produces 20000 tons of radioactive waste every year. That would be over 1000 Falcon Heavy launches every year. It's much cheaper to simply bury the stuff.

[Shpaget]

The nuclear power industry produces 20000 tons of radioactive waste every year. That would be over 1000 Falcon Heavy launches every year. It's much cheaper to simply bury the stuff.

I'm talking about launching the spent fuel in GEO vs launching entire nuclear power plant (including the fuel).

Yeah, it's cheaper to bury it, which is exactly what I said in the very next sentence.

[magnemoe]

I'm talking about launching the spent fuel in GEO vs launching entire nuclear power plant (including the fuel).

Yeah, it's cheaper to bury it, which is exactly what I said in the very next sentence.

Yes, most of the nuclear radioactive wast has no measurable radioactivity, next level is stuff who has been bombarded with neutrons and is radioactive because of this, this is mostly reactor parts, you have actual radioactive materials, and fuel rods. The US generate lots of high radioactive waste as it don't reproduce the rods, ideological and perhaps an cost issue, uranium is cheaper.

Breeder reactors would solve most of the issue, easiest safe way to deposit it would be to drill holes in the ocean seabed not the subduction zone, most seabed is geological dead until it reaches the zone, drill a hold using deep see oil drilling technology. Put put containers in hole, plug the hole and it will hit an subduction zone in 20 million years or something.

Yes this is illegal after current rules as i understand and no hurry to change the rules as nuclear wast is mostly an constructed problem. Lots of chemical waste including heavy metals are an worse problem. Unlike plutonium quicksilver don't break down after a million years

[PB666]

Yes, most of the nuclear radioactive wast has no measurable radioactivity, next level is stuff who has been bombarded with neutrons and is radioactive because of this, this is mostly reactor parts, you have actual radioactive materials, and fuel rods. The US generate lots of high radioactive waste as it don't reproduce the rods, ideological and perhaps an cost issue, uranium is cheaper.

Breeder reactors would solve most of the issue, easiest safe way to deposit it would be to drill holes in the ocean seabed not the subduction zone, most seabed is geological dead until it reaches the zone, drill a hold using deep see oil drilling technology. Put put containers in hole, plug the hole and it will hit an subduction zone in 20 million years or something.

Yes this is illegal after current rules as i understand and no hurry to change the rules as nuclear wast is mostly an constructed problem. Lots of chemical waste including heavy metals are an worse problem. Unlike plutonium quicksilver don't break down after a million years

The beauty of properly designed breeder reacters is you get power, therefore you don't need to mine more and react more U and you deplete the waste. Even the depleted waste if concentrated enough continues to create power. Bury it deep enough and you can after a few years start generating geothermal power from it. Just that little pesky issue of bleed off radioactivity from things like radon, but radon can be trapped and stored separately.

[lajoswinkler]

I don't even know where to start with this silly, monstruously expensive idea. Good luck cooling down a 1000 MW reactor core in vacuum. Heat engines need a heatsink, you know? It's the heat flow that does the work, not heat itself.

Very silly idea, completely useless one. Fission power plants are built next to a lake, river or sea for a reason.

[PB666]

I have a better nuclear power plant idea, this one has a very simple design.

First find a gravitational rounded object, since this is going to be hydrogen rich, just make it large enough so the heat and pressure at its center produces a low density fusion reaction. Eventually the binding energy will produce a high frequency radiation, that way you dont have to cool it. The heat does all the work for you.

Then just put your ships at a safe distance and collect the hv, no need to dissipate waste heat, it will radiate off the back of the collection panels.

:^)

[michaelhester07]

For earth application with space why not user our local cosmic nuclear reactor to power us?

Do a solar orbital station. It doesn't even have to be solar panels. It can be an unfurled mirror that reflects the sunlight to a polar station. in space it is very practical to harvest sunlight. Place 3 to 4 satellites in geosynch orbit around earth, each reflects light down to a collection station on the south pole. Then you can wire that to wherever you need power. It can be microwave power too if you use PV arrays instead.

Nuclear power would work out best in locations where solar becomes impractical or prohibitively expensive, like a Lunar equator base. In such a base there would be no sun for 15 days out of a month. We'd try to put a base on the poles so we can use solar power but a resource we need might not be on the poles.

[RainDreamer]

It can be an unfurled mirror that reflects the sunlight to a polar station.

Are you saying we build giant magnifying glasses in space and burn things on earth with giant rays of sunlight?

[michaelhester07]

Are you saying we build giant magnifying glasses in space and burn things on earth with giant rays of sunlight?

Yep. kinda like that plot from James Bond.

[radonek]

Yep. kinda like that plot from James Bond.

Sounds safer then multigigawatt microwave lasers.

[Yourself]

The nuclear power industry produces 20000 tons of radioactive waste every year. That would be over 1000 Falcon Heavy launches every year. It's much cheaper to simply bury the stuff.

What's amusing is that, in the U.S. that nuclear waste never goes anywhere.

Yeah, we don't actually do anything with it besides put it all in casks and leave them in the bottom of pools.

It turns out nuclear waste doesn't actually take up that much space thanks to its density.