Nuclear power plant on orbit....

[linkxsc]

[quote name=michaelhester07;2251640

Nuclear power would work out best in locations where solar becomes impractical or prohibitively expensive' date=' 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.

Dont forget though. Assuming that you had a solar microwave system around earth, it would be quite a bit cheaper (materials wise, and lifting stuff wise) to microwave beam the power to your moonbase.

[NuclearNut]

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.

Source, and what kind of nuclear waste? Worker's clothes, non-fuel stuff that was once in a reactor, unprocessed spent fuel, all of the above combined, what? I think you are off by a order of magnitude.

[KerbMav]

Treating symptoms again, eh?

How about investing the money into perfecting alternative forms of energy and its distribution?

[Mazon Del]

The problem with all known forms of renewable energy is that it NEEDS to have some non-renewable backup source for the inevitable points when there are dips in service. On one hand you could go with crazy battery tech, but it really just isn't there yet. We've got some fun experimental things like massive molten salt batteries and such, but they are also hideously expensive. So if you are going to go with a modern non-renewable, go with nuclear. It IS the cleanest form of non-renewable and while its waste IS extremely bad, it doesn't actually generate a whole lot. Now the the congressman/senator from Nevada retired, we are finally looking at the possibility of reopening Yucca Mountain as an option.

[fredinno]

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.

Space Based solar would not need batteries- or at least only smaller ones, making it more useful to make it compose a larger part of the amount of energy distributed.

But cost is the killer, really.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

If you would put nuclear waste in space, put it in a useless high orbit (higher than GEO) that no satellites use, thereby not using up precious GEO real estate with (literally) junk. Not that this would ever happen- firstly cost, nd second, the fact that the public generally seems to view space travel as very dangerous due to the numerous space disasters. Good luck convincing people it's a good idea to send nuclear waste into orbit when people protest over New Horison's and Cassini's RTGs.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

If you wanted to be really careful, you could just dump it into a deep sea trench via a large floating oil platform.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

:^)

Are you describing the Sun?

- - - Updated - - -

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.

You can't have a stationary orbit over the poles- besides, it would violate current international treaty.

[michaelhester07]

Dont forget though. Assuming that you had a solar microwave system around earth, it would be quite a bit cheaper (materials wise, and lifting stuff wise) to microwave beam the power to your moonbase.

On that line of thinking it may be more advantageous to put a microwave beam system on the moon and beam the energy back to earth. This assumes you can get the laser to reach to the moon. If you can, you can get it to reach back to earth. There is a lot of space on the moon for solar farms and practically none of the issues you get with earth's atmosphere. The only issue is the cost of getting the equipment there. If you can manufacture it from lunar resources then you're golden. The maria may be harboring some metal resources for mirrors. Solar stations would be spread out on the moon to deal with "night time" on the moon.

I still maintain that nuclear on orbit is not very practical for the purpose of generating electricity for Earth. Since the waste mass is not so large we can store it in places like yucca mountain. Nuclear on orbit is practical for a spaceship or probe that will eventually land somewhere like on the moon. For a ship it's a reliable power source.

[fredinno]

Treating symptoms again, eh?

How about investing the money into perfecting alternative forms of energy and its distribution?

Nucelar Waste will still be a problem, even if we shut down all reacters tomorrow.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem with all known forms of renewable energy is that it NEEDS to have some non-renewable backup source for the inevitable points when there are dips in service. On one hand you could go with crazy battery tech, but it really just isn't there yet. We've got some fun experimental things like massive molten salt batteries and such, but they are also hideously expensive. So if you are going to go with a modern non-renewable, go with nuclear. It IS the cleanest form of non-renewable and while its waste IS extremely bad, it doesn't actually generate a whole lot. Now the the congressman/senator from Nevada retired, we are finally looking at the possibility of reopening Yucca Mountain as an option.

Better yet, Thorium-nuclear. It's nuclear waste is much easier to reprocess, and generally lasts much less long, with a half life of 30 years.