Subsidizing Coal and Nuclear

They are sealed in impervious containers for shipment just like nuclear warheads.

Both used to pass right through the middle of the town I grew up in pretty regularly by both rail and truck throughout the sixties and seventies.

I grew up in the triangle between Pan-Tex more than fifty nuclear silos, and two nuclear waste repositories, and three Air Force bases and just off of the Melrose/White Sands Missile range.

My father was a nuclear ordnance officer who worked for Von Braun during summers while going to NMMI and MIT, and Los Alamos.

Wrong. Try again! You keep mixing types of waste and materials. But maybe we will keep it simple for you, let me know what kind of payload and cost the logistics of your magical rockets would entail, I will be nice and ignore the cooling systems and containers for your sake. Get working :hugs::joy:

Do you have any idea how hard it is to launch something into the sun?

Probably not.

I’m not “wrong” about anything I stated.

I said nothing at all about the costs involved. It can be done and it can be done far cheaper today than it could be before thanks to new reusable launch vehicles that knock out about half or more of the cost of getting a payload into orbit.

It isn’t particularly difficult at all. You reach earth escape velocity on a track that takes it past Venus and mercury. If you want to save some money aim for one of them.

If we do not have power plants which provide baseload electrical power, like coal and nuclear, then what will become of us?

Don’t tell me you think we can survive on wind and solar power alone.

To get to the sun you have to kill all your orbital velocity, which for us here in Earth is about 30km/sec which is about 3x the delta V just needed to get to orbit.

You could if you have adequate energy storage.

The sun sucks up matter that is orbiting it literally constantly.

When an object starts to make contact with solar winds and mass there is a tremendous amount of friction generated that kills the orbital momentum as an object gets closer.

image

Gravity does the rest.

Sure, as long as those sources of power aresustainable, reliable and affordable.

Which cleaner alternatives are you suggesting to switch to?

Which is a pipe dream that would require a massive amount of toxic materials and petroleum.

Lol. I love it when you make up nonsense. Really? So why hasn’t Mercury fallen into the sun yet?

Got any data for the “friction”? Can you quantify it?

28-43 million miles.

Nonsense. You just aren’t very creative. I already showed you pump storage hydroelectricity but the concept was difficult for you to grasp.

You showed a pipe dream that isn’t even possible. How many billion acre feet are you gong to have to store and pump every day to replace even one coal or gas fired plant?

Where is the free energy going to come from to pump that water uphill?

Living by that waste did nothing to help your understanding of spent fuel rods, you just conflate and deflect with other waste or … comedically… weapons.

And now you tap out on actually transporting it to the destination in a way that makes any sense from a cost standpoint.

:rofl:

About 300,000 acre feet.

Energy comes from overproduction of wind and solar.

Horse hockey. It can’t be pumped for free, it can’t be stored or maintained for free and the evaporation loss alone makes it untenable during the peak use summer periods in a 1/3 or more of the country.

Understanding how reactors work, what fuel rods are, and how they are stored and transported did.

Who said it’s for free? The energy to pump it uphill comes from over production of wind and solar.

The maintenance is not terribly expensive once the system is installed.

Nothing is for free, mate. Never said anything about it being free. I was replying to someone who wanted to know how we could get away with a world without the typical baseload power generation.