Sorry, what exactly does this mean?
There is no shame in just admitting you are in over your head!
One good thing about the rockets is that once theyâve been inserted into a solar trajectory, the cooling etc systems can fail. At that point theyâre on a ballistic path to the sun, if its melted uranium by then, so what.
The bad thing about rockets is that during the ascent phase, there is enormous risk. Not just the âwill the rocket blow upâ risk but the âwhat happens after the accidental boomâ
But, if we are looking at SF for energy solutions, consider that nuclear waste is dangerous because of the enormous energy contained in it. Technology could turn what is now waste into a resource.
To be completely straight, launching that much mass into the sun as a routine part of power generation is absurd.
You have a ridiculous assumption that there would even be any excess production from wind and solar in the absence of coal and gas.
The generating capacity for either does not exist nor does the necessary storage capacity for your self refilling water system.
WR will splainâ it to you after some frantic google searches, donât worry!
That would be the minimum and maximum distances from Mercury to the sun.
Trying to create reliable, affordable baseload power, with massive DC storage capabilities, is still a far off pipe dream. Itâs still the things of science fiction.
The purpose, of course, is not to give freebies to the coal or nuclear industry. The purpose is to encourage power plants to keep backups of fuel so that they will not run out of that fuel during a cold weather crisis. That is an expense to power plants and one they need not cover on their own dollar.
If such a shortage happens in the next winter, expect those tearing the administration apart over subsidies now to be tearing them apart for not having been prepared.
Nuclear is great and they pay amazing.
I donât know what youâre on about because I never claimed it existed now.
Only that itâs a feasible alternative to fossil fuel power generation.
Not really weâve been launching nuclear reactors into orbit for more than three decades and putting them in flight for far longer.
Storing them safely for shipment by any means is not that big of a deal.
We worked through all of these problems in the sixties and seventies.
Keep in mind that new and spent fuel rods and nuclear warheads are safely transported pretty much daily.
Nah. We know everything we need to know. The only problem is implementation. I donât deny itâs take significant capital investment but the operation and maintenance costs would be substantially lower.
It isnât remotely âfeasibleâ in any way. It would take you hundreds of years to even get approval for all of the reservoirs and pumping stations and the cost would be completely untenable.
I tend toward nuclear as a bridge to more renewable technologies.
Meh, a beurocratic limitation. Not a technical one. Can easily be overcome with adequate political will.
If weâd gone with the original plan for nuclear power to be the primary generation source in the US as intended in the sixties and seventies weâd have the cheapest and most reliable electricity on the planet today and only a tiny fraction of the pollution produced from 1990 on.
Yeah but living by the Pickering Nuclear plant for a few years the beach was often litter with dead Pickerel.
By the way looks like Canada is getting another federal party for all the anti immigrant white nationalists in the conservative party.
Your entire premise depends on pipe dreams.
And coal would have been dead much earlier.
Hindsight is 20/20.
Due to a natural fish kill.
Park and state officials were notified and a Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection official investigated.
"This is a natural fish kill, no cause for alarm," Jim Grazio, a Great Lakes biologist with DEPâs Office of the Great Lakes, said after inspecting the dead fish.
He said 99 percent were gizzard shad and he believed their death was a natural event caused by temperature change.
Grazio said the gizzard shad, a freshwater herring, is notoriously sensitive to cold temperatures and temperature changes.
He also said more than the usual number of the fish were born in 2010 for unknown reasons.
Rapid temp changes kill fish naturally every year all over the globe.
