> Please do note that nuclear plants are the next best
> (in my opinion) to massive space based solar power.
> On the other hand, read the end notes here:
> http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2007/10/30/18253/301

Why? It contains implications that nuclear explosives are unusual in their destructive potential. This has long been known to be false, of course. Have you read Garwin?:
http://www.fas.org/rlg/20.htm

He notes that both chemical and biological terror weapons are more cost-effective and easier-to-obtain than nuclear.

The destructive effects of nuclear explosives have been exaggerated, both by their owners and by other conflicted parties. Please study every currently-archived post at the following blog before further commenting on, or making implications about, dangers or effects of nuclear explosives:
http://www.google.com/search?q=site:glasstone.blogspot.com

Adding hiroshima to that search returns insightful posts about the differences between bombing (a) a medieval tinderbox shanty town, and (b) a real city complete with real (e.g. concrete and steel) buildings.

A large cargo ship loaded with fertilizer is a half-megaton-yield bomb. Both the ship and the fertilizer are cheap and easy to obtain, and easy to place at desirable targets. A fertilizer ship seems to be neither sexy- nor ignorant- enough for a Clancy novel, though.

Have I got this right? In order to "promote" the nuclear power industry, you're arguing that having a nuclear bomb explode nearby isn't really so bad? And that Hiroshima (I always thought the H was capitalized) taught us that nuclear explosions inflicted previously unimagined horrors, especially related to the effects of radiation on civilian populations. I guess that was just anti-nuclear hysteria.

> Please do note that nuclear plants are the next best
> (in my opinion) to massive space based solar power.
> On the other hand, read the end notes here:
> http://www.kuro5hin .org/story/ 2007/10/30/ 18253/301

Why? It contains implications that nuclear explosives are unusual in their destructive potential. This has long been known to be false, of course. Have you read Garwin?:
http://www.fas. org/rlg/20. htm

He notes that both chemical and biological terror weapons are more cost-effective and easier-to-obtain than nuclear.

The destructive effects of nuclear explosives have been exaggerated, both by their owners and by other conflicted parties. Please study every currently-archived post at the following blog before further commenting on, or making implications about, dangers or effects of nuclear explosives:
http://www.google. com/search? q=site:glasstone .blogspot. com

Adding hiroshima to that search returns insightful posts about the differences between bombing (a) a medieval tinderbox shanty town, and (b) a real city complete with real (e.g. concrete and steel) buildings.

A large cargo ship loaded with fertilizer is a half-megaton- yield bomb. Both the ship and the fertilizer are cheap and easy to obtain, and easy to place at desirable targets. A fertilizer ship seems to be neither sexy- nor ignorant- enough for a Clancy novel, though.

|

So Hiroshima really was a whole lot worse than the fire-bombing of Tokyo or Dresden?

Just because radiation killed an additional relatively few people afterwards?

Michael McNeil

Have I got this right? In order to "promote" the nuclear power industry, you're arguing that having a nuclear bomb explode nearby isn't really so bad? And that Hiroshima (I always thought the H was capitalized) taught us that nuclear explosions inflicted previously unimagined horrors, especially related to the effects of radiation on civilian populations.

I guess that was just anti-nuclear hysteria.

> Please do note that nuclear plants are the next best
> (in my opinion) to massive space based solar power.
> On the other hand, read the end notes here:
> http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2007/10/30/18253/301

Why? It contains implications that nuclear explosives are unusual in their destructive potential. This has long been known to be false, of course. Have you read Garwin?:
http://www.fas.org/rlg/20.htm

He notes that both chemical and biological terror weapons are more cost-effective and easier-to-obtain than nuclear.

The destructive effects of nuclear explosives have been exaggerated, both by their owners and by other conflicted parties. Please study every currently-archived post at the following blog before further commenting on, or making implications about, dangers or effects of nuclear explosives:
http://www.google.com/search?q=site:glasstone.blogspot.com

Adding hiroshima to that search returns insightful posts about the differences between bombing (a) a medieval tinderbox shanty town, and (b) a real city complete with real (e.g. concrete and steel) buildings.

A large cargo ship loaded with fertilizer is a half-megaton-yield bomb. Both the ship and the fertilizer are cheap and easy to obtain, and easy to place at desirable targets. A fertilizer ship seems to be neither sexy- nor ignorant- enough for a Clancy novel, though.

Guys, let's table the discussion of the relative horrors of nuclear vs. other kinds of warfare. It can't plausibly be related to SSI type research. On the other hand, how nuclear power fares against SPS power is certainly fair game for discussion.

Many Thanks,
Mike Combs
Moderator

So Hiroshima really was a whole lot worse than the fire-bombing of Tokyo or Dresden?

Just because radiation killed an additional relatively few people afterwards?

Michael McNeil

Have I got this right? In order to "promote" the nuclear power industry, you're arguing that having a nuclear bomb explode nearby isn't really so bad? And that Hiroshima (I always thought the H was capitalized) taught us that nuclear explosions inflicted previously unimagined horrors, especially related to the effects of radiation on civilian populations.

I guess that was just anti-nuclear hysteria.

> Please do note that nuclear plants are the next best
> (in my opinion) to massive space based solar power.
> On the other hand, read the end notes here:
> http://www.kuro5hin .org/story/ 2007/10/30/ 18253/301

Why? It contains implications that nuclear explosives are unusual in their destructive potential. This has long been known to be false, of course. Have you read Garwin?:
http://www.fas. org/rlg/20. htm

He notes that both chemical and biological terror weapons are more cost-effective and easier-to-obtain than nuclear.

The destructive effects of nuclear explosives have been exaggerated, both by their owners and by other conflicted parties. Please study every currently-archived post at the following blog before further commenting on, or making implications about, dangers or effects of nuclear explosives:
http://www.google. com/search? q=site:glasstone .blogspot. com

Adding hiroshima to that search returns insightful posts about the differences between bombing (a) a medieval tinderbox shanty town, and (b) a real city complete with real (e.g. concrete and steel) buildings.

A large cargo ship loaded with fertilizer is a half-megaton- yield bomb. Both the ship and the fertilizer are cheap and easy to obtain, and easy to place at desirable targets. A fertilizer ship seems to be neither sexy- nor ignorant- enough for a Clancy novel, though.

>> Please do note that nuclear plants are the next best
>> (in my opinion) to massive space based solar power.
>> On the other hand, read the end notes here:
>> http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2007/10/30/18253/301
>
> Why? It contains implications that nuclear explosives are unusual in their destructive potential. This has long been known to be false, of course. Have you read Garwin?:
> http://www.fas.org/rlg/20.htm

I don't think the end notes say anything which indicates nuclear
weapons are more destructive than they actually are. I.e., a 15kt
weapon within a hundred yards of a county zoning board meeting is
going to kill the lot of them and flatten the building. The end notes
are about how to lower the cost of building homemade nuclear devices
by a hundred or a thousand times.

> He notes that both chemical and biological terror weapons are more cost-effective and easier-to-obtain than nuclear.

Replacing fossil energy is a 10-20 TW hole to fill. That's 10,000 to
20,000 1 GW nuclear plants all over the world. With that large a
number, some dedicated Aum type cult is eventually going to tap one
for neutrons and make pure plutonium 239 out of depleted uranium.
It's not likely they would kill more than 100,000 people per device.
Since hundreds of millions to several billion will die from famines
and resource wars without the energy, tens of thousands of reactors
are a better deal even assuming a homemade bomb goes off ever few
years.

> The destructive effects of nuclear explosives have been exaggerated, both by their owners and by other conflicted parties.

That just means that the psychological effects are worse. That alone
is a significant factor. The Aum cult did attempt to obtain a
tactical weapon from the Soviet Union.

>Please study every currently-archived post at the following blog before further commenting on, or making implications about, dangers or effects of nuclear explosives:
> http://www.google.com/search?q=site:glasstone.blogspot.com

I sampled it, seen a lot of it before even though such material is
only of passing interest. The site claims to need IE and then crashes
IE upon loading.

> Adding hiroshima to that search returns insightful posts about the differences between bombing (a) a medieval tinderbox shanty town, and (b) a real city complete with real (e.g. concrete and steel) buildings.

Right. Consider the effects of one in the basement of a high rise building.
>
> A large cargo ship loaded with fertilizer is a half-megaton-yield bomb. Both the ship and the fertilizer are cheap and easy to obtain, and easy to place at desirable targets. A fertilizer ship seems to be neither sexy- nor ignorant- enough for a Clancy novel, though.

I don't think bulk ships have been built that are close to that size.

Keith Henson

All this discussion is beside the point and the point is:

Nuclear power plant CONSTRUCTION costs vs SSP may well be significantly less than SSP however, Nuc FUEL is not free, NUC WASTE definitely costs money and while the power plant may not directly expense that to the customer, SOMEONE has to pay and I know it will be, at the least, the general taxpayer, meaning,,,me,,,. SSP has NO fuel cost, NO waste disposal cost, NO waste transport costs. After adding all that to the cost per KW of NUC power, I expect the differential between NUC., COAL, OIL power vs SSP is not that significant.

Once an SSP is built, we only have annual maintenance, which ANY OTHER power plant will also have, so that's probably a wash.

Figure out ALL of the differential cost associated with each source, the declining availability of fossil fuel, etc and then compare THAT to SSP costs, which are only for construction.

GAry 7

On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 7:59 PM, GARY ANSORGE
>
> All this discussion is beside the point and the point is:
>
> Nuclear power plant CONSTRUCTION costs vs SSP may well be significantly less than SSP

Sigh. If it does, people will build nuclear reactors and not power
sats. If we want power sats, then we better figure out how to make
them less expensive. This is called "design to cost" and it's a well
known method.

There is no physics reason for power sats should not be the least
expensive off all, and not just considering fuel. O'Neill proposed
using extra terrestrial materials and in the long run, say within a
decade after the first one is turned on, people will be mining an
asteroid for nickel if nothing else.

But all of this depends critically on a way to transport stuff into
space at $100/kg or less.

A 100,000 t moving cable space elevator that cost $100 billion to put
in service and lifted 1/50 of it's mass per day would get the cost
down to about $12 a kg plus 15 cents for the energy to run it.
Unfortunately we don't have the nanotube cable yet. The next best
thing I know about cost $40 billion for the ablation laser and maybe
$60 billion for the rockets and bounce mirrors in GEO. At the hall
million kg/year throughput it looks like it will cost less than
$100/kg. That seems to be the magic number to sell power for a penny
a kWh and make a profit on it.

> however, Nuc FUEL is not free, NUC WASTE definitely costs money and while the power plant may not directly expense that to the customer, SOMEONE has to pay and I know it will be, at the least, the general taxpayer, meaning,,,me,,,. SSP has NO fuel cost, NO waste disposal cost, NO waste transport costs. After adding all that to the cost per KW of NUC power, I expect the differential between NUC., COAL, OIL power vs SSP is not that significant.

It's more psychological cost for nuclear waste than reality. Oil has
peaked, coal is expected to peak in the not so distant future, even
nuclear power will eventually run out of fuel. I don't consider that
significant because I feel it is likely the singularity will happen
long before we run out of nuclear fuel. But if you want to put the
carbon back in the ground, we are talking 50 TW.

> Once an SSP is built, we only have annual maintenance, which ANY OTHER power plant will also have, so that's probably a wash.
>
> Figure out ALL of the differential cost associated with each source, the declining availability of fossil fuel, etc and then compare THAT to SSP costs, which are only for construction.

You can do that with the traditional sources of energy, but it's
really hard with space based solar power because there is a ferment of
new ideas on how to reduce the cost.

It will be interesting to see if someone can beat pop up and push. I
actually hope they can.

Keith

Fuel for nuclear power won't run out for billions of years, and even if we do eventually grow short of it on Earth, there's plenty elsewhere in the Solar System to tap.

Michael McNeil

On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 7:59 PM, GARY ANSORGE
>
> All this discussion is beside the point and the point is:
>
> Nuclear power plant CONSTRUCTION costs vs SSP may well be significantly less than SSP

Sigh. If it does, people will build nuclear reactors and not power
sats. If we want power sats, then we better figure out how to make
them less expensive. This is called "design to cost" and it's a well
known method.

There is no physics reason for power sats should not be the least
expensive off all, and not just considering fuel. O'Neill proposed
using extra terrestrial materials and in the long run, say within a
decade after the first one is turned on, people will be mining an
asteroid for nickel if nothing else.

But all of this depends critically on a way to transport stuff into
space at $100/kg or less.

A 100,000 t moving cable space elevator that cost $100 billion to put
in service and lifted 1/50 of it's mass per day would get the cost
down to about $12 a kg plus 15 cents for the energy to run it.
Unfortunately we don't have the nanotube cable yet. The next best
thing I know about cost $40 billion for the ablation laser and maybe
$60 billion for the rockets and bounce mirrors in GEO. At the hall
million kg/year throughput it looks like it will cost less than
$100/kg. That seems to be the magic number to sell power for a penny
a kWh and make a profit on it.

> however, Nuc FUEL is not free, NUC WASTE definitely costs money and while the power plant may not directly expense that to the customer, SOMEONE has to pay and I know it will be, at the least, the general taxpayer, meaning,,,me,,,. SSP has NO fuel cost, NO waste disposal cost, NO waste transport costs. After adding all that to the cost per KW of NUC power, I expect the differential between NUC., COAL, OIL power vs SSP is not that significant.

It's more psychological cost for nuclear waste than reality. Oil has
peaked, coal is expected to peak in the not so distant future, even
nuclear power will eventually run out of fuel. I don't consider that
significant because I feel it is likely the singularity will happen
long before we run out of nuclear fuel. But if you want to put the
carbon back in the ground, we are talking 50 TW.

> Once an SSP is built, we only have annual maintenance, which ANY OTHER power plant will also have, so that's probably a wash.
>
> Figure out ALL of the differential cost associated with each source, the declining availability of fossil fuel, etc and then compare THAT to SSP costs, which are only for construction.

You can do that with the traditional sources of energy, but it's
really hard with space based solar power because there is a ferment of
new ideas on how to reduce the cost.

It will be interesting to see if someone can beat pop up and push. I
actually hope they can.

Keith