151–160 of 185 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their economy is in decline, they need to do something to change the trajectory.
They tried launching satellites two months ago in their first ever rocket mission and it failed. Something pretty routine for Russia, US and China and even heavily sanctioned Iran.
The failure had nothing to do with the UK.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their economy is in decline, they need to do something to change the trajectory.
They tried launching satellites two months ago in their first ever rocket mission and it failed. Something pretty routine for Russia, US and China and even heavily sanctioned Iran.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a funny attempted dunk on US Navy nuclear considering they operate a fleet of nuclear powered submarines and warships.
The benefit of nuclear powered ships/submarines is that they can operate for a very long time without refueling - despite being extremely expensive, that can be a tradeoff the planners are willing to make.
dumb question maybe, but with out an atmosphere, isn't there virtually unlimited solar potential on the moon? why is a nuclear reactor needed?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you sure it wasn’t a navy reactor? The VA says it was operated by the navy. It sounds like the Antarctic design deserves some ridicule. https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/radiation/sources/... Edit: A history of the plant: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2014/ph241/reid2/ It was an army plant, the reactor is listed here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Nuclear_Power_Program
In that case the original commenter was wrong calling it a Navy reactor.
"The Navy shuts down and dismantles a nuclear reactor in Antarctica", "Sometime soon the US Navy will have to find some place to quietly dispose of [...] by-product of 10 years of operating a small military power reactor in Antarctica", "The Navy considered nuclear power particularly suitable for the inland bases, where oil fuel was being flown in over such long distances[...]", "all the electricity for the 1,000 men stationed at the Navy's McMurdo Sound".
McMurdo station[2] "built by the US Navy Seabees".
Army Nuclear Power Program on Wikipedia[3] "PM-3A: 1.75 MW electric, plus heating and desalinization. McMurdo Station, Antarctica. Owned by the Navy."
[1] https://books.google.se/books?id=wwoAAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA32&ots=V...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMurdo_Station
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Nuclear_Power_Program
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US Navy made a nuclear reactor to power an Antarctic base and it was so expensive and failure prone they went back to diesel. https://theconversation.com/remembering-antarcticas-nuclear-...
This is a funny attempted dunk on US Navy nuclear considering they operate a fleet of nuclear powered submarines and warships.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a funny attempted dunk on US Navy nuclear considering they operate a fleet of nuclear powered submarines and warships.
Are you sure it wasn’t a navy reactor? The VA says it was operated by the navy. It sounds like the Antarctic design deserves some ridicule. https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/radiation/sources/... Edit: A history of the plant: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2014/ph241/reid2/ It was an army plant, the reactor is listed here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Nuclear_Power_Program
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US Navy made a nuclear reactor to power an Antarctic base and it was so expensive and failure prone they went back to diesel. https://theconversation.com/remembering-antarcticas-nuclear-...
(1961)
"By the end of the 1970s it became clear that nuclear power would not grow nearly as dramatically as once believed. [...] Eventually, more than 120 reactor orders were ultimately cancelled and the construction of new reactors ground to a halt."
"Of the 253 nuclear power reactors originally ordered in the United States from 1953 to 2008, 48 percent were cancelled, 11 percent were prematurely shut down, 14 percent experienced at least a one-year-or-more outage, and 27 percent are operating without having a year-plus outage. Thus, only about one fourth of those ordered, or about half of those completed, are still operating and have proved relatively reliable"
"As many as 30 new reactors were planned by 2009. As of February 2021, only two new reactors are still under construction, both at Vogtle. The project has announced significant delays and budget overruns. Most of the other new builds and the equally extensive list of upgrades to existing reactors have been shelved"
And the story is similar in the UK. (NB. that's not saying "one outage in a year" it's saying "an outage lasting at least a year".)
Nuclear power has not had the 70 years of intense funding, competition, year on year improvement that computing has had. There's fewer nuclear plants now in the UK and USA than there were in the heyday. Yes civilian nuclear tech and military tech will have improved somewhat, but the idea that we just wait 70 years of not running nuclear reactors in remote hostile places and now suddenly we'll be much better at it doesn't sound very plausible.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cancelled_nuclear_reac...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
NuScale also still plans on a first reactor by 2027 even though are ahead in the small nuclear reactor space
Small nuclear reactors are not proven though and are quite a risky idea since nuclear benefits significantly from scale. If your goal is to produce something that's useful in a short time span, it's better to use proven tech.
The same meteorites that create craters in the moon would fall over a nuclear plant so I assume that would need to be put in the face of the moon that is closer to Earth. Otherwise this would mean having several local areas of the moon contaminated and forbidden forever in a few years. Not wind, animals or water in the moon, so apart of the ejected dust, radioactivity should remain in the same place at least
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(1961)
If you're marking the date implying the technology has improved since then, I'm going to need some convincing. List of cancelled nuclear reators in the US on Wikipedia[1] says " By the end of the 1970s it became clear that nuclear power would not grow nearly as dramatically as once believed. [...] Eventually, more than 120 reactor orders were ultimately cancelled and the construction of new reactors ground to a halt.…
I don't think shipping in diesel is viable for the moon, though, which sort of changes what is cost effective.