Has US Nuclear Power Reached Its Half-Life?

Nuclear power plant with dusk landscape.

Nuclear power plant after sunset. Dusk landscape with big chimneys.


Getty

This is the fifth of a multi-part series on the state of the main sources of energy in the US and how they compare globally. The series will cover solarwindoil & gas, coal, nuclear, and geothermal (so far) and will answer the same four questions for each.

1.   How big is the U.S. nuclear industry, and what is its growth trajectory?

The US nuclear industry directly employs about 100,000 persons (indirectly about five times as many) and the sector generates about $40-50 billion in economic value per year. The US currently has just under 100 operating nuclear reactors for a total of about 100 GW of generation capacity. Nuclear plants have the highest capacity factors (percentage of time they are producing power over a year) of all power plant types and provide the most carbon-free electricity of any other source in the US, about 20% of annual production.  

The majority of US nuclear power plants were built in the 1970s and 80s and thus the average age of operating reactors is now pushing 40, which is about the length of their initial operating licenses. However, most have received extensions for at least 20 years. There is currently only one nuclear power facility under construction in the US state of Georgia, Plant Vogtle, but it is behind schedule and over budget.

The last nuclear plant to come online in the US was the Watts Bar Unit 2 in 2016, 20 years after the next youngest one. Other plants have had more trouble — after spending $9 billion and completing less then 40% of construction, V.C. Summer Units 2 & 3 have been abandoned, although recently there has been a talk of a new buyer for the units. Currently, more nuclear plants are retiring than coming online in the US.  

2.   Which US states lead in nuclear?

Most nuclear power plants are located in the eastern half of the country. The US state of Illinois has the most nuclear power plants with 11 units totaling about 12,400 MW of capacity. Illinois also produces more electricity from nuclear than any other state. Three states get over half of their power from nuclear; South Carolina at 58%, New Hampshire at 57%, and Illinois at about 53%.  

Most uranium mines in the US are located in the western part of the country. However, as prices have fallen, US uranium production in 2018 was the lowest it has been since the 1950s, with the bulk of our uranium supply now being imported.

3.   What are the biggest challenges faced by the nuclear sector today?

One of the biggest challenges facing the nuclear power sector is the cost (overruns) and size of nuclear power plants. Like coal, nuclear plants have typically been built very large to capture economies of scale and provide cheap energy. However, we are generally not building large power plants of any type anymore. Instead we are focusing on smaller and easier to build and finance power plants, like renewables and natural gas.

The move away from vertically-integrated monopoly electric utilities towards deregulation and competition in electricity markets in the US has also been difficult for nuclear plant construction. Under the old monopoly system, the risk and costs could be spread over many ratepayers, but in deregulated areas the risk is borne by far fewer investors. The size and risk of traditional nuclear power plants has proven to be more than many wish to accept and the only nuclear power plants under construction in the US are in areas that are still regulated monopolies, thus able to rate-base the assets.   

Nuclear power plants, with a few exceptions, have mostly been one-off designs, each requiring extensive engineering analysis to make sure they were safe. If the car you drove were a hand built one-off instead of a mass produced clone of, it would cost millions of dollars to make sure that it was functional and safe for US roads as well. Also, when we stopped building them, we also lost the needed supply chains, only further increasing their costs.

The nuclear industry has responded to both of these issues by pushing for smaller and more standardized designs. These units are one-half to one-third (or smaller) in size and the core is assembled in a controlled factory setting, not on-site like the larger plants we built in the past. NuScale’s Small Modular Reactor is currently working its way through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s permit process, with hopes of deploying a dozen units in Idaho in the mid 2020s.

Although the total amount of nuclear waste generated by power plants is relatively small for all the electricity it has produced, the fight over what to (or not to) do with it is quite large. Yucca Mountain was probably the most politically possible waste storage site, until last week when President Trump reversed his stance on the controversial project. Perhaps the silver lining of the decision is that the site isn’t great for hosting the waste in the first place.

The best location to store the waste, the Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP), cannot currently take commercial nuclear waste. The WIPP site is better than sites like Yucca Mountain because overtime, the WIPP’s salt formation actually engulfs and seals off the waste. The rock only allows water to move about one inch in 270 million years, which would likely work for our purposes, whereas Yucca Mountain is much more permeable.

Also, the US nuclear industry workforce is aging and having trouble finding replacements as competition from other sectors is high. Retiring plants and a shrinking workforce also have national security implications as weapons inspectors also come from this sector.

4.   How does the US nuclear sector compare globally?

The US is the number one producer of electricity (over 800 TWh, 30% of the world’s total) from nuclear power plants, more than twice as much as second-place France. However, France is first in terms of percentage of electricity from nuclear at over 70%, giving them one of the lowest carbon intensities of electricity of large nations.

China currently leads with world in nuclear power plant construction with 11 units, totaling just over 11,000 MW, coming online by 2024, followed by South Korea, UAE, and India with over 5,000 MW each. The US currently has two reactors under construction totaling about 2,500 MW.

While nuclear power is growing in some parts of the world, such investments are seen as quite radioactive in the US. Time will tell if small modular reactors are able to provide a new nuclear renaissance, but it appears that the days of building the large plants are over. Other nuclear technologies, such as thorium and fusion need more R&D before they are ready to make their mark, if they ever do. However, if we do decide that we want to fully decarbonize the grid, firm low-carbon sources of electricity, like nuclear, are helpful in keeping the lights on for a reasonable cost.

” readability=”133.782753565″>

This is the fifth of a multi-part series on the state of the main sources of energy in the US and how they compare globally. The series will cover solarwindoil & gas, coal, nuclear, and geothermal (so far) and will answer the same four questions for each.

1.   How big is the U.S. nuclear industry, and what is its growth trajectory?

The US nuclear industry directly employs about 100,000 persons (indirectly about five times as many) and the sector generates about $40-50 billion in economic value per year. The US currently has just under 100 operating nuclear reactors for a total of about 100 GW of generation capacity. Nuclear plants have the highest capacity factors (percentage of time they are producing power over a year) of all power plant types and provide the most carbon-free electricity of any other source in the US, about 20% of annual production.  

The majority of US nuclear power plants were built in the 1970s and 80s and thus the average age of operating reactors is now pushing 40, which is about the length of their initial operating licenses. However, most have received extensions for at least 20 years. There is currently only one nuclear power facility under construction in the US state of Georgia, Plant Vogtle, but it is behind schedule and over budget.

The last nuclear plant to come online in the US was the Watts Bar Unit 2 in 2016, 20 years after the next youngest one. Other plants have had more trouble — after spending $9 billion and completing less then 40% of construction, V.C. Summer Units 2 & 3 have been abandoned, although recently there has been a talk of a new buyer for the units. Currently, more nuclear plants are retiring than coming online in the US.  

2.   Which US states lead in nuclear?

Most nuclear power plants are located in the eastern half of the country. The US state of Illinois has the most nuclear power plants with 11 units totaling about 12,400 MW of capacity. Illinois also produces more electricity from nuclear than any other state. Three states get over half of their power from nuclear; South Carolina at 58%, New Hampshire at 57%, and Illinois at about 53%.  

Most uranium mines in the US are located in the western part of the country. However, as prices have fallen, US uranium production in 2018 was the lowest it has been since the 1950s, with the bulk of our uranium supply now being imported.

3.   What are the biggest challenges faced by the nuclear sector today?

One of the biggest challenges facing the nuclear power sector is the cost (overruns) and size of nuclear power plants. Like coal, nuclear plants have typically been built very large to capture economies of scale and provide cheap energy. However, we are generally not building large power plants of any type anymore. Instead we are focusing on smaller and easier to build and finance power plants, like renewables and natural gas.

The move away from vertically-integrated monopoly electric utilities towards deregulation and competition in electricity markets in the US has also been difficult for nuclear plant construction. Under the old monopoly system, the risk and costs could be spread over many ratepayers, but in deregulated areas the risk is borne by far fewer investors. The size and risk of traditional nuclear power plants has proven to be more than many wish to accept and the only nuclear power plants under construction in the US are in areas that are still regulated monopolies, thus able to rate-base the assets.   

Nuclear power plants, with a few exceptions, have mostly been one-off designs, each requiring extensive engineering analysis to make sure they were safe. If the car you drove were a hand built one-off instead of a mass produced clone of, it would cost millions of dollars to make sure that it was functional and safe for US roads as well. Also, when we stopped building them, we also lost the needed supply chains, only further increasing their costs.

The nuclear industry has responded to both of these issues by pushing for smaller and more standardized designs. These units are one-half to one-third (or smaller) in size and the core is assembled in a controlled factory setting, not on-site like the larger plants we built in the past. NuScale’s Small Modular Reactor is currently working its way through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s permit process, with hopes of deploying a dozen units in Idaho in the mid 2020s.

Although the total amount of nuclear waste generated by power plants is relatively small for all the electricity it has produced, the fight over what to (or not to) do with it is quite large. Yucca Mountain was probably the most politically possible waste storage site, until last week when President Trump reversed his stance on the controversial project. Perhaps the silver lining of the decision is that the site isn’t great for hosting the waste in the first place.

The best location to store the waste, the Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP), cannot currently take commercial nuclear waste. The WIPP site is better than sites like Yucca Mountain because overtime, the WIPP’s salt formation actually engulfs and seals off the waste. The rock only allows water to move about one inch in 270 million years, which would likely work for our purposes, whereas Yucca Mountain is much more permeable.

Also, the US nuclear industry workforce is aging and having trouble finding replacements as competition from other sectors is high. Retiring plants and a shrinking workforce also have national security implications as weapons inspectors also come from this sector.

4.   How does the US nuclear sector compare globally?

The US is the number one producer of electricity (over 800 TWh, 30% of the world’s total) from nuclear power plants, more than twice as much as second-place France. However, France is first in terms of percentage of electricity from nuclear at over 70%, giving them one of the lowest carbon intensities of electricity of large nations.

China currently leads with world in nuclear power plant construction with 11 units, totaling just over 11,000 MW, coming online by 2024, followed by South Korea, UAE, and India with over 5,000 MW each. The US currently has two reactors under construction totaling about 2,500 MW.

While nuclear power is growing in some parts of the world, such investments are seen as quite radioactive in the US. Time will tell if small modular reactors are able to provide a new nuclear renaissance, but it appears that the days of building the large plants are over. Other nuclear technologies, such as thorium and fusion need more R&D before they are ready to make their mark, if they ever do. However, if we do decide that we want to fully decarbonize the grid, firm low-carbon sources of electricity, like nuclear, are helpful in keeping the lights on for a reasonable cost.

Russian Scientists Reveal Plans for Fusion-Fission Reactor It runs almost entirely on thorium, not uranium.

Russian Scientists Reveal Plans for Fusion-Fission Reactor It runs almost entirely on thorium, not uranium.


Skip to comments.

Russian Scientists Reveal Plans for Fusion-Fission Reactor It runs almost entirely on thorium, not uranium.

popularmechanics.com ^

| Jan 30, 2020
| Caroline Delbert

Posted on 01/31/2020 10:16:31 AM PST by cann

Russian scientists have published a concept for a new kind of nuclear reactor. It’s a hybrid reactor, meaning it includes both fusion and fission, and it runs almost exclusively on thorium instead of more volatile uranium. In computer simulations, the research team found its novel design of an “energy-generating blanket” could still produce high power with a relatively small footprint and not much radioactive waste.

There’s a lot to like about this design, including how it offers interesting middle-ground solutions in terms of fuel, reactor configuration, and safety. Thorium is one of the most abundant elements of its kind—more abundant than tin, which is so common and accessible that it’s one of the classical elements of alchemy. Uranium isn’t the rarest element in nature, but little of it is “available” in a common or affordable sense. If uranium were an asset, it would be a long-term CD with a penalty for convenient withdrawal.

In the hybrid thorium setup, thorium-plutonium pellets power a high-temperature, gas-cooled reactor. The paper doesn’t specify the gas, but existing coolants include carbon dioxide and helium. Gas-cooled reactors have always offered a way for reactors to make power using un-enriched, regular old uranium, making it more affordable and accessible to more countries. A hybrid reactor running on thorium could fill the same space.

A traditional nuclear reactor runs in critical state, but the hybrid thorium reactor instead operates in near-critical state. Instead of having a chain of neutrons produced by critical reaction, neutrons continue to pour in from a separate source. A magnetic field inside the reactor holds the powerful cloud of ionized gaseous deuterium plasma, which is the fusion part of the fusion-fission reactor. From there, neutrons spill out into a part the scientists call an “energy-generating blanket.” It’s this blanket where subcritical fission takes place, using neutrons from inside the plasma-filled magnetic tube.

The reactor itself is relatively small, with the plasma chamber measuring 12 meters in length. And by combining a fusion reaction with a fission one, the reactor maximizes efficiency. Compared with developing technology like the tokamak, this design could be much more down to earth, with less ramp-up time to performance and less volatility once it’s engaged.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: buffoonery; coldfusion; dumbass; foilhat; thorium


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last



1
posted on
01/31/2020 10:16:32 AM PST
by
cann


To: cann

Fire it up!

I’ll watch from over here……………………


2
posted on
01/31/2020 10:18:06 AM PST
by
Red Badger
(Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain………. ..)


To: cann

I remember the fake fission story from Popular Mechanics back in the 80’s.



To: Red Badger

Yeah, hope they’re careful where they point that thing.


4
posted on
01/31/2020 10:21:44 AM PST
by
DannyTN


To: outpostinmass2

“I remember the fake fission story from Popular Mechanics back in the 80’s.”

Yep, I’ll believe it when I have one running my home.


5
posted on
01/31/2020 10:22:43 AM PST
by
brownsfan
(Behold, the power of government cheese.)


To: cann

Thorium reactors will be here someday. Lots of good things about them. The waste is bad for a few hundred years instead of 10,000. And Thorium is way easier to find. The only reason we haven’t used them yet is that they are very poor for building weapons grade fissile material.

But these are gonna be a big deal some day.


6
posted on
01/31/2020 10:24:12 AM PST
by
DesertRhino
(Dog is man’s best friend, and moslems hate dogs. Add that up. ….)


To: cann

Thorium reactors will be here someday. Lots of good things about them. The waste is bad for a few hundred years instead of 10,000. And Thorium is way easier to find. The only reason we haven’t used them yet is that they are very poor for building weapons grade fissile material.

But these are gonna be a big deal some day.


7
posted on
01/31/2020 10:24:17 AM PST
by
DesertRhino
(Dog is man’s best friend, and moslems hate dogs. Add that up. ….)


To: cann

Yep….. that’s what we need.

All those years ago Lyndon Larouche was right to promote a fusion reactor and the fact the Russian gnomes were hard at work on the task.


8
posted on
01/31/2020 10:25:58 AM PST
by
bert
( (KE. NP. N.C. +12) Progressives are existential American enemies)


To: outpostinmass2

9
posted on
01/31/2020 10:26:59 AM PST
by
deadrock


To: cann

“… and not much radioactive waste

Is that measured before or after it explodes all over an unsuspecting population nearby?

10
posted on
01/31/2020 10:27:27 AM PST
by
chrisser


To: brownsfan

Heck….that ain’t nuthin’….I’m still waiting to collect on my ONE INCH square land that I own in the Klondike, complements of Quaker Oats, thank you very much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klondike_Big_Inch_Land_Promotion

MY hero…

And no, it didn’t send him my dirty underwear as a devoted fan, although it may look like it. >:(

11
posted on
01/31/2020 10:31:30 AM PST
by
Daffynition
(*I’m living the dream.* & :))


To: Daffynition

There was Blair Of The Mounties.

Decent OTR.


12
posted on
01/31/2020 10:35:48 AM PST
by
wally_bert
(Your methods were a little incomplete, you too for that matter.)


To: outpostinmass2

“I remember the fake fission story from Popular Mechanics back in the 80’s.”

Fake fission?



To: DesertRhino

“. The only reason we haven’t used them yet is that they are very poor for building weapons grade fissile material.”

Wrong.



To: cann

This author doesn’t understand what the word “volatile” means.



To: wally_bert

I’m glad to learn of that show….unless it had a dog in it…. like *Yukon King*, I might not have been interested. Hey, it was the 50s….and my parents wouldn’t let me have a dog. 🙁


16
posted on
01/31/2020 10:43:05 AM PST
by
Daffynition
(*I’m living the dream.* & :))


To: cann

I knew this article was full of crap as soon as they started talking fusion.



To: cann

I’m pretty positive this will never work.


18
posted on
01/31/2020 10:54:28 AM PST
by
Zathras


To: TexasGator

Sorry, cold fusion story, I think it was 1989.



To: chrisser

Thorium is the #2 contributor to natural background radiation.

It used to be used in those Coleman lantern glass mantles.



Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last



Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.


FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson

Plenary Session: Speeding Up the Action to Important Facilities Breaches: Are Enterprises Equipped?

Thank you for registering with ISMG

Complete your profile and stay up to date

.

TPU researchers discover how to improve safety of nuclear power plants

Researchers at Tomsk Polytechnic University found a method to increase fuel lifetime by 75%. According to the research team, it will significantly increase safety and reduce the operating cost of nuclear power plants in hard-to-reach areas. The study results were published in Nuclear Engineering and Design.

Previously, a team of researchers from the Russian Federal Nuclear Center – All-Russian Research Institute of Technical Physics, Tomsk Polytechnic University, and the Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics proposed the concept of a thorium hybrid reactor, where high-temperature plasma confined in a long magnetic trap is used to obtain additional neutrons. Unlike operating reactors, the proposed thorium hybrid reactor has moderate power, relatively small size, high operational safety, and low level of radioactive waste.

One of the biggest challenges for the development of remote areas, such as the Far North, is a stable energy supply. According to Tomsk researchers, often the only solution is to use low-power nuclear plants.

However, the reactor refueling, one of the most hazardous and time-consuming procedures in nuclear energy, is a significant problem. “Reduction of refuel frequency will drastically improve operational safety. Furthermore, it reduces transportation costs of fresh fuel or a nuclear power plant to a transshipment site.” Vladimir Nesterov, associate professor of the TPU Division for Nuclear-Fuel Cycle, says.

The scientists carried out theoretical calculations proving the possibility of creating a thorium-based nuclear fuel cycle. Thorium is four times as abundant as uranium. Additionally, thorium fuel has a significantly higher regeneration intensity of fissile isotopes necessary for energy production.

“The achieved results can draw the attention of the scientific community to the potential of the thorium nuclear fuel cycle. We demonstrated that the implementation of this cycle in a low-power reactor installation results in increasing of fuel lifetime by 75%,” the expert says.

In the future, researchers want to continue experiments in the verified software and carry out thermophysical calculations of low-power reactors operating in the thorium-uranium fuel cycle with subsequent implementation of the developed calculation methods in the educational process.

###

Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.

Researchers establish a principle of a hybrid thorium reactor

Scientists  develop  a  principle  of  a  hybrid  thorium  reactor
Fuel block and a cross-section of the thorium reactor core. Credit: Tomsk Polytechnic University

Russian scientists have proposed a idea of a thorium hybrid reactor in that acquires extra neutrons utilizing high-temperature plasma held in a long magnetic trap. This job was applied in close partnership between Tomsk Polytechnic University, All-Russian Scientific Research Study Institute Of Technical Physics (VNIITF), and Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics of SB RAS. The proposed thorium hybrid reactor is distinguished from today’s nuclear reactors by moderate power, fairly compact size, high operational security, and a low level of radioactive waste.

“At the preliminary phase, we get relatively cold utilizing special plasma weapons. We retain the quantity by deuterium gas injection. The injected neutral beams with particle energy of 100 keV into this plasma generate the high-energy deuterium and tritium ions and maintain the needed temperature level. Colliding with each other, deuterium and tritium ions are integrated into a helium nucleus so high-energy neutrons are launched. These neutrons can freely pass through the walls of the vacuum chamber, where the plasma is held by a magnetic field, and going into the location with nuclear fuel. After slowing down down, they support the fission of heavy nuclei, which serves as the main source of energy launched in the hybrid , ” states professor Andrei Arzhannikov, a chief researcher of Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics of SB RAS.

The main advantage of a hybrid nuclear combination reactor is the simultaneous use of the fission response of heavy nuclei and synthesis of light ones. It lessens the disadvantages of using these nuclear responses independently.

Also, this type of reactor has lower requirements for plasma quality and makes it possible to change up to 95 percent of fissile uranium with thorium, which ensures the impossibility of an uncontrollable nuclear response. Moreover, hybrid reactors are reasonably compact, have high power, and produce a small amount of radioactive waste.

“The hybrid reactor consists of 2 aspects. The main part is the energy-generating blanket as the active zone of a nuclear reactor. It distributes nuclear fissile material that is part of nuclear fuel. Due to this, a fission chain response of heavy nuclei is possible. The 2nd part is placed inside the blanket to produce neutrons that fall into the energy-generating blanket. The atomic combination responses are produced inside this part filled with deterium plasma, launching the neutrons. A feature of the hybrid reactor is that the operating blanket, where the fission responses take location, is in the subcritical state (near-critical). Operating at a consistent power level, a standard reactor is in a , supported by a control and security system, ” says Igor Shamanin, the head of the TPU D ivision of Natural Sciences and the TPU I sotope Analysis and Innovation Laboratory.

According to Dr. Shamanin, the blanket was based on a principle of a multi-purpose high-temperature gas-cooled low-power reactor sustained by thorium. This principle was developed at Tomsk Polytechnic University and now it is commonly represented in numerous scientific publications.

Currently, the job individuals are considering the alternative to establish an speculative stand based on the TPU reactor, which will consist of a thorium fuel assembly and a source.

The results of current studies on this task are published in the journal Plasma and Fusion Research.


Demonstration of alpha particle confinement ability in helical combination plasmas


More info:
Andrey V. Arzhannikov et al. Fuel Advancement in Hybrid Reactor Based on Thorium Subcritical Assembly with Open Trap as Blend Neutron Source (Computer Simulations),
Plasma and Combination Research (2019).
DOI: 10.1585/pfr.14.2402101

Citation:
Scientists develop a concept of a hybrid thorium reactor (2020, January 29)
retrieved 18 February 2020
from https://phys. org/news/2020-01-scientists-concept-hybrid-thorium-reactor. html

This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any reasonable dealing for the purpose of personal study or research study, no
part might be recreated without the written permission. The material is provided for details functions only.

.

Scientists State They’ve Found a Way to Make Oxygen From Moon Dust

Scientists State Theyve Found a Way to Make Oxygen From Moon Dust


Skip to comments.

Scientists Say Theyve Found a Method to Make Oxygen From Moon Dust

Futuris, ^

| 01/17/2020
| Viktor Tangermann

Posted on 01/18/2020 9:14:41 PM PST by BenLurkin

Their prototype system blends simulated lunar regolith — they have yet to shot it with the real thing — with molten calcium chloride salt. The scientists then heat the mixture up to 950 degrees Celsius and run a current through it, releasing oxygen — a procedure called molten salt electrolysis.

The electrolysis procedure has another useful byproduct: metal alloys. The researchers are likewise examining applications to make best usage of these alloys on the Moon.

The team is looking to design a “pilot plant” that might be ran on the Moon by the mid-2020s.

(Excerpt) Read more at futurism. com


TOPICS: Science
KEYWORDS: calciumchloride; elonmusk; falcon9; falconheavy; moon; moondust; oxygen; regolith; spacex; themoon


Navigation: use the links listed below to view more remarks.
first 1-2021-4041 next last


1
posted on
01/18/2020 9:14:41 PM PST
by
BenLurkin


To: BenLurkin

One of these days, Alice . . .


2
posted on
01/18/2020 9:17:16 PM PST
by
Jeff Chandler
(BLACK LIVES MAGA)


To: BenLurkin

… heat the mix up to 950 degrees Celsius

Now that’s a technique. I guess they are going to do that by burning all the Moon Coal with the oxygen they make in this procedure.


To: BenLurkin

Cool. All we need is a thorium reactor up there and there will be a consistent source of power to make air and metals. That would go a long method to making a sustainable outpost on the moon. Or mars for that matter.


4
posted on
01/18/2020 9:19:22 PM PST
by
Redcitizen
(Tagline not secure.)


To: ProtectOurFreedom

5
posted on
01/18/2020 9:20:51 PM PST
by
BenLurkin
(The above is not a declaration of fact. It is either opinion or satire. Or both.)


To: BenLurkin

” … … and in associated news, geoscientists have announced that they have effectively transformed Nancy Pelosi’s regolith into a substance identified, ‘old fart dust’. Nevertheless, it is hard to contain, and and can contaminate the environment years after it’s half-life has ended.”


6
posted on
01/18/2020 9:25:36 PM PST
by
Viking2002
(Epstein and Ukraine Airlines Flight PS752 didn’t kill themselves. Yeah, I went there.)


To: BenLurkin

Windmills? Sheesh, everybody knows that they will overspeed in the Moon Winds and tear themselves to bits.

Nice attempt, however.



To: BenLurkin

Draper ultimately discovers a rock face cavern for shelter. He figures out how to get the rest of what he requires to make it through: he burns some coal-like rocks for warmth and finds that heating them likewise launches oxygen. This allows him to refill his air tanks with a hand pump and to move around in the thin Martian environment.

Robinson Crusoe on Mars


To: Redcitizen

“and there will be a consistent source of power to make air and metals.”

The just metal your going to get with calcium salts is calcium. Considering that it reacts explosively with H2O, it’s not an ideal structure material.


9
posted on
01/18/2020 9:31:30 PM PST
by
babygene
(hMake America Great Again)


To: Redcitizen

Until science figures out how to make people (and the microorganisms that live inside people) much more radiation tolerant, there’s no nest on the moon. More sees perhaps … hopefully … however no long term residents.


10
posted on
01/18/2020 9:31:51 PM PST
by
jz638


To: BenLurkin


To: babygene

Well, it’s not like it rains every day up there.



To: yesthatjallen

Saw that film at the theater when it was first realeased. It all seemed practical to me at the time.


13
posted on
01/18/2020 9:41:11 PM PST
by
BenLurkin
(The above is not a declaration of truth. It is either viewpoint or satire. Or both.)


To: jz638

Lava tubes. Like the Selenites.


14
posted on
01/18/2020 9:42:00 PM PST
by
BenLurkin
(The above is not a statement of truth. It is either viewpoint or satire. Or both.)


To: ProtectOurFreedom

Windmills? Sheesh,

impossible, peta will protest the killing of lunar wildlife simply like they have here.

… oh, wait …

15
posted on
01/18/2020 9:42:16 PM PST
by
867V309
(Lock Her Up)


To: BenLurkin

Lots of hydrogen in the solar wind captured on the Moon.
Oxygen has a natural ‘collector’ there.

Water is a really helpful compound.


16
posted on
01/18/2020 9:47:07 PM PST
by
mrsmith
(Dumb sluts (M / F) : Lifeline of the Media, Foundation of the Democrat/RINO Celebration!)


To: jz638

17
posted on
01/18/2020 9:48:30 PM PST
by
mrsmith
(Dumb sluts (M / F) : Lifeblood of the Media, Foundation of the Democrat/RINO Party!)


To: mrsmith

18
posted on
01/18/2020 10:25:51 PM PST
by
Fungi


To: Fungi

I’m sure an idiot could beverage a cool glass of water and reject its’ existence LOL!

Idiots have their own … whatever.


19
posted on
01/18/2020 10:36:15 PM PST
by
mrsmith
(Dumb sluts (M / F) : Lifeline of the Media, Foundation of the Democrat/RINO Party!)


To: babygene

Calcium does not respond explosively with water.


20
posted on
01/18/2020 10:41:09 PM PST
by
Crazieman
(Civil war is near certain now.)


Navigation: usage the links below to view more remarks.
first 1-2021-4041 next last



Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Totally free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not always represent the viewpoint of Free Republic or its
management. All products published herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for reasonable usage of copyrighted works.


FreeRepublic. com is powered by software copyright 2000 -2008 John Robinson

.