Oh, I am always willing to admit that I am wrong. Normally, if I am arguing a position it is because I saw something and am still trying to push my memory. Doesn't work. But, if somebody shows real facts from real sources and not just coming up with BS (look at some of the BS that a pro-chinese AstroTurfer posts; total BS), hey, I am not going to fight those.
that is currently.
Once more AE goes in and the price / kwh jumps up, French Citizens will quickly back building more.
The real problem is that French gov. supports using nukes for baseload, while far left extremists continue to push for replacing with AE, which is impossible to do.
I'm very aware that they going to close some of their oldest plants. That has actually been planned, though I think some 20 plants of the early designs, will be shutdown.
Yes, they are adding AE but that are also adding more new nuclear plants. Between the two, they will shutdown their fossil fuel plants.
First off, the per capitia emissions does not matter. It is a totally worthless form of normalization WRT any form of pollution esp CO2.
Secondly, America's emissions continues downwards while Germany's, like China's, continues upwards. You used old numbers.
Finally, the best form of normalization on this would be emissions per $ GDP (real, not PPP). The reason is that emissions are not tied to you and me. They are tied to businesses and gov. For example, did YOU choose to build more coal plants and cut back on nukes? Nope. That was your gov. Likewise, did YOU choose to lie about diesel emissions from German-made cars? Nope. That was a decision made by your executives, along with your gov (and yes, your gov DID know that they were cheating). Fastest way to get a nation to drop their CO2 is for them to cut their exports (as in other nations do not import from them). This is why it is a much saner form of normalization. Like yours, this is still 3 years old, but, it is a much saner normalization
exactly.
In fact, ALL of the cleanest nations have some major form of a clean base-load power. For sweden, it is nuclear and hydro. For Costa Rica, it is geothermal, and hydro. For nations like Indonesia, geo-thermal will allow them to become clean.
BUT for large nations, that will not work.
Take China. Many ppl rave about their building wind and solar. Of course, in America, our wind and solar has an efficiency above 30%, with new tall towers going up around 60%. The reason is that we build these in smart places. In China, their average in wind/solar is less than 18%. The reason is that they have a lot more clouds/pollution and do not have the winds that America has. Oddly for the massive amount of wind/solar that CHina has over America, America produces more wind based electricity and about the same in solar (IIRC, that is).
France has the ONLY right idea for large nations. Nuclear, combined with AE, so that fossil fuels are gone.
Viva la France.
Nope. Horrible wasteful. Far better for us to use it all up so that only about 10-20% remains and it is safe in 200 years. In fact, those can simply be buried in yucca mountain or even slowly released in a molten volcano and allowed to be diluted.
The funny thing is that many continue to rip on America and then compare to Germany and China.
Yet, both Germany and China have high % of their electricity from coal. Germany is 45% and rising, and CHina's is around 80% (they refuse to allow external monitoring and their numbers change constantly).
In fact, Germany has 45% coal, and 10% nat gas/mineral oil.
Germany's electricity is not only more CO2 / KWh than is America's, but is much dirtier since the majority of theirs comes from Coal and NOT nat gas.
America's electricity is about 28% coal, and 30% nat gas. BUT, America's coal continues to drop while Germany continues to build new coal plants. To be fair though, Germany's new coal is mostly about replacing old coal and nukes. By replacing their old coal plants, they are cleaning up the air, while getting more electricty.
And while America is slowly building up renewables compared to Germany and CHina, our electricity remains much cleaner due to heavy use of nat gas as well as nuclear.
In terms of Germany, they need a base-load system and solar/wind, even with storage, will NOT do the trick. So, if not nuclear, then what? Geo-thermal? Hydro? Nope to both. China continues to build out coal, but they are also building up nuclear, along with hydro, both of which are base-load powers.
Germany has some HARD choices to make.
Nope. The Nuke has to provide electricity, which would be done via steam. This would be efficient on the moon or mars, because you can dump heat easily. BUT, in space, all you can do is radiate it away. Problem is, the weight of the reactor, the massive amounts of radiator, the ION engines, etc, needed would be VERY heavy. Basically, it is more efficient to run chemicals than to run that combination.
Interestingly, with some of our most efficient solar panels, it IS possible to provide the electricity needed to run a small number of VASIMRs to push cargo within the mars orbit of the sun. It would be VERY SLOW, but low costs and efficient.
OTOH, the NTR will likely be as cheap (assuming re-usability), and would be much faster than any Chemical engine.
Relax, BWXT will be working on multiple designs. I would be surprised if one of them is NOT thorium since it is easier to come by than Uranium/Plutonium.
Until we build cheap SHLV, such as SpaceX's BFR/BFS or Blue Origin's New Armstrong, it makes little sense to send supplies to Mars. What does makes sense is to send robotics to the moon via FH, to explore both lave tubes and craters. From there, we can establish where to build a base, so that we can fly more FHs, followed by BFRs and NAs.
If you read just the title, you will see that it IS NTR, and not VASIMR or other ion engine approach. VASIMR is just fine for taking cargo to mars or venus, but not ppl.
The ability to generate high amounts of electricity / kg is still a LONG WAYS OFF. Hopefully one day we will have fusion that uses electrons directly.
And NTR is more than double the efficiency of chemical, so quite a bit better. In addition, Rei mentions the new idea of adding LOX initially to burn the super heated LH2 to provide a big kick. That actually makes sense.
Finally, the reactor can be turned down during the flight and still used as an electrical generator.
Why? It is not like the exhaust is radioactive.
However, a very small shielding, combined with a truss arrangement (lined with H2 tanks, radiators) would be superior.
You heard for less than a month about possible ice age and then after that, all of the scientists were saying that it would likely be a warming.
IOW, those that make 'ice age' as though it was a HUGE deal, either was not alive or simply is a total idiot.
And yes, I do remember since I am 58 and it occurred before 10 years ago.
They hysteria about it lasted less than a month, and then other scientists had come forward saying that it was the opposite.
IOW, it was not during the 60s and 70s, but about 1 month in the 70s and then it disappeared, and instead, scientists were saying we do not know, but it looks more like a major warming.
The lies have been yours over and over. No doubt u are claiming that ur nation would never do such BS or would never spy here ( and yet, I got one of your spies kicked out of America ).
I have some ass troll running around lying about china's actions while trying to knock me down. I am guessing that he is from China, since he does not give a shit about anything else.
Basically, China and Russia have been using the internet and traitors like Trump against America. Even now, Trump CORRECTLY pointed out how bad China was WRT to economics, and then he turned after his family got what they wanted.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I am always willing to admit that I am wrong. Normally, if I am arguing a position it is because I saw something and am still trying to push my memory. Doesn't work. But, if somebody shows real facts from real sources and not just coming up with BS (look at some of the BS that a pro-chinese AstroTurfer posts; total BS), hey, I am not going to fight those.
that is currently.
Once more AE goes in and the price / kwh jumps up, French Citizens will quickly back building more.
The real problem is that French gov. supports using nukes for baseload, while far left extremists continue to push for replacing with AE, which is impossible to do.
I'm very aware that they going to close some of their oldest plants. That has actually been planned, though I think some 20 plants of the early designs, will be shutdown. Yes, they are adding AE but that are also adding more new nuclear plants. Between the two, they will shutdown their fossil fuel plants.
U are correct. Sorry. I was looking at wiki and I thought it said that Germany continues to import more than it exports. Mea Culpa.
BTW, here is some nice mapping of that so that you get a REAL idea of what is up.
First off, the per capitia emissions does not matter. It is a totally worthless form of normalization WRT any form of pollution esp CO2.
Secondly, America's emissions continues downwards while Germany's, like China's, continues upwards. You used old numbers.
Finally, the best form of normalization on this would be emissions per $ GDP (real, not PPP). The reason is that emissions are not tied to you and me. They are tied to businesses and gov. For example, did YOU choose to build more coal plants and cut back on nukes? Nope. That was your gov. Likewise, did YOU choose to lie about diesel emissions from German-made cars? Nope. That was a decision made by your executives, along with your gov (and yes, your gov DID know that they were cheating). Fastest way to get a nation to drop their CO2 is for them to cut their exports (as in other nations do not import from them). This is why it is a much saner form of normalization.
Like yours, this is still 3 years old, but, it is a much saner normalization
exactly.
In fact, ALL of the cleanest nations have some major form of a clean base-load power.
For sweden, it is nuclear and hydro. For Costa Rica, it is geothermal, and hydro. For nations like Indonesia, geo-thermal will allow them to become clean.
BUT for large nations, that will not work.
Take China. Many ppl rave about their building wind and solar. Of course, in America, our wind and solar has an efficiency above 30%, with new tall towers going up around 60%. The reason is that we build these in smart places. In China, their average in wind/solar is less than 18%. The reason is that they have a lot more clouds/pollution and do not have the winds that America has. Oddly for the massive amount of wind/solar that CHina has over America, America produces more wind based electricity and about the same in solar (IIRC, that is).
France has the ONLY right idea for large nations. Nuclear, combined with AE, so that fossil fuels are gone.
Viva la France.
LOL.
Germany imports a great deal more electricity from Poland and France, then they export.
So no, that is total BS.
yeah, whatever.
Nope. Horrible wasteful. Far better for us to use it all up so that only about 10-20% remains and it is safe in 200 years. In fact, those can simply be buried in yucca mountain or even slowly released in a molten volcano and allowed to be diluted.
The funny thing is that many continue to rip on America and then compare to Germany and China.
Yet, both Germany and China have high % of their electricity from coal. Germany is 45% and rising, and CHina's is around 80% (they refuse to allow external monitoring and their numbers change constantly). In fact, Germany has 45% coal, and 10% nat gas/mineral oil.
Germany's electricity is not only more CO2 / KWh than is America's, but is much dirtier since the majority of theirs comes from Coal and NOT nat gas.
America's electricity is about 28% coal, and 30% nat gas. BUT, America's coal continues to drop while Germany continues to build new coal plants. To be fair though, Germany's new coal is mostly about replacing old coal and nukes. By replacing their old coal plants, they are cleaning up the air, while getting more electricty.
And while America is slowly building up renewables compared to Germany and CHina, our electricity remains much cleaner due to heavy use of nat gas as well as nuclear.
In terms of Germany, they need a base-load system and solar/wind, even with storage, will NOT do the trick. So, if not nuclear, then what? Geo-thermal? Hydro? Nope to both.
China continues to build out coal, but they are also building up nuclear, along with hydro, both of which are base-load powers. Germany has some HARD choices to make.
Nope. The Nuke has to provide electricity, which would be done via steam. This would be efficient on the moon or mars, because you can dump heat easily. BUT, in space, all you can do is radiate it away. Problem is, the weight of the reactor, the massive amounts of radiator, the ION engines, etc, needed would be VERY heavy. Basically, it is more efficient to run chemicals than to run that combination.
Interestingly, with some of our most efficient solar panels, it IS possible to provide the electricity needed to run a small number of VASIMRs to push cargo within the mars orbit of the sun. It would be VERY SLOW, but low costs and efficient.
OTOH, the NTR will likely be as cheap (assuming re-usability), and would be much faster than any Chemical engine.
Relax, BWXT will be working on multiple designs. I would be surprised if one of them is NOT thorium since it is easier to come by than Uranium/Plutonium.
Until we build cheap SHLV, such as SpaceX's BFR/BFS or Blue Origin's New Armstrong, it makes little sense to send supplies to Mars. What does makes sense is to send robotics to the moon via FH, to explore both lave tubes and craters. From there, we can establish where to build a base, so that we can fly more FHs, followed by BFRs and NAs.
If you read just the title, you will see that it IS NTR, and not VASIMR or other ion engine approach. VASIMR is just fine for taking cargo to mars or venus, but not ppl. The ability to generate high amounts of electricity / kg is still a LONG WAYS OFF. Hopefully one day we will have fusion that uses electrons directly.
And NTR is more than double the efficiency of chemical, so quite a bit better. In addition, Rei mentions the new idea of adding LOX initially to burn the super heated LH2 to provide a big kick. That actually makes sense.
Finally, the reactor can be turned down during the flight and still used as an electrical generator.
Why? It is not like the exhaust is radioactive.
However, a very small shielding, combined with a truss arrangement (lined with H2 tanks, radiators) would be superior.
huh,
That is clever adding the LOX to that, and then discard the tanks. Nice way to get up to speed quickly.
Actually, an NTR CAN work for a first stage, and would be even better as a second stage.
The problem is that NIMBYs will have a fit.
And when it comes to acid, plenty of metals that can deal with it.
Finally, NTRs would be perfect for the moon. Just use H2 for the fuel and O2 for breathing.
Perfect.
Seriously, the 50K H1B should be replaced by adding some more VISAs, say 10K / year and geared ONLY for jobs in demand.
You heard for less than a month about possible ice age and then after that, all of the scientists were saying that it would likely be a warming.
IOW, those that make 'ice age' as though it was a HUGE deal, either was not alive or simply is a total idiot.
And yes, I do remember since I am 58 and it occurred before 10 years ago.
They hysteria about it lasted less than a month, and then other scientists had come forward saying that it was the opposite.
IOW, it was not during the 60s and 70s, but about 1 month in the 70s and then it disappeared, and instead, scientists were saying we do not know, but it looks more like a major warming.
As a schoolkid in the 60s and 70s I remember every science class telling us if we didn't fix our ways there would be another ice age.
It is obvious that you either did not pay attention and likely are just a business or liberal arts idiot, OR you have no memory of any kind.
The lies have been yours over and over. No doubt u are claiming that ur nation would never do such BS or would never spy here ( and yet, I got one of your spies kicked out of America ).
I have some ass troll running around lying about china's actions while trying to knock me down. I am guessing that he is from China, since he does not give a shit about anything else.
Basically, China and Russia have been using the internet and traitors like Trump against America. Even now, Trump CORRECTLY pointed out how bad China was WRT to economics, and then he turned after his family got what they wanted.
Paris Accord is a joke and will solve nothing until all nations quite building new coal plants.