Into breeder reactors. You eat it and turn it into energy.Nuclear waste? Where does it go?
After spending billions, the U.S. could not come up with anything they thought was safe. I read the reports. We're talking about storage over thousands of years. The primary concerns were radioactive material seeping into ground water and earthquakes. In Iraq, low-level radiation from depleted uranium rounds has caused significant contamination.Into breeder reactors. You eat it and turn it into energy.
Alternatively, you just package it up and bury it in the middle of one of those vast wind turbine farms. All the nuclear waste fission power is likely to produce *ever* will easily fit safely within one such farm.
View: https://x.com/achyutha/status/1804456314640175498
After spending billions, the U.S. could not come up with anything they thought was safe.
Yes, we have. We have not come up with anything that satisfies the activists who don't like nukes *at* *all.* Breeder reactors will simply eat up a lot of the waste, and a lot more of it could be simply vitrified and dropped down a hole. And if we wanted to, we could grind it all up into powder, mix that powder at a 100:1 ratio with inert rock dust, melt that into 10-gram marbles, place each marble into a block of concrete half a meter on a side, and make them by the tens of millions and build *vast* engineering projects with them. I'm sure that Israel, for one, wouldn't mind a few extra hundred square kilometers of land area built out into the Med, or a giant southern border wall, or a vast aqueduct system to bring desalinated Pacific ocean water into the interior of the country to top up the Ogalala aquifer.
The opposition to nuclear comes from emotion and willful ignorance and a refusal to innovate, rather than any real technical problems. The vast *cost* of nuclear comes not from the technology but the regulations.
Simple solution: spray the waste onto the Greenpeace vessel, then encase it in concrete and sink it to the bottom of the ocean. That's as serious a proposal as your likely apocryphal tale is a serious argument against nuclear power.Oh brother. I watched a Green Peace boat maneuvering very close to a large ship carrying nuclear waste. They had put the waste in 55 gallon drums and were dropping them in the ocean. Not a "safe" disposal method. The Green Peace boat was determined to get in their way.
Simple solution: spray the waste onto the Greenpeace vessel, then encase it in concrete and sink it to the bottom of the ocean. That's as serious a proposal as your likely apocryphal tale is a serious argument against nuclear power.
If you have an actual argument to make, feel free. Otherwise, I'm out, having demonstrated that anti-nuclear activism comes from emotion, not reason.Look, Mister Defensive. Nuclear power is the be all and end all. So contact whoever is in charge and offer your brilliant plan. The nuclear industry will thank you.
If you have an actual argument to make, feel free. Otherwise, I'm out, having demonstrated that anti-nuclear activism comes from emotion, not reason.
Well, Europe find the "solution" - they paid Russia to store theur nuclear waste. And then they found that Rosatom perfected the breeder reactor technology, and the "waste" Europeans paid to dispose of, in Russia became nucear fuel that worth billions)Nuclear waste? Where does it go? What do you do with it? The U.S. spent $2 billion on studies with no final decision.
The problem of beaming energy from orbit to ground is still not solved satisfactory( That's why I consider space-based mirror arrays, illuminating land-based PV fields, to be optimal immediate solution. You could increase luminosity over solar panels several times, using only simple light beams.Put PV fields over places that are dark: oceans. Or, better, in space.
Insufficient effort has been expended on developing the tech.The problem of beaming energy from orbit to ground is still not solved satisfactory
( That's why I consider space-based mirror arrays, illuminating land-based PV fields, to be optimal immediate solution.
More likely too many unforeseen problems. And concerns about gigawatt-scale masers firing from space at surface... and what if for some reason their beam got diverted, at, say, New York?Insufficient effort has been expended on developing the tech.
I agree, but it's much simpler than microwave-based transmission, and could be made using existing technology.With a mirror, you need to either actively aim the whole thing, or have a complex series of reflectors. And even then you can't collimate sunlight into a tight beam due to basic physics.
A good argument. Must admit, I didn't consider that!Additionally: the ground-based microwave receiver has the approximate optical density of chickenwire due to the long wavelengths of microwaves, so you can locate it over water, forests, farms, whatever with minimal effect on what's below. But PV arrays block virtually all light from getting through, so that territory is now ruined for anything else.
More likely too many unforeseen problems. And concerns about gigawatt-scale masers firing from space at surface... and what if for some reason their beam got diverted, at, say, New York?
I agree, but it's much simpler than microwave-based transmission, and could be made using existing technology.
Re-read about Znamya project, please. I'm not talking about GEO mirrors.It doesn't matter if you can build it if it doesn't actually work. Again: how do you beam a wide-spectrum white light beam from GEO to the surface of the Earth that originates from a 1/2-degree-wide source down to a fixed target only a few miles wide? If you know of a way to turn sunlight into a tightly collimated white-light laser beam with anything remotely resembling efficiency using mirrors, the world would shower you with riches because that's currently against the laws of physics.
You mean the one that *flashed* by? Converting a few hundred square meters of captured sunlight on the mirror into several square *kilometers* of light on the ground? Such things might, with luck, be turned into something that can provide some measurable increase in illumination over a vast area, but they would not make stable bright spots on the ground useful for solar power generation.Re-read about Znamya project, please. I'm not talking about GEO mirrors.
As usual, you did not read enough. Your data is for "Znamya-1", which was merely a concept demonstrator. "Znamya-2" (the one, that failed to deploy due to programming mistake) was supposed to be controllable, capable of holding a spot over a single place. Seriously, from the guy who wrote about spacecrafts and space projects I expect to knew a bit more about such things.You mean the one that *flashed* by? Converting a few hundred square meters of captured sunlight on the mirror into several square *kilometers* of light on the ground? Such things might, with luck, be turned into something that can provide some measurable increase in illumination over a vast area, but they would not make stable bright spots on the ground useful for solar power generation.
Minor space projects based on flawed notions tend to not hold my interest. Even if they got it to hold on target for a few minutes - the best that could be hoped for given how fast these things cross the sky - it'd *still* be an incredibly low-power-density beam. The spacecraft would be *constant* states of re-orienting themselves - holding themselves on the target, then trying to quickly reposition for the next one - annoying the hell out of people along their path getting flashed randomly in the night. And for what? A short duration probably flickering light barely bright enough to see by? And at low orbital altitudes, the mirrors would spend a good deal of time:As usual, you did not read enough. Your data is for "Znamya-1", which was merely a concept demonstrator. "Znamya-2" (the one, that failed to deploy due to programming mistake) was supposed to be controllable, capable of holding a spot over a single place. Seriously, from the guy who wrote about spacecrafts and space projects I expect to knew a bit more about such things.
Translation: "it's not American and I absolutely refuse to knew anything about it"Minor space projects based on flawed notions tend to not hold my interest.
Yep, my bad.And "as usual," you seemed to get the designations wrong. Znamya-2 was the experiment; Znamya 2.5 was the one that snagged. Znamya 3 was to be a scaled up version.
Translation: "it's not American and I absolutely refuse to knew anything about it"
Jul 6, 2024
In this video we will look at modern Gyrocopters and how electrification is helping to elevate their performance.
We look at:
1. Modified Rotor blades
2. EDF
3.Powered Rotors
4.Regeneration
5.Lift from Wings
Minor space projects based on flawed notions tend to not hold my interest. Even if they got it to hold on target for a few minutes - the best that could be hoped for given how fast these things cross the sky - it'd *still* be an incredibly low-power-density beam. The spacecraft would be *constant* states of re-orienting themselves - holding themselves on the target, then trying to quickly reposition for the next one - annoying the hell out of people along their path getting flashed randomly in the night. And for what? A short duration probably flickering light barely bright enough to see by? And at low orbital altitudes, the mirrors would spend a good deal of time:
1: Actually within the shadow of the Earth
2: Crossing the daylit side of Earth, being useless.
Very expensive, providing minimal utility for a short span, spending the bulk of their time being unproductive. This is not the description of a program - or a person - deserving much attention.
And "as usual," you seemed to get the designations wrong. Znamya-2 was the experiment; Znamya 2.5 was the one that snagged. Znamya 3 was to be a scaled up version.
I was generally hyper skeptical about space mirrors, but Kraftt Ehricke can make anything sound cool.
Got it. And a number of his other Lunetta/Soletta papers.The whole paper is pay walled unfortunately but you might be able to find it on... Other sources, preprint sites, etc.
Solving the difficult control problems and all the other problems with the idea of course are in usual Kraft Ehricke style left as exercises for the reader, but boy that guy thinks big!
Ehricke was like von Braun: a hell of a pitch man.
Got it. And a number of his other Lunetta/Soletta papers.
He was *great* at thinking big. Not so good at getting the details (including the politics) right, unfortunately. According to him we should have manned bases on Pluto by now.
Not that he's wrong that would *shouldn't,* but man was he way off in what would actually happen.
No, it wasn't.The space station was a German wartime design
but Kraftt Ehricke can make anything sound cool. The whole paper is pay walled unfortunately but you might be able to find it on... Other sources, preprint sites, etc.
Space Light by Kraftt Ehricke (the man himself!!!) is always a fun read.
Ehricke was like von Braun: a hell of a pitch man.
Space Light by Kraftt Ehricke (the man himself!!!) is always a fun read. The traditional approach to space mirror constellations is just to proliferate like mad - both your mirrors, and ground receivers. If you have ten thousand mirrors, each ten hectares, a hundred flashing by every ten minutes ain't as bad, with even, diffuse lighting even.
And if you have a bunch of sites on the ground, at all latitudes, that need light for say one or two hours after sundown to correspond to peak energy needs, then a sun synchronous terminator hugging orbit for your constellation ain't bad. Obviously it ain't going to do it all, absentee ratio blah blah blah, and is nowhere as good as traditional SPS but not uninteresting.
One or two mirrors are pretty sucky, you want at least a few square kilometers worth in GEO if you want to do basic things like nighttime illumination (unless you just want to enhance night vision devices over the Ho Chi Minh Trail as was proposed for Vietnam).
Solving the difficult control problems and all the other problems with the idea of course are in usual Kraft Ehricke style left as exercises for the reader, but boy that guy thinks big!
Paper should be right up your alley, Scott. They have diagrams of an STS deployed beam machine based reflector.
The station was illustrated post-war. The first evidence of any such thing is post-war interviews with WvB... and WvB *alone.* The man was quick on his feet and dreamed shit up more or less on the spur of the moment to blow sunshine up the US Army's ass in order to secure a position with them. Space stations, A-11 rockets, A-12 rockets, etc. When you look at the immediately post-war "designs" for such things they are all incredibly awful... almost as if he hadn't given them any real thought. Because he hadn't.