3 ms·

I'm starting to get the feeling that all terrestrial energy generation should ultimately come from sunlight, and our nuclear reactors should be out in space, an

I'm starting to get the feeling that all terrestrial energy generation should ultimately come from sunlight, and our nuclear reactors should be out in space, and on other celestial bodies, especially those further away from the sun. But in order to do that, we need to further develop nuclear reactor technology by building utility-scale nuclear energy plants here on Earth--not because we need our energy to be nuclear, but because we need our nuclear energy to be reliable and efficient. The cynical part of me is thinking that the US can apparently build nuclear plants anywhere on Earth except in the US.

sandwall 8y ago
Less restrictive regulations; NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) policies :)
nickik 8y ago
Why? There is literally no reason to have nuclear reactors in space. Building a modern reactor that is not based on 60 year old technology would make more sense, but regulation have made that impossible and the government itself has 0 interest in doing so.
- logfromblammo 8y ago
  Radiothermal generators already power satellites and space probes. Nuclear fuel has the highest energy density of any fuel currently available to us. Wind and water power is unavailable when there is no atmosphere or weather cycle. Solar power requires more surface area as you get further from the sun. Solar panels and storage batteries have mass, too. Combustion fuels have mass, and the rocket equation hates superfluous mass in objects launched to orbit. A good engine for low-gravity propulsion would be a nuclear reactor that heats propellant to a very high temperature and then releases it at high velocity. That's not the sort of engine that could get you to orbit, but it does provide a lot of delta-V once you are up there. Propellant can be found outside of gravity wells, and a refuel mission carrying nuclear fuel is cheap to launch on a dollar per joule basis. Nuclear waste does not endanger the environment if there is no environment to endanger. No one is likely to stumble across it accidentally. Criticality accidents would only kill the crew, if there even is a crew. Habitats that are buried deeply to protect against radiation and to contain a bio-friendly environment may not be able to rely on solar alone. They would likely need a large mass of batteries to make it through storms and nights, and an RTG or a full-blown reactor might provide more reliable power for less mass.
  - nickik 8y ago
    Ah. Sure for propulsion I love nuclear reactor and NTR. But not to get it back to earth. haha.

sandwall 8y ago

Less restrictive regulations; NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) policies :)

nickik 8y ago

Why? There is literally no reason to have nuclear reactors in space. Building a modern reactor that is not based on 60 year old technology would make more sense, but regulation have made that impossible and the government itself has 0 interest in doing so.

logfromblammo 8y ago
Radiothermal generators already power satellites and space probes. Nuclear fuel has the highest energy density of any fuel currently available to us. Wind and water power is unavailable when there is no atmosphere or weather cycle. Solar power requires more surface area as you get further from the sun. Solar panels and storage batteries have mass, too. Combustion fuels have mass, and the rocket equation hates superfluous mass in objects launched to orbit. A good engine for low-gravity propulsion would be a nuclear reactor that heats propellant to a very high temperature and then releases it at high velocity. That's not the sort of engine that could get you to orbit, but it does provide a lot of delta-V once you are up there. Propellant can be found outside of gravity wells, and a refuel mission carrying nuclear fuel is cheap to launch on a dollar per joule basis. Nuclear waste does not endanger the environment if there is no environment to endanger. No one is likely to stumble across it accidentally. Criticality accidents would only kill the crew, if there even is a crew. Habitats that are buried deeply to protect against radiation and to contain a bio-friendly environment may not be able to rely on solar alone. They would likely need a large mass of batteries to make it through storms and nights, and an RTG or a full-blown reactor might provide more reliable power for less mass.
- nickik 8y ago
  Ah. Sure for propulsion I love nuclear reactor and NTR. But not to get it back to earth. haha.