Okay I got into an argument with someone the other night over the idea that it's our turn to cause an ecological disaster to benefit our time on the planet to make our lives better and easier and let someone else worry about cleaning up the mess later.

My argument was this, we should be allowed to do whatever we want with nuclear power generation and not care about the waste or byproducts of the power generation so that we can transition off fossil fuels.

Thier counter was we can't be reckless assholes with nuclear power generation and that it's not the same as oil extraction or fossil fuel power plants because of the radioactive stuff.

I thought this was an incredibly short sighted view on the impact of fossil fuel extraction and fossil fuel power generation has had and how destructive it has been.

While I do agree there are some really bad issues with nuclear. Do we create a big waste problem for people after us? sure. Is it probably going to kill people in the future? sure. Could it cause ecological disasters? sure.

I dunno I get that power generation is only a part of the issue with climate but feels like we are just being bullied by old boomer hippies to not use all the things we have available to us.

Perhaps I have in my mind already convinced myself that we are bleeding out and that while nuclear power won't save our leg it could be the tourniquet to push us over the hump into cleaner power generation from wind/solar/water etc.

So shouldn't we be allowed to kick the can down the road like the last generations did?

  • iridaniotter [she/her]
    ·
    1 year ago

    It's not a space elevator! angry-hex They're just very efficient rockets because nuclear explosions have high thrust. Chemical boosters launch the rocket up a bit, and then small nuclear bombs are released to push the rocket. Here is a short CGI demonstration.

    Russia has indeed put mirrors in low Earth orbit. Znamya was a 20 meter diameter satellite that created a 5 kilometer diameter bright spot on the Earth. You could use this technology to get rid of long Arctic nights I guess but you'd have to place the satellite into a higher orbit so it's geostationary. Likewise, a solar shade could be made. If placed in the L1 point between the Earth and Sun, it would allow us to dim the sun slightly. I think it's a better idea than aerosol injection.

    However, neither orbital mirrors nor solar shades are useful for power generation! The idea behind space-based solar is you would send a couple dozen large power plants into geosynchronous orbit and beam power down to Earth. Without an atmosphere, you receive more sunlight. And by being in GEO, the satellites only go dark for a short time once a year. The power would probably be generated with photovoltaics and beamed down using microwaves. A large rectenna on Earth would receive the power, and an exclusion zone would be cordoned off. Still, the extra heat would be pretty minor. Interestingly, the microwave power transmission uses the same frequency as Wi-Fi. Lasers do not penetrate the atmosphere well, although they probably make sense for beaming power from Mercury's orbit to the rest of the solar system.

    There are many reasons why space based solar power does not currently exist and probably won't for some time. It requires a superheavy launch vehicle capable of regular missions and competence in manufacturing in space. It would probably be a trillion dollar investment, and America was more interested in building 1000 nuclear reactors instead (which it also didn't do. lmao). Cost is clearly an issue. These solar power plants make more sense when solar panels are extremely efficient or payload costs are very low. Getting payload costs low is taking a very long time unfortunately, and once solar panels become very efficient you may as well put them on Earth. That's what we are currently doing. Also these plants only last like 20-30 years for some reason before they have to be replaced. Pretty disappointing!

    If you wanted to rain death upon your enemies from orbit, you should instead look at the this militarized proposal for Project Orion. A few of these ships could be put in orbit around Earth and each carry a gigaton of nuclear missiles and a few hundred nuclear shaped charges. The Kennedy admin found this was overkill tho.

    • blottica [they/them]
      ·
      1 year ago

      OOH okay I get it now.

      I love the idea of setting up microwave exclusion zones.

      I wonder if ITER dreams are more viable then microwave solar from geosats.

      • iridaniotter [she/her]
        ·
        1 year ago

        ITER dreams are just as unviable sadly. That is to say, it will eventually be useful but not soon.

        https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2017.0444

        Yet, if these 10 Gen1 fusion plants will be offered to the market, which according to the present roadmap could be in 2070 or so, together they will be good for an average electric power comparable to that of wind in 2000.

        In other words, Gen1 fusion requires an upfront investment of hundreds of billions of Euros, which is coupled to a large technological risk, in order to bring a product to the market that is not competitive in performance or price, at a scale that is meaningless in terms of energy generation

        Chinese fusion research will probably bump the time frame a bit closer to present but don't expect fusion or powersats to provide any meaningful amount of energy this century. They'll be useful in the 22nd century for expanding energy production without making considerable sacrifices to the environment though.