Would anyone have "environmental concerns" if ships ,constructed in orbit, (no nuclear takeoffs or re-entries) were powered by monster nuke reactors to cruise around the solar system?
To have a "no nuclear takeoffs" ship powered by nuclear energy... wait, what are you proposing? that we build ore refineries in space, ship the ore to space as well and refine it there? because that's just not ever going to happen. also, how would the nuclear reactor propel the ship? nuclear submarines generate energy to turn propellers - nuclear spaceships have no such luck.
also, as far as nuclear power plants having a positive EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) it takes an ENORMOUS amount of energy to refine uranium or plutonium to the point where it can be used to fuel a nuclear reactor, and several tonnes of radioactive waste are produced by the reactor every year. this spent fuel cannot be safely disposed of as of now, and burying it in somebody elses back yard is VERY short term solution.
well kind of, what i was saying is that the intergral fast reactor can use the waste as energy, and yes thats the only problem, the cost for the integral fast reactor is enormous. There haas only been two ever built, and they were both in idaho. As far as i know Japan is expirementing with this type of reactor. but thats all i know.
I think a space ship could definitely be powered by some kind of nuclear energy. As I'm sure we all know every action has an equal and opposite reaction (one of Newton's laws of motion) therefor a ship could definitely be powered with a nuclear engine that expells something (in the case of current space ships it would be water or gas) in one direction and moves in the other. I think it really depends on what the dangers are and what's trying to achieve as to if I would approve it or not. I would definitely not have a problem in some situations but would oppose it in others. For example if we're talking some probe being sent off to Jupiter (or where ever) I don't mind about the nuclear risk.
Regarding the intergral fast reactor - the problem with these reactors is that they aren't efficent enough. The main drawcards of nuclear energy is that it is cheap and produces a great deal of energy. The problem is that we don't have the science to adequetly get the benifits of the cheap energy except over a very long time and the supposed dangers have created a great deal of opposition such that much more research goes into other forms of energy these days and it's very hard to see any growth in the nuclear industry as renewable forms of energy become more competable.
it's very hard to see any growth in the nuclear industry as renewable forms of energy become more competable.
It seems the investment world would disagree considering Uranium prices rose about 75% last year on expectations of strong demand coming from India and China.
Sure more money and research is going into renewables these days, particularly wind power but the fact is that China has a huge energy shortage and the government is keen to spend some their trillions on building nuclear power stations.
That's good news for Australian miners whose share prices have been going through the roof.
But investment in nuclear technology remained the same while investment in renewable technology increased by around 500% - I think that's a fairly significant indication of where the future of energy lies.
