Comments on: A radical alternative to nuclear reactors

By: GamerFromJump

GamerFromJump — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 16:07:32 +0000

One method = one failure point. A good energy policy, like a good investment strategy, is a varied basket. Use them both.

By: Bjorn's Blog | Blog | ‘Extensive if not complete’ meltdown of three Fukushima reactors just 16 hours after the earthquake: coverup?

Wed, 25 May 2011 08:00:59 +0000

[...] reactors from a source close to high-level officials in the U.S. Defense Dept. on March 14, and I stated here on March 15: “In one extreme Pentagon scenario, catastrophic meltdowns and megadeaths in [...]

By: buzzards

buzzards — Wed, 04 May 2011 12:28:03 +0000

Costs are coming down for SSP significantly. If you look at the launch costs for Falcon Heavy launch costs are falling dramatically If you look at the various techniques planned for SSP they all have high infrastructure costs. What is really needed is to utilize thin film techniques with printer technology in space. One might launch a cargo of liquid methane, convert into a gas and using gas deposition create graphene solar cells or a graphene subtrate to cover with a thin film solar cell of another substance in long, continuous sheets. Once the infrastructure is in place, flying refills will bring the costs down significantly. To test this, an xprize could be offered for the first team to create a minature printer using scalable componentry that produces long thin film solar cells at sufficient power ratios. Flying preassembled cells and deploying in space is too labor intensive and heavy.

By: LibertyPrime

LibertyPrime — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 19:00:52 +0000

The public misperception fear mongering that nuclear power is inherently unsafe is naive and false. The Fukushima reactors withstood the quakes well; it was the tsunami that damaged the diesel powered generators that cool the reactor. Despite ignoring the mass deaths from the actual disaster, nations that pursue nuclear power will benefit from modern safety designs and self-contained nuclear batteries. The tech tree for SSP must mature before it can become cost effective in a free market, such as reduced launch cost technologies and efficient solar collection and transmission. For SSP to become a reality, it must be profitable, because relying on government funding anytime soon is delusional.

By: maxresonance

maxresonance — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 18:59:54 +0000

Re forecasts: for a future fantasy novel written some 30+ years ago that envisioned active SSP use as well as extreme weather conditions (new glacial period) try “Zero Weather,” available used from $2.70 and up on Amazon. Okay, so it’s a weird hippie novel, but that could be a plus for some…
http://www.amazon.com/Zero-Weather-Ramon-Sender-Morningstar/dp/0937770000/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1300474278&sr=1-1

By: smurillo100

smurillo100 — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 17:08:01 +0000

This is so exciting, I had never even heard about SSP. This reminded me about the “space elevator” idea, using nano-tubes. Would it be possible to combine the two ideas and have wired SSP with a much higher efficiency?

By: Zoan Caine

Zoan Caine — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 17:52:54 +0000

An earthly nuclear plant is far more reachable (thus vulnerable) to a military attack than a SSP plant, even without using rocket tech…
In my opinion, SSP is the only way to go.

By: Imperator03

Imperator03 — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 19:31:09 +0000

Simple fix. Let oil go up to 100+. Heck it looks like it’s going there anyway. This will spur massive research into next gen technology as people try to find ways to push energy generating costs down. The last thing any government should do is get involved. Can you imagine what the first cars would have been, had they been designed by a government committee? Oh wait, we have one of those, the Volt. Chevy hasn’t been pushing that one much, have they? Nor doe the executives at Chevy think the Volt will become commercially viable. Contrast that with Henry Ford and the Model T.

By: Spud100

Spud100 — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 17:04:12 +0000

Political Futurist, George Friedman, of Strafor, in his book; The Next 100 Years, has forecast the use of solar power sats, to power, and re-invigorate the US. For myself, I respectfully disagree, not because I hate SPS, but because I see two issues preventing it. One is cost of making the SPS, and the second is military vulnerability-easy to shoot out of orbit with 1960′s rocket tech.