[ExI] Nukes was less expensive energy

Sun Sep 18 23:45:09 UTC 2011

Keith Henson wrote:

"But without selling power to earth, I don't see space being 
industrialized this side of the singularity at all."

I see automated and remote mining and manufacturing
ahead of human presence as the way to get space 
industrialization done on the cheap.  A few high value
products and materials would be worth sending back 
to Earth.

Dennis May

From: Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com>
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 5:18 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Nukes was less expensive energy

On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 5:00 AM,  Dennis May <dennislmay at yahoo.com> wrote:

snip (mostly agree)

> The sheer energy density of nuclear power means
> it dwarfs all other options.

Discounting the cost of fuel to zero, the relevant number is kg/kW.
The pressure vessel alone for a 1 GW plant is about 2000 tonnes.  Fuel
assemblies, steam generators, pumps, turbines and generators run this
up by a factor of 5-10.  That's 10-20 kg/kW and I may be on the low
side.  You may be able to put a better number on it as well as an
estimate for the cents per kWh they will produce.

? Much of the time
> delay for implementation of nuclear power
> plants can be reduced by going to standardized
> designs.

So far that doesn't seem to have happened.  Fukushima didn't help either.

At $5,000 to $8,000 per kw, the power cost is going to range up to 10
cents per kWh based on capital cost alone.

> As far as big solar projects go - I see them as
> being of interest in industrializing space
> not moving space nuclear energy [sun] to
> the Earth when there are plenty of Earth
> based nuclear energy possibilities with much
> less capital risk.

Perhaps you are right.  But without selling power to earth, I don't
see space being industrialized this side of the singularity at all.

There is an awful front end cost to get the cost of transport down,
but if it can get down to where it is no more than a third of the cost
per kW of capacity, then we are talking power cost based on $1600/kW
or less.

And construction times measured in weeks.

If we can't get SBSP cost down in this range, then you really should
start thinking about what it would take to build and fuel 1000 new
reactors a year.

This might interest some people here:

http://spacefellowship.com/news/art26681/nasa-announces-two-game-changing-space-technology-projects.html

There is serious work starting on beamed energy propulsion.

Keith

> ?
> Dennis May
>
> From: Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com>
> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2011 5:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Nukes was less expensive energy
>
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 8:06 PM,? Dennis May <dennislmay at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> The projections of what will happen economically
>> without massive nuclear energy development is
>> not pretty.? Even if that effort began immediately
>> it is not clear it could happen fast enough.
>
> The length of time it takes to build nuclear plants is a big reason to
> look at other approaches.? I am not at all sure even what is the best
> approach or mix of approaches to get really inexpensive energy.? I can
> state that it need to be down in the 1-2 cents per kWh.? That's $800
> to $1600 per kW based on return of capital in ten years and it needs
> to scale to 15-20 TW over 20 years.
>
> That's building around a 1000 1 GW reactors per year.
>
> I have not looked into this in detail.? I have looked into SBSP and
> StratoSolar and they look possible.? Perhaps you know about reactors?
>
> It seems better to me at this stage to state what is needed in broad
> terms rather than being too specific about how to accomplish the task.
>
> Keith
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20110917/2e667a82/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 21:53:52 -0700 (PDT)
> From: john clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change.
> Message-ID:
>        <1316321632.46095.YahooMailClassic at web82906.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> ?BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
> "Well, the southern USA states have had their worst wildfire season
> ever and Texas is still burning. I guess the message will get through eventually. But I suppose that's just a little local fluctuation in temperature?"
> So let's see, if there's a very bad blizzard in the winter, as there was just a few months ago, it would be foolish to think that had anything to do with long term global climate change; but if there is a heat wave in the summer that proves the entire planet is getting hotter and is facing disaster.
>
> "If a US billionaire wanted to produce a new product his first thought would be to get quotes from Chinese factories."
>
> Correct, and they would do that because it would be cheaper to operate a plant in China than in the USA.
>
> "That's why the US people are facing poverty and living off food stamps."
>
> So if workers in the USA are unwilling to work for a wage because they think it's too small even though they are "facing poverty" but Chinese workers are willing to do so then it follows logically that the Chinese workers must be even poorer than the poverty facing workers in the USA.
>
> "The rich are China's friends."
>
> Right, or to put it another way, the rich are friends of the poorest of the poor.
>
> ? John K Clark
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ?
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20110917/fe97d18e/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 22:45:27 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Dennis May <dennislmay at yahoo.com>
> To: "extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Subject: [ExI] Quantum Computing Discussion Groups?
> Message-ID:
>        <1316324727.90345.YahooMailNeo at web112102.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Anyone have a recommendation for a group to listen in on
> discussions of quantum computing?? Most I have been
> able to locate are the same as dead.
> ?
> Dennis May
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20110917/07674165/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 09:36:49 +0100
> From: BillK <pharos at gmail.com>
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] A Nobel laureate and climate change
> Message-ID:
>        <CAL_armivejytEu63v+YgfFqwq+e+++_aRwE01dceoKOanBZjsg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> 2011/9/17 kellycoinguy wrote:
>> Bill.. If the rich want to produce spatulas or vacuums.. Then yes they go to
>> China to get them built... But if they want true innovation, rather that
>> rote duplication of stuff that has already been done, then there is still no
>> place to beat the USA.
>>
>> A big part of successful innovation is venture capital. China's government
>> funds some research.. But it is a drop in the bucket compared to the US
>> private investment in true innovation.
>>
>
>
> Your first comment agrees that production facilities are cheaper and
> more productive in China. So more US innovation won't create much
> employment in the US.
>
> The financial press has noted that some (many?) US companies are not
> bringing new products to market because in the current economic
> depression consumer demand has collapsed. The depressed market doesn't
> want innovation. The US needs jobs first, then people will have money
> to spend.
>
> There is much concern that US innovation is falling behind other
> countries. Even Obama has commented on this. A recent report is here:
> <http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2011/08_innovation_greenstone_looney.aspx>
>
> The pace of US innovation has slowed since the 1970s. Mainly because
> government funded research has halved. Basic research is funded by
> government. (Barcodes, fiber optics, MRI machines and GPS technology
> are just a few of the innovations that came out of government-funded
> basic research).
> Venture capital funds the development of new trinkets for individual
> firms to manufacture in China and sell in the US and make a profit.
> And they need consumers willing and able to buy their trinkets.
>
>
> BillK
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
> End of extropy-chat Digest, Vol 96, Issue 26
> ********************************************
>

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20110918/7ba78b3a/attachment.html>