[ExI] Trash to Fuel

[spike at rainier66.com]

-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com> 
Subject: Re: [ExI] Trash to Fuel

On Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 8:41 PM spike jones via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>... Adrian for the S-alpha 2 and alpha 3, there will not be another administration: not enough time left.

>...That's my major concern...

Your best bet for getting more power generation quickly might be investing in Diesel generators which will be carried out to sea, with the microprocessors on board, with internet supplied by StarLink.  For an alternate idear, read on please.


...

>...This is more of a storage scheme.  It's the only one I know about that will cope with seasonal storage.  LA is particularly well endowed with empty oil fields...

This supports the notion of drill baby drill.  All those new Diesel generators will need it.


>>... For S-epsilons, nuclear power is an attractive option which is coming back into style:
>
>>... https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/inside-us-nuclear-energy-lands
> cape-trump-seeks-fast-track-reactor-approvals-2025-05-23/

>...Approval is one thing, construction is another...

Fast-tracking the approval process makes the difference between economic feasibility and not.  But a good alternative is cranking up existing nuclear resources.  Read on:


>...It takes years just to plan a nuclear plant.  How long do you think construction would take?  Keith

About three years, three months, 14 days. If we ever get as good at that as we were 70 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shippingport_Atomic_Power_Station

Construction began 6 Sept 1954

First power produced 18 Dec 1957.

I will freely grant we may not be nearly as good at it now as the old timers were in the 1950s when the first nuclear reactor was built, but after some practice we might be able to get that process moving again.  We wouldn't be nearly as good at building a wooden sailing ship using only the technology, materials and knowledge available 500 years ago as they were, but we could do it.

We might be able to adapt existing technology on the nukes, such as those used on ships.  This is important for what I have in mind.  As you pointed out, there is a great deal of engineering involved in connecting the nukes (or anything else) to the grid, along with some additional strong arguments for not doing that.  A retired military ship could carry the reactor, generate the power, process it to high capacity low voltage and use every bit of it with onboard processors, dumping most of the waste heat directly into the sea perhaps, dumping the heat from the processors into fresh water distilled from power from the reactor.  As I understand it, water cooled microprocessors are making a great comeback.  I see local billboards advertising water-cooled processors.  

There might be existing sea-going reactors available, in retired from military ships.  Then most of the engineering tasks will be conditioning the power from the on-board generator to something the microprocessors can use.  That doesn't sound as hard as building a nuclear plant.  Conclusion: about three years aughta be enough.

spike