XPost: sci.space.policy, sci.physics
In sci.physics Vaughn Simon wrote:
> On 10/14/2016 7:28 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics Vaughn Simon wrote:
>>> > On 10/14/2016 5:14 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> >> The smallest nuclear power plant in the US generates 479 MW, so a 50 MW
>>>> >> reactor would be tiny by comparison.
>>> > Errr, do you mean the smallest commercial utility nuclear power plant?
>>> > Because there are many nuclear reactors in the USA that are smaller than
>>> > 479 MW.
>> Yes.
>>
>> I'm talking about things in production.
>
> So naval nuclear power plants are not "in production"?
Navy reactors are for the most part built for each ship it is to
power, but no, that is not what I meant.
Production as in connected to the grid.
>>> > So really? You are saying that that a 50 MW nuke plant is "tiny" in
>>> > comparison to a utility-sized power plant, so it must therefore be
>>> > doable for us to build a MERE 50 MW plant on Mars? Really?
>> I never said it could be done, would be afforadble, practical, or
>> anything like that.
>>
>> What I am saying is a 50 MW plant is tiny in comparison to what runs
>> the real world.
>>
>>> > Well hell, the ISS is "tiny" in comparison to NASA's massive Vehicle
>>> > Assembly Building, so constructing the ISS should have been a fucking
>>> > snap for NASA.
>
>> Irrelevant.
>
> Precisely! Your comparison between a utility-sized nuclear power plant
> and your proposed 50 MW plant is similarly irrelevant.
I proposed nothing.
What I am saying is that turning dirt into structural steel or
structural aluminum takes a lot of energy which you are NOT going
to get from wind or solar on Mars.
--
Jim Pennino
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
