XPost: sci.space.policy, sci.physics   
   From: fjmccall@gmail.com   
      
   jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:   
      
   >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 you set an unreasonable criterion to start with.  Unfortunately for   
   you, submarines have been 'connected to the grid' to provide power   
   during power plant failures.  It's essentially 'shore power' but run   
   backwards.   
      
   >>>> > 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.   
   >   
      
   Of course you did.  That's why we're talking about a reactor that size   
   in the first place.  Nobody else thinks it's necessary.   
      
   >   
   >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.   
   >   
      
   Wrong.  It doesn't require anything close to 50 MW.  As I pointed out   
   elsewhere, producing a ton of steel from ore takes about 5 MW-hrs of   
   power, all told.  Unless I need to produce 10 tons of steel per hour I   
   don't need a reactor anywhere near as big as what you keep proposing.   
      
      
   --   
   "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar   
    territory."   
                                         --G. Behn   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)