|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation
In sci.space.policy Henry Spencer wrote:
For example, I see no mention of the problem of keeping the collection system free of barnacles and other sea life, a problem that's never been fully solved even for ships. Bear in mind that we're talking about doing chemical processing on an enormous scale. To get 30 TW-yr worth of U-235 per year, assuming complete recovery of U-235 from natural uranium, would require complete extraction of the uranium content of about a cubic kilometer of seawater per *minute*. I'm not aware of any chemical process -- not even purification of drinking water -- which has ever been done on anything like that scale. The trick is growing the right kind of sponge as the filtration medium ;-) -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation
Sander Vesik wrote:
After India builds a dozen - and there are good reasons to think they will - it will be much less of a problem. Give it a couple of decades. I seriously doubt this will happen soon. Breeding has very serious economic problems. Reprocessing is expensive, fabricating fuel elements containing Pu or 233U is expensive (due to the high alpha activity, particularly of the latter if it is contaminated with 232U), and ordinary uranium is still comparatively cheap. You *might* see thorium used to extend enriched uranium in once-through fuel cycles, since that avoids reprocessing. Paul |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation
The point is, of course, that even the most expensive viable
alternative power source is orders of magnitude cheaper than designing, testing, building, and maintaining structures in space. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|