Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:What a waste (Score 1) 270

The new B&W mPower will be a fraction of the price of a new GE 1GW system, in terms of $/MW. The reason is that GE's reactors are built in place like a home. B&W's is being built in a factory and shipped to the site. Basically, from the time of approval, an mPower will take only 3-4 years to build up. And to add new reactors will take less than 2 years. These are small doing only 180 MWe, so, it would take about 6 of these to equal a new GE/Westinghouse reactor. In addition, these use air cooling as opposed to expensive water cooling. Add to that a passive safety, and these are pretty good.

Comment He is about 10 years late to the game (Score 2) 233

This is exactly how Joules Energy is doing this, only with blue-green algae (cyanobacteria). The advantage of using cyanobacteria is that it uses the sun and our sewage for feed stock. OTOH, by doing e-coli, they will have to feed it corn and other energy expensive feedstock.

My guess is that since Joules Energy made the announcement 2 years ago about what they had worked towards for the previous 8 years, that South Korea is simply playing catch up.

Comment Re:Natural Gas Price Volatility (Score 1) 270

Actually, we have an easy way to lower the price, which is to encourage coal industry to do coal=>methane. It can be done for $6.5/MMBTU (including mining, transportation, and conversion), and to be honest, it makes sense to do this. But 6.5 is above the price of nukes. As such, we are still much better off NOT killing these nukes, but replacing these with cheaper thorium reactors, which can burn up the nuke waste.

Comment What a waste (Score 1) 270

What is really needed is to have NEW reactors available to replace the old ones. To replace nuclear power with Nat. Gas or wind/solar is a horrible mistake. By putting in place a number of small reactors (300 MW size) that were built in factories and shipped to on-site, this can lower the price of nuke energy. But, what is also needed are reactors that can burn up the on-site stored 'waste'. It is long past time for CONgress to quit playing their fucking games and focus on solving problems: illegals, and energy are but 2 big ones.

Comment Re:How was this historic? (Score 2) 44

First off, China does not go to the ISS (thankfully).
Secondly, for us to have bases in space and elsewhere, we need MULTIPLE launch systems. That way, when one has issues, then things can still go forward. Right now, the ISS is 100% dependent on Russia. We need for there to be 3 or more multiple human launchers and ideally at least 2 cargo launch systems in the same area. By that, I mean that ESA and Russia service cargo via the Russian ports. America has 2 services on the western berth (and now 3).

BTW, when SpaceX builds their 150-200 tonnes launch system over the next couple of years, we really need to have another complement it. Sadly, the SLS is NOT a good choice.

Comment Re:How was this historic? (Score 1) 44

Just because it has been done before doesn't make this routine. More importantly, that there are now two companies with proven track records of delivering bulk cargo to the ISS, it implies that a disaster or major engineering flaw on one spacecraft won't stop the other spacecraft type from continuing to fly.

Oh, I am a big fan of redundancy, esp. for space systems. NASA under Nixon, reagan, and W proved that we need multiple launch systems to be in space constantly. However, when it comes to delivering cargo to the ISS, there is Russia, and ESA that deliver on on Russian ports, and SpaceX, and Japan that use berthing of the west. IOW, we already had redundancy in terms of cargo to the ISS. What is REALLY needed right now, is human flight to be restored.

Now you pointed out 2 of the options which is CST-100 and actually, Dragon Rider. But there is a 3rd which is SNC's Dream Chaser.
And when one of these fly first with a human cargo, they will be historic since it will be the first private system to LEO. The second that follows it will NOT be historic since, like COTS, CCXDEV is designed to put multiple American human launcher systems into space. The 2'nd and 3rd will simply be following.

Oh, I am fine with it being posted. Just noting the fact that it was NOT historic, and that OSC really did not do that much. In fact, they did far less building then even Boeing and L-Mart do on their systems.

Comment How was this historic? (Score 5, Interesting) 44

This is really not that historic. They were not first private company to their. That was SpaceX. They did not build the unit that docked there. That was thale. The did not build the rocket. That was Russia and other companies of America.

OSC simply assembled other ppl's work and called it theirs, while claiming enough money to pay for it all. IOW, OSC really did not put skin into the game.

So again, nothing historic here.

Comment Re:You would trust insurance companies on this? (Score 5, Insightful) 385

amazing.
Scientists proclaim that climage change is occurring. Scientists are doing this for making money.
American DOD studies it and proclaims that it is occuring and they need to be ready. Obviously, it is about making money.
Insurance companies procmain that it is occuring and show evidence of it. Obviously, it is about making money.

Then the oil companies and the GOP claim that it is not happening, and you claim that it is not about making money.

Really? I guess that explains why we have creationism being pushed into schools.

Slashdot Top Deals

Only through hard work and perseverance can one truly suffer.

Working...