You stopped at hydrogen onsite, which means you missed the inefficiency of the CCGT.

68% X 60% (an in your best dreams CCGT efficiency) = 41%

"only takes the tiniest fraction of a percent"

Of only one year's production.

While it's important to know how the process works, it's nothing like a solution.

Ending CO2 emissions will always be more crucial.

Microcenter was doing small business in my area until CompUSA closed.

Since then, it's exploded.

Happily for me, I'm just a few miles from a brick and mortar Microcenter.

That's not when AC took off. Look a couple decades later.

And doubling gets progressively harder as grids grow. Your example was 1/3 of what's needed.

A more recent doubling is 1975 to 2000, which took 25 years. It's 1,800TWh, which will also allow for partial electrification fo the economy.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexpl...

PS. NREL thinks we'll effectively need to double generation (another 4,000TWh) for "high" electrification of the economy (including transport).

Just about anything would be better than the present case(s).

https://www.google.com/search?...

First question is "Why in space?

Ground based solar is dirt cheap and so is storage?

It's only a movie.

it's only a movie.

But ULA (or its successor) really needs reusable capability of they will remain a minor player.

https://spacestatsonline.com/l...

Only seven US launches were not SpaceX.

Waiting for new nuclear plants to be built.

I don't think that's what they had in mind.

"Of course there are used electric vehicles, but they are still on the upper price end."

'22 Kia Niro EV for $8k net of tax credits is nowhere near "the upper price end".

"Those that aren't have small aging batteries with very limited range."

260+ mile range and a battery showing no sign of degradation.

And free DCFC near me, too.

Good deals on decent used EVs abound.

"Alternatively, on refuelling, tankers could have been used which had a small amount of a different type of fuel (gasolene or kerosene) - which could have dissolved in jet fuel, and would have burned but producing significantly less power."

Where have you ever seen fuel trucks switch fuels?

Aside from that, the B787 carries 33,000 gallons of fuel. That's four X 8,000 gallon fuel trucks, full. At 200gpm, quite a length fueling process.

Aviation gasoline is typically dispensed overwing at dramatically lower rates (15gpm or so) from small trucks.

The situation you propose simply doesn't arise in real life.

"And as others here have mentioned, the weights of passengers, crew, and carry ons, are all calculated using an average weight. Which can commonly lead to the plane being "Slightly over-fueled" and will cause it to get to the destination with a good bit more fuel than its supposed to be landing with. Leading to a dump. "

Yet again you look like you're just making shit up.

There's no need to dump fuel at the end of a flight for weight issues.

And no airline would load more fuel than they need for that flight.

Number of reactors is not the issue.

Aging technical knowledge is.

We played 'Shit on Your Neighbor' with a standard deck of cards.

Same game.

'Crazy Eights' is more tame.

You're the authority now?

Hmmm.