The problem of power

[james_davis_nicoll]

On the Moon, I mean.

The US's current plan is emplace a crewed habitat at the lunar south pole [1]. The habitat will need power. Solar power on the Moon has the drawback that the Moon has long nights, two weeks long. The poles offer the option of building a distributed system where at least some of the arrays are in daylight, but this probably involves more infrastructure than an early effort may be able to afford and will involve low sun angles. Nuclear is an obvious solution but atoms scare Americans (Yes, we could work to re-educate the Americans on this but this would undermine sales of Canadian oil to the US and so is clearly counter-productive).

At the same time, the base is going to cost a bundle. Dumping some of the costs on foreign partners may be necessary (The choice may be between a multinational base or no base at all, given that the US is unlikely to deviate from their historical spending levels on space [2]).

Now, which space-faring nations are more comfortable with nuclear power than the US? Let's define "more comfortable" as being willing to get twice as much of their power from atomic energy than the US.

These are the nations which as of last year got 40% of their electricity from atomic reactors:

nation             Fraction of electricity 
                 generated by nuclear power

Belgium                  55%
Bulgaria                 42%
France                   78%     
Lithuania                72%
Slovak Republic          55%
Sweden                   52%
Switzerland              40%
Ukraine                  51%

The only nation on that list with the ability to build launchers is France.

If we eliminate the former Warsaw Pact nations (on the basis that their atomic technology tends to be "nightmarishly poorly designed Soviet legacies"), the list is

nation             Fraction of electricity 
                 generated by nuclear power

Belgium                  55%
France                   78%     
Sweden                   52%
Switzerland              40%

All which are ESA members [Hastily edited because for some reason I thought the Swiss had stayed out of the ESA]. Of those four nations, three have substantial numbers of Francophones.

The way I see it, there's a good chance that the dials on a lunar reactor will have French words on them.

1: 14+ years from now, or as far from us as the Cold War. Continuity of funding is an interesting issue.

2: Which are atypically high for Earth.

Comments

Well...

[seawasp]

... the Japanese could help out in that area. IIRC it's Toshiba that makes a nuclear reactor that's about 70 tons in mass and lasts for 20-30 years. When I get home I could send you the article.

[grimjim.livejournal.com]

As a wrinkle, both China and India are embracing nuclear power technology and have ambitions of going to the moon as well. They're more comfortable with the USA given their intended reactor capacity growth.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf80.htm

India from 2003. No year was estimated, but merely conceptual. Given cooperation, it might be easier for the USA to bring India on board.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2633205.stm

China spoke of eventually putting a base on the moon back in 2002, but again, no timeline was given. China's effectively a rival of the USA, cooperation isn't going to happen unless there's a major shift.
http://english.people.com.cn/200205/20/eng20020520_96061.shtml

[grimjim.livejournal.com]

Also, current cooperation between India and NASA on a lunar orbiter to be launched in perhaps a year and some.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/exploration/mmb/griffin_india.html

[grimjim.livejournal.com]

I missed this until now. India called for national debate this past November on whether they should send a manned lunar (orbital?) mission by 2020.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/space/article/0,,1938510,00.html

[grimjim.livejournal.com]

Oop, manned lunar landing mission.

[aisb23.livejournal.com]

Putting aside issues of technology and engineering and an overall tendency of the US government to avoid using anything not invented here on principle, can you honestly see NASA contracting out lunar station power to France?

As a nation I seriously doubt we are going to overcome our cultural Francophobia in 14 years.

--arthur

In 1979

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

Would you have predicted that within 14 years, Russia and US would cooperate on building a space station?

Re: In 1979

[aisb23.livejournal.com]

But there's a difference, while Americans obviously did not like or trust the Soviet communist government, there was no cultural fear of the Russians as a nation. Once communism collapsed why not cooperate in space.

France on the other hand is an erstwhile ally of the US of 200 years standing but culturally the French are still intensely disliked by the average American. And there are more than a few politicians who would be willing to get voter milieage out of NASA using French reactors.

Re: In 1979

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

The ESA is a participant in Alpha.

Re: In 1979

[aisb23.livejournal.com]

True, but Alpha is after all the International Space Station. Whereas the proposed moonbase is, at this time, supposed to be strictly a US show.

Re: In 1979

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

Alpha is the International Space Station because the choices for the US were that or no US space station presence at all and a lot of pan-handling aerospace engineers.

Anyone remember Fred, the Incredible Shrinking Space Station?

Re: In 1979

[aisb23.livejournal.com]

You're right. And I suspect, for the same reasons (plus the cost), that the moonbase will eventually also become the international moonbase.

But until that happens I still say you can forget about any of the major componenets, like power supply, being bought from France.

Re: In 1979

[matgb]

I heard an interview on the Beeb on the drive home yesterday in which a NASA spokesman said it would be international and over ten countries were already interested/signed up.

Which would be good. Odds of the UK having the guts to commit serious money to it negligible, but there y'go.

Re: In 1979

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

Is Francophobia really deep in American culture, or is it a reaction to the French openly considering Bush dumb, then opposing the invasion of Iraq? I don't recall Francophobia during the Clinton years. I'm not the most plugged into mainstream American culture, so I don't know; I'm just cautioning against taking Bush-era crowd-stirring more seriously than it deserves.

Re: In 1979

[aisb23.livejournal.com]

Granted that under the Bush Administration many politicians of both parties have found it useful to play to American francophobia, it has always existed under the surface of American culture.

After all the phrase "cheese eating surrender monkeys" was coined in a 1995 episode of the Simpsons, during the height of the Clinton Administration and almost immediately found a place in the American lexicon of insults.

Re: In 1979

[rimrunner.livejournal.com]

I wonder why that is? I confess I've never noticed it, but I went to a French immersion school (in the U.S.), I still speak the language pretty well, and I recall being taught a lot about the history and culture.

Never been there, though. Tentative plans are afoot for a trip this coming March.

Re: In 1979

[matgb]

Is Francophobia really deep in American culture

One thing I learnt travelling Europe that really surprised me; Francophobia is common everywhere. I always thought it was just us Brits, which is a traditional rivalry anyway, but it's common across the board.

Re: In 1979

[bricklovinfreak.livejournal.com]

On the other hand, if my culture had invented as many culinary delicacies (baked brie, anyone?), I might be tempted to act as if it were the pinnacle of western civilization too.

Re: In 1979

[seawasp]

It's not "Francophobia" it's... um... "Francomockia".

Re: In 1979

[twoeleven.livejournal.com]

that would have been four years after apollo-soyuz, so as another political stunt, why not?

i've been led to believe¹ that it's not just american frog-bashing, but a deliberate policy on the part of the french gov't to oppose american interests. the french are re-assessing a great deal of their foreign policy after their failure to dominate the continent with germany, so it's possible they'll wise up.

1: by a recent article on france in foreign affairs.

Re: In 1979

[rfmcdpei.livejournal.com]

the french are re-assessing a great deal of their foreign policy after their failure to dominate the continent with germany, so it's possible they'll wise up.

... and agree with the brilliance of American policy-making of late?

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

What's your source for numbers like this?

That's a year old batch of information from

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

http://www.uic.com.au/reactors.htm

Which I discovered while participating in this thread:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.science/msg/391e60b5473cb1ad?hl=en&

[jamesenge.livejournal.com]

One of the reasons to put the station at the Moon's south pole is to make a year-round supply of solar power feasible. The collector doesn't have to be in the same place as the station, and there doesn't have to be just one. Then there's the idea of putting one on a tower. (Some of these possibilities are kicked around at the URLs below.)

http://world.std.com/~reinhold/lunarpolar.html

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002iaf..confE.759H

Many of the things that make nuclear power problematic in a biosphere wouldn't apply on the Moon, but it seems like a mistake to miss out on the chance of all that free power the sun is throwing at the moon continuously. Then there's the question of what they'd use for coolant in the nuclear power plant. You wouldn't want to use water or carbon dioxide, relatively rare and valuable resources on the Moon. There are other possibilities, but they all make solar power look pretty good by comparison.

Plus, I don't think NASA should emphasize the use of nuclear power until the USA has a president who can pronounce "nuclear." So it might be a while.

[raycun.livejournal.com]

How much more likely is this to go ahead than the manned mission to Mars?

[pompe.livejournal.com]

Finland is building more nuclear reactors I think, so I wouldn't be surprised if in 2020 they are also on the 40%+ list. That gives you an alternate culture for nuclear power plant building...

[nexstarman.livejournal.com]

Ukraine builds the Zenit booster, amongst other things at the Yuzhnoye plant in Dnipropetrovsk.

[ariaflame.livejournal.com]

I believe Sweden is cutting their number of nuclear stations down since they had that almost melt-down last year.

[pompe.livejournal.com]

Nah, the reactors closed were part of a 25-year old scheme following a referenda in 1980 (!) and a ten year old political deal between anti-nuclear parties and the soc-dem government at that time. They were closed before the incident, and the remaining ones aren't likely to be closed down. If anything, I'd not consider it impossible for more to be built. Old ones are being upgraded for higher output.

It was hardly an almost-meltdown, btw.

[ariaflame.livejournal.com]

I acknowledge that at no point did the reactor even approach critical. I believe it was just that when the rest of the grid went offline several of the primary safety systems that were meant to keep the coolant flowing did not kick in. It was lucky that the backups to the backups did. There was a possibility that more plants were going to be shut down in the wake of the incident. In fact at least temporarily 4 of the 10 current nuclear power plants did get shut down.

I have no ethical objection to nuclear power on the moon by the way. Though there would have to be some thought given to heat disposal. The waste heat in normal nuclear power stations (about 70% of the energy given off by the nuclear reaction) is usually vented to the surroundings. Some of it can obviously be used by the settlement. But I'm not sure about the rest as it's harder to shed heat in a vacuum.

[pompe.livejournal.com]

Not a very unbiased article... ...it is either incorrect or very wishful (if one do not like nuclear power) about that Sweden plans to phase out nuclear power. Not even the old government seriously planned for it, they sacrificed two reactors for political reasons after having to deal with anti-nuclear parties. In the new government, even the previously anti-nuclear power parties both have left that stance.

The expert Greenpeace refers to isn't supported by the national nuclear power inspection agency, and the incident is just one of seven of that magnitude.

[pompe.livejournal.com]

...and the reactors are up and running again since some weeks.

[wizwom.livejournal.com]

The US already has a nice, portable (c. 10 ton) compact BWR Nuclear power plant design. I would expect it to be updated for low-gravity work, before being sent in pieces.

Really, though, why would we have any trouble with a Nuclear reactor on the moon - it's not like there is anything to destroy or irradiate up there. Heck, we've probably already sent enough plutonium into space to fuel the thing, in radio-thermal generators :-)

[mrteufel.livejournal.com]

Because the active materials may crash somewhere on earth if the mission goes kablooey. And people in general have poor risk evaluation software, but have big influence in a democracy. So I've heard.

[wizwom.livejournal.com]

You also fail to note that US nuclear capacity - and count - is roughly 25% of the world. The only reason we aren't so high as a percentage is because we use so damn much eletricity it's crazy.

Illinois, by the way, gets about 60% or it's electricity from Nuclear power.

[kalimeg.livejournal.com]

Don't Switzerland and Belgium have airlines? Most any aircraft that can lift enough weight could be considered a "delivery system".

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

Would a low sun angle matter much on the moon? As long as the solar arrays are above the effect that can cause dust to be suspended by static forces about a meter above the surface there is no atmosphere to speak of. So in my mental experimenting that would mean there would be no difference between sunlight coming in nearly parallel to the local surface and nearly horizontal to it.

The infrastructure is still a major problem though. Unless a cheap beaming solution can be found so that no infrastructure is needed.