The problem of power
Dec. 6th, 2006 02:26 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
james_davis_nicollOn 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:
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
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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: In 1979
Date: 2006-12-06 06:38 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2006-12-06 06:39 pm (UTC)Re: In 1979
Date: 2006-12-06 06:44 pm (UTC)Re: In 1979
Date: 2006-12-06 06:56 pm (UTC)Anyone remember Fred, the Incredible Shrinking Space Station?
Re: In 1979
Date: 2006-12-06 06:58 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2006-12-06 08:15 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2006-12-06 06:43 pm (UTC)Re: In 1979
Date: 2006-12-06 06:53 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2006-12-06 08:15 pm (UTC)Never been there, though. Tentative plans are afoot for a trip this coming March.
Re: In 1979
Date: 2006-12-06 08:19 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2006-12-07 08:14 am (UTC)Re: In 1979
Date: 2006-12-06 08:45 pm (UTC)