Comments by "Archangel17" (@MDP1702) on "Sabine Hossenfelder" channel.

@mytech6779 Well, it depends. Maintenance still cost money and especially with older nuclear plants this can quickly increase. Also after some time you need to upgrade things, which again cna be costly. At that point they might make the decision to shut it down instead of doing this extra investment. Also the ones shutdown in the US in the last 20 years all were between 40-50 years old (except San Onofre). At the time of construction a lifetime of 40-50 was actually the envisioned lifetime usually. so it isn't exactly that in the US nuclear powerplants have been shut down en masse due to the anti-nuclear sentiment, just reaching end of life with expensive upgrades being needed to extend the lifetime. And if you meant it failed before/during construction, then there might be your answer, they might have had to just cut their losses due to problems (financial or otherwise. And yes, investment insurance is high, but that isn't abnormal with something as expensive upfront as this.
3
@mikicerise6250 That project had a lot of problems, but there have been other succesfull concentrated solar plants which uses salt as a storage device.
2
@JayVal90 Actually it is the opposite. There are reasons to believe a lot of LCOE numbers brought out by nuclear energy companies might be significantly lower than for example Lazards estimated LCOE exactly because they underestimate decommisiong costs. In France the fund for the decommisioning of the the plants also is woefully underfunded, only a 1/3rd or less of what it should be. And overall renewables (wind and solar at least) are fairly easy to decomission in comparison. Maybe with the exception of the wind turbine blades (which is being worked on). Also subsidies aren't calculated in, LCOE cost of a large project (like offshore wind turbines) are used to calculate the necessary subsidies (though currently they'll overall be dissapearing if not happened already). Batteries are indeed still expensives, though it is expected that grid storage (through many different options), will be cost-competitive in around 10 years. Currently full 100% renewable grid, thus including storage, is around twice as expensive as a 100% nuclear grid. However as time passes this gap will decrease, considering both the costs of grid storage and renewables are coming down and nuclear costs or not, the opposite for now.
2
I do think it can be usefull for scientific research to have boots on the ground. I'd still mostly use robots to do things outside, but then you have people that could maintain the robots and do immediate research inside. Another option would be having them remain in orbit and control robots from there, though if you already get to Mars orbit, going the extra step might be worth it. The main reason for this would be the delay in communication, making it a hassle to control robots and if one gets damaged, it is done for. Personally in terms of species survival I think space stations make more sense. 1. You can develop and build them close to earth/the moon 2. You can use them to do asteroid mining, which can become really usefull to limit earth exploitation and potentially get our hands on more rare minerals 3. You can basically move them anywhere thus also out of range of nuclear missile attacks etc. 4. You can make a lot of them and if they (mostly) can become selfsufficient, it would also protect them better in case of pandemics etc. And again nuclear or other attacks are more unlikely to take them all out of there are enough of them. 5. Long terms they can be used to even venture beyond our own solar system, though this is extremely long term 6. Some things can only be done in 0g, like 3d printing applications, new medication research, .... Spacestations thus would also be more usefull for this than a mars colony 7. Easy access to (continuous) solar power if not placed too far and in the right orbits, thus no need for other power generation there Ofcourse there is still a lot to do to make this a reality, but overall it might be just as realistic as colonising mars and be more usefull long and short term.
1
@durshurrikun150 You wouldn't park humans into LEO inbetween tranfer orbits, but rather ships filled with equipment and maybe ships prepared for crewed mars transit, but with the crews only coming on board right before Mars launch (like launching one starship with 100 people which then get spread out over 10 ships), however most important would likely to just build up fuel depots which can be filled inbetween transfer windows, so you don't need to launch the usefull ships AND refueling ships during the ideal transfer window. At least this is how I would be envisioning the logistics and launching ships inbetween transfer orbits to then launch a thousand during the transfer window.
1
@pauligrossinoz They deliberately choose to do a sub orbital trajectory. They could have easily got it into a regular orbit but that wouldn't have contributed anything. Anyone claiming that starship couldn't make it into orbit just shows they know very little of spaceflight.
1
@durshurrikun150 What are you talking about? The goal payload capacity is between 100-200tonnes, making it the biggest rocket by payload capacity ever. What equipment are you talking about that weighs too much for Starship to carry? SpaceX launched 134 rockets in 2024, Starship is supposed to be even more reusable. So why would launching 200 rockets be a problem according to you? No one is talking about 200 rockets a day, where do you get that from? I personally am not in favour of using starship as a mars transfer vehicle and neither do I expect that amount of starships to fly to Mars in the next few decades, though purely from a logistical standpoint it can likely be done within something like 20 years, biggest problem would be funding for it and how usefull it is (not that much imo). Also, good job, you're condemning these people to death because you're sending them without any means to survive on Mars. Where do you get this from? Equipment always would have been send ahead for them. Based on what we currently know, humans can survive on Mars with existing technology, it just hasn't been completely fleshed out yet (practically). They'll need to set up the equipment which will take months. Equipment can be setup by robots before people are even launched/or can be kept in starships/other landing vehicles untill more permanent setups are build up. Robots will always be a key part of building up any kind of (semi-)permanent Mars habitation Oh yes, you don't understand anything about logistics. More than you apparently looking at your comments.
1
@pauligrossinoz The Starship is a failure because it had empty fuel tanks, zero payload (*), and still failed to reach orbital velocity. They never intended to get into orbit with their first attempts, since it wasn't needed to get the data they need. They definitely could have gotten it into orbit. The fact that you keep hammering this point just shows you know very little about it. If what you said was true, they'd have scrapped or completely redesigned the starship immediately, since a rocket that can't reach orbit would be completely fucking useless to them. These first tests were/are meant to get data on its ascent and reusability (heat tiles, tower catching, belly flop maneuver, general behaviour in flight, relighting of engines, ...). Their trajectory given to the FAA never mentioned going into orbit with those tests because it is safer not to without a payload. You don't send your rocket into orbit during tests where things might go wrong, no one wants a large uncontroleable mass in orbit. The next flight meant for 10/1 is expected to have a dummy payload of starlink v2 satellites, but is again intendend to only take a sub-orbital flight path. You are just showing your complete ignorance on the starship development with your uninformed statements. I don't think starship is the holy grail of rockets that can do everything as many people think, but you are just taking the piss here.
1
@durshurrikun150 That doesn't take into account the boil off of fuel which is why dedicated fuel depots in orbit that are designed to minimize boil off would absolutely be necessary imo. the fact that the ships will require regular speed boosts to stave off orbital decay. This entirely depends how high up you place them into orbit. If you place them at the same height as the ISS, it could easily stay in orbit for long enough even with the decay. The reason the ISS gets boosted regularly is to maintain its intended orbit. ISS would lose around 48km over 2 years without boosting, from an original orbital height of around 400-420km Anybody who takes this plan seriously is unserious. So you know better than actual professionals who think it could work? I don't think we'll ever see it mostly because it doesn't make sense to do and therefor funding will become a bottle neck to even attempt it (unless SpaceX really rakes in massive amount of funding from starlink and Musk decides to us this), but purely from a logistical and technological perspective it should be possible, while obviously not easy. People also said propulsive landing of an orbital launcher to not be possible when SpaceX proposed it, and now it has become so common for SpaceX to do it that it never gets talked about anymore.
1
@durshurrikun150 And yet the payload capacity of the rocket is 50 tons Yes, for the versions of the currently tested starship this is correct. However this is with raptor V1's, while the eventual raptors used would be V3's or better, which has a 50% increase in trust, with a 50% decrease in mass (saving around 60tonnes from the SH booster). At the same time the next starship variants will see an increased fuel amount. Besides, a production plant and a settlement would weight more than 200 tons. And that is based on what? What production plant? What settlement? To launch their own satellites and that's it. Most launches, yes. However there are also 45 launches for costumers, which is more than any other single country except China who have a total of 68 launch attempts in 2024. Also that these launches are for SpaceX or its costumers is completely irrelevant, it doesn't change that it is are 134 launches. They were launching smaller rockets. Falcon 9 is one of the bigger rockets currently in operation. Yes, compared to Starship it indeed is much smaller, then again it is also less reusable than starship is designed to be. And they launched them in a year, not in the few weeks of a launch window. And? The 1000 starships to mars (which again will likely never happen due to financial impractibility and starship imo also not being the best mars transfer vehicle) isn't meant to be launched in a few weeks, but in the 2 years between the launch windows, which even with refueling would take around 30 launches a day, which would mainly be a matter of number of launchpads (ie. funding), rather than something impossible. What happens when a launch has to be scrubbed due to weather or fails The same as now? It launches after the weather improved. As for failure, that depends entirely on what the failure is. Oh yeah, the rocket will never have enough fuel to go to Mars. Except we already know it will have if you (partially) refuel it, that isn't even up for debate in the space community.
1
@pauligrossinoz Please explain to us all how a rocket with empty fuel tanks that's travelling too slowly is going to accelerate to orbital velocity? You do realize they only fill the rocket with as much fuel as is needed for the test and thus the fuel tanks aren't entirely filled?
1
@durshurrikun150 You do realise that you can't waste time for a launch window? Once it is closed you're done. You don't launch the rockets from the ground to Mars during the launch window, you launch them into orbit before the launch window and then launch it from earths orbit to Mars during the launch window. Add to this that the ideal launch window is a few weeks and you definitely can incorporate wiggle room. Ofcourse this requires thorough planning. Or better yet, how about not sending humans to Mars and send rovers which are significantly cheaper and do the same stuff? I personally think for scientific research sending a small detachment of people can be worth it, they can directly control (instead of a 30m time delay) and maintain robots/rovers on the ground to do what needs to be done outside, while also doing all the experimentation that is needed inside. Ofcourse I am not a scientist/researcher, so maybe they'll have a different opinion, but I just don't think just relying on rovers for this would be enough. Just again to be clear, I am not in favour of colonizing mars since I don't believe it is worth the effort, nor do I think the 1000 ships during 1 mars transfer is ever going to happen (the next few decades), even if it is technically possible, it just isn't practical nore necessary.
1
@pauligrossinoz you don't understand basic physics! No, I just got an engineering degree without understanding basic physics 🙄 Firstly, the booster's methane tank was almost full on the ground, so there's hardly any capacity left for more fuel in the first place. So far I know the tanks were never fully filled, even if it might have looked that from the outside. Furthermore, like I said the the new versions have increased fuel tanks. So even if my information about the not fully full fuel tanks is wrong, the next versions can carry more. More importantly, adding fuel makes the take-off weight heavier, but does not increase engine power. And as I said, the first test flights were with raptor 1 engines, raptor v2 and v3 have improved thrust. all you Musk fans I am not a Musk fan, maybe I might have been somewhat 3-4 years ago, now at best I don't despise him and his actions/leanings. I am a space fan. 1. It's a longer distance to return to base, needing more fuel to return to base. True, but this just reduces the efficiency of adding more fuel a bit, it doesn't negate it completely. However this is also only the case for the same amount of payload. Higher payload might need more thrust thus needs more fuel for the same distance. Ie the booster doesn't need to travel further, thus making this point irrelevant. And the 2nd stage doesn't have this problem since it needs to enter orbit regardless. 2. It's got to reverse it's travel velocity from a higher speed, which also needs more fuel. See previous. mean that it is never as simple as just adding more fuel to the tanks to go faster It kind of is, ofcourse it isn't just a linear equation. As long as you have enough trust adding more fuel will increase capacity. It will always be a working with multiple variables like available thrust, fuel, payload, ... A light/small payload needs less thrust => engines running at reduced % => less fuel use => less fuel needed and vice versa. And there is barely any capacity left in those tanks right now. Which is why they have increased it and might increase it even more. Also, those who understand physics would know that you can still end up in the Indian Ocean after reaching orbital velocity. And those that understand physics also know that it needs a significantly smaller boost once you have reached sub-orbital trajectory that it did during flight 6, we are talking about a fraction of what they had to do before. There is nothing at all, other than the rocket being too slow, that stops them planning each launch to attain orbital velocity. This just shows your ignorance about it. They already achieved orbital velocity, they just didn't raise their perigee (50km in flight 6) enough to reach orbit.
1
@scottdorfler2551 The highest average monthly temperature in Baltimore isn't higher than 90°F, so how often is it that temp at night? And if you mean that they run it during the night so it is colder during the day, that is fine, that is essentially using your house as a battery by using your AC more efficiently at night and spreading out the load on the grid.
1
@rey_nemaattori Usually nuclear powerplants are decommisioned in either of 2 ways: 1) letting it sit a few decades (ofcourse after securing it), to let the radiation go down and be able to do a more easy clean up or 2) they clean it up immediately but at a pretty high cost and going a lot slower. Reusing it isn't really that interesting. No, radiation will not have impacted the general structure, but time has. Usually you'll not want to build a new power plant in such an old structure. And why would you? Most of the equipment etc will need to be upgraded anyway (unless there had been a recent upgrade not long before). So the only advantage would be the structure, but there is also a chance you'll have huge spiking maintenance costs on it well before the end of life of you new powerplant.
1
@JayVal90 I just plain don’t believe that they aren’t hiding costs with those renewable numbers And I can say the same about nuclear. Do you have any proof that they hide costs? Or is it just your oh so reliable gut feeling? AND assuming that grid storage via battery becomes a thing Actually grid storage isn't likely going to use batteries, at least not for anything but shortterm (quick responses). Grid storage is most likely going to be dominated by physical system using temperature differences. Though there are also batteries that might be usefull as gridstorage too. So it likely will be a mix. But definitely not Li-ion batteries. investing the same effort and regulatory favoritism towards nuclear with take us WAY further than renewables in terms of cost reduction and greening the energy supply. That is far from certain. There is already being don't a lot of research and investment in improving nuclear, possibly as much as the most likely gridstorage possibilities currently, if not more. Btw, for large scale nuclear you'll also need some gridstorage. For example France now at 70-80% is using hydrostorage and essentially its neighbourse as 'batteries' during low demand times. If they didn't, their nuclear plants wouldn't operate as much at max capacity and thus produce more expensive power. Nuclear will need grid storage at aroung 75-80% or higher of the grid mix, for renewables it is a bit earlier at around 50-60% of the grid (depends on the kind of renewable though, hydro can go 100% without grid storage). Towards your point about decommissioning, I’ll point out again that if you keep nuclear power plants online and/or retrofit them, you save a TON on both construction and decommissioning costs. I think you underestimate the cost of upgrading old nuclear plants. Here operators said they'd need subsidies to extend the nuclear powerplants past their set decommisioning date by 10 years. I am definitely in favor of using nuclear power if it makes economic sense, however often (and currently especially for new plants) it doesn't really.
1