macroeconomic effects of Nuclear power plant build program
Carbon tax social security sovereign wealth fund builds nuclear power plants to generate cash flows to pay down capital and to pay a future supplemental social security benefit decades in the future
We will use principles of UM Flint Economics course ECN 201 to study a nuclear build program this blog entry is an example of economic theory or idea of,
Normative statements
–Attempt to prescribe how the world should be
–Prescriptive
This log post is also an extension of my original college honors project that has evolved over time here,
https://yellowdragonblog.com/2014/01/28/a-carbon-tax-fueled-social-security-sovereign-wealth-fund/
” A CARBON TAX FUELED SOCIAL SECURITY SOVEREIGN WEALTH FUND
To industrialize the inner solar system. Only a Carbon tax can both stabilize and reduce atmospheric CO2 and sustainably fund a social security system invested in the world capital markets on behalf of Future new-born children.
A Carbon Tax Fueled Social Security Sovereign Wealth Fund
State pension and social security schemes, including the American social security system are under stress due to demographics and underfunding, and in the same breath according to measurements conducted by Keeling our planetary civilization is placing into the atmosphere more CO2 than has been present in the atmosphere in the recent geological past( Keeling 4 ). [TU1] Investing carbon taxes in the world’s capital markets for newborn children in a new transitional social security system holds out the promise of shoring up the existing social security system, but also creating a new sustainable social security system. A sustainable social security system is one that would not require tax increases so large in the future as to consume the entire federal budget, which is spent on defense, education, infrastructure and research and exploration, together called the discretionary budget. Failing to create a sustainable social security system means in the future retirees not receiving the full promised benefit. Investing taxes over time puts to work the magic of compounded growth rates in the worlds capital market places instead of taxing future taxpayers for future social security benefits. Only a tax on carbon is uniquely able to stabilize and reduce both the rate we are producing CO2 and to prefund existing and future social security schemes. Failing to enact a carbon tax will result in a century’s time, flooding of the worlds coastal plains where most of the Earth’s population lives and in climatic changes that might lead to crop failures and mass starvation. The American Social Security system is a pay as you go system with distinct parts ”
We use as a base line the idea that the NRC will not able to ever approve more than one nuclear reactor site per year and that each reactor will cost $20 Billion each.This means at the end of 10 years there will be 10 reactors under construction with one nearing completion and one new start.
if each reactor costs 20 billion to build and takes 10 years this is $2 billion per year per reactor that yields a $20 Billion per year program.
the intended consequence of the carbon tax is to set a price on carbon emissions so that consumers will purchase less of products with a high carbon foot print and buy more products with a lower carbon foot print. Ironically the governments own carbon tax would make the power sold from the nuclear power plants competitive with high carbon emitting coal-burning power plants.The Carbon tax calculator show this effect on CO2 emissions.
The Intended consequence of the nuclear build program is also to reduce emissions as well as to use the employment from a $20 Billion per year program to off set possible unintended consequence of unemployment from the higher carbon taxes I.E a coal miner to construction worker retraining program. The higher level skills and value added nuclear technology should push the Production Possibilities Frontier further out than coal mining would alone.
Do Government training programs constitute changes that can push the Production Possibilities Frontier?
Possibly the reduction of the employment rate from such a massive construction project might add to the intake of cash flow to the existing social security system.This would be an Intended consequence of investing carbon taxes to benefit future generations.
\
From Gregory Mentiw
examples of technology advance to could move the Production possibilities further to the right are the low tech idea of burning spent nuclear fuel again in a Canadian design heavy water reactor using the DUPIC idea.DUPIC processing of spent fuel would incur a capital cost but the avoided cost would be the immediate need for the geological disposal.
unintended effects of the $250 Billion per year carbon tax is the additional cost of the concrete used in building 300 plus nuclear reactors,concrete uses a high quotient of carbon based fuels to make.
So we propose the sovereign wealth fund should build a fleet of 200 heavy water reactors to burn spent fuel and to sell power.knowledge and skills gained should bring down the costs of each nuclear reactor over time.$ 20 Billion X 200 reactors would be $4 Trillion over 200 years at one new start every year but we would go to two new starts every year after ten years, and that implies a $40 Billion per year project.As each reactor goes online cash flow will offset the need in part for the carbon tax to capitalize further construction so as to deploy those monies to investments to the worlds capital markets.
each reactor should produce power over 60 years and amortize its capital over those 6 decades and provide cash flow to the carbon tax social security sovereign wealth fund.it would take a century to build it all out and a century to feed through the heavy water reactors the spent PWR/BWR fuel.
The heavy water reactor program would have a sister program of a fleet of molten salt reactors that would burn spent heavy water and PWR/BWR fuel. Each heavy water reactor and molten salt reactor would be built on the site of an existing PWR/BWR reactor or a site of collected spent fuel.
The economic singularity
Instead of only having a carbon tax child generation of beneficiary 2.0 assumes everyone 67 and over 67 years after the enactment of the carbon tax receives a benefit.We assume 44 million people between 67 and over a 100 years of age at $100 a month and doubling every year afterwords
$100 per month X 12 months is $1,200 X 44 million people is $52,800,000,000
$52,800,000,000 X 2 =
$52,800,000,000 X 3
$52,800,000,000 X 4
$52,800,000,000 X 5
$52,800,000,000 X 6
$52,800,000,000 X 7
$52,800,000,000 X 8
$52,800,000,000 X 9
$52,800,000,000 X 10
$52,800,000,000
So in the tenth year each beneficiary is receiving $1000 per month in addition to their social security,so this is $12,000 X 44 million people or $528 Billion per year 77 years after enactment.It helps to remember that in year 67 the fund is earning over $3 Trillion per year.
We have in effect turned a carbon tax into an entitlement.77 years after enactment and 10 years after the first benefit payment goes out poverty among the elderly will have been eliminated, saving hundreds of Billions of dollars very year in taxpayer expenditures.
The net effect of $ 528 Billion stimulus and the saving of several hundred Billion every year is a study in itself as well as the question of a carbon tax sovereign wealth fund that is valued at $100 trillion and more a century from now, what economic theory would explain this in relation to the worlds GNP? (A) te carbon tax sovereign wealth fund “eats” the world GNP or it owns most of the worlds stocks and capital or,(B) it “expands” the world GNP and threatens inflation?
our theory off course is that we need to invest in off world capital projects to find a home for this investment need as owning most of the earths capital would defeat the market mechanisms.spending over 70 years several trillion dollars on nuclear and green energy projects owned by the carbon tax social security sovereign wealth fund also needs new economic theory’s to allow the federal reserve and social security board to govern this fund.For example the investments made by the fund, how does it predict future employment by the funds investments
investments to include burning the nations spent fuel in heavy water reactors(DUPIC) and to in turn burn that spent fuel in molten salt reactors in tells building 300 reactors over 40 odd years at $20 Billion per reactor.if 1 reactor takes ten years to build and 1 reactor starts construction every year then 5 years on there should be 5 reactors under construction injection years on would be 10 reactors under construction at any given time with a capital investment of $40 Billion per year.
$20 Billion divide by 10 years = $2 Billion X 5 reactors under construction at any given year = $10 Billion.
$40 Billion divided by 10 years = $2 billion X 10 reactors under construction in any given year
CTC_Carbon_Tax_Model (4) (version 1)
carbon tax-SSI-retirement-calculator
https://yellowdragonblog.com/2014/01/28/a-carbon-tax-fueled-social-security-sovereign-wealth-fund/
Carbon tax social security soveriegn wealth fund 1.0 assumes $250 Billion per year for 30 years invested in the worlds capital markets at 4% growth produces in 67 years $88 Trillion!
Con Ops,
develop a un pressurized open air platform with seats and a launch abort escape system using Draco engines.
fit seats into the circumference of the Grasshopper launcher(15 seats?)
launch to 10,000 feet
Wing suit parachutists take their dive from a rocket!
Contest
the parachutists who uses their wing suit to fly the furthest from the grass hopper GPS signal wins a free flight or a reduced flight ticket or a reduce flight ticket to the future
airline points!
or
the more you fly the cheaper your ticket
or
bulk buys tickets to individuals and resellers
after proving the concept add in flights above 14,500 feet with a pressure suit that has wing suit features.Would wing suits have provided the red bull jump better stability?
We should model wing suit flight above the range of skydiving aircraft or even commercial jet aircraft but below the red bull jump since the red bull jump proved that there are aerodynamic risks from a jump from that altitude.The FAA will want to see these models.
SpaceX has already expended capital with the grasshopper and will have spent capital to expand the flight envelope of grasshopper in its launch vehicle reuse program,all of this can be put to use in this grasshopper tourism business model
the expense here is developing a platform on top of grasshopper with draco escape capability,I think this a minimal requirement.
pricing of tickets?
you want to recover the cost of the jump platform
you might over time recover some of the grasshopper costs of R&D that went to the launch reuse program
Edit 28 June 2014 ; Added space shuttle emergency egress poles to assist wing suit base jumpers to avoid grasshopper rocket exhaust plumes in response to criticism from ” HugDoug” comments on NASA watch ,http://nasawatch.com/archives/2014/06/space-tourism-v.html
see images below,
SpaceX Grasshopper wing suit tourism model
SpaceX Grasshopper wing suit tourism model
![DSCN1284[1]](https://yellowdragonblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/dscn12841.jpg)
SpaceX Grasshopper wing suit tourism model
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingsuit_flying
(A) OSIRIS-REx provides imaging, ranging and possibly science data to the incoming, on operations, and close range and approximation and asteroid contact for the asteroid retrieval mission(ARM).
(B) ARM grapples and returns OSIRIS-REx to High lunar retrograde orbit for astronaut refurbishment.makes the least sense OSIRIS-REx is designed to do sample return on its own.
(C) ARM drops OSIRIS-REx into another orbit for a second target. makes the most sense since the ARM is retrieving the entire asteroid, assisting OSIRIS-REx to do a sample return from another body diversify the samples returned.
(D) ARM refuel OSIRIS-REx and leaves in place.perhaps, this would be a mission extension that makes sense only at the secondary target for OSIRIS-REx!
These ideas require that ARM have a small arm to grapple the OSIRIS-REx and OSIRIS-REx needs a safe grapple point
would either space craft interfere in the others communications?
would either spacecraft place the other in shadow?
These things would inform us to the grapple arms design! (power,fuel transfer and grapple attach points)The OSIRIS-REx asteroid is an official ARM candidate , it makes little sense to visit the same asteroid where it not for A and C above.
EDIT
the grapple arm could be a commercial ARM ride share?
curing concrete with urine in space is only an emergency procedure as it does not pass the “smell test”
(1)(A) its a American self governing territory with a democratically elected government.
(1)(B) its closer to the Equator that’s gives a larger payload to orbit
(1)(C) to the East and South of Puerto Rico there are islands that could host a first stage landing site for a reusable launch system; they are, (D) Virgin Islands(E), Anguilla(UK), Antigua and Barbuda, St Kitts and Nevis, Guadeloupe(France), Martinique (France)Dominica.
(2)(A) the existing con ops for SpaceX is to use 30% of the first stage fuel to return the stage to its launching point with a payload penalty,our con ops uses an inflatable hyper sonic decelerator to slow the first stage to a landing down range on one of the islands and to lower the 30% fuel penalty to the payload, EDIT; “that other wise would have gone to landing the stage propulsively back at the launch site”
So our idea lends back to payload some of the 30% fuel penalty and provides an extra payload margin do to the 20 degree latitude.
EDIT 29 July 2014 ; It Important to note this idea also works out of Vandenburg AFB by using the one of Channel islands as a landing site instead of a propulsive landing back at Vandenburg as is is being reported in the press this week.Indeed the idea works with out a inflatable hypersonic decelerator. https://www.
I wonder? how much fuel would be required to get the first stage to orbit? or could a Falcon heavy get its core stage to orbit with no payload? This becomes a in space vehicle.
Edit 15 July 2014
Paper from last year,
Georgia-Institute-of-Technology-Final-Paper-2013
SpaceX Falcon heavy core stage placed into orbit idea as an in space stage! and being discussed here at NASASPCEFLIGHT,
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33494.1800
SpaceX first stage recovery with inflatable hyper-sonic decelerator flight experiment;2015 NASA SBIR proposal Edit,
EDIT 4 may 2014 “Research paper attached below studied a 1.5 meter inflatable hyper-sonic decelerator with ballistic travel or no propulsive breaking and using SpaceX first stage mass. JasonASW3 on NASASPACEFLIGHT mentions inflatable hyper-sonic decelerators on the first stage recovery at down range locations
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31452.360
So far no one in that discussion have put the two together.Some one this NSF thread have made the connection of a ballistic recovery of first stages down range from Texas in Western Florida or even Puerto Rico!” inflatable hyper-sonic decelerator could hold promise to allow for a ballistic recovery of first stages with less fuel consumption then SpaceX current plans , IE add back most of the 30% payload penalty!
does the weight of the system negate the fuel savings? Paper below states the 10 meter system weighs 1.5 tons does the weight of the system add or subtract from the payload weight? Inflate with Ullage gas system possibly land in Florida from Texas http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/game_changing_development/HIAD/hiad-app.html AIAA-2014-0631 A commercial off the shelf inflatable hyper-sonic decelerator could be sold to interplanetary missions and might find its uses on SpaceX mars missions. it appears work has started on steerable systems, these could guide returning first stages before the engine burn. I have just discovered some work has already been done on first stage recovery but with a parachute not a landing as with SpaceX 20130013397 48-The Hypersonic Inflatable Decelerator (HIAD) Mission Applications Study_D. Bose
Down range ballistic trajectory’s with stage recovery leads to ideas concerning a first stage land recovery downrange,
Up Date 7 July 2014
Jon Goff is working on high altitude thin air Magnetoshell Aerocapture (MAC) I wonder if you could size this system to slow a spaceX first stage on a ballistic non propulsive arc back down through the (upper)atmosphere.could ullage or propellant add to the systems magnetoshell?
Edit 15 July 2014
Paper from last year,
Georgia-Institute-of-Technology-Final-Paper-2013
SpaceX Falcon heavy core stage placed into orbit idea as an in space stage! and being discussed here at NASASPCEFLIGHT,
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33494.1800
The ISS EEATCS radiator ORU Centaur co-generation experiment; A NASA SBIR 2015 proposal
The proposed decadal small fission reactor sadly is far in our future, so how to test the possibility of a small fission reactors radiators being used as a secondary power source? or a better question, how can this concept be used in non nuclear systems?
lets take the largest spacecraft radiator system now flying as an example, what if these radiators were incorporated into an empty in space stage tank filled with Xenon and with a stirling engine system? Or what if the ISS Ammonia system replaced the role of the Xenon? would Ammonia do damage to the Centaur fuel tank? would Ammonia damage the stirling engine?.
Not having radiators geometry inside the fuel tank would be a weight savings Docking a centaur with ISS with fluid connections to the ISS The EEATCS radiator ORU system or better stated replacing the radiator with the Centaur might be a tall order and what would 70 kW per hour provide to a stirling engine? remaining waste heat after the stirling engines recovered energy radiate through the Centaur in space stage hull.
The NASA radiator paper,
The EEATCS radiator ORU is a direct flow, deployable and retractable radiator system with two independent cooling loops Two MBSU cold plates, each designed to remove 495 watts at 80 lbs/hr. Three DDCU cold plates are each designed to remove 694 watts at 125 lbs/hr. The EATCS is designed to provide 35 kW of heat rejection per loop for a total capability of 70 kW
The ISS has a machine making methane on-board out of water and Co2
place said machine onboard a Dragon modified with a methane engine or make ethylene out of it.
make and store and fire engine periodically,
when cargo and crew approach undock and fly out to keep out zone and loiter.instead of orbit reboost for ISS a Dragon tug could demonstrate this mission,
reminds me of Gemini Agena mission, perhaps this is a Cygnus lab free flyer in need of a boost to higher orbit or perhaps this demonstrates the use of Cygnus and Dragon as a space telescope repair mission
I am sure the Methane Dragon could not make the ISS to Hubble trip however.
I am sure Zubrin has suggested reverse gas shift using astronaut waste metabolites in one of his early papers so our hats off to him!
I am sure the…
View original post 76 more words
Small fission reactor radiator heats balloon probe atmosphere with the radiator waste heat and provides electricity to probe science mission.This augments day/night solar incident energy that informs the balloon probe daily gain and loss of attitude.
May work well in very cold and dense atmosphere of Titan and the outer planets where the temperature difference of the gondola heated by the small fission reactor radiator provides greater lift (?)useful on Venus nigh time.
Balloon surface area could be insulated to retain fission reactor heat?
electrical power not used by science instruments could augment waste heat in balloon buoyancy which is important as this is a very high mass system!
very large balloon probe delivered by the Dragon docked to a uncrewed Soyuz or Progress capsule
ULA Dual Thrust Axis lander small fission reactor hybrid power plant; a NASA SBIR 2015 proposal inspired by this paper, DualThrustAxisLander(DTAL)2009
and
Uses the Centaur derived lunar lander as a small fission reactor hybrid with an Argon/Helium atmosphere in the empty centaur tank that houses the small fission reactor, length of the centaur derived landers LH2 tank informs us as to the size of the small fission reactor radiator, we know the volume is 100 M3 for the proposed DTAL. How would an inert small fission reactor radiator fair in LH2? perhaps we can install the radiator after the flight con ops has ended and the Argon/Helium atmosphere has been introduced? This repurposed lunar lander becomes an efficient surface power source for the long lunar night or deep perpetually dark polar craters EDIT 17 June 2014 Use microwave power transmission to send power from the Centaur/small fission reactor lander to a rover in Lunar or Mercury deep south pole target areas.This permanent shadow mission architecture would involve no RTG heaters on the rover so the rover would need to stay in the line of site of the Centaur lander.In some cases the polar crater might be in partial sunlight part of the time in which case the lander could land in a “go to” site in wich the rover gathers ice and regolith in the permanent shadow to be followed by an end of mission scenario in sunlight.To do this with our rover all the while in the line of site of the microwave power beam might be a mission to far……………………………… The Centaur lander could operate for decades with its small fission reactor as a path finder for outer planet deep space missions Co Ops;
repurposed Dragon landers could use Argon/Helium in their pressure vessels to augment small fission reactors
Yellow Dragon, a mission to repurpose existing ideas into new ideas 