Environmentalists Going Nuclear on Pluto

Guest essay by James Wanliss

pluto_pic
Pluto as seen from the New Horizons spacecraft, courtesy of NASA and nuclear powered spaceflight

Every technology has costs and benefits. Horses and oxen can draw carts but they also draw flies. Fire can cook food, but can also burn down the kitchen. Energy use allows us to feed our children, but environmentalists claim human energy use causes global warming, which will fatally transform the planet.

Yet one of the safest and cleanest energy sources, one which emits no carbon dioxide gas, also elicits hysterical behavior from the Green movement. Environmentalists have a knee jerk reaction to nuclear power. They are against it.

For instance, advocacy group Greenpeace writes that it “has always fought – and will continue to fight – vigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity. The only solution is to halt expansion of nuclear power, and to shut down existing plants.”

Environmentalist policy causes consumers to pay higher bills for renewables compared to coal and nuclear. Environmentalist ideology is backward looking because it thinks of de-development of industrial society as positive. The result—one hopes it is an unintended consequence—of environmentalist policy is poor countries staying poor because energy on a massive scale is requisite for human development. Green energy policy shows only contempt for the aspirations of the poor.

Environmentalist ideology afflicts not only energy policy, but other technologies too. Take spaceflight as an example.

The past year has been a stunning time in the space sciences. On July 14, 2015, NASA’s nuclear-powered New Horizons probe breezed past Pluto, capturing history’s first close-up looks at the little rock that couldn’t. You may remember, until recently Pluto was the ninth and smallest planet in our solar system. Pluto was then declared a dwarf planet, but the mighty mite could make a comeback because of data gleaned from New Horizons.

The $723 million New Horizons mission launched in January 2006. It was proposed in 1989, the same year NASA’s Voyager 2 probe zoomed past Neptune, getting the first up-close looks at that stunning, blue “ice giant.” But is questionable whether the mission could fly today because of the political clout of the out of control environmental movement, represented first of all by Barack Obama, arguably America’s first truly green president.

It took more than a decade of hard work and wrangling before New Horizons graduated from concept to full-fledged NASA mission. Forgotten in the excitement of the flyby is the tortured history of New Horizons as environmentalists sought to block the mission at every turn.

Environmentalist knee-jerk opposition to nuclear power was the central complaint.

The powerful advocacy groups Greenpeace and ‘Friends of the Earth’ were at the forefront of opposition and many environmentalists picketed the launch site.

Nonetheless, with the Bush administration friendly to nuclear power and open to scientific innovation, just less than a decade ago New Horizons defied the greens and blasted off to Pluto – a target nearly 3 billion miles (4.8 billion km) from our planet.

Thanks to nuclear powered engines the robot ship sped away from earth at speeds approaching 36,000 miles per hour. This is the fastest flight of any spacecraft and allowed New Horizons to speed past the Moon about nine hours from launch. Less than a decade later it threaded the needle of Pluto’s orbit.

Not too shabby of an achievement when one considers that this is equivalent to shooting a thread through the eye of a needle located 300 m (1000 ft) away, or sinking a hole in one between Jerusalem and Kathmandu. Not too shabby.

The launch of another nuclear powered mission would be impossible today. The green ideology—flower power—has consequences not only in the energy sector but in virtually every aspect of modern life. Going green means not only increased poverty, it means not going to Pluto. The choice really is ‘Pluto or bust’.


 

James Wanliss, Ph.D., is Professor of Physics at Presbyterian College, Clinton, SC. He is a Senior Fellow and Contributing Writer for The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, and author of  Resisting the Green Dragon: Dominion, Not Death. He has published over 50 peer-reviewed physics articles, has held the NSF CAREER award, and does research in space science and nonlinear dynamical systems under grants from NASA and NSF.

 

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
189 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
CaligulaJones
April 12, 2016 1:41 pm

Well, the greenies did lobby to have a reallllllllyyyyyyyy long extension chord attached to idiots on bikes, but the Bush administration refused to fund them for it, those heartless bastards.

Reply to  CaligulaJones
April 12, 2016 4:56 pm

That extension chord was going to play the music of the spheres. Best idea they ever had.

Eustace Cranch
Reply to  Hugh Dietz
April 12, 2016 7:30 pm

Extension cord. No “h” required.

george e. smith
Reply to  Hugh Dietz
April 12, 2016 7:50 pm

Greenpeace is an unacceptable risk to the environment and humanity.
G

CaligulaJones
Reply to  CaligulaJones
April 13, 2016 6:28 am

“Extension cord. No “h” required.”
The ell you say?
Thanks for the catch, and gentle reminder for me to proof a bit better…

george e. smith
Reply to  CaligulaJones
April 13, 2016 4:52 pm

We’ll make them pay for demoting Pluto to space pebble status.
g

April 12, 2016 1:41 pm

Can’t we just dump all of these fascist nutters in some pristine wilderness where they can all get on with grubbing for roots and tubers and picking parasites out of each other’s hair? Then perhaps they might leave the rest of us alone to get on with life.

CaligulaJones
Reply to  cephus0
April 12, 2016 1:44 pm

Yeah, its called “Venezuela”…
https://weather.com/science/environment/news/venezuela-energy-crisis-hair-dryers
I mean, if you really want to live in a place untouched by that nasty capitalism.

expat
Reply to  CaligulaJones
April 12, 2016 4:21 pm

I took a friend, who’s always bleating about “we need to reduce our standard of living to help the environment” to see Les Misérables. As we left I could see she was moved by this really good movie. I casually mentioned “there’s your lower standard of living”. She didn’t have much to say, for a change.

Terry Gednalske
Reply to  CaligulaJones
April 12, 2016 10:17 pm

And the best way to get them to move to Venezuela is to elect Donald Trump president!

CaligulaJones
Reply to  CaligulaJones
April 13, 2016 6:30 am

“expat April 12, 2016 at 4:21 pm”
I’ve always asked, quite simply, when was a better time than now to which these folks would like to return. Whatever era they mention, I can bring up a dozen reasons why they probably don’t want to.
Starting with “you can’t get a decent latte” followed by “the cell service really sucked in the 1800s”…

MarkW
Reply to  CaligulaJones
April 13, 2016 10:25 am

For some reason, it’s always other people who have to lower their standard of living.
It’s always the speakers lifestyle that is the target that everyone else is supposed to strive for.

T Poore
Reply to  cephus0
April 12, 2016 2:05 pm

-Yeah ANWR the PB”s would love the extra food.

Reply to  cephus0
April 12, 2016 3:00 pm

Yes, equatorial Africa where Ebola makes regular visits, would be a great place for the far-left eco-Morlocks of our society.

Bartemis
Reply to  pyeatte
April 12, 2016 4:26 pm

They’re not Morlocks. The Morlocks were the do-ers in the far future society. They are the Eloi. The beautiful people who are good for nothing but protein for the Morlocks.

gnomish
Reply to  pyeatte
April 12, 2016 5:14 pm

Bartemis, no- listen carefully – it’s nearly April 18. Do you not hear the dinner bell?
The bell tolls for you.

Duster
Reply to  pyeatte
April 12, 2016 5:19 pm

Bartemis
+1 for getting that straight.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  pyeatte
April 12, 2016 8:32 pm

gnomish April 12, 2016 at 5:14 pm
Bartemis, no- listen carefully – it’s nearly April 18. Do you not hear the dinner bell?
The bell tolls for you.
Ah no…
Lets move on
( the dietitian is giving me crap again)
michael

Tom Yoke
Reply to  cephus0
April 12, 2016 4:12 pm

“Can’t we just dump all of these fascist nutters in some pristine wilderness”.
That was the poetic justice that Tom Clancy visited on the environmentalist villians in “Rainbow Six”.

Tom Yoke
Reply to  Tom Yoke
April 12, 2016 4:15 pm

Michael Crichton gave a similar comeuppance to the bad guys in “State of Fear”.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  cephus0
April 12, 2016 10:31 pm

Great idea. Venezuela needs lots and lots of Greenpace, Unfriends of the Earth, Sierra muerte, etc. But to be effective they would have to sign up for a minimum 10 year stay within the country.

AndyJ
Reply to  cephus0
April 13, 2016 5:00 am

They’d immediately miss their cell phones, coffee houses and Priuses.

April 12, 2016 1:44 pm

The anti-nuclear stance of the Greens?
Cui Bono
Anti-fracking?
Cui Bono?
Anti coal?
Cui Bono?
Who was it Al Gore worked for?
Cui Bono?
Whose actions are allegedly against big oil and gas,. but benefit Big Oil and Gas?
Nothing is what it seems in this war of smoke and mirrors…

April 12, 2016 1:49 pm

What’s the big red thing in the middle of this sticker? http://www.veggies.org.uk/img/nuclearpowernothanx223.gif

Bryan A
Reply to  Stephen Skinner
April 12, 2016 2:21 pm

It is a Fusion Reactor constrained by a Large Gravitational field
Nuclear Energy on Earth is (by comparison) a small Fission Reactor constrained by Lead and Concrete and requires constant cooling to avoid melt down.
Don’t get Con-Fusion over Pro-Fission

Tom O
Reply to  Bryan A
April 12, 2016 2:39 pm

A general belief, but I am not sure a correct one. That may not be a fusion reactor, and it’s constraint might not be a gravity well, if you will. Some times common beliefs aren’t actual correct, but are the best one available at the time they are adopted. And just like in green or climate thinking, common beliefs are difficult to change because of inertia and that much of a belief set is built upon them, thus holding us back from moving forward.

expat
Reply to  Bryan A
April 12, 2016 4:26 pm

How about the fission reactor you’re standing on? The Earth would be cold, dry and dead without all those nice heavy elements fusing just under your feet.

Eustace Cranch
Reply to  Bryan A
April 12, 2016 7:32 pm

expat- fissioning, not fusing.

simple-touriste
Reply to  Bryan A
April 13, 2016 11:15 pm

Don’t confuse fission, which can be stimulated by neutrons, with radioactive decay, which can’t!

arthur4563
April 12, 2016 1:59 pm

One wonders what these nuclear-illterates will do when the molten salt reactors go commercial, probably within the next 7 years – every single objection they have to nuclear power – meltdowns, radioactive blasts from a ruptured reactor vessel, nuclear waste management, nuclear plant build costs and nuclear power
costs, constrained to baseload (constant) operation only, proliferation issues, etc…. is thoroughly demolished by the molten salt reactor technology. Would love to see the blank unknowing exprssions on their faces when confronted by such obvious facts of life about molten salt reactors. These will produce power cheaper than any other technology and get rid of nuclear waste issues altogether.

Bryan A
Reply to  arthur4563
April 12, 2016 2:28 pm

If you are talking about Thorium Molted Salt reactors, isn’t that still in the proving stages??
If so, hopefully it shakes out into a functioning reality.
It was my understanding though that Thorium (non fissile in any quantity) wouldn’t produce sufficient heat to melt salt without the inclusion of fissile uranium materials. So long as fissile materials are required, don’t expect the Greenies to be happy about it.

Paul767
Reply to  Bryan A
April 12, 2016 4:30 pm

China came over and was GIVEN the plans for the Thorium nuclear reactor we built in the 50’s. Now they are building 4 pilot plants and licensing it for themselves!
India is building 2 pilot plants.

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  Bryan A
April 12, 2016 4:54 pm

Don’t get hung up on Thorium. The reactors will run just fine on old fashioned U/Pu with the added advantage of not requiring a chemical processing step.

Duster
Reply to  Bryan A
April 12, 2016 5:45 pm

Bryan, the US had a functioning liquid fluoride salt reactor in the 1950s – a LIFTR. The system was shut down because it had no weapons applications (far, far less Plutonium production). The salt contains Th-232 suspended in fluoride salt doped with a minor amount of Uranium as a neutron source. There is immensely less waste (hundreds of orders of magnitude less) than a high-pressure water cooled reactor, less onerous engineering, and best of all the reactor cannot blow up. Look here:
http://energyfromthorium.com/
The “Green Community” might moan, but the source is either profound ignorance of the

Editor
Reply to  arthur4563
April 12, 2016 3:00 pm

There will be new concerns, e.g. needing to chemically the clean the fuel to remove Protactinium 233.
Your nuclear not-so-illiterates are already on the case, see http://nuclearfreeplanet.org/thorium-not-green-not-viable-and-not-likely-oliver-tickell-june-2012-.html some of their points deserve attention.
I’d still rather live next to a LFTR plant than a Wind Turbine (or among the hundreds that could equal one nuke only during a big nor’easter).

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  Ric Werme
April 12, 2016 5:20 pm

That’s only if you want to breed/burn 232Th. And even then you can run single salt or 1.5 salt reactors which don’t require any chemical processing, although they do require a larger fuel load to make up for the lost neutron economy.

Reply to  Ric Werme
April 12, 2016 6:03 pm
Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Ric Werme
April 16, 2016 9:49 pm

It’s my understanding that wind turbines have to be shut down during high winds. so your Nor’easter would probably produce nothing.

Reply to  arthur4563
April 12, 2016 3:52 pm

You misunderstand the eco-zealots. Facts mean nothing unless they confirm their viewpoint. It is all about emotion. We have been confronting them facts for years and years and there is never a blank expression, just an ad hominum attack. It won’t change with any cheap, plentiful power source.

AndyJ
Reply to  alexwade
April 13, 2016 5:05 am

Yup. When the ice begins moving slowly south to cover Canada, Scandinavia, and the British Isles once again, they’ll still be screaming that it’s all man’s fault and want to kill off half the population to stop the global cooling. They’re total loons.

Hivemind
Reply to  alexwade
April 13, 2016 5:21 am

“When the ice begins moving slowly south to cover Canada, Scandinavia, and the British Isles once again”
Try Fallen Angels by Larry Niven & co. He/they captured the eco-green attitude to a tee.

MarkW
Reply to  alexwade
April 13, 2016 10:29 am

When the solution to every problem is the same, you start to wonder if they really care about the problems.

Hivemind
Reply to  arthur4563
April 13, 2016 5:19 am

” every single objection they have to nuclear power…. is thoroughly demolished”
Actually no, the objections they state are just the rationalizations. Their real objection is that it exists. You will never get past that.

Johann Wundersamer
April 12, 2016 2:02 pm

Tor search for raw materials, rare earth’s / and what we’re not even knowIng to need we since long ought to be in the meteorite belt!
We’re in the 21st century!
Best Regards – Hans

April 12, 2016 2:03 pm

Thanks to nuclear powered engines the robot ship sped away from earth at speeds approaching 36,000 miles per hour.

Are you sure about that? I thought the nuclear power was just to keep the electronics going, not to accelerate it.

Frank Knarf
Reply to  Bellman
April 12, 2016 2:11 pm

See my comment below. No nuclear engines anywhere on this mission. I suppose you could call some of the ion thrusters used on other missions “nuclear engines” if the accelerator power came from an RTG.

crosspatch
Reply to  Frank Knarf
April 12, 2016 2:41 pm

I was just going to comment on this myself. There were no “nuclear engines”, only the electricity is from nuclear energy because it is too far from the sun for solar. Basically anything past Mars needs a nuclear power source. Solar just isn’t enough.

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  Frank Knarf
April 12, 2016 4:59 pm

He didn’t say nuclear engines. He said nuclear powered engines. Electric thrusters require a source of electricity. RTG’s, which generate their power through nuclear decay, produce said electricity. That means the engines are powered by electricity generated from… nuclear power.

LRShultis
Reply to  Frank Knarf
April 12, 2016 9:09 pm

see :
http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/Mission/Spacecraft/Systems-and-Components.php
None of the thrusters used electricity except for control of valves to release propellants.
The speed was determined by the boosters and gravity assists.

MarkW
Reply to  Bellman
April 12, 2016 3:03 pm

The whining on this mission was that the craft was going to use the earth as a slingshot to speed it on it’s way to Pluto.
The green weenies were afraid that if something went wrong, the pound or two of plutonium powering the crafts reactors was going to kill all life on earth. Or something insane like that.

AndyJ
Reply to  MarkW
April 13, 2016 5:07 am

But isn’t that what they want? Oh wait, it’s just to kill off all the humans to “save the planet”.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
April 13, 2016 10:31 am

It’s the other humans they want dead. They don’t want to put themselves at any risk.

Bartemis
Reply to  Bellman
April 12, 2016 4:46 pm

They were not nuclear engines, in the sense of relying directly on a nuclear reaction to produce thrust, so yes, it is a little misleading. But, he did say nuclear powered, so there is some wiggle room.
The thrusters were hydrazine, but they still required electrical power for heating the catalyst bed, and for opening and closing the values. And, that far away from the Sun, you don’t have many options to produce electrical power in quantity.

JimB
Reply to  Bartemis
April 12, 2016 8:00 pm

Yeah, I wondered about that.

Barbee
April 12, 2016 2:04 pm

Environmentalists are both anti-science and anti-life.
All life will cease as our sun approaches the end of it’s life. And with the risk of numerous potential planet killing events, for the (ultimate) survival of ALL species, the need to leave this planet and settle elsewhere is mandatory. Wind, solar and water power won’t cut it.

MarkW
Reply to  Barbee
April 12, 2016 3:03 pm

A fair number of the ones I’ve met, are anti-hygiene to boot.

Paul Coppin
Reply to  MarkW
April 13, 2016 5:18 am

They’re just practicing bio-diversity…

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
April 13, 2016 10:26 am

Would you say they are well cultured?

Reply to  Barbee
April 12, 2016 3:07 pm

We have plenty of time, the Sun has a few billion years left. If we can get to a Star Trek future in the next two to three hundred years, things will work themselves out.

Frank Knarf
April 12, 2016 2:06 pm

“Thanks to nuclear powered engines the robot ship sped away from earth at speeds approaching 36,000 miles per hour. ” What? There is an RTG on the spacecraft to supply power to the instruments and systems. Spacecraft propulsion is by hydrazine thrusters. Apart from heaters powered by the RTG there is nothing nuclear about them. The launch vehicle was an Atlas V/Centaur/Star 48 system. No nuclear engines there. Star 48 actually reached Pluto’s orbit before the payload.
http://www.boulder.swri.edu/pkb/ssr/ssr-fountain.pdf

Editor
Reply to  Frank Knarf
April 12, 2016 2:50 pm

The RTG unit uses Pu238, which has a halflife of 88 years, which is really good for multi-decade space probes. The radiation degrades the thermocouples, so electrical output declines faster than half every 88 years, this is impacting some of the older probes.
This is a partial list of things it’s been used in:
Pacemakers (Yes, implanted in humans. Its alpha radiation is simple to block.)
ALSEP, the Apollo science package left by astronauts on the moon.
Voyager (power down to 67%)
Cassini (In fact, any probe beyond Jupiter. Sunlight is too dim to be cost effective.)
Curiosity (NASA had some challenges scrounging enough Pu238 for the mission.)
NASA is paying the DoE to make more of the stuff, see http://www.nature.com/news/nuclear-power-desperately-seeking-plutonium-1.16411
Oh – Pu238 isn’t fissionable. If you want a real atomic bomb, it’s Pu239 you need.
Neither will let you send a probe to Pluto at “36,000 miles per hour.”

scarletmacaw
Reply to  Ric Werme
April 12, 2016 7:19 pm

Well stated.
Let me add that there was never a planned flyby of Earth, and I don’t remember much at all concern from the Greenies about New Horizons. Their big anti-nuke demonstration (I think about 6 people showed up) was with Cassini.
The rocket used a chemical propellant, not nuclear. What I thought was really impressive about the New Horizons Atlas 5 launch was that had the mission missed it’s primary window the next attempt would not use a gravitational assist from Jupiter, it would fly straight from Earth to Pluto.

Reply to  Frank Knarf
April 12, 2016 8:11 pm

” There is an RTG on the spacecraft to supply power to the instruments and systems. Spacecraft propulsion is by hydrazine thrusters.”
Control thrusters might be hydrazine, but thrust was from an RTG powered electric ion engine, which was the source of its high performance.

Reply to  micro6500
April 12, 2016 8:24 pm

I was wrong, it was the Dawn craft that has ion thrust.

Resourceguy
April 12, 2016 2:17 pm

In space no one can hear Green Peace scream.

Reply to  Resourceguy
April 12, 2016 9:29 pm

… which is where we need to chuck GreenPeace.

Barleigh Smith
April 12, 2016 2:17 pm

Actually, the “robot ship” was not propelled by “nuclear powered engines.” The nuclear power plant was just for onboard electricity. Heat from radioactive decay of plutonium provides (through thermocouples) 200 some watts of power for the cameras, computers, radios, etc. Shooting a rocket loaded with 24 pounds of plutonium through the atmosphere really is somewhat hazardous. We’re fortunate that it didn’t have a Columbia-style accident (explosion shortly after launch is a fairly common occurrence). Protesting that launch was one of the least idiotic things that Greenpeace has ever done.

Shanghai Dan
Reply to  Barleigh Smith
April 12, 2016 7:43 pm

Assuming the explosion would spread debris over a 120 square kilometer area (about1/6th that of the Challenger disaster), the concentration of Pu 238 would be below dangerous levels. In other words – the chance of dangerous Pu 238 contamination from a rocket explosion is essentially nil.

Reply to  Barleigh Smith
April 12, 2016 9:35 pm

the RTG case containing the 238Pu is designed to remain intact if a launch destruct happens over water. Very low probability that the case would rupture and spread Pu. A remote submersible operated by the US Navy (remember the US Navy has nuclear powered submarines with real 239Pu warheads on missiles) would recover the RTG.
GreenPeace is a bunch of unscientific kooks. Stopping whaling should be their one and only mission.

MarkW
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
April 13, 2016 10:33 am

Put them all in one place. Makes them easier to sink.

timg56
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
April 13, 2016 12:07 pm

Depends on the type of sub.
Only FBM’s carry missiles with nuclear warheads these days.
Fast Attack boats did carry ASROC and later the nuclear tipped version of Tomohawk for land attack. Both have been retired from the Navy’s inventory.

Frank Knarf
April 12, 2016 2:20 pm

A quick check confirmes that no space program has ever actually flown a nuclear propulsion system, though much work has been done on various approaches. The Russians are working on a reactor powered ion engine system for potential use in deep space missions. I imagine NASA has various R&D programs.
I see that the author is a physicist so the claim that New Horizons used nuclear engines is puzzling.

MarkW
Reply to  Frank Knarf
April 12, 2016 3:05 pm

What powers the ion engines of that probe that is currently toodling around the asteroid belt?

Reply to  MarkW
April 12, 2016 4:16 pm

MarkW
The electricity for the ion engine is provided by solar panels I believe.

Steven F
Reply to  MarkW
April 12, 2016 7:51 pm

the Discovery probe currently in orbit of Ceres is 100% solar powered and uses ion engines for significant course changes. Nasa has no other currently active probs with ion engines.
As for New Horizons 100% of the 36,000 mph velocity on the day of the launch was achieved by the chemical propellant powered Atlas buster used at launch. The probe then costed to Jupiter and got more velocity by traveling close to Jupiter. The probe then costed the rest of the way to Pluto. The thrusters on New horizon get most of there energy from chemical fuel and they are primarily used for minor coarse corrections.

Jim G1
April 12, 2016 2:33 pm

Nuclear powered does not necessarily mean nuclear powered engines. In this case the eclectrical power was generated by nuclear materials. IE, nuclear powered space craft. Somewhat misleading, I grant you.

Editor
Reply to  Jim G1
April 12, 2016 3:07 pm

No, it’s just wrong. We can also gripe loudly about “equivalent to shooting a thread through the eye of a needle located 300 m (1000 ft) away” etc. No mention of mid-course corrections. Some of the articles about what NASA ultimately aimed for (there was a of chance interference by a newly discovered moon) and all the timing issues were fascinating and and not at all equivalent to shooting threads.

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  Ric Werme
April 12, 2016 5:02 pm

If it didn’t use power from the RTG for any propulsion it would be wrong. If it did, then it’s correct to say nuclear powered engines. It doesn’t have to be an NTR in order for it to be nuclear powered.

Duster
Reply to  Jim G1
April 12, 2016 5:49 pm

Not to mention that the New Horizons nuclear-electric system is powered by a Plutonium isotope. Thorium is a vastly better choice for an everyday reactor.

Steven F
Reply to  Jim G1
April 12, 2016 8:10 pm

All of the 36,000 mph velocity was from the Atlas booster. the Jupiter fly buy boosted its velocity by another 9000 mph. The thrusters were only used a handful of times during the coast to jupiter and the coast to pluto. Each time only for minor coarse corrections. At launch new Horizons carried about 170lbs of fuel. Not enough to make any significant change in it’s velocity.

Michael J. Dunn
April 12, 2016 2:41 pm

I like to greet such objections with the true observation that “space is radioactive anyway.” (And, if you don’t think so, I have a whole lot of cosmic rays to bombard you with.)

April 12, 2016 2:42 pm

Thanks to nuclear powered engines the robot ship sped away from earth at speeds approaching 36,000 miles per hour

No the propellant was standard rocket fuel combined with clever swing-by accelleration.
Why is this emberrassing post published on WUWT?

April 12, 2016 2:48 pm

With a heavy nuclear investment we could have 20x the energy available vs today. The future of earth could be 9 billion people living on about 40% of the land (vs 80% now) with the other 60% left as parks. Its easy to grow high quality food (without pesticides, etc) in huge LED powered greenhouses.
The greens want to chop down every tree and feed it into places like Drax, and plant every available square metre with ‘biomass’. Energy will be rationed based on how close you are to ‘elite green’ status.
Which future do you want.

Reply to  Tom Andersen
April 12, 2016 3:06 pm

A future where wind solar and agw are all history

Science or Fiction
April 12, 2016 2:52 pm

I wish the green would prioritize humanism over environmentalism.

Tom Halla
April 12, 2016 2:58 pm

I am old enough to remember the “Abalone Alliance” and their campaign against nuclear power. Just remember, cheap and abundant power is like giving an idiot child a machine gun. The green blob opposes anything that might actually work.

sonofametman
April 12, 2016 3:04 pm

In 1980, I met some German climbers in the Italian Alps. Engineers who’d made their own super-hard bronze alloy ‘hammer through anything’ tent pegs. A sticker on their LPG powered Saab 95 said “Atomkraftgegner überwintern bei Dunkelheit mit kaltem Hintern”. Not hard to translate, either politely or in the vernacular. It made sense then and still does.

April 12, 2016 3:10 pm

?

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  John piccirilli
April 12, 2016 3:34 pm

opponents of nuclear power to spend the winter in the dark with cold butt

David Larsen
April 12, 2016 3:25 pm

Anthony, I just got an email that SunEdision will be filing a bankruptcy.

Editor
Reply to  David Larsen
April 12, 2016 7:17 pm

Check out the link for “Tips & Notes” on the top nav bar. By now, anyone who cares has been expecting that a Chapter 11 filing is imminent.

April 12, 2016 3:34 pm

“Knee-jerk reaction”
I like that. If a Doctor taps your knee in the right spot with his little rubber hammer, your leg will jerk. No matter what your brain tells it to do.
When I was young, the word “Nuclear” was the little rubber hammer used emote the desired response by those doing the tapping.
Today “CO2 Emmisions” is the little rubber hammer that emotes a reaction divorced from the brain.
Odd that nuclear power has the greatest potential to have power without CO2 emmisions yet the response to it hasn’t changed.
(I did mention that the “knee-jerk reaction” to both doesn’t involve the brain, didn’t I?)

Steven Dietrich
Reply to  Gunga Din
April 12, 2016 3:54 pm

There is still a residual China Syndrome knee jerk reaction that prevails, even after all these years.

F. Ross
Reply to  Gunga Din
April 12, 2016 8:53 pm

I believe it is incorrect to prefix the term “knee-” in the example shown for environmentalists; in my opinion “jerk” alone expresses well the save-the-world movement..

April 12, 2016 3:38 pm

Moon in 9 hours, now that is impressive

April 12, 2016 3:58 pm

Well said. Greeners need to be removed from every policy table. Now.

Simon
April 12, 2016 4:07 pm

“environmentalists claim human energy use causes global warming, which will fatally transform the planet.’
Rather sweeping statement that really means nothing. Sure some may say that but the majority of people who know would say “some human energy use causes global warming, which will probably have serious consequences for humans and a good number of other life forms going into the future.”

1 2 3