Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on June 16, 2015
US companies bet on nuclear power revolution
The Pentagon’s top arms provider and firms partly funded by Silicon Valley billionaires Bill Gates and Paul Allen are among dozens of companies collectively betting more than US$1.3 billion that a new wave of nuclear power can be a force to fight climate change.
Advanced nuclear power plants, which will employ techniques such as using fuels other than uranium and coolants other than water, have attracted private investments from more than 40 companies from Florida to Washington state, the Third Way think tank says in the first report specifying the number of firms and total money invested in the technologies. (http://bit.ly/1C8Gmma)
The reactors, which could come into development in 10 to 15 years, can help curb US carbon emissions and make investments in electricity generation less costly, researchers at Washington, D.C.-based Third Way said in a report seen by Reuters and to be released as soon as Monday.
Companies expressing faith in advanced nuclear power range from Lockheed Martin, the Pentagon’s largest supplier, to Holtec International, which is building a $260 million technology campus in economically depressed Camden, New Jersey.
Gates has partially funded TerraPower, a company which aims to build reactors fueled by liquid metal, and Allen has partially funded TriAlpha, a company that plans to make nuclear fusion plants.
Investors “realise cost competitiveness is the name of the game,” said Josh Freed, who directs the clean energy programme at Third Way. The reactors are “designed to be scalable so that they can produce energy at a per megawatt hour cost that’s competitive not just with existing nuclear, but importantly with fossil fuels and renewable energy.”
Advanced nuclear reactors should be smaller than today’s reactors, and construction should take one to five years, rather than five to six.
Critics of advanced nuclear say companies have yet to make small reactors economically viable despite decades of development by energy companies and the US military. Advanced reactors using new fuels, such as thorium, and new cooling systems, such as molten salt, are also difficult to make economically viable, they say.
The nuclear industry has also been weakened by a political backlash following radioactive leaks at Japan’s Fukushima power plant in 2011. And the US natural gas boom has slashed the cost of that fuel, making it harder for nuclear power to compete.
The Third Way report was not funded by the nuclear industry. But the think tank has received financial support from The Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry’s lobby group, and Babcock & Wilcox, a company hoping to build small nuclear reactors.
Late last year, Lockheed said it made a breakthrough in developing a power source based on nuclear fusion. The company said the first reactors for this new technology, small enough to fit on the back of a truck, could be ready in a decade.
The companies say they are exploiting advances in material science and computer-assisted manufacturing that could help breakthroughs become realities before 2030.
50 Comments on "US companies bet on nuclear power revolution"
Steve O on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 6:50 am
“The reactors, which could come into development in 10 to 15 years”
Too little, too late. Should have been been in development since the 70s.
Davy on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 7:02 am
I find it hard to believe a new wave of anything is coming. At best it will be a real monumental struggle to keep what we have functioning properly in the next few years. We have far too many fundamental difficulties facing the world economy even if one dismisses the peak oil story we still have a likely economic contraction in the works. I feel you can discount peal oil but not dismiss it. Depletion is happening with economic value of oil at minimum and likely volume as soon as next year.
Once an economic contraction starts it will be ugly because of all the overhanging debt and no central bank tools left to stoke the economy and service the debt. There has already been so much extend and pretend with bad debt. Surely at some point the markets are going to grow ill of the imbalances that are just wiped clean by the powers to be. Someone has to pay for these mal-investments and lately it has been the general sheeples. That can’t go on forever.
NUK energy is just plain too expensive and has too long of infrastructure construction lag times. We are going to see this with all energy options especially AltE. AltE has a long payback lag time also. We are broke as a global society we just don’t fully know it yet.
The other issue with the economic contraction is demand destruction will free up supply likely dropping the need for new more expensive supplies. The cost of new sources will rise relative to already built out supply. Lack of capex, likely rate hikes, and liquidity issues will drop the options governments and investors have to finance these new very costly energy sources especially the ones with long paybacks.
I know this is speculation on my part but you must admit it is reasonable. I feel we have another 08 crisis in the works that will not be curable this time. Once it starts the end game is in motion. I just can’t tell you the speed of the descent once a new crisis is in the works. I hope it is a long emergency that allows us some adaptation and mitigation. I hope an ugly descent does not lead to conflict ensuring a quick and strong descent.
paulo1 on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 7:24 am
Once an economic….no, once the economic casualties start to drop as a result of this reckless QE designed to further enrich the Kleptocrats and their political minions, that is all we will hear about.
The workingman will further get #!#ked, but the rich will grab even more. All in time for this election cycle to make us realize we are truly led by a bunch of boobs. Evil twit boobs.
When the fly struggling in the ointment is armed and angry, it could be a long mess to unfold with many unforseen problems.
Personally, if I lived in a large dysfunctional city I would pull up stakes and move, last year.
Lawfish1964 on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 8:12 am
“Companies expressing faith in advanced nuclear power …”
“a company which aims to build reactors fueled by liquid metal …”
“Advanced nuclear reactors should be smaller …”
“…a company hoping to build small nuclear reactors.”
“The company said the first reactors for this new technology, small enough to fit on the back of a truck, could be ready in a decade.”
“The companies say they are exploiting advances in material science and computer-assisted manufacturing that could help breakthroughs become realities before 2030.”
Note the complete absence of anything proven. Faith, aims, should, hoping, could. These are not words of science, they are words of delusional clinging to BAU at all costs.
GregT on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 8:49 am
“a new wave of nuclear power can be a force to fight climate change.”
We can’t fight climate change. We either stop dumping more greenhouse gasses into the environment, or we don’t. Last time I checked, fossil fuels are required to build nuclear power plants, they are required to build and maintain the electric grid, and they are required to manufacture all of the stuff that we use electricity for.
Nony on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 9:27 am
“An academic reactor or reactor plant almost always has the following basic characteristics: (1) It is simple. (2) It is small. (3) It is cheap. (4) It is light. (5) It can be built very quickly. (6) It is very flexible in purpose. (7) Very little development will be required. It will use off-the-shelf components. (8) The reactor is in the study phase. It is not being built now.
On the other hand a practical reactor can be distinguished by the following characteristics: (1) It is being built now. (2) It is behind schedule. (3) It requires an immense amount of development on apparently trivial items. (4) It is very expensive. (5) It takes a long time to build because of its engineering development problems. (6) It is large. (7) It is heavy. (8) It is complicated.
The tools of the academic designer are a piece of paper and a pencil with an eraser. If a mistake is made, it can always be erased and changed. If the practical-reactor designer errs, he wears the mistake around his neck; it cannot be erased. Everyone sees it.
The academic-reactor designer is a dilettante. He has not had to assume any real responsibility in connection with his projects. He is free to luxuriate in elegant ideas, the practical shortcomings of which can be relegated to the category of “mere technical details.”
The practical-reactor designer must live with these same technical details. Although recalcitrant and awkward, they must be solved and cannot be put off until tomorrow. Their solution requires manpower, time and money.
Unfortunately for those who must make far-reaching decision without the benefit of an intimate knowledge of reactor technology, and unfortunately for the interested public, it is much easier to get the academic side of an issue than the practical side. For a large part those involved with the academic reactors have more inclination and time to present their ideas in reports and orally to those who will listen. Since they are innocently unaware of the real but hidden difficulties of their plans, they speak with great facility and confidence. Those involved with practical reactors, humbled by their experiences, speak less and worry more.”
-Rickover
Rodster on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 10:15 am
More spent fuel rods as a present for future generations.
joe on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 10:55 am
While it’s good that they will make nuclear reactors that can fit in a truck, would you trust average companies with them? Dirty bombs for all.
What about cost? Will they be new gas stations? That said again, without oil the choice will be between food, heat, or work, transport. The portion of global economy given to each sector will determine the cost of the others.
Yet with, 3D tech, travel may become obsolete as we work in new ways (think the gate operators in the matrix). Artificial intelligence will remove most middle class and managerial jobs as say mc Donalds being run automatically and merely maintained and emergency staff on 0 hrs contracts at the ready to step in during down times. Driverless cars could manage traffic better and the economy will become more efficient.
Nony on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 10:59 am
Recycling?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
joe on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 11:09 am
Recycling is Ok, but it’s and dead end thermodynamically, remember the system requires exponential growth. Eventually the system will reach a limit, no matter how far you make a dollar last, eventually you need another one.
Davy on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 11:09 am
Joe, what planet are you on or are you watching “Jetsons” reruns? Get out of your techno-exceptionality cocoon and see that we are hairless apes in really bad overshoot and due for a slap-screw. It’s that simple we had fun now we pay the price for immature behavior of a species with a large brain and accompanying ego. This big brain and ego appears to be a bad combination and likely is our evolutionary dead end.
penury on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 11:12 am
It appears to me that the major focus of this article would be to re=assure investors that they can make money.
Davy on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 11:21 am
Joe, recycling and salvage will likely be our primary source of resources in the not to distant future. We will be facing a hybrid world of pre-industrial technologies and technologically effective and maintainable remnants of our current BAU.
That is the nature of less with a future of a spiral down of less until we settle at a point of thermodynamic stability of our species.
Kenz300 on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 11:58 am
Wind, geothermal and solar are a better alternative.
Nuclear energy is too costly and too dangerous.
These guys should spend their money helping to clean up Chernobyl and Fukishima.
It is time to begin shutting down the oldest nuclear power plants and stop building any more new ones.
Speculawyer on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 12:13 pm
I wish them luck. A safer design that does not create weaponizable material as a by-product would be a great thing.
Good luck and move forward!
Steve O on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 12:23 pm
Speculawyer – the liquid salt reactor could have fit that bill. But Nixon canceled development on it and it will take 20 years to develop the technology. As many other have pointed out, when the capital markets crash their won’t be any money to do the engineering, let alone build plants.
Plantagenet on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 12:49 pm
Anything that will reduce CO2 production should be done ASAP. Swap coal for NG, build more wind, solar, geothermal and nuclear power plants, and reduce CO2 production before we cook the planet.
J-Gav on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 12:50 pm
Talk about a dumb bet – holy crap! Nuclear is coming apart at the seams in every way possible: economically, ecologically and there are still people around willing to bet on that?
welch on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 1:13 pm
Nuclear will certainly be part of our future energy mix, and more of it. Good to see.
Davy on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 1:41 pm
Welch, yea, sure, what little future we have left. We should husband all our resources for what’s ahead. Of all our energy sources NUK has to be maintained and its waste managed. It is too significant a source to discount it’s importance. NUK waste too dangerous to be left unmanaged. That is what happens when industries decay and corners are cut and mistakes made. NUK complexity will go unstable relatively faster than other sources as the descent gathers speed. This is one of my biggest worries.
Apneaman on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 3:15 pm
Talk about your fucking degenerate gamblers. Borrowing more to bet when you still haven’t paid off your last bad bets. Fuck it, let the grand babies deal with it. Seems like there is good chance though that the bill may come due sooner than we thought………………………………………………………………….
Is This Aging South Florida Power Plant a Disaster Waiting to Happen?
” Philip Stoddard keeps a bottle of a radiation sickness medicine called potassium iodide in a safe place in his home.
Just in case.
Just in case the sea rises as much as scientists predict, or a hurricane barrels through Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station, the nuclear power plant about 20 miles south of Miami, breaching its walls and overrunning its ancillary equipment.
Stoddard is not a typical doomsday conspiracy theorist, but a three-term mayor of South Miami and a local college professor. Those disaster scenarios are real possibilities, not just because of climate change, but because the plant is operating beyond its intended lifespan and capacity, according to local news reports and experts interviewed for this article.”
http://www.vice.com/read/is-this-aging-south-florida-power-plant-a-disaster-waiting-to-happen-605
Apneaman on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 3:18 pm
Five reasons Turkey Point could be the next nuclear disaster
1. It’s old. When Turkey Point went into operation in 1972, it was licensed for 40 years. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) recently “rubber-stamped” another 20 years, allowing the plant to operate until 2033. “This is uncharted territory,” Saporito says. “They cannot dispute that those reactors may crack from being bombarded with high-level radiation.”
2. Employees are afraid to report safety concerns. Saporito claims FPL fired him — twice — for whistleblowing. The utility’s punitive bent has what he calls a “chilling effect”: Nuclear workers don’t come forward with safety concerns. His evidence: In the past six years, the NRC has received 160 anonymous complaints about Florida nuclear plants from their workers, “far in excess of any other nuclear plants in the U.S.” What concerns Saporito is that those workers didn’t feel safe bringing their complaints to FPL.
3. Just like in Japan, Turkey Point is susceptible to a meltdown caused by a natural disaster. A hurricane-spurred tidal surge from Turkey Point’s neighboring Biscayne Bay could create catastrophic conditions identical to those in Japan. With power down, the plant would be forced to rely on emergency diesel generators to pump water to cool the reactors. Saporito believes those generators would “certainly” become inundated with water from the tidal surge, causing them to drown and fail.
4. The plant’s spent fuel pools are brimming with danger. Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station’s spent fuel pools are threatening to boil away and introduce radiation into the air. Last June, FPL was fined $70,000 for violations regarding Turkey Point’s spent fuel pools. The negligence “could have resulted in a severe nuclear accident,” Saporito says. “That could be a horrific disaster all by itself.”
5. If Turkey Point melts down, Miami is doomed. Saporito says there will be no time to evacuate the city to protect ourselves from radiation. If there’s a meltdown, “people are going to die,” he says, “and the entire city of Miami could become a ghost town that nobody can go back to for 50,000 years.”
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/five-reasons-turkey-point-could-be-the-next-nuclear-disaster-6380394
Apneaman on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 3:20 pm
FPL needs more water to run Turkey Point
“With a steamy summer around the corner, Florida Power & Light is once again wrestling with its troubled cooling canals at Turkey Point.
The utility obtained an emergency permit Tuesday from the South Florida Water Management District to pump more water into the 5,900-acre loop used to cool the plant’s two nuclear reactors. But Miami-Dade County Commissioners added a strict caveat: they agreed to provide a permit to pump the water across sensitive wetlands only for a year and only if the utility comes up with a long-term fix.
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article21419787.html#storylink=cpy“
GregT on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 3:25 pm
“Anything that will reduce CO2 production should be done ASAP.”
Anything that reduces CO2 production only buys us more time. Ultimately, we need to halt CO2 production completely.
The longer we wait, the more CO2 we produce, the more damage that we do to our planet. That damage is accumulative, and will last for thousands of years.
HARM on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 3:43 pm
Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs) could potentially *reduce* the existing stockpiles of high-level nuclear waste by a few orders of magnitude by “burning” the waste produced by older LWRs. If –IF– they can be scaled up and made relatively safe in the time required, before shale/frack oil peaks and start down the backslope of Hubbert’s peak.
A lot of “ifs”. Unfortunately, since the vast bulk of humanity refuses to accept any limits to growth and limit our numbers voluntarily, there really is no alternative. I sincerely wish the scientists and engineers the best of luck. This could be humanity’s –and civilization’s– last chance for survival.
penury on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 4:56 pm
When ifs and buts are candy and nuts what a merry Christmas we shall have
Apneaman on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 6:06 pm
The Technology Trap
Extract from James Burke’s 1978 TV series “Connections”. This segment, from Episode 1 “The Trigger Effect”, James Burke describes how we can be trapped by the reliance on our own technology.-6:45
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKELMR6wACw
peakyeast on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 6:09 pm
And btw water vapor is a greenhouse gas that also exhibits the to amplify temperature swings.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
Apneaman on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 6:29 pm
Planty, seen any indication, at home or abroad, that might indicate when the cooking might get underway?
Alaska wildfires still burning as dry and hot weather keeps warnings in place
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/16/alaska-wildfires-dry-hot-weather
N.W.T. fires at almost triple the average number so far this year
65 fires so far this season, as compared to 20-year average of 24
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/n-w-t-fires-at-almost-triple-the-average-number-so-far-this-year-1.3114660
Siberia registers its warmest recorded spring sparking new fears for rapid climate change
“Wild fires were engulf large tracts of Siberia and the Russian Far East as early as March. ”
http://siberiantimes.com/ecology/casestudy/news/n0259-siberia-registers-its-warmest-recorded-springsparking-new-fears-for-rapid-climate-change/
Hell just google the rest
Kenz300 on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 7:04 pm
Who is going to pay for the dismantling, clean up and storage of nuclear waste from existing NUCLEAR power plants ?
That waste has to be stored FOREVER. (safely)
Apneaman on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 7:42 pm
Just think of all the wonderful things the happy cancer apes would do with near unlimited power….like this.
End of the Miracle Machines
Inside the Power Plant Fueling America’s Drought
https://projects.propublica.org/killing-the-colorado/story/navajo-generating-station-colorado-river-drought
Makati1 on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 9:44 pm
More from the Wall Street pimps, hoping there are still a few suckers out there with some money to bet on a losing game.
The Western world is contracting and growth in the rest of the world is slowing. A nuke plant with a 10-12 year build out will never be finished. The house of cards we call a global economy is shaking and a few cards are slipping out of line. This year? Next? I don’t know, but it is soon, for sure. My best guess? Before New Years 2020.
Ted Wilson on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 9:48 pm
In the last 15 years, Chinese have built 20 large reactors. US & EU should have done the same and reduced natgas consumption and instead used that natgas to run the vehicles.
Still nothing is lost, new nuclear plants can be built to power the upcoming electric and plugin vehicles.
Today’s Gen-3 + reactors are lot more safer and powerful than the earlier models.
Apneaman on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 10:03 pm
Mak, 10 – 12 years? How about 36 years?
Tennessee nuclear plant nearly done, 36 years later
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/watts-bar-tennessee-nuclear-plant-nearly-done-36-years-later/
And then there is this ongoing clusterfuck in Georgia.
Utility says latest delays to Georgia nuclear plant to cost additional $1B
http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/blog/energy/2015/03/utility-says-latest-delays-to-georgia-nuclear.html
tahoe1780 on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 10:47 pm
Nuclear fusion on the back of a truck! Then why are we still funding this?! http://www.euronews.com/2015/04/28/recreating-the-sun-s-process-is-iter-the-energy-of-the-future/ https://www.usiter.org/
hiruitnguyse on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 11:08 pm
http://www.eia.gov/uranium/reserves/
dubya on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 11:50 pm
I think this seems a fair trade, I charge my iPhone & post this pointless comment on the internet, then I deposit my share of nuclear waste into the pile to be maintained by my descendants for eons.
dashster on Wed, 17th Jun 2015 12:47 am
“partly funded by Silicon Valley billionaires Bill Gates and Paul Allen”
Not it matters, but they got their billions working for Microsoft in Seattle and never worked in Silicon Valley.
Apneaman on Wed, 17th Jun 2015 12:50 am
Takes a lot of water to cool a power plant
NASA: The Earth is Running Out of Water
More than half of the world’s 37 largest aquifers are losing water due to population and climate stresses
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/06/16/nasa-earth-running-out-water
HARM on Wed, 17th Jun 2015 1:03 am
“The Earth is Running Out of Water”
That’s a really inaccurate headline. The Earth is NOT running out of water. All the water humanity has ever known is being endlessly recycled in the global water cycle. Humans are just running out of easily accessible *fresh* water b/c land-based aquifers are being drawn down faster than nature can replenish them.
The solution is simple: drastically reduce both population and consumption –viola, problem solved!
Davy on Wed, 17th Jun 2015 6:56 am
Harm, but what about the piss from the astronauts set free in space that will never make it back to earth?
Steve O on Wed, 17th Jun 2015 7:17 am
“Today’s Gen-3 + reactors are lot more safer and powerful than the earlier models.”
The AP1000 is nothing more than Westhouse’s 50 year old water moderated, solid fuel core design with upgraded control systems and a swimming pool on the roof. It still leaves 90%+ of the fissionable material in it’s waste.
Calling these things “Gen 3” is a marketing ploy.
Kenz300 on Wed, 17th Jun 2015 9:28 am
Nuclear power plants require lots of water to generate electricity…………
Wind and solar power plants do not need water to generate electricity…………
Another reason to speed the transition to safer, cleaner and cheaper alternative energy sources……
How much was the latest cost overrun on Nuclear plants…….
joe on Wed, 17th Jun 2015 10:01 am
In day and age in which we live, the things we throw away are almost free to those who can use them. In any future in which we need to ‘recycle’ we are unlikely to waste much, so the choice will be either pay more for waste and spiral up the costs of goods until a products waste value matches it’s cost of production making selling anything pointless or manage prices. I believe Americans used to call that ‘communism’.
Basically without cheap and easy oil, things get much harder and ‘recycling’ merely has a limited impact. I like renewable energy, but it too has its limits, replacement costs etc.
Mike989 on Wed, 17th Jun 2015 10:26 am
Solar and Wind already cheaper then Nuclear.
Tell Your Republican Friends to invest and go Bankrupt.
Apneaman on Wed, 17th Jun 2015 10:35 am
Wet cooled solar power plants need tons of water and the rest need varying amounts as well. There is NO industrial, process that does not need lots of water And making those panels generates vast amounts of wastes. Given that solar currently accounts for a little over 1% of global electricity generation, you have to ask yourself, how many dystopian lakes and landscapes will it generate if we scale it up? I have yet to get a response for that question on this site or a handful of others. What I usually get is accusations of promoting fossil fuel propaganda…..yeah that’s me alright.
Cutting Water Consumption in Concentrated Solar Power Plants
“Some concentrated solar technologies need to withdraw as much as 3,500 liters per Megawatt hour (MWh) generated. This compares to 2,000 liters/MWh for new coal-fired power plants and 1,000 liters/MWh for more efficient natural gas combined cycle power plants.
”
http://blogs.worldbank.org/water/cutting-water-consumption-concentrated-solar-power-plants-0
Hidden in an unknown corner of China is a toxic, nightmarish lake created by our thirst for smartphones, gadgets and green tech, discovers Tim Maughan.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150402-the-worst-place-on-earth
Dredd on Wed, 17th Jun 2015 3:49 pm
There has been a great breakthrough in the Oilah Akbar! religion which denies the science of thermodynamics.
Really, there is no such thing as perpetual machine juice.
Ted Wilson on Wed, 17th Jun 2015 7:11 pm
Hello Steve
Having a “swimming pool on the roof” makes a big difference.
You don’t need pipes to carry the water in case of emergency.
You don’t need Diesel pumps to pump that water.
You don’t need extra concrete for containment.
Now you calculate the cost and you will see the big difference.
In fact, China is building Gen-4 reactor which loads only enough fuel to run for next few minutes. This will never meltdown and we don’t even need the “swimming pool on the roof”.
American and European companies are not willing to believe that Chinese can make it. Let see by the end of the year. Gen-4 reactor can become a reality.
GregT on Wed, 17th Jun 2015 8:46 pm
“Gen-4 reactor can become a reality.”
Generating electricity isn’t a solution to fossil fuels depletion, or climate change.
Nothing more than a bridge to nowhere, and a distraction from the real issues.
Makati1 on Wed, 17th Jun 2015 11:01 pm
Davy, that piss is recycled so they can drink it. do the math…lol.
Six astronauts X 365 days X 1 gal./day(drinking only) x 8lb/gal = 9 tons of water/year. And what do they wash with?
“14: The number of pounds of crew-expelled air that the ISS systems recycle each day (6.4 kg). Of this, 6 pounds (2.7 kg) comes from the U.S. members of the ISS crew. The water produced by this recycling is used for technical or drinking purposes.”
“6: The number of months that an astronaut typically lives and works on the ISS during a mission. Six is also the size of the crew currently aboard the ISS.”
“4: The tons of food required to support a crew of three for about six months (3,630 kg). The ISS crews’ favorites include shrimp cocktail, tortillas, barbecue beef brisket, breakfast sausage links, chicken fajitas, vegetable quiche, macaroni and cheese, candy-coated chocolates and cherry blueberry cobbler. Lemonade is the most popular drink.”
http://www.space.com/8876-international-space-station-numbers.html
Cost to build: ~$100,000,000,000.00+ in
1998. Now serviced only by Russia. Interesting isn’t it?