Difference between revisions of "Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator"
m (cat+) |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
==Challenges== | ==Challenges== | ||
| − | + | YetAnotherBob 3 months ago Global Warming was pcoereded by Global Cooling. According to Global Cooling, by 2000, the glacers were supposed to be advancing on Chicago and New York. That didn't happen.Global Warming, by now we were supposed to be suffering from greatly expanded drought, sea levels were supposed to have risen by sever meters (instead of maybe a millimeter, plus or minus a centimeter). But that hasn't happened yet either.Global cooling was propagated as man made in the late 1970 s. Global warming was the late 1990 s. Both were blamed on use of fossil fuels. Neither was proven. Now, having been blasted for promising both freezing us all to death, and cooking us all to death, they only say Climate Change' and are careful not to specify what it is they expect.The poster you are replying to is only noting that the predictions are not what we have observed. That is undeniably true. By now, we were supposed to have either an ice cap to rival anything in the last ice age (when sea levels were close to 600 feet {200 Meters} lower) or have no glaciers left on earth. Sorry, both predictions were wrong. I do believe that human activity does impact the biosphere of Earth, but it isn't quite what is being predicted. The truth is that the systems are very complex and interrelated. CO2 levels are higher than they have been in a century. That's all we have really reliable measures for. But, fossil evidence and ice cores indicate that levels have been both higher than today, and lower (by about half) at various times in the past. Yes, plant and animal habitats are shifting. They have in the past too. Climate is really never sitting still.That doesn't mean that we should all just sit back and do nothing, though. Efficiency is still a worthy goal. Carbon dioxide is not the best or even the most prevalent gas that can affect the weather. Both water vapor and methane are over an order of magnitude more influential for warming, and fine dust or some sulfur compounds exert a major cooling effect, both locally and globally.For the real extremes, talk to any Geologist about the Snowball Earth' occurrences. Climate has been both 20 degrees C colder and warmer than what we experience today. Life survived.What really needs to happen is for more research to be done, while we try to find other, better fuel sources. That is what the Nuclear Rocket program was trying to do. It has problems, OK, so does everything else, including wind, water and solar power systems. I suspect that any power source will have problems. The only thing worse is no power source. Going from a population of 7 Billion to one of 100 Million would be a truly civilization shattering experience. That is an outcome that I would never want to see.2299 | |
| − | The | + | |
===Hazard to Life=== | ===Hazard to Life=== | ||
The [[radiation]] emitted by the RTG pose a hazard to life. Shielding and an isolated location should be sufficient to protect settlements. | The [[radiation]] emitted by the RTG pose a hazard to life. Shielding and an isolated location should be sufficient to protect settlements. | ||
Revision as of 02:48, 29 October 2012
A Radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG) is a type of atomic battery which generates electricity from heat generated by the decay of radioactive material. Thermocouples are generally used for the energy conversion, though heat engines could convert the heat directly into mechanical energy to be used as-is or converted into electricity.
Contents
Benefit to Martian Settlement
Reliable Power
RTGs offer reliable power to a settlement. While the available energy decreases over time, it is steady. This is in contrast to solar or wind power, which vary based on the weather.
Low Maintenance
RTGs are a low maintenance power source, as evidenced by their use in space probes and unmanned locations on Earth.
Challenges
YetAnotherBob 3 months ago Global Warming was pcoereded by Global Cooling. According to Global Cooling, by 2000, the glacers were supposed to be advancing on Chicago and New York. That didn't happen.Global Warming, by now we were supposed to be suffering from greatly expanded drought, sea levels were supposed to have risen by sever meters (instead of maybe a millimeter, plus or minus a centimeter). But that hasn't happened yet either.Global cooling was propagated as man made in the late 1970 s. Global warming was the late 1990 s. Both were blamed on use of fossil fuels. Neither was proven. Now, having been blasted for promising both freezing us all to death, and cooking us all to death, they only say Climate Change' and are careful not to specify what it is they expect.The poster you are replying to is only noting that the predictions are not what we have observed. That is undeniably true. By now, we were supposed to have either an ice cap to rival anything in the last ice age (when sea levels were close to 600 feet {200 Meters} lower) or have no glaciers left on earth. Sorry, both predictions were wrong. I do believe that human activity does impact the biosphere of Earth, but it isn't quite what is being predicted. The truth is that the systems are very complex and interrelated. CO2 levels are higher than they have been in a century. That's all we have really reliable measures for. But, fossil evidence and ice cores indicate that levels have been both higher than today, and lower (by about half) at various times in the past. Yes, plant and animal habitats are shifting. They have in the past too. Climate is really never sitting still.That doesn't mean that we should all just sit back and do nothing, though. Efficiency is still a worthy goal. Carbon dioxide is not the best or even the most prevalent gas that can affect the weather. Both water vapor and methane are over an order of magnitude more influential for warming, and fine dust or some sulfur compounds exert a major cooling effect, both locally and globally.For the real extremes, talk to any Geologist about the Snowball Earth' occurrences. Climate has been both 20 degrees C colder and warmer than what we experience today. Life survived.What really needs to happen is for more research to be done, while we try to find other, better fuel sources. That is what the Nuclear Rocket program was trying to do. It has problems, OK, so does everything else, including wind, water and solar power systems. I suspect that any power source will have problems. The only thing worse is no power source. Going from a population of 7 Billion to one of 100 Million would be a truly civilization shattering experience. That is an outcome that I would never want to see.2299
Hazard to Life
The radiation emitted by the RTG pose a hazard to life. Shielding and an isolated location should be sufficient to protect settlements.
Open Issues
- Are there significant quantities of radioactive material available on Mars?
