Talk:Cost of energy on Mars - Revision history

RichardWSmith: Looks good.

2024-09-04T01:39:01Z

Looks good.

Michel Lamontagne at 16:11, 3 September 2024

2024-09-03T16:11:41Z

Michel Lamontagne at 16:10, 3 September 2024

2024-09-03T16:10:36Z

Michel Lamontagne at 13:41, 3 September 2024

2024-09-03T13:41:17Z

Michel Lamontagne at 13:40, 3 September 2024

2024-09-03T13:40:53Z

Michel Lamontagne at 13:40, 3 September 2024

2024-09-03T13:40:27Z

Michel Lamontagne at 13:31, 3 September 2024

2024-09-03T13:31:57Z

RichardWSmith: Added info on mass of tracking systems for solar panels.

2024-09-01T05:58:17Z

Added info on mass of tracking systems for solar panels.

RichardWSmith: Added note to Michel.

2024-09-01T05:43:50Z

Added note to Michel.

RichardWSmith at 23:15, 30 August 2024

2024-08-30T23:15:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:39, 4 September 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	Rick: Hi Michel.
		+	Looks good. I added a link to Flow Battery. If the chemicals, plumbing, pumps, and tanks can be created on Mars, it makes energy storage for solar much cheaper. With any modest Martian industry they should be able to do this.
		+
		+	Thank you for all your work on this site!
		+	Warm regards.
		+
		+
	Hi Rick,		Hi Rick,
	I've updated everything, hope it's good for you. Solar is back to about 3+ times the nuclear cost. It all hinges on the cost of the small reactors.		I've updated everything, hope it's good for you. Solar is back to about 3+ times the nuclear cost. It all hinges on the cost of the small reactors.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 Hi Rick,
 I've updated everything, hope it's good for you.  Solar is back to about 3+ times the nuclear cost.  It all hinges on the cost of the small reactors.
 Hi Rick
 *Interesting, and here is a link to some proposed methodologies to estimate costs for small nuclear reactors and how traditional methods are not adequate, that go in the same direction as your argument.

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:10, 3 September 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	Hi Rick,
		+	I've updated everything, hope it's good for you. Solar is back to about 3+ times the nuclear cost. It all hinges on the cost of the small reactors.
	Hi Rick		Hi Rick
	*Interesting, and here is a link to some proposed methodologies to estimate costs for small nuclear reactors and how traditional methods are not adequate, that go in the same direction as your argument.		*Interesting, and here is a link to some proposed methodologies to estimate costs for small nuclear reactors and how traditional methods are not adequate, that go in the same direction as your argument.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 Hi Rick
-Interesting, and here is a link to some proposed methodologies to estimate costs for small nuclear reactors and how traditional methods are not adequate, that go in the same direction as your argument.
+*Interesting, and here is a link to some proposed methodologies to estimate costs for small nuclear reactors and how traditional methods are not adequate, that go in the same direction as your argument.
 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/00295450.2022.2118626?needAccess=true
 *Those are heavy mechanisms!  I would agree that that much mass is probably too much to be cost effective, and single axis should be specified.
 *I would love to have a shared calculation document, rather than updating the individual calculations on the page.  But yes, if you have the time feel free to change things!
-This link might work:
+*This link might work:
 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TPNPs-ndMnJYYvrFoNYWSsFWtWDOfywAR_2lzvRpQQg/edit?usp=sharing

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 Interesting, and here is a link to some proposed methodologies to estimate costs for small nuclear reactors and how traditional methods are not adequate, that go in the same direction as your argument.
 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/00295450.2022.2118626?needAccess=true
-Those are heavy mechanisms!  I would agree that that much mass is probably too much to be cost effective, and single axis should be specified.
+*Those are heavy mechanisms!  I would agree that that much mass is probably too much to be cost effective, and single axis should be specified.
-I would love to have a shared calculation document, rather than updating the individual calculations on the page.  But yes, if you have the time feel free to change things!
+*I would love to have a shared calculation document, rather than updating the individual calculations on the page.  But yes, if you have the time feel free to change things!
 This link might work:
 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TPNPs-ndMnJYYvrFoNYWSsFWtWDOfywAR_2lzvRpQQg/edit?usp=sharing

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:31, 3 September 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	Hi Rick
		+	Interesting, and here is a link to some proposed methodologies to estimate costs for small nuclear reactors and how traditional methods are not adequate, that go in the same direction as your argument.
		+	https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/00295450.2022.2118626?needAccess=true
		+	Those are heavy mechanisms! I would agree that that much mass is probably too much to be cost effective, and single axis should be specified.
		+	I would love to have a shared calculation document, rather than updating the individual calculations on the page. But yes, if you have the time feel free to change things!
		+
		+
	Rick: Hi Michel.		Rick: Hi Michel.
	I was researching the cost of Small Modular Reactors (how much MIGHT they cost) and found out that both Canada and China have already built them. The Chinese HTR-PM reactor had lots of good information on the cost and operating parameters so I put them into this page.		I was researching the cost of Small Modular Reactors (how much MIGHT they cost) and found out that both Canada and China have already built them. The Chinese HTR-PM reactor had lots of good information on the cost and operating parameters so I put them into this page.

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:58, 1 September 2024
Line 3:		Line 3:

	The cost for nuclear is now completely out of date, since we have an ACTUAL reactor much better than your estimates. Would you like me to edit this page, or would you like to do so?		The cost for nuclear is now completely out of date, since we have an ACTUAL reactor much better than your estimates. Would you like me to edit this page, or would you like to do so?
		+
		+	EDIT: I got curious and looked up the mass of a tracking system. To move a 6 panel solar Ecoworth 195 W solar panel (each of which mass ~10 kg) had a tracking system that massed 40 kg. So you needed 40 kg to move 60 kg of solar panels. <ref>https://www.amazon.ca/ECO-WORTHY-Tracking-Increase-Controller-Different/dp/B0CTLMSCW8/ref=asc_df_B0CTLMSCW8/?tag=googleshopc0c-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=706745350753&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=17532236790549841590&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9001498&hvtargid=pla-2302119217871&psc=1&mcid=4c0b13b15cd43da58e7f189e03ee0454&gad_source=1</ref>
		+
		+	Now this was for two axis tracking, would one axis tracking be enough?

	------------------		------------------

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:43, 1 September 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	Rick: Hi Michel.
		+	I was researching the cost of Small Modular Reactors (how much MIGHT they cost) and found out that both Canada and China have already built them. The Chinese HTR-PM reactor had lots of good information on the cost and operating parameters so I put them into this page.
		+
		+	The cost for nuclear is now completely out of date, since we have an ACTUAL reactor much better than your estimates. Would you like me to edit this page, or would you like to do so?
		+
		+	------------------
	Rick: Hi Michel.		Rick: Hi Michel.

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 I looked it up... a loss of 0.2% of power per Sol is typical, although observed rates of decrease in 'dust factor' vary between 0.05% and 2% per Sol.
-This is better than I thought, I was assuming that 0.5 to 1.0% per day was the typical rate (if I remember right, Opportunity was losing 1% per Sol, for a while there).  So rather than having to clean panels more than once a month, it is closer to one cleaning every couple months or so.
+This is better than I thought, I was assuming that 0.5 to 1.0% per day was the typical rate (if I remember right, Opportunity was losing 1% per Sol, for a while there).  So rather than having to clean panels more than once a month, it is closer to one cleaning every couple months. <ref>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0032063321001768#:~:text=A%20loss%20of%200.2%25%20per,Mars%20Pathfinder%20and%20Phoenix%20missions.</ref>
 Give me a couple days, and I'll adjust what I wrote based on this discussion.
-Did you notice that we are now manufacturing super critical CO2 turbines?  1/10 the mass of a steam turbine, and 10% more power!!!
+Did you notice that we are now manufacturing super critical Brayton Cycle CO2 turbines?  1/10 the mass of a steam turbine, and 10% more power!!!  Ideal for Mars.
 Warm regards, Rick.