Difference between revisions of "Talk:Cost of energy on Mars"
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
If solar is not the primary power source, it becomes more attractive. A Martian colony is likely to be power starved. Some industrial processes could be scheduled for periods of peak sun. For example, a solar furnace could be loaded at night, and in the day time fire ceramics. Solar heat could be moved into masses with high thermal inertia, which would keep the colony warm at night. Growing plants require gigantic amounts of light, and with an approximately 24 hour day (??), solar is suitable for crops. A fair (??) bit of water is frozen in the subsurface soil of Mars, and solar power could heat patches of ground to release water vapour to be captured and condensed. | If solar is not the primary power source, it becomes more attractive. A Martian colony is likely to be power starved. Some industrial processes could be scheduled for periods of peak sun. For example, a solar furnace could be loaded at night, and in the day time fire ceramics. Solar heat could be moved into masses with high thermal inertia, which would keep the colony warm at night. Growing plants require gigantic amounts of light, and with an approximately 24 hour day (??), solar is suitable for crops. A fair (??) bit of water is frozen in the subsurface soil of Mars, and solar power could heat patches of ground to release water vapour to be captured and condensed. | ||
| + | |||
| + | If we are going to compare solar and nuclear, a fair comparison should include the cost of developing a specific nuclear reactor for Mars. | ||
Revision as of 09:46, 27 October 2022
Perhaps the discussion about thorium should go into the Thorium page?
In general it would be simpler to remove all mentions of nuclear fuel limitations from this page, as it's rather speculative, one way or another?
Thorium reactors are cheaper, or more economical. They are not more efficient in the usual sense of efficiency. Kilopower is only 25% efficient and future Martian reactors might not be optimized for fuel efficiency but for cooling system costs.
There is no way a reactor with moving parts will last 50 years. It's entirely speculative. 10 years is speculative too, of course, so likely a range or a table would be better. In that case, of course solar can go into a table as well.
Igneous rocks may not be precise enough. granites vs basalts might be a better division, and basalts, I believe, are poor in thorium. Again best discussed on the Thorium page.
Erased this as it has nothing to do with the cost of solar, but rather with technologies.
If solar is not the primary power source, it becomes more attractive. A Martian colony is likely to be power starved. Some industrial processes could be scheduled for periods of peak sun. For example, a solar furnace could be loaded at night, and in the day time fire ceramics. Solar heat could be moved into masses with high thermal inertia, which would keep the colony warm at night. Growing plants require gigantic amounts of light, and with an approximately 24 hour day (??), solar is suitable for crops. A fair (??) bit of water is frozen in the subsurface soil of Mars, and solar power could heat patches of ground to release water vapour to be captured and condensed.
If we are going to compare solar and nuclear, a fair comparison should include the cost of developing a specific nuclear reactor for Mars.
