Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

louis · 2021-05-12 08:08:23

The role of battery storage as part of a solar energy system is not as you describe it. It's there to ensure smooth management of elecriciity supply and also emegency storage on arrival. For Mission One, 30 tons of batteries at 300 WhE per Kg will be more than sufficient. There will of course be even more batteries around - in the Starships and in rovers etc. All told, I wouldn't be suprised if there were 100 tons of batteries around on Mission One.

Baseload will be provided through a combination of direct solar power and stored power from manufacture of methane and oxygen.

If you want to pursue your line of thought, the fuel (photons) for solar energy systems have no mass at all, so are even better than uranium. In reality, the mass of a nuclear power solution is about the same as for solar power. Each 10 Kwe Kilowatt unit weighs in it about 1.5 tons. Remember also that a nuclear power solution also needs batteries or some method of energy storage in addition to the reactors.

kbd512 wrote:

Louis,
400Wh/kg is for the battery cell itself, which does not include any of the other packaging required to turn it into a functional battery pack / energy storage solution. Rolls Royce used 250Wh/kg Tesla-manufactured Lithium-ion batteries in their electric aircraft by stripping away nearly all of the battery pack packaging from existing Tesla battery packs, and arrived at an energy density of 186Wh/kg, IIRC. That's 74.4% of the battery energy density figure. Using 75% as the pack-level energy density, we arrive at 300Wh/kg for this new battery, which is an improvement of 50Wh/kg over the smaller cells. That gravimetric energy density improvement was arrived at by applying the same cell technology to a much larger "jelly roll" to provide that extra 50Wh/kg of gravimetric energy density improvement. The underlying electrochemical technology itself hasn't improved in energy density.
What difference do you think that makes?
Some more simple math:
9,000,000Wh / 240Wh/kg = 37,500kg <- 2021 Tesla Roadster pack-level energy density (240Wh/kg)
9,000,000Wh / 300Wh/kg = 30,000kg <- This is where you are with 400Wh/kg batteries that are 75% battery by weight, at the pack level
9,000,000Wh / 2,500Wh/kg = 3,600kg <- This is where you need to be
9,000,000Wh / 8,340Wh/kg = 1,079kg <- This is where the 60% efficient Mercedes-Benz hybrid internal combustion engine is, in terms of fuel weight
9,000,000Wh / 22,394,000Wh/kg = 0.4kg <- This is where U235 is
36 years <- This is how long it took Lithium-ion batteries to achieve 400Wh/kg at the cell level
2,500Wh/kg / 400Wh/kg = 6.25 <- this is your gravimetric cell energy density multiplier (how long it actually took to achieve 400Wh/kg), relative to the length of time required to achieve
6.25 * 36 years = 225 years <- Unless magic happens, this is how long it will take for production-ready Lithium-ion batteries to compete with 18% efficient internal combustion engines. Every attempt to apply chintzy mathematics tricks won't change how long it actually took to go from prototype to 400Wh/kg.
Maybe you still can't figure this one out, but any mathematics teacher worth his or her salt would have to, in order to make a city on Mars feasible in any sense.
If the battery can last through 5,000 cycles, then 2,009kg of U235 is required to supply 45,000,000,000Wh worth of energy, which is 15 times lower than a battery that supplies the same amount of energy through 5,000 charge / discharge cycles. Since current practical batteries supply about 1,000 cycles at 80% depth-of-discharge, you need around 150,000kg of batteries, which is around 75 times more weight devoted to batteries. If you scale up the power requirement, battery capacity scales linearly with weight. Reactor output power does not scale linearly with weight. 2,009kg of Uranium occupies a volume of around 1/10th of a cubic meter, so storage dimensions for Uranium metal are incredibly compact. A single light vehicle could feasibly move 763kg on Mars. 57,000kg is the weight a medium-class main battle tank here on Earth.
If batteries had approximately the same energy density as gasoline, then I would be here helping to make your argument for you. I can't do anything about the fact that they don't.

SpaceNut · 2021-05-12 17:30:34

yes a battery can be a ripple current feature that means you are doing direct near full conversion to use with little being saved into long term storage. The power wall is basically design for that purpose with a smidge of savings but not much...

One more measurement for the wonder batteries is the volume that they take up, how much assembly time to connect them together ect....
Nuclear does not require any batteries....as the input output of energy does not stop every 6 to 10 hours as solar does.

louis · 2021-05-12 18:04:19

Deployment time for batteries is way less than for nuclear reactors on Mars. As I see it deployment time on Mars arrival will be zero because the batteries will be primed to provide electricity if required immediately on landing.

A nuclear power system on Mars does require batteries unless you are going to have separate nuclear reactors for every vehicle, every robot, every mining ouput. Also, without energy storage you are on a roll of the dice. I think that any nuclear reactor will need back up. Nuclear reactors are not guaranteed to function 100% as we know from Earth experience. It seems to me the height of irresponsibility not to have a back up system. If you have lots of individual nuclear reactors, that is less of an issue. But you will definitely be adding mass that way.

SpaceNut wrote:

yes a battery can be a ripple current feature that means you are doing direct near full conversion to use with little being saved into long term storage. The power wall is basically design for that purpose with a smidge of savings but not much...
One more measurement for the wonder batteries is the volume that they take up, how much assembly time to connect them together ect....
Nuclear does not require any batteries....as the input output of energy does not stop every 6 to 10 hours as solar does.

SpaceNut · 2021-05-12 18:20:53

Show the artwork design that keeps the batteries charge once leaving earth orbit as thats not a starship but something else....

these are not being built

SpaceX-InterplanetarySpaceship-back_quarter_view-with_solar_extended_(cropped_%26_retouched).jpg

since only half the ship or less can be covered with panels that means no AG for the journey.

kbd512 · 2021-05-14 15:23:33

louis wrote:

Deployment time for batteries is way less than for nuclear reactors on Mars. As I see it deployment time on Mars arrival will be zero because the batteries will be primed to provide electricity if required immediately on landing.
A nuclear power system on Mars does require batteries unless you are going to have separate nuclear reactors for every vehicle, every robot, every mining ouput. Also, without energy storage you are on a roll of the dice. I think that any nuclear reactor will need back up. Nuclear reactors are not guaranteed to function 100% as we know from Earth experience. It seems to me the height of irresponsibility not to have a back up system. If you have lots of individual nuclear reactors, that is less of an issue. But you will definitely be adding mass that way.
SpaceNut wrote:
yes a battery can be a ripple current feature that means you are doing direct near full conversion to use with little being saved into long term storage. The power wall is basically design for that purpose with a smidge of savings but not much...
One more measurement for the wonder batteries is the volume that they take up, how much assembly time to connect them together ect....
Nuclear does not require any batteries....as the input output of energy does not stop every 6 to 10 hours as solar does.

Louis,

Deploying something that weighs thousands of tons, that has to be broken up into numerous smaller units that are easier to move, if not entirely separate shipments to Mars, is objectively not faster to deploy than deploying a handful of self-contained power generating units that weigh many thousands of tons less. The key difference is that we're not trying to store power for an entire base or colony, using batteries, merely to make it through the night. An ideology-free energy production and storage solution dictates that appropriate technologies are selected. Batteries are not used anywhere on Earth to provide overnight power to a technologically advanced human civilization. Electric cars work because there are well-established electrical grids that provide 24/7/365 energy, with or without any sunlight or wind. Nothing of the sort exists on Mars. Here on Earth, we use coal, gas, or nuclear reactors to power cities and combustion engines to power land vehicles, with a smattering of light low-duty-cycle battery powered vehicles.

louis · 2021-05-14 17:03:07

You haven't defined your terms so I am not clear whether you are talking about early missions or a mature Mars colony. Obviously a mature Mars colony will be producing its own PV system using probably 98% Mars ISRU in the production process. PV rolls are easily deployed, particularly on Mars where there is no seriously inclement weather.

I see no reason why the Mars colony shouldn't begin PV panel production within the first 10 years of a human landing. It is already a highly automated process on Earth.

Battery storage is already being used in the USA for load management - ie power up the battery during the day and then use the power at night.

https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/el … torage.pdf

I read also that the cost of battery power electricity has halved over the last couple of years and now stands at 15 cents per KwH - this is getting close to commercial viability I would say. If you can halve that again to 7.5 cents per KwHe many commercial applications will become possible.

kbd512 wrote:

louis wrote:
Deployment time for batteries is way less than for nuclear reactors on Mars. As I see it deployment time on Mars arrival will be zero because the batteries will be primed to provide electricity if required immediately on landing.
A nuclear power system on Mars does require batteries unless you are going to have separate nuclear reactors for every vehicle, every robot, every mining ouput. Also, without energy storage you are on a roll of the dice. I think that any nuclear reactor will need back up. Nuclear reactors are not guaranteed to function 100% as we know from Earth experience. It seems to me the height of irresponsibility not to have a back up system. If you have lots of individual nuclear reactors, that is less of an issue. But you will definitely be adding mass that way.
SpaceNut wrote:
yes a battery can be a ripple current feature that means you are doing direct near full conversion to use with little being saved into long term storage. The power wall is basically design for that purpose with a smidge of savings but not much...
One more measurement for the wonder batteries is the volume that they take up, how much assembly time to connect them together ect....
Nuclear does not require any batteries....as the input output of energy does not stop every 6 to 10 hours as solar does.
Louis,
Deploying something that weighs thousands of tons, that has to be broken up into numerous smaller units that are easier to move, if not entirely separate shipments to Mars, is objectively not faster to deploy than deploying a handful of self-contained power generating units that weigh many thousands of tons less. The key difference is that we're not trying to store power for an entire base or colony, using batteries, merely to make it through the night. An ideology-free energy production and storage solution dictates that appropriate technologies are selected. Batteries are not used anywhere on Earth to provide overnight power to a technologically advanced human civilization. Electric cars work because there are well-established electrical grids that provide 24/7/365 energy, with or without any sunlight or wind. Nothing of the sort exists on Mars. Here on Earth, we use coal, gas, or nuclear reactors to power cities and combustion engines to power land vehicles, with a smattering of light low-duty-cycle battery powered vehicles.

SpaceNut · 2021-05-14 17:29:37

The document is an "analysis" of battery use but it does not say how or who let alone where these are. I got a feeling that its made up of the cooperate ups and other power wall devices that are there as power outage prevention for its single use applications and not to back feed the grid.....

louis · 2021-05-14 18:38:47

It differentiates between large scale and small scale battery storage. Power wall would definitely come under small scale. It breaks down distribution by state and ownership.

SpaceNut wrote:

The document is an "analysis" of battery use but it does not say how or who let alone where these are. I got a feeling that its made up of the cooperate ups and other power wall devices that are there as power outage prevention for its single use applications and not to back feed the grid.....

kbd512 · 2021-05-15 10:04:45

Louis,

If PV rolls are so easily deployed, then why aren't rovers deploying PV rolls every day?

How long did it take humanity to go from incredibly energy dense liquid hydrocarbon fuels, that required no separate oxidizer to burn in Earth's atmosphere, to producing solar panels?

By my math, it took about a century. Scientists in multiple different countries knew about the photoelectric effect long before we had widespread use of internal combustion engines burning liquid hydrocarbon fuels, but it wasn't until the 1950s that we used the very first solar panels to power satellites.

This idea that we're going to start from scratch and then ten years later, start producing photovoltaic panels on Mars is wildly optimistic, especially if they're limited to solar power to begin with.

Solar panels rely upon materials that are about as abundant as Platinum, so unless Mars is awash in the minerals required, I don't see that as very practical.

Anyway, cost on Mars is tied to total system weight for the power generating and storage solution. There is no such thing as a battery pack that stores equivalent energy as a nuclear reactor can produce, for equivalent weight, or anything close to it. In another 10 years, that will still be every bit as true as it is today.

From the article you linked to, 869MWh of battery power storage is installed across the entire United States, so a city on Mars would require 4.25 times the amount of installed capacity to store 24 hours worth of energy. No mention is made of the weight of the installed systems, either, but most of those systems installed in the US will be Lead-acid batteries as a function of cost. I'm guessing they aren't all that light.

tahanson43206 · 2021-05-15 10:18:00

For kbd512 re #434

This topic has received quite a bit of attention over the past several years ... I went back to confirm that it is a Louis project ...

OK here's my more detailed proposal for a solar-based energy system to power Mission One on Mars. [In view of recent comments on other threads, I hope people can address the calculations, architecture and assumptions rather than making ad hominem attacks. I have made it quite clear before that a nuclear proposal is doable. I don't doubt the integrity of people who make the proposal. I just doubt that it will be as a good as solar and here are the reasons why...]

It seems likely (to me at least) that Louis is working from a foundation of optimism based upon wishful thinking.

However, my guess is there is an alternative future where Louis' vision can actually happen ...

Here's a question .... is it possible to make practical solar cells from materials known to exist on Mars ...

Set aside the question of power needed to manufacture them for the moment ....

Can it be done at all?

Perchlorates have popped up from time to time as material capable of sustaining photosynthetic quantum level effects ...

It would appear there might be an ample supply of perchlorates on Mars.

It would be nice to see this persistent topic by Louis reach a positive outcome.

(th)

Oldfart1939 · 2021-05-15 12:14:50

I gave this a lot of thought last evening, and analyzed my objections to "going totally solar."

It's based, as (th) says, a lot of wishful thinking. The Main purpose of early missions is more about overall survival and doing science than building a Utopian Solar Society. In my 17 crew thread, I haven't included a massive solar farm because there is simply too much other work to accomplish.

I'm also of the opinion that if Louis wants to see a massive Solar Farm, he visits California. I personally believe that there is another form of pollution he's inadvertently promoting: visual pollution. I remember a particular line from "the Martian, which was Mark Watney strolling alone and mentally commenting on the "Magnificent Desolation." I cannot tolerate the thought of that Magnificent Desolation being turned into an unsightly Solar Farm.

kbd512 has done an excellent job of "doing the math," and his conclusion is inescapable: no matter how much the Solar Only group wants it, "it ain't gonna happen."

On one hand, Louis is talking about promoting Space Tourism; on the other hand, he wants to defile the Red Planet with square kilometers of solar panels. I sure as H*ll don't want to go to see a Solar Farm, if I'm spending a $500,000 amount to see Mars.

Calliban · 2021-05-15 13:09:40

Mars has as much land area as the entire Earth. A solar farm covering 200km2, would cover a little more than one millionth of the Martian surface. It is a big place. So I am less concerned about the visual impact of solar farms.

The issues that make this idea unworkable are the sheer amount of embodied materials and embodied energy needed to build a solar power plant. On Earth, in northern Europe, the energy payback time of a utility grade PV plant is about 6 years. And that is ignoring other energy losses and sunk energy costs, such as those associated with energy storage. On Mars, we can expect it to be similar at the equator and progressively more as we head away from the equator. This means that if we are making solar panels on Mars, using solar PV energy, a large proportion of the energy supply is consumed simply replacing the original solar power plant before it wears out. This poor energy payback is an inevitable consequence of the nature of the resource and its low inherent power density.

In the context of a Martian colony that is attempting to grow into a city-state, this causes severe problems. It makes it very difficult to grow the power supply and provide enough surplus energy to build infrastructure that an expanding population is going to need.

If we were talking about industrial development in free space at Earth distance from the sun, where sunlight is available at 1300W.m-2, and available 24/7; then the conclusion would be very different. Solar power would provide more than sufficient net energy return to do everything that we needed it to do. But in the context of a growing colony on the surface of Mars, the physics is telling us that it isn't possible. Therefore it isn't responsible to advocate it, purely because you are attached emotionally to the idea of it. But that seems to be the position that Louis is taking. He is advocating this, not because it makes sense at any practical level, but because he likes the idea of it. That's about as silly as you can get when you are trying to build something that is already absurdly difficult, like a colony on a planet with virtually no air and with temperatures as cold as Antarctica.

Interestingly, solar power is not a sustainable proposition for provision of bulk electricity on Earth. However, a number of factors combine to make solar PV power appear more affordable and sustainable than it really is, at least in the short-term.

1. Dumping of modules by Chinese state-owned companies. This started around 2008 and drove most western solar PV manufacturers to the wall.

2. Very low (close to zero and less than inflation) interest rates, since 2009. This has skewed the economics of new investments, because large institutional investors can now borrow, confident that the value of outstanding loans will depreciate faster than interest payments accrue. This makes it very easy to invest expensive capital equipment, such as that needed to make solar panels. The same applies to utility companies, who can pay for the manufactured solar panels with effectively zero interest money. When one considers that the cost of renewable energy is dominated by capital costs, this has the effect of strongly reducing the need for revenue to cover capital cost payments. In fact, if you think about it, if both manufacturers and utilities can borrow at less than inflation, you have to wonder why solar electricity isn't completely free right now.

3. Quantitative easing money is basically flowing into sovereign and corporate bond markets around the world. This is inflating their price and conversely pushing down their rate of return. This means that companies can now issue 30-year bonds with real returns that fail to even match inflation. But it does have the effect of making capital investments very affordable. This effect has allowed the US shale boom to take the world by storm, even though the energy return on investment of tight oil (shale) is far below conventional oil. The same mechanism is benefiting solar and wind as well, though the scale has been less significant than shale.

4. Renewable sources have privileged access to electricity markets, allowing them to dump power on the grid whenever it is produced. Other energy sources, many of which are relied upon as backup for renewable energy, are not compensated for lost market share. This is part of the reason behind legacy coal, nuclear and even some natural gas powerplants going to the wall in recent years. The problem of course is that we still need to rely on these plants for energy supply when the sun isn't shining or wind not blowing.

5. Some commodities are extremely cheap (or were until recently). The Chinese are producing steel at a cost of $300/tonne. Concrete is similarly cheap. In mainland China, electricity is cheap. This has made the enormous materials budget of Solar PV more affordable. But the thing to remember is that these commodities are only cheap because they receive an enormous energy subsidy from fossil fuels. Cheap coal makes for cheap steel and electricity. Cheap natural gas makes cheap cement. The same is true for any commodity that is cheap. It wouldn't be cheap without fossil fuels. So solar power, is really just coal or natural gas power. Their energy is embodied in the energy cost of solar infrastructure. These fuels are finite and we are close to their all time production peaks right now. They won't exist at all on Mars and nor will there be air to burn them.

So the renewable energy boom is supported by unsustainable financial conditions that cannot be maintained for very much longer. Low interest rates are destroying pension funds, leading to enormous unfunded pension liabilities. Return on investment is so low that long-term investment is unprofitable. Likewise, quantitative easing, which involves inflating M1 money supply, cannot continue for much longer without destroying the value of fiat currencies. Yet without these conditions, wind and solar power would be too expensive to be more than niche solutions in our energy future. We are living in a bubble at present. When that bubble finally bursts, a lot of people are going to lose their shirts.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-05-15 13:55:37)

louis · 2021-05-15 14:10:31

I'm quite happy for people to take a pop at me but in doing so they should consider: how the hell is Musk going to
keep people alive on Mars? He has never given any indication other than that he will use solar energy on Mars. So it's really for you to figure out why he is such a dumbass! I of course don't agree. I reckon he will already have given this a great deal of thought. He is after all an energy expert as well as a leading rocket designer.

IIRC Space X were associated with a study that suggested the propellant plant (probably at least 95% of energy requirements on Mission One) could be supported by something like a 60,000 sq metre facility (244 x 244 metres). Some people may feel that's on the low side but it's probably incorporating economies of scale at the propellant plant, the details of which will not be widely known. 244 x 244 metres is not some unachievable figure.

As the colony grows and people come to live on Mars for longer and longer periods, the need for propellant to transport people back to Earth will decline, so proportionally on per capita basis this huge call on resources will decline rapidly.

I've researched this before but it's difficult to find a % breakdown of materials in a conventional PV panel but silicon is a very large part of it, including in any glass covering. The main components are:

Solar photovoltaic cells (silicon with some doping materials)

Toughened Glass - 3 to 3.5mm thick

Extruded Aluminium frame

Encapsulation - EVA film layers

Polymer rear back-sheet

Junction box - diodes and connectors

Mars has plenty of silica sand from which silicon can be purified and glass can be made. Making ethylene vinyl acetate and other polymers will be tricky. No doubt initially these will be imported from Earth - likewise the electrical connecting equipment to begin with.

Recycling will be a big industry on Mars and far more intensive I believe because it will be economic on Mars to put more energy into recycling (given the alternative of importing much material from Earth is so costly). There will be 100kgs of plastics to be stripped out of Starships and cargo wrapping. So, I am imagining a lot of polymers will be produced from recycled material, with plastics carefully sorted by type and then melted down for reuse (following purification processes). Likewise there will be 100s of metres of copper wiring that can be salvaged. I don't expect any copper wiring ever to be "thrown away". 99.9% will be reused. Copper will be in short supply on Mars.

Aluminium oxides are abundant on Mars as on Earth, so using aluminium should not be a problem.

tahanson43206 wrote:

For kbd512 re #434
This topic has received quite a bit of attention over the past several years ... I went back to confirm that it is a Louis project ...
OK here's my more detailed proposal for a solar-based energy system to power Mission One on Mars. [In view of recent comments on other threads, I hope people can address the calculations, architecture and assumptions rather than making ad hominem attacks. I have made it quite clear before that a nuclear proposal is doable. I don't doubt the integrity of people who make the proposal. I just doubt that it will be as a good as solar and here are the reasons why...]
It seems likely (to me at least) that Louis is working from a foundation of optimism based upon wishful thinking.
However, my guess is there is an alternative future where Louis' vision can actually happen ...
Here's a question .... is it possible to make practical solar cells from materials known to exist on Mars ...
Set aside the question of power needed to manufacture them for the moment ....
Can it be done at all?
Perchlorates have popped up from time to time as material capable of sustaining photosynthetic quantum level effects ...
It would appear there might be an ample supply of perchlorates on Mars.
It would be nice to see this persistent topic by Louis reach a positive outcome.
(th)

louis · 2021-05-15 14:36:14

kbd512 wrote:

Louis,
If PV rolls are so easily deployed, then why aren't rovers deploying PV rolls every day?

That's easy:

(a) The rover missions have had very strict mass limits.

(b) The rovers themselves have limited energy requirements and are limited in what they can do without direct human supervision.

So far the max mass to Mars for any one mission has been around 1 ton. In contrast Space X's Mission One will deliver 500 tons to the planet. There is no comparison.

I am not saying they will definitely use PV rolls. The lack of inclement weather on Mars means that if more conventional panels are used they will not required the same builky frames and supports. They could for instance be angled with the help of inflatable bolsters.

How long did it take humanity to go from incredibly energy dense liquid hydrocarbon fuels, that required no separate oxidizer to burn in Earth's atmosphere, to producing solar panels?
By my math, it took about a century. Scientists in multiple different countries knew about the photoelectric effect long before we had widespread use of internal combustion engines burning liquid hydrocarbon fuels, but it wasn't until the 1950s that we used the very first solar panels to power satellites.
This idea that we're going to start from scratch and then ten years later, start producing photovoltaic panels on Mars is wildly optimistic, especially if they're limited to solar power to begin with.
Solar panels rely upon materials that are about as abundant as Platinum, so unless Mars is awash in the minerals required, I don't see that as very practical.
Anyway, cost on Mars is tied to total system weight for the power generating and storage solution. There is no such thing as a battery pack that stores equivalent energy as a nuclear reactor can produce, for equivalent weight, or anything close to it. In another 10 years, that will still be every bit as true as it is today.
From the article you linked to, 869MWh of battery power storage is installed across the entire United States, so a city on Mars would require 4.25 times the amount of installed capacity to store 24 hours worth of energy. No mention is made of the weight of the installed systems, either, but most of those systems installed in the US will be Lead-acid batteries as a function of cost. I'm guessing they aren't all that light.

I'm certainly not arguing battery power is a mature technology.

In terms of Mars I believe the contribution of chemical batteries to energy storage will be important but limited. Storage in the form of methane and oxygen will be key to ensuring 25/7 and "all eventualities" electric power.

See my reply to TA re materials available on Mars. I acccept that to begin with many of the doping materials will come from Earth. But there is nothing about silicon purfication that says it couldn't be done on Mars.

The highly automated machines used in PV manufacture could be exported to Mars:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KTrq63Q2u4

It would take some more years before Mars could manufacture the machines that make PV panels but it could start with the easiest parts first e.g. casings and so on.

Oldfart1939 · 2021-05-15 14:40:55

I'm quite happy to allow Louis to keep living in Fantasyland. Others here have spent a lot more time "doing the math" than I. Calliban in his post #437 has really "nailed it." I don't doubt that Elon Musk hasn't thought about the overall picture, but he too, is smart enough to accept reality when that cold fish smacks him in the face. Solar City is one of his ventures, so he has something of a vested financial interest in PV panels. Chinese manufactured PV panels. As Calliban so elegantly points out, this cheap PV panel cost is ultimately unsustainable in an energy to manufacture sense.
We have to accept that nothing in the world of physics and chemistry or engineering has any bearing on things for an emotional attachment to a dream.
If NASA is in any way involved, then stark engineering reality will prevail with the first outpost through colonization--including sufficient nuclear reactors to ensure survival even under the worst possible dust storm conditions lasting for up to a Martian year.

Energy is King. Having adequate energy is what will either allow the colonization to succeed, or in it's absence--fail.

Calliban · 2021-05-15 14:45:46

louis wrote:

I'm quite happy for people to take a pop at me but in doing so they should consider: how the hell is Musk going to
keep people alive on Mars? He has never given any indication other than that he will use solar energy on Mars. So it's really for you to figure out why he is such a dumbass! I of course don't agree. I reckon he will already have given this a great deal of thought. He is after all an energy expert as well as a leading rocket designer.
IIRC Space X were associated with a study that suggested the propellant plant (probably at least 95% of energy requirements on Mission One) could be supported by something like a 60,000 sq metre facility (244 x 244 metres). Some people may feel that's on the low side but it's probably incorporating economies of scale at the propellant plant, the details of which will not be widely known. 244 x 244 metres is not some unachievable figure.
As the colony grows and people come to live on Mars for longer and longer periods, the need for propellant to transport people back to Earth will decline, so proportionally on per capita basis this huge call on resources will decline rapidly.
I've researched this before but it's difficult to find a % breakdown of materials in a conventional PV panel but silicon is a very large part of it, including in any glass covering. The main components are:
Solar photovoltaic cells (silicon with some doping materials)
Toughened Glass - 3 to 3.5mm thick
Extruded Aluminium frame
Encapsulation - EVA film layers
Polymer rear back-sheet
Junction box - diodes and connectors
Mars has plenty of silica sand from which silicon can be purified and glass can be made. Making ethylene vinyl acetate and other polymers will be tricky. No doubt initially these will be imported from Earth - likewise the electrical connecting equipment to begin with.
Recycling will be a big industry on Mars and far more intensive I believe because it will be economic on Mars to put more energy into recycling (given the alternative of importing much material from Earth is so costly). There will be 100kgs of plastics to be stripped out of Starships and cargo wrapping. So, I am imagining a lot of polymers will be produced from recycled material, with plastics carefully sorted by type and then melted down for reuse (following purification processes). Likewise there will be 100s of metres of copper wiring that can be salvaged. I don't expect any copper wiring ever to be "thrown away". 99.9% will be reused. Copper will be in short supply on Mars.
Aluminium oxides are abundant on Mars as on Earth, so using aluminium should not be a problem.

We shall have to wait and see what it is that Musk has up his sleeve. I would agree that the fact that presidential approval is needed to launch a nuclear payload of any size is a complication. But without nuclear heat sources, a growing Martian colony just isn't workable from a net energy viewpoint. This also complicates the issue:
https://marspedia.org/Nuclear_power

'However, it is important to note that high concentration in this case means 1ppm, and that common soil on Earth has a Thorium concentration of 6ppm. There are granitic deposits on Earth with Thorium concentrations of 56ppm, that are considered very low grade resources. There is no evidence yet of thorium ore deposits that might be mined in an economical way.

In general, Thorium maps made from Mars Odyssey data suggest that the martian crust is poor in Thorium or uranium. It is possible that this reflects a formation model for Mars that would be much poorer in heavy metals than for Earth, and that Mars might have formed with more volatiles. This might be an explanation for Mars' lower density compared to Earth, 3.95 tonnes per m3 (g/cm3) vs 5,51 tonnes per m3 (g/cm3) for Earth.

The production of enriched nuclear fuel required for most designs complicates the case for in-situ production of nuclear fuel.'

It strongly suggests that any nuclear fuel used on Mars will need to be imported from Earth. A native nuclear fuel cycle will need to be a breeder cycle, as the abundance of heavy elements on Mars would appear to be low for anything else. But at least some fissile material is needed to start the cycle. With no fossil fuels and solar apparently lacking the net energy to support a workable domestic economy, it may turn out that Mr Bidden will have Musk by the balls.

louis · 2021-05-15 14:46:32

Is a facility say 300 metres by 300 metres "massive"? I don't think so.

Visual intrusion is very much in the eye of the beholder. I have always been fond of wind turbines though I appreciate some people just hate them. I prefer to see a turbine to a pylon. I have never seen a really big solar farm close up. Smaller ones in the English countryside can be a little jarring. On Mars I think they will be a reassuring sight and one that adds to the scene.

I think Kbd's maths has been to no avail because it is based on wrong assumptions based on the ESLSS analysis which includes absurdly high numbers of EVAs using air locks (involving gas loss), showers for everyone every day (while people on the ISS use wipes), high laundry usage and so on, plus no use of natural sunlight and plant organisms or algae for oxygen production, as one example. No allowance is made for internal heat exchange within a large Mars colony or the reduction in propellant production on a per capita basis as people become long term or permanent residents of Mars.

Oldfart1939 wrote:

I gave this a lot of thought last evening, and analyzed my objections to "going totally solar."
It's based, as (th) says, a lot of wishful thinking. The Main purpose of early missions is more about overall survival and doing science than building a Utopian Solar Society. In my 17 crew thread, I haven't included a massive solar farm because there is simply too much other work to accomplish.
I'm also of the opinion that if Louis wants to see a massive Solar Farm, he visits California. I personally believe that there is another form of pollution he's inadvertently promoting: visual pollution. I remember a particular line from "the Martian, which was Mark Watney strolling alone and mentally commenting on the "Magnificent Desolation." I cannot tolerate the thought of that Magnificent Desolation being turned into an unsightly Solar Farm.
kbd512 has done an excellent job of "doing the math," and his conclusion is inescapable: no matter how much the Solar Only group wants it, "it ain't gonna happen."
On one hand, Louis is talking about promoting Space Tourism; on the other hand, he wants to defile the Red Planet with square kilometers of solar panels. I sure as H*ll don't want to go to see a Solar Farm, if I'm spending a $500,000 amount to see Mars.

louis · 2021-05-15 15:26:03

You're quite right about land area. Once the colony is well established, if visual intrusion is a real issue then solar farms can be hidden behind crates and mountain ranges. They don't have to be slap-bang next to the city itself. But I think the huge solar farms will be part of the cityscape and viewed as reassuring emblems of humankind's colonisation of the planet.

I think you're living in the past with your figure of 6 years for energy payback. Most analysts put it at between 1 and 4 years. Think about how much 1 sq metre of solar panel can produce over two years. If it's producing 0.5 KwHs per day, then that's 365 KwHes produced over two years. That's a lot of electricity - very likely enough to cover all the industrial process, transportation and installation energy.

https://solarcraft.com/solar-energy-myths-facts/

The life of solar panels has also been expanding and they maintain output much better than in the past.

Double the energy payback time on Mars and it's still well worth pursuing at an average 4 years.

Mars is different from Earth - the optimal zone for solar is 25-29 degrees north in the Northern Hemisphere due to the wobble effect. There's nothing to stop us locating in the optimal zone. In fact the proposed landing zones on the Arcadia-Amazonis border are at about 30 degrees north so only slightly outside the optimal zone.

It's not just me advocating solar power, it's also Elon Musk who just happens to head up the one organisation that has a prospect of getting humans to Mars within the next decade.

1. Musk is hugely expanding his PV panel manufacturing operation in the USA.

2. Business loan interest rates are around 4-6% in real terms. No one in business gets free loans from the banking sector.

3. There is some truth in what you say about QE but it's not peculiar to solar energy. It applies to all energy forms.

4. This is true but it is becoming less and less relevant and certainly has no relevance to Mars. In the UK nuclear power also have a cosy deal - a guaranteed sale and purchase at 90p per KwHe (about twice the price of gas electricity generation) for a new nuclear reactor.

5. The cheapest solar is cheaper than coal. This is only going to become more frequently the case. China has relied on a lot of cheap peasant labour in all parts of its economy, it can't keep that trick going forever. Automation and robotics are what will drive down costs in the future.

Calliban wrote:

Mars has as much land area as the entire Earth. A solar farm covering 200km2, would cover a little more than one millionth of the Martian surface. It is a big place. So I am less concerned about the visual impact of solar farms.
The issues that make this idea unworkable are the sheer amount of embodied materials and embodied energy needed to build a solar power plant. On Earth, in northern Europe, the energy payback time of a utility grade PV plant is about 6 years. And that is ignoring other energy losses and sunk energy costs, such as those associated with energy storage. On Mars, we can expect it to be similar at the equator and progressively more as we head away from the equator. This means that if we are making solar panels on Mars, using solar PV energy, a large proportion of the energy supply is consumed simply replacing the original solar power plant before it wears out. This poor energy payback is an inevitable consequence of the nature of the resource and its low inherent power density.
In the context of a Martian colony that is attempting to grow into a city-state, this causes severe problems. It makes it very difficult to grow the power supply and provide enough surplus energy to build infrastructure that an expanding population is going to need.
If we were talking about industrial development in free space at Earth distance from the sun, where sunlight is available at 1300W.m-2, and available 24/7; then the conclusion would be very different. Solar power would provide more than sufficient net energy return to do everything that we needed it to do. But in the context of a growing colony on the surface of Mars, the physics is telling us that it isn't possible. Therefore it isn't responsible to advocate it, purely because you are attached emotionally to the idea of it. But that seems to be the position that Louis is taking. He is advocating this, not because it makes sense at any practical level, but because he likes the idea of it. That's about as silly as you can get when you are trying to build something that is already absurdly difficult, like a colony on a planet with virtually no air and with temperatures as cold as Antarctica.
Interestingly, solar power is not a sustainable proposition for provision of bulk electricity on Earth. However, a number of factors combine to make solar PV power appear more affordable and sustainable than it really is, at least in the short-term.
1. Dumping of modules by Chinese state-owned companies. This started around 2008 and drove most western solar PV manufacturers to the wall.
2. Very low (close to zero and less than inflation) interest rates, since 2009. This has skewed the economics of new investments, because large institutional investors can now borrow, confident that the value of outstanding loans will depreciate faster than interest payments accrue. This makes it very easy to invest expensive capital equipment, such as that needed to make solar panels. The same applies to utility companies, who can pay for the manufactured solar panels with effectively zero interest money. When one considers that the cost of renewable energy is dominated by capital costs, this has the effect of strongly reducing the need for revenue to cover capital cost payments. In fact, if you think about it, if both manufacturers and utilities can borrow at less than inflation, you have to wonder why solar electricity isn't completely free right now.
3. Quantitative easing money is basically flowing into sovereign and corporate bond markets around the world. This is inflating their price and conversely pushing down their rate of return. This means that companies can now issue 30-year bonds with real returns that fail to even match inflation. But it does have the effect of making capital investments very affordable. This effect has allowed the US shale boom to take the world by storm, even though the energy return on investment of tight oil (shale) is far below conventional oil. The same mechanism is benefiting solar and wind as well, though the scale has been less significant than shale.
4. Renewable sources have privileged access to electricity markets, allowing them to dump power on the grid whenever it is produced. Other energy sources, many of which are relied upon as backup for renewable energy, are not compensated for lost market share. This is part of the reason behind legacy coal, nuclear and even some natural gas powerplants going to the wall in recent years. The problem of course is that we still need to rely on these plants for energy supply when the sun isn't shining or wind not blowing.
5. Some commodities are extremely cheap (or were until recently). The Chinese are producing steel at a cost of $300/tonne. Concrete is similarly cheap. In mainland China, electricity is cheap. This has made the enormous materials budget of Solar PV more affordable. But the thing to remember is that these commodities are only cheap because they receive an enormous energy subsidy from fossil fuels. Cheap coal makes for cheap steel and electricity. Cheap natural gas makes cheap cement. The same is true for any commodity that is cheap. It wouldn't be cheap without fossil fuels. So solar power, is really just coal or natural gas power. Their energy is embodied in the energy cost of solar infrastructure. These fuels are finite and we are close to their all time production peaks right now. They won't exist at all on Mars and nor will there be air to burn them.
So the renewable energy boom is supported by unsustainable financial conditions that cannot be maintained for very much longer. Low interest rates are destroying pension funds, leading to enormous unfunded pension liabilities. Return on investment is so low that long-term investment is unprofitable. Likewise, quantitative easing, which involves inflating M1 money supply, cannot continue for much longer without destroying the value of fiat currencies. Yet without these conditions, wind and solar power would be too expensive to be more than niche solutions in our energy future. We are living in a bubble at present. When that bubble finally bursts, a lot of people are going to lose their shirts.

Calliban · 2021-05-15 15:30:25

louis wrote:

I'm certainly not arguing battery power is a mature technology.
In terms of Mars I believe the contribution of chemical batteries to energy storage will be important but limited. Storage in the form of methane and oxygen will be key to ensuring 25/7 and "all eventualities" electric power.
See my reply to TA re materials available on Mars. I acccept that to begin with many of the doping materials will come from Earth. But there is nothing about silicon purfication that says it couldn't be done on Mars.
The highly automated machines used in PV manufacture could be exported to Mars:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KTrq63Q2u4
It would take some more years before Mars could manufacture the machines that make PV panels but it could start with the easiest parts first e.g. casings and so on.

Louis, solar power systems on Mars do not provide enough surplus energy to reproduce themselves, meet other energy requirements and build excess capacity for expansion. This is what stands in your way. And it is not a problem that is easily solvable because it is imposed upon us by the unchangeable nature of the resource that we are trying to exploit. It is a conservation of energy problem. It isn't about not having sufficient tools to make the power systems in a technical sense. It isn't about not having the knowhow. It is the simple problem of not getting enough out compared to what you are putting in. You could ship to Mars every factory and tool that you think you may need and it wouldn't make any difference.

By way of analogy, imagine having to grow enough celery to meet the calorific needs of your family on a piece of land, using nothing but your own muscle power. You would starve to death. It wouldn't matter how good your spade or seed drill was. It wouldn't matter how much technological know how you had and how skillful you were at planting and tending and harvesting your crops. You would starve because it would be impossible to harvest enough energy to pay for the energy inputs. That is the sort of situation that you are in when trying to grow an industrial society using solar energy on Mars.

On Earth, we have all sorts of ways of subsidising solar power, both directly and indirectly. But those things don't really apply on Mars. There aren't any subsidies there because there is nothing to subsidise with. No manipulation of money supply or interest rates will help you. There are no cheap fossil fuels to make steel, or cement or silicon.

At least that is the conclusion that I would have to draw based upon the evidence that I have seen. Maybe there is evidence that I haven't seen? Maybe it will be possible to build these powerplants using far less embodied energy than we use on Earth. I can only hope so, because nothing else will make this work.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-05-15 15:34:05)

louis · 2021-05-15 15:33:09

NASA as the Kingmaker of energy! lol No. If you want your energy solution to cost ten times more than necessary go to NASA home of the bloated Mars estimates - what was it? $400 billion for a Mars base something like 30 years ago!

PV power is a proven technology on Mars. The next stage will be to create a PV facility that supports a human base. It certainly won't be "rocket science" - it will be a lot easier than designing the Starship.

Oldfart1939 wrote:

I'm quite happy to allow Louis to keep living in Fantasyland. Others here have spent a lot more time "doing the math" than I. Calliban in his post #437 has really "nailed it." I don't doubt that Elon Musk hasn't thought about the overall picture, but he too, is smart enough to accept reality when that cold fish smacks him in the face. Solar City is one of his ventures, so he has something of a vested financial interest in PV panels. Chinese manufactured PV panels. As Calliban so elegantly points out, this cheap PV panel cost is ultimately unsustainable in an energy to manufacture sense.
We have to accept that nothing in the world of physics and chemistry or engineering has any bearing on things for an emotional attachment to a dream.
If NASA is in any way involved, then stark engineering reality will prevail with the first outpost through colonization--including sufficient nuclear reactors to ensure survival even under the worst possible dust storm conditions lasting for up to a Martian year.
Energy is King. Having adequate energy is what will either allow the colonization to succeed, or in it's absence--fail.

kbd512 · 2021-05-15 15:34:03

Louis,

My "maths" are right in line with the energy usage in Antarctica, where absolutely nothing there was built from scratch and the air doesn't require any energy to make it breathable. You're enamored with your ideas, and that's fine, but it doesn't correlate with engineering reality. I have no clue what "visual intrusion" has to do with anything related to engineering. I'm not focused on the aesthetics of anything. I'm squarely focused on the simple and undeniable fact that this endeavor requires far more energy than you think it does, none of your assertions to the contrary square with the power consumption of known life support equipment, and there's absolutely nothing at all on the surface of Mars to provide any energy. Mars is a blank slate, in the literal sense. A city of a million people on Mars won't be powered by solar panels unless the rockets to take stuff there become an order of magnitude larger and we launch at least an order of magnitude more of them.

There are not a million astronauts in the entire world, and nobody else is going to sell everything they own to jump on a rocket and live on another planet where they can't go outside, can't take a shower, can't eat because there's no food, and can't do anything else because there's no energy to do it. The notion that a million people would go to Mars to sit inside a tin can for the rest of their life, washing themselves with wet wipes, but never go outside, is absurd. Try advertising that to people to see how many takers you get. Then test it out for six months here on Earth to see how many people want to live the rest of their natural lives that way. My guess is that you won't get too far.

Speaking of recycling, there'd better be a wet wipe recycling industry on Mars.

Maybe all that high grade stainless steel could be recycled into solar thermal power plants, but photovoltaics and batteries won't cut it, in much the same way that they don't cut it here on Earth. There will never be enough energy to send all the ships back without nuclear power, so we may as well use them for something productive.

louis · 2021-05-15 15:53:01

Calliban wrote:

Louis, solar power systems on Mars do not provide enough surplus energy to reproduce themselves, meet other energy requirements and build excess capacity for expansion. This is what stands in your way. And it is not a problem that is easily solvable because it is imposed upon us by the unchangeable nature of the resource that we are trying to exploit. It is a conservation of energy problem. It isn't about not having sufficient tools to make the power systems in a technical sense. It isn't about not having the knowhow. It is the simple problem of not getting enough out compared to what you are putting in. You could ship to Mars every factory and tool that you think you may need and it wouldn't make any difference.
By way of analogy, imagine having to grow enough celery to meet the calorific needs of your family on a piece of land, using nothing but your own muscle power. You would starve to death. It wouldn't matter how good your spade or seed drill was. It wouldn't matter how much technological know how you had and how skillful you were at planting and tending and harvesting your crops. You would starve because it would be impossible to harvest enough energy to pay for the energy inputs. That is the sort of situation that you are in when trying to grow an industrial society using solar energy on Mars.

Spare me the lectures! I fully understand what you are claiming, it's just you have no evidence to back up the claims. People across the world grow enough food to keep themselves alive with virtually no energy input but human labour - rice paddies are well suited to that sort of agriculture. You can get three rice crops a year in some parts of the world.

You yourself claim the energy payback time for PV power is 6 years. It's a huge overestimate but given PV panels last 20 plus years on Earth it doesn't back up your claim.

Even if you were right, it still doesn't mean you are right that solar power cannot support a Mars community. If Mars's economy is large enough to pay for PV panels imported from Earth, it's neither here nor there. It's no different from a Caribbean holiday island that imports all its oil. According to you, everyone on the island should be dead but because they have a strong tourist economy they can pay for the oil even though they have no indigenous energy supply.

Another factor you are ignoring is that energy has to be seen in terms of the overall demands on human labour time in an economy. On Earth in reality in nearly all countries huge amounts of medicine have to be put into caring for sick people, caring for very elderly and infirm people, providing welfare and pension payments to unproductive members of society, keeping maybe 0.1% of the population in prison, maintaining a large police force and court system, maintaining armed forces that can eat up 5% of your GDP, putting in place very complex environmental protection systems. All told I think this must amount to maybe something like 50% of GDP. When you don't have to deploy all those labour resources they are effectively free to be engaged in energy production.

There is no doubt energy generation on Mars will require more per capita resources per unit of output but there will be the resources available to make that happen.

On Earth, we have all sorts of ways of subsidising solar power, both directly and indirectly. But those things don't really apply on Mars. There aren't any subsidies there because there is nothing to subsidise with. No manipulation of money supply or interest rates will help you. There are no cheap fossil fuels to make steel, or cement or silicon.
At least that is the conclusion that I would have to draw based upon the evidence that I have seen. Maybe there is evidence that I haven't seen?

This just shows historical ignorance. Colonies have always subsidised a wide range of services that would otherwise not be viable. If the Brazilian space agency decide they want to send a couple of Brazilian astronauts to Mars and are prepared to pay Space X $50 million for the privilege of getting one up on the Argentinians and Space X make a profit of $10 million on that, then that's $10million they can use to subsidise something else if they wish. Maybe they will wish to subsidise a Mars Olympics for publicity purposes or maybe they will subsidise (aka invest in) an automated PV panel manufacturing facility on Mars.

On Earth, the levelised cost of solar energy has been in freefall for decades. There are now instances where PV energy can deliver electricity at 2 cents per KwHe or under, unsubsidised and the average price is now comparable with other mainstream energy systems.

kbd512 · 2021-05-15 16:13:51

Louis,

It's not Calliban's fault that current engineering practices and known materials science can't support what you want to do. It's a limitation of humanity's knowledge of science and engineering. In the future, yes, anything's possible, but current science and technology is what it is.

Let's review where we are, and where we were, ten years from now. If there are dramatic changes to the efficiency of solar power and battery energy density, then so be it. Until then, let's use what we know to produce the outcome we want- a city on Mars.

SpaceNut · 2021-05-15 16:32:51

The negative issues for solar starts with what can reach mars overall 43% of the earths 1100w m^2, next is mass to work the same as it does for earth with the two axis tracking or single fixed mounted as flat can not gain efficiency as we do not install them that way here.

The way to get like earth performance from the same system for mars means changing mounting and using reflective concentration surfaces to gain back the direct loss factors of the distance to mars.

https://www.almecogroup.com/en/pages/45 … plications

https://www.energy.gov/articles/top-10- … olar-power

this is one way

Calliban · 2021-05-15 16:53:04

louis wrote:

Calliban wrote:
Louis, solar power systems on Mars do not provide enough surplus energy to reproduce themselves, meet other energy requirements and build excess capacity for expansion. This is what stands in your way. And it is not a problem that is easily solvable because it is imposed upon us by the unchangeable nature of the resource that we are trying to exploit. It is a conservation of energy problem. It isn't about not having sufficient tools to make the power systems in a technical sense. It isn't about not having the knowhow. It is the simple problem of not getting enough out compared to what you are putting in. You could ship to Mars every factory and tool that you think you may need and it wouldn't make any difference.
By way of analogy, imagine having to grow enough celery to meet the calorific needs of your family on a piece of land, using nothing but your own muscle power. You would starve to death. It wouldn't matter how good your spade or seed drill was. It wouldn't matter how much technological know how you had and how skillful you were at planting and tending and harvesting your crops. You would starve because it would be impossible to harvest enough energy to pay for the energy inputs. That is the sort of situation that you are in when trying to grow an industrial society using solar energy on Mars.
Spare me the lectures! I fully understand what you are claiming, it's just you have no evidence to back up the claims. People across the world grow enough food to keep themselves alive with virtually no energy input but human labour - rice paddies are well suited to that sort of agriculture. You can get three rice crops a year in some parts of the world.
You yourself claim the energy payback time for PV power is 6 years. It's a huge overestimate but given PV panels last 20 plus years on Earth it doesn't back up your claim.
Even if you were right, it still doesn't mean you are right that solar power cannot support a Mars community. If Mars's economy is large enough to pay for PV panels imported from Earth, it's neither here nor there. It's no different from a Caribbean holiday island that imports all its oil. According to you, everyone on the island should be dead but because they have a strong tourist economy they can pay for the oil even though they have no indigenous energy supply.
Another factor you are ignoring is that energy has to be seen in terms of the overall demands on human labour time in an economy. On Earth in reality in nearly all countries huge amounts of medicine have to be put into caring for sick people, caring for very elderly and infirm people, providing welfare and pension payments to unproductive members of society, keeping maybe 0.1% of the population in prison, maintaining a large police force and court system, maintaining armed forces that can eat up 5% of your GDP, putting in place very complex environmental protection systems. All told I think this must amount to maybe something like 50% of GDP. When you don't have to deploy all those labour resources they are effectively free to be engaged in energy production.
There is no doubt energy generation on Mars will require more per capita resources per unit of output but there will be the resources available to make that happen.
On Earth, we have all sorts of ways of subsidising solar power, both directly and indirectly. But those things don't really apply on Mars. There aren't any subsidies there because there is nothing to subsidise with. No manipulation of money supply or interest rates will help you. There are no cheap fossil fuels to make steel, or cement or silicon.
At least that is the conclusion that I would have to draw based upon the evidence that I have seen. Maybe there is evidence that I haven't seen?
This just shows historical ignorance. Colonies have always subsidised a wide range of services that would otherwise not be viable. If the Brazilian space agency decide they want to send a couple of Brazilian astronauts to Mars and are prepared to pay Space X $50 million for the privilege of getting one up on the Argentinians and Space X make a profit of $10 million on that, then that's $10million they can use to subsidise something else if they wish. Maybe they will wish to subsidise a Mars Olympics for publicity purposes or maybe they will subsidise (aka invest in) an automated PV panel manufacturing facility on Mars.
On Earth, the levelised cost of solar energy has been in freefall for decades. There are now instances where PV energy can deliver electricity at 2 cents per KwHe or under, unsubsidised and the average price is now comparable with other mainstream energy systems.

Louis, I will spare you the lectures, for I know they are futile. I don't think its about the technical details for you. You seem to have tied yourself in knots over a cherished idea, which for whatever reason, is personally important to you.

Reading your responses indicates that you haven't listened to a thing that I or anyone else have said. Your response on energy payback times is a case in point. If the payback time is six years and the powerplant lasts 20 years, how much surplus energy do you think there is going to be for anything else? How many mines and roads and pressure domes can you build with an ERoEI that poor? You would understand the problem if you took the time to read and learn about it. But by your own admission, you aren't interested. We have engineers and scientists to do that. You would rather pull your own teeth out, is what you said. So why keep coming back to engineering topics that you aren't interested in learning about and lecturing the engineers and scientists? Why keep repeating the same points over and over even after they are refuted multiple times? What you seem to want is an echo chamber. That is typical of religious and political ideologues. It is the sort of thinking that led to the Spanish inquisition. It has no place in engineering topic discussions.

I get the distinct impression that you think that by debating here you can actually change the reality of things, that you can change the underlying physics and engineering limits with the eloquence of your arguments. Kind of like a barrister arguing in court or a company saleman. It doesn't work like that. There is no winning here. Solar panels, rockets, mining equipment, nuclear reactors, the laws of physics, are just technological options that are a means to an end. They all remain what they are, regardless of how well you 'sell them' on Internet forums.

These forums only have any value at all if you treat them as honest explorations of what is possible. Our greatest hope is to come up with something new that people can really use. And you need to be prepared to learn and explore the technology and face up to problems that may make cherished ideas unworkable. I have had to drop a lot ideas that I was quite fond of on this forum, because I realised that they weren't going to work. I was fond of the idea of an atmospheric engine that burned CO and O2 that is naturally present in the Martian atmosphere. But when I worked out the energy yield and calculated the compressor work needed, I realised it was unworkable. I didn't attempt to devise ever more clever arguments to sell it to people. What would be the point? It is no good championing something that you happen to be fond of and bending the facts to make it look possible. You cannot win that way because there is nothing to win.

In the imortal words of Yoda: "Learn to let go of all that you fear to lose".

Last edited by Calliban (2021-05-15 16:57:17)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#426 2021-05-12 08:08:23

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

#427 2021-05-12 17:30:34

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

#428 2021-05-12 18:04:19

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

#429 2021-05-12 18:20:53

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

#430 2021-05-14 15:23:33

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

#431 2021-05-14 17:03:07

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

#432 2021-05-14 17:29:37

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

#433 2021-05-14 18:38:47

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

#434 2021-05-15 10:04:45

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

#435 2021-05-15 10:18:00

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

#436 2021-05-15 12:14:50

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

#437 2021-05-15 13:09:40

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

#438 2021-05-15 14:10:31

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

#439 2021-05-15 14:36:14

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

#440 2021-05-15 14:40:55

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

#441 2021-05-15 14:45:46

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

#442 2021-05-15 14:46:32

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

#443 2021-05-15 15:26:03

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

#444 2021-05-15 15:30:25

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

#445 2021-05-15 15:33:09

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

#446 2021-05-15 15:34:03

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

#447 2021-05-15 15:53:01

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

#448 2021-05-15 16:13:51

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

#449 2021-05-15 16:32:51

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

#450 2021-05-15 16:53:04

Re: Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

Board footer