Power generation on Mars

Calliban · 2020-12-16 13:12:32

Wiki page on Nuscale.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NuScale_Power

The reactor vessel weighs 590 metric tonnes. I don't know if this is with or without fuel. But something bigger than Musk's Starship would be needed to get it to low Earth Orbit. Assuming that a lifter is available, the reactor provides excellent power density. 250MWth at 590 tonnes, gives a mass power density 420W/kg. An excellent energy source if large quantities of low grade thermal energy are needed for provision of fresh water and agriculture.

tahanson43206 · 2020-12-16 13:47:53

For Calliban re #151

Technical question ... given that this reactor is designed to operate in a 1 G field, and that it has no pumps to move fluids ...

Would the reactor need to be redesigned for a 1/3 G field?

***
Regarding lifting to orbit ....

Is there anything you can see in the design that would preclude fabrication in sections and welding them together upon arrival at Mars?

(th)

SpaceNut · 2020-12-16 14:42:12

Thanks for the link Calliban, of which I would not call it a small reactor but a medium sized unit....

It would need to be brought up in pieces to be useful on the large wheel ship project...and its well outside of the starships lift capability of only 100 metric tons.

Calliban · 2020-12-16 16:26:15

tahanson43206 wrote:

For Calliban re #151
Technical question ... given that this reactor is designed to operate in a 1 G field, and that it has no pumps to move fluids ...
Would the reactor need to be redesigned for a 1/3 G field?
***
Regarding lifting to orbit ....
Is there anything you can see in the design that would preclude fabrication in sections and welding them together upon arrival at Mars?
(th)

Quite possibly. A gravity of 0.38g implies only 2/5 of the driving head in natural circulation mode. One option would be to make the chimney zone above the core longer (2.5x longer). That way, the driving head would be the same. Or maybe we could add a jet pump to the design to boost flow velocity. Otherwise, the power output of the reactor may need to be reduced for operation on Mars due to the poorer thermal hydraulic capabilities of the heat transfer loop in natural circulation mode.

SpaceNut wrote:

Thanks for the link Calliban, of which I would not call it a small reactor but a medium sized unit....
It would need to be brought up in pieces to be useful on the large wheel ship project...and its well outside of the starships lift capability of only 100 metric tons.

100te to LEO? Musk's ambitions appear to have shrunk dramatically. The original Starship was looking at 300te in reusable mode and 550 in expendable mode, so far as I remember. Part of the driver behind those large payload numbers was economy of scale in reducing unit launch costs.

Last edited by Calliban (2020-12-16 16:29:53)

kbd512 · 2020-12-16 18:02:23

Calliban,

Is there some reason why CO2 is not considered the top thermal power transfer fluid for a Mars-bound nuclear reactor design? It sure beats steam on power density and I don't think Mars is in much danger of running out any time soon.

SpaceNut · 2021-08-07 09:09:47

bump

Mars_B4_Moon · 2021-11-29 09:25:19

Chinese recently said they have a new reactor can generate one megawatt of electricity and is claimed to be 100 times more powerful than a similar device Nasa is working on. Across most of Mars the pressure is 6 to 10 millibars, or 1/100th that of our planet, although there are stroms, gust of wind, and flight has been proven by NASA/JPL Wind as a power source does not seem like a great idea, Solar power has proven to work but there is the problem of dust storms. Russia has pushed the idea of a Nuclear Space Tug delevering chemical materials from the Asteroids to Mars and other planets, it stated its plan to launch a huge spaceship powered by TEM, a nuclear reactor with a megawatt capacit. Adding other power such as Solar, power systems would also require the use of energy storage devices, more fule cells like batteries or fuel cells, and when payloads as costly this can begin adding unwanted mass to the launch system. Any base needs lots of power for things like communictaion, heating for habitat, powering machines or computers, other life support generation, chemical or industry process or to heat up rock or circule air and waters and regulate temperature between day and night, the Moon might prove to be a far greater challenge than Mars. The South China Morning post a HongKongt based newspaper and website posted some criticism and said that the secrecy surrounding the space nuclear reactor programmes means there is no legislation in place that could deal with an accident, such a botched launch or a meltdown in space. Some think Fusion is no longer a scifi concept and there could be a break through with Fusion Power in space.

ESA - Helium-3 mining on the lunar surface
https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Pr … ar_surface

China is developing a powerful nuclear reactor for its Moon and Mars missions
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science … e-missions

NASA, US Govt Seek Ideas For A Nuclear Reactor On The Moon; Aim For Mars If Successful
https://www.republicworld.com/technolog … ssful.html

Solaren Space Solar – Commercial Power
https://www.solarenspace.com/2019/02/25 … nd-beyond/

Quote

One of the biggest limiting resources for space exploration is electrical power. The Moon’s two week day night cycles provide additional challenges for battery storage. Solaren’s commercial megawatt-class Lunar SSP can provide continuous power through these cycles, enabling rapid exploration and construction. Lunar SSP provides the power infrastructure to support lunar bases and outposts operations while enabling commercial activities such as lunar mining and tourism.

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2021-11-29 12:30:35)

Calliban · 2021-12-09 15:42:50

I keep meaning to carry out buckling calculations for an aqueous homogenous reactor fuelled with low enriched uranium.
https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publicati … 01_web.pdf

This reactor was one of the first ever to be built. The reactor consists of a stainless steel vessel with uranium nitrate salts dissolved within water. The water provides both moderation and coolant. The reactor is naturally self-controlling, as increasing heat generation leads to voiding, which increases neutron leakage from the core.

These reactors operate at low temperatures <200°C and often <100°C. This made them inefficient and poorly effective for electric power generation. Power levels are typically low and these reactors are often used to manufacture medical isotopes. For this role, they are cheap to build.

For the first Mars missions, an aqueous homogenous reactor would be a good option, as it is easy to design and build and very predictable in its operation. This is conceivably something that we wouldn't even need to test.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-12-09 16:07:12)

SpaceNut · 2021-12-09 18:52:58

Thanks for the temperature information as the molten sodium is twice that value to make it practical plus with the moons day being only slightly hotter than numbers you gave its the night that is the issue when you are not providing for that cold for its design.

Water flow temperatures would need to be carefully watched under a lunar design but that would also be true for mars. I would bury the radiating elements in the ground to keep them in a constant cooling design where we can control that flow rate more closely.

.

kbd512 · 2021-12-10 03:41:30

Calliban,

As a water heater or condensing cycle steam engine, rather than thermal-to-electric power generator, AHRs could still be suitable to the task. Steam powered locomotives typically operate at less than 200C. The Anderson system was a type of condensing cycle that improved range by recuperating heat and economizing on water consumption. A very similar recuperation technique is used by water desalination plants to lower the required energy input. If we re-condense all of the reactor's feed water, then we could feasibly operate a very low-tech system for trains on Mars or the moon. The lower gravity negates most of the weight penalty of the recondensing equipment.

While everyone laughed at the X-12 concept, which weighed 326.7t (distributed across 2 complete train cars, for a 160ft total length), it occurred to me that the diesel-burning Union Pacific Centennial locomotive class weighed 247.5t (98ft total length), and that both designs produced 7,000hp. The Centennial class had an 8,200 gallon fuel tank refueled at least twice per week. The X-12 contained a few kilos of HEU, refueled every 3 months or so. So, 16,000 gallons of diesel per week vs maybe 50kg of HEU per year. Since Mars has 38% of Earth gravity and near-zero air resistance, that train could circle the planet long before refueling was required. Anyway, the Centennial operated between 40mph and its 90mph top speed here on Earth. I'm guessing a nuclear powered train could operate at its top speed for most of its service life, given the lack of people and buildings and motor vehicles on Mars.

Since radiator technology (PCHE), thermal power transfer technology (SCO2), and reactor shielding technology (Tungsten vs Lead) have moved on since the 1950s, perhaps something like the X-12 would be more feasible using today's technology. There's far less of an issue with radiation on Mars, far fewer opportunities for derailments, and far fewer refineries located there to produce diesel fuel.

Calliban · 2021-12-10 04:09:19

I hadn't heard of the X-12. I will read into that later. I think it is worthy of its own thread. As there are no roads and no land boundary issues on Mars, we could at some point build travelling bases, effectively giant sized rovers. An AHR may be useful as a travelling base power source. Propulsion would probably be electric. The base would be slow moving and we would need a reliable constant power source, capable of powering propulsion regardless of location and heat, which will be important everywhere, but especially for trips to polar regions.

For the AHR, I was actually thinking about an electric power supply to power propellant production for early Mars missions. We could use a secondary steam cycle, but that would be bulky. A hydrocarbon working fluid, like butane, might be a better option. High molecular mass usually translates into a compact turbine. With a hot source temperature of 150°C, say, and a cold source of 0°C (averaged across the day), Carnot efficiency would be 35%. Large powerplants usually get around two-thrids carnot efficiency; smaller ones about half Carnot efficiency. So in this case, efficiency would be around 20%. So a 5MWth reactor would produce around 4MW of waste heat and 1MWe. The AHR is simple and predictable. I believe that SpaceX could develop a working powerplant for their first Mars mission without having to shell out billions in R&D. As things stand, a solar power plant with sufficient power output is simply too massive to ship to Mars in a single Starship.

Later in the colonisation effort, AHRs could be built using discarded Starship propellant tanks. At nearly 9m in diameter, we could in fact fuel these using Mars mined natural uranium and heavy water when it becomes available. The AHR has the best neutron economy of any known reactor. This is because fission product poisons, especially xenon, can be continuously removed from the solute. I wonder if we could feed controlled amounts of thorium salts into a reactor like this, turning it into a thermal breeder? On Earth, the AHR was abandoned in favour of the PWR and BWR, both of which allow higher operating temperatures and better thermodynamic efficiency. On Mars however, waste heat need not go to waste. We will need large amounts of low grade heat to keep agricultural poly-tunnels warm, to purify water and to dry mud bricks before baking. Low grade heat can also be used to enrich deuterium, as heavy water has a slightly higher boiling point.

The AHR would appear to be something that we can easily construct on Mars using available materials. We need a powerplant that can be built quickly with a high net energy return. The use of AHRs to power mobile steam engines could be workable also. To keep the shielding solution as compact as possible, high power density would be important. This requires either enriched uranium, 233U or plutonium salts. The Kilopower units would be more efficient as mobile units, because they operate at higher temperature. But AHRs fuelled with highly enriched fissile materials could work as well. This would be especially the case if liquid CO2 could be used as an open cycle propellant. When Kilopower units reach end of life after 10 years, about 99% of their original HEU is still in place. If these units are dissolved in concentrated nitric acid, we will have a ready supply of uranium nitrate for mobile AHRs.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-12-10 04:29:43)

kbd512 · 2021-12-10 11:49:00

Calliban,

Yes, we could have giant, albeit slow moving rovers on Mars, with staggering carrying capacity. NASA's 3,300 tons / 2,993.7t crawler-transporters contain a pair of 16 cylinder Alco diesels that supply 5,500hp of input power to a total of 16 375hp locomotive traction motors, and have a loaded weight of up to 10,300 tons / 9,344t (3,550t on Mars). NASA's rocket mover has an unloaded speed of 2mph and a loaded speed of 1mph. At such low speeds, crashes would not endanger the onboard reactor at all, nor the vehicle itself. The vehicle could carry a pair of AHR reactors supplying sufficient motive and electric power for a sizeable mining crew, with onboard redundancy and functionally unlimited range. It's either a land ship or a mobile steel apartment complex, dependent upon how you look at it.

Without reusability, Starship has a 250t payload capacity. My idea for getting all the required steel to Mars is to fabricate Starship from thicker stainless steel sheet / plate metal, then use the Starships themselves as the source material for fabricating crawler-transporters. We'd only need to sacrifice 12 Starships to construct each vehicle. Since Elon Musk is planning on turning out hundreds or even thousands of these rockets, the sacrifice is rather insignificant. The first vehicle would serve as a water ice mining vehicle, the second as a propellant factory, the third as an Iron smelter to make locally sourced steel, the fourth vehicle as a mobile launch platform for Starships for returning people and cargo to Earth, and the fifth and subsequent vehicles as mobile apartment complexes for construction crews. When a vehicle is stationary, it can supply power to corded-electric or compressed air construction equipment, all fabricated on Mars using locally sourced steel. As mining advances, eventually locally sourced Uranium and Thorium fuels would supply reactor fuel and heavy water.

The ability to transport 5,000t+ payloads around on the surface is critical to the establishment of a permanent colony, because such vehicles can move the massive quantities of concrete, steel, and glass required to construct a permanent subsurface base, which includes piling up the requisite 3m of Martian regolith over the top of buried steel habitat modules, as well as powering tunnel boring machines to create what is essentially a nuclear fallout shelter in the event that Elon Musk carries out his plan of nuking the living daylights out of the polar regions of Mars in order to re-heat the planet to artificially create a surface environment capable of maintaining water in a liquid state.

Calliban · 2021-12-10 18:04:11

I think Musk's idea of nuking the polar caps is poorly conceived. In addition to releasing a lot of radioactivity, I doubt that it would be an economical means of releasing frozen volatiles. Bombs actually aren't that cheap per unit of energy. Edward Tellar floated the idea of using H-bombs to heat underground caverns, with heat slowly being drawn off for power production. One of the things that stood in the way of the project was a disappointingly high cost of energy using this method. Why not use a nuclear reactor to manufacture fluorocarbon compounds instead?

I certainly see the merit in having mega-trucks that can ship things from place to place on Mars. Especially trucks that run non-stop and do not burden base locations with any fuel demands. A nuclear power source can do that. Kind of like the ultimate ice road truckers! It helps being able to move thousands of tonnes of materials with just 1 or 2 drivers as well. If we are building a lot of things underground, then as you say, it makes sense having some very heavy soil moving equipment. We need to move about 10 tonnes of dirt per square metre of subsurface area. So building a sizable underground town or city, would be much easier if our equipment could bring to bare a nuclear energy advantage. Something like this would be useful for shifting dirt as well.
https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2011/01 … sport.html

For accessing water for a base, at some point it becomes worthwhile building a pipeline. A few numerical inputs: A polypropylene pipeline some 3000km long, 0.1m in diameter, delivering water at flowrate of 3m/s. Total flow rate of the pipeline would be 24 litres per second, or 744,000 tonnes per year. Assuming a wall thickness of 0.01m and taking density of PP to be 900kg/m3, the pipeline would have a mass of 8500 tonnes. The pipeline can deliver almost 1000 times its own weight in water every year. We probably won't need this until our settlements have grown to city scale proportions. But that does seem to be Musk's intention. We would need a heat source of a few tens of MW to thaw out that much ice. An AHR would be ideal.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-12-10 18:37:07)

SpaceNut · 2022-03-06 13:55:15

Unlocking Ultra Deep Geothermal Energy

Drilling to depths around 20km with temperatures of 500 degrees Celsius sounds impossible but in reality, we are on the road to a breakthrough in drilling technology that will allow humanity to tap the unlimited energy under our feet everywhere in the world.

Some areas will not need to drill so deep on earth but its and unknown for where the boundary is on Mars.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-03-07 13:48:58

Excellent high-temperature strength and ductility of the ZrC nanoparticles dispersed molybdenum
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a … via%3Dihub

New molybdenum alloy developed by Chinese Academy of Sciences and China Nuclear Power R&D Institute can be used for manufacturing space nuclear reactors in the far future, with excellent high-temperature strength and ductility.

another discussion on newmars forums

'Musk is now turning to Nuclear powerplants for Mars?'
http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=10109

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2022-03-07 13:49:31)

louis · 2022-03-07 15:22:20

Couple of points:

1. I believe his proposal is to use bombs with a low radioactive release. Also, Mars is pretty radioactive at the surface in any case - I don't think we'd be adding a huge amount.

2. Isn't the idea that water vapour would help trap heat on Mars. (I suppose the big question is "Would the water vapour remain as vapour, or is this something you'd have to do on a regular basis?).

Calliban wrote:

I think Musk's idea of nuking the polar caps is poorly conceived. In addition to releasing a lot of radioactivity, I doubt that it would be an economical means of releasing frozen volatiles. Bombs actually aren't that cheap per unit of energy. Edward Tellar floated the idea of using H-bombs to heat underground caverns, with heat slowly being drawn off for power production. One of the things that stood in the way of the project was a disappointingly high cost of energy using this method. Why not use a nuclear reactor to manufacture fluorocarbon compounds instead?
I certainly see the merit in having mega-trucks that can ship things from place to place on Mars. Especially trucks that run non-stop and do not burden base locations with any fuel demands. A nuclear power source can do that. Kind of like the ultimate ice road truckers! It helps being able to move thousands of tonnes of materials with just 1 or 2 drivers as well. If we are building a lot of things underground, then as you say, it makes sense having some very heavy soil moving equipment. We need to move about 10 tonnes of dirt per square metre of subsurface area. So building a sizable underground town or city, would be much easier if our equipment could bring to bare a nuclear energy advantage. Something like this would be useful for shifting dirt as well.
https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2011/01 … sport.html
For accessing water for a base, at some point it becomes worthwhile building a pipeline. A few numerical inputs: A polypropylene pipeline some 3000km long, 0.1m in diameter, delivering water at flowrate of 3m/s. Total flow rate of the pipeline would be 24 litres per second, or 744,000 tonnes per year. Assuming a wall thickness of 0.01m and taking density of PP to be 900kg/m3, the pipeline would have a mass of 8500 tonnes. The pipeline can deliver almost 1000 times its own weight in water every year. We probably won't need this until our settlements have grown to city scale proportions. But that does seem to be Musk's intention. We would need a heat source of a few tens of MW to thaw out that much ice. An AHR would be ideal.

Calliban · 2022-03-09 12:43:13

I'm not sure if anyone has written about this already.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech … olony.html

Musk appears to be considering vertical farms, presumably using LED light sources to produce a largely vegan diet for colonists. These farms are compact, but horrendously hungry for electric power. There is also talk of local manufacturing using local materials to reduce imports from Earth. The amount of electric power estimated to be required to run and grow the colony? 100kW per person. That is 2.4MWh per person, per day. That is a huge amount of energy and without fossil fuels, it must all be electricity. Musk's city of 1 million, would need constant generation of 100GWe, if that power requirement scales up. That is about twice the power production of France for a population sixty times smaller! Holy crap! Maybe, the people writing the article made a mistake?

It will be very difficult to provide this much power in an affordable way. Nuclear reactors? Before nuclear regulation went cuckoo back in the early 80s, it was possible to build reactors for about $1000/kW in modern money in the US. In China, they are still almost that cheap. So power supply for one person would cost $100,000 if we avoid the pitfalls that push up build costs. Maybe it is just on the edge of feasibility. We need reactors that are cheap to build and operate. Aqueous homogeneous reactors are very simple and self-regulating. They could be built very cheaply using stainless steel tanks. And they will produce lots of waste heat, which could heat greenhouses allowing natural light to be used for crop growth. This would be a good application for Thorium as a nuclear fuel, which can be dissolved as a salt in breeder blanket regions. Fission products are removed continuously without shutting down.

Last edited by Calliban (2022-03-09 13:02:40)

kbd512 · 2022-03-09 13:15:27

Calliban,

100kWe per person sounds pretty reasonable, given what it supplies.

Our Antarctic research station houses 10 (winter) to 80 (summer) people and burns through about 300,000 liters of diesel fuel per year. They don't make food or the air they breather or recycle their excrement, the water is drawn from a liquid well below the station, and no construction is taking place. If the constant is set to 25 people per year, then that works out to 13kW of energy consumption per person. Wind turbines and solar panels provide supplemental power there as well.

I'll refer everyone back to comment about not being sure that nuclear fission was up to the task. This is why. The power requirement is insane.

Terraformer · 2022-03-09 13:21:08

Ah, that explains why Musk thinks they'll be vegan. If they were using natural light, they might find that the cost of providing greenhouses for certain hardy grasses is so much lower than for corn or wheat that it would more than make up for the decreased conversion efficiency of dairy animals. But if they're using indoor lighting, they need to maximise calorie per kilowatt.

Calliban · 2022-03-09 14:13:55

Nuclear reactors produce heat. The electricity is generated in the attached thermodynamic plant, which is usually a steam plant. If we grow plants (or algae) under glass, we could heat them with waste heat, which as the name suggests, is a waste product. On Earth it has no value and is dumped into cooling towers. If a large chunk of that 100kW per capita can be replaced by low grade heat, at temperatures around 30°C (typical condenser temperature) it begins to look a bit more achievable. We could even build dedicated heat producing nuclear reactors that operate at low temperatures. That cuts out the cost of the power plant and allows the reactor to be a low pressure stainless steel lined tank. But as we have to generate electricity in insane quantities anyway, condenser heat is something we might use to reduce the insanely huge electricity requirements.

We would still need a huge amount of electric power. It is easy to forget how easy we have it here on Earth. We don't need to make air or thaw water from ice frozen as hard as stone. And steel, glass, brick, tile, polymers, are all produced using fossil energy without intermediate electricity production. Those fuels are really insanely cheap when used in this way and they generate industrial high heat. Very cheap when weighed against the value they provide. Looking at electricity production of industrial countries greatly underestimates the amount of energy they use. On Mars, these materials must be produced using electricity as there is nothing else. Ouch. And you need a lot more materials, because everything, be it food production, habitation or factory space, must sit inside some sort of pressure vessel to keep air in. Double ouch. So power requirements in the several 10s of kW electricity production are probably inevitable.

Initially, these reactors will be shipped from Earth. But it is hard to imagine producing power cheaply enough for hundreds of thousands of people if reactors and power generation systems must be imported from Earth.

Last edited by Calliban (2022-03-09 14:30:11)

louis · 2022-03-09 15:17:53

Interesting - seems to be a mash-up of Strickland and Musk's views.

I have thought that initially the colony will be vegan-orientated in terms of agriculture. I am not sure it's Musk's view that we would use electric power for agriculture.

From previous discussions here it seems that plastic domes pressurised to about 20% of Earth's atmosphere and with a high CO2 content - maybe 90% - could use natural light (maybe with added insolation from reflectors) and produce crops. Protecting against night time temperatures would be a concern. They might use waste heat from industrial processes, some thermogenic crops (that release heat at night) and protective infrared reflecting night time blinds.

Calliban wrote:

I'm not sure if anyone has written about this already.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech … olony.html
Musk appears to be considering vertical farms, presumably using LED light sources to produce a largely vegan diet for colonists. These farms are compact, but horrendously hungry for electric power. There is also talk of local manufacturing using local materials to reduce imports from Earth. The amount of electric power estimated to be required to run and grow the colony? 100kW per person. That is 2.4MWh per person, per day. That is a huge amount of energy and without fossil fuels, it must all be electricity. Musk's city of 1 million, would need constant generation of 100GWe, if that power requirement scales up. That is about twice the power production of France for a population sixty times smaller! Holy crap! Maybe, the people writing the article made a mistake?
It will be very difficult to provide this much power in an affordable way. Nuclear reactors? Before nuclear regulation went cuckoo back in the early 80s, it was possible to build reactors for about $1000/kW in modern money in the US. In China, they are still almost that cheap. So power supply for one person would cost $100,000 if we avoid the pitfalls that push up build costs. Maybe it is just on the edge of feasibility. We need reactors that are cheap to build and operate. Aqueous homogeneous reactors are very simple and self-regulating. They could be built very cheaply using stainless steel tanks. And they will produce lots of waste heat, which could heat greenhouses allowing natural light to be used for crop growth. This would be a good application for Thorium as a nuclear fuel, which can be dissolved as a salt in breeder blanket regions. Fission products are removed continuously without shutting down.

Calliban · 2022-03-09 15:51:14

Some reality checks. Global energy consumption in 2019, was 14.42bn tonnes of oil equivalent. 1 toe is 11.63MWh. Global GDP was $87.3tn. That works out at $520/MWh. A $100K per year income equates to a continuous energy use of 22kW. That includes all the embodied energy in all products we consume. So this researcher is telling us we need about 4-5x as much power to provide a similar lifestyle on Mars, which is a much tougher environment than anywhere on Earth.

It only looks like an inordinately large amount of power because we generally take for granted the huge energy flux fossil fuels provide us so cheaply. One barrel of oil is 1700kWh of stored energy. During the growth period of Western economies we were paying 10-$20/barrel. That works out at 0.6-1.2cent per kWh. Natural gas was still that cheap until recently, as was Chinese coal. Why should we be surprised that stored energy whose only cost is digging it out of the ground, is cheap as chips? High wealth depends upon cheap energy. Somehow, we need to make nuclear energy this cheap on Mars. If we want to live well on Mars that is.

Last edited by Calliban (2022-03-09 16:06:42)

louis · 2022-03-09 15:55:00

When we think of power generation on Mars we shouldn't forget there will be great scope for temperature difference or sublimation engines which will be able to operate something like coal-fired steam engines on Earth. IIRC, these could operate at night, which would be a useful complement to solar power.

Overall I feel power generation on Mars will likely be the least of our problems.

Calliban · 2022-03-09 16:59:06

Dry ice has an enthalpy of evaporation of 571 kJ/kg. That is about 2-3% of the energy density of coal. You will need about 1tonne per capita per hour to generate 100kW. And to gather enough heat to evaporate enough CO2 to provide 100kW of power full time, would require thousands of square metres of panels on Mars. That's per capita as well. I'm not saying that this isn't something we will be using at some point. But it doesn't give me confidence that energy supply will be the least of our problems. I think its central to everything we might do on Mars. It is so much more difficult to generate power on Mars. And we need a lot more.

SpaceNut · 2022-03-09 18:52:30

Will borrow food growing topic discussion ( Agriculture Study Mars Pure CO2 Greenhouse ) as its way off from generation other than the co2 power creation from dry ice of which we do have that topic as well.

ICE-CO2-Compressed air hybrids

Dry ice pneumatic tool

Running on Compressed Air?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#151 2020-12-16 13:12:32

Re: Power generation on Mars

#152 2020-12-16 13:47:53

Re: Power generation on Mars

#153 2020-12-16 14:42:12

Re: Power generation on Mars

#154 2020-12-16 16:26:15

Re: Power generation on Mars

#155 2020-12-16 18:02:23

Re: Power generation on Mars

#156 2021-08-07 09:09:47

Re: Power generation on Mars

#157 2021-11-29 09:25:19

Re: Power generation on Mars

#158 2021-12-09 15:42:50

Re: Power generation on Mars

#159 2021-12-09 18:52:58

Re: Power generation on Mars

#160 2021-12-10 03:41:30

Re: Power generation on Mars

#161 2021-12-10 04:09:19

Re: Power generation on Mars

#162 2021-12-10 11:49:00

Re: Power generation on Mars

#163 2021-12-10 18:04:11

Re: Power generation on Mars

#164 2022-03-06 13:55:15

Re: Power generation on Mars

#165 2022-03-07 13:48:58

Re: Power generation on Mars

#166 2022-03-07 15:22:20

Re: Power generation on Mars

#167 2022-03-09 12:43:13

Re: Power generation on Mars

#168 2022-03-09 13:15:27

Re: Power generation on Mars

#169 2022-03-09 13:21:08

Re: Power generation on Mars

#170 2022-03-09 14:13:55

Re: Power generation on Mars

#171 2022-03-09 15:17:53

Re: Power generation on Mars

#172 2022-03-09 15:51:14

Re: Power generation on Mars

#173 2022-03-09 15:55:00

Re: Power generation on Mars

#174 2022-03-09 16:59:06

Re: Power generation on Mars

#175 2022-03-09 18:52:30

Re: Power generation on Mars

Board footer