New Mars Forums

Calliban

Member

From: Northern England, UK

Registered: 2019-08-18

Posts: 3,777

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

Astrostrom Releases Extensive Plan for Space-Based Power Built on Lunar Resources

https://spaceref.com/newspace-and-tech/ … resources/

Given the competition for space in GEO, maybe it would be the right place for an orbital ring structure.  If satellites are tethered to the ring, it avoids the possibility of collisions or the need for station keeping.  The ring would be a sectioned cable, which would lue just outside GEO, with a slight excess orbital speed that would keep it in tension.

---

"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."

Terraformer

Member

From: The Fortunate Isles

Registered: 2007-08-27

Posts: 3,904

Website

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

This really is like a story line from X-files, where a shadowy government agency was injected people with alien DNA to find out what it did to them.  Not something I would ever have imagined could have happened in real life.  But something very similar did.

Makes you wonder what they're up to today. MKULTRA (on my mind because I've binge watched Stranger Things) was officially halted in 1976. Perhaps the people who report being gangstalked are telling the truth.

---

Use what is abundant and build to last

tahanson43206

Moderator

Registered: 2018-04-27

Posts: 19,263

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

For Calliban re #326

Please develop your idea a bit further.

The satellites in GEO need to maintain station, so they could not be tethered to a ring that is beyond GEO.  Perhaps there is a way for the "tethers" to slide along the ring?

(th)

Calliban

Member

From: Northern England, UK

Registered: 2019-08-18

Posts: 3,777

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

For Calliban re #326

Please develop your idea a bit further.

The satellites in GEO need to maintain station, so they could not be tethered to a ring that is beyond GEO.  Perhaps there is a way for the "tethers" to slide along the ring?

(th)

The problem with GEO is that it is increasingly crowded.  Distance must be maintained between satellites to avoid risk of collision, which could lead to Kessler syndrome.  A cable ring that is just outside of GEO with a 24 hour rotation rate, would be moving faster than local orbital speed.  This would keep it in tension.  GEO satellites could be tethered to it, avoiding the need for station keeping.  It would also allow a much greater density of satellites in GEO, as the tether to the ring eliminates the danger of collisions.

A ring allows other opportunities as well.  If all GEO satellites are tethered to it, then a repair station located on the ring could access all of the satellites via some sort of cable railway.

Last edited by Calliban (2023-08-25 16:51:39)

---

"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."

tahanson43206

Moderator

Registered: 2018-04-27

Posts: 19,263

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

For Calliban re #329

Thanks for clarifying that the ring would be orbiting at GEO velocity, but located beyond GEO, where the native velocity would be less.  Would you move the GEO satellites up to the ring and clamp them on?

I ** think ** I understand that your design would keep the GEO satellites orbiting at GEO velocity (ie, stationary WRT Earth) while providing a benefit of stability against longitudinal drift, or even lateral drift, for that matter.

There are some GEO satellites that orbit in a path that has excursions North and South of the Equator. These would (of course) remain where they are, and the ring you've proposed would be well above them.

The cable could be used for power as well as for communication, if there were a benefit to that.

(th)

Mars_B4_Moon

Member

Registered: 2006-03-23

Posts: 9,776

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

'A Framework for Optimized, Integrated Lunar Infrastructure'
https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2023-08-15

Fukushima operator says released water samples within safe limits
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/2 … e-limits-1

Calliban

Member

From: Northern England, UK

Registered: 2019-08-18

Posts: 3,777

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

Living energy farm: Daylight power.
https://livingenergyfarm.org/

The idea that living energy farm have developed is to directly couple solar panels to DC loads, mostly without battery storage.  Only about 10% of total energy is stored.  Most appliances only run during the day time.  When demand exceeds supply, DC motors slow down.  Operators are able to use this as an audible cue and adjust energy demand according to supply.  This allows energy to be used efficiently and avoids the embodied energy of battery storage, which greatly exceeds the embodied energy of the panels themselves in most offgrid systems.

On Mars, power will be produced using a mixture of solar and nuclear fission.  With fission providing baseload, solar will be used for daytime activities, like running machinery and running heat pumps.  In this capacity, it will not need to incorporate electricity storage.  The solar panels will be located very close to the equipment that they power.  Electricity will be used directly.  Given the low EROI of PV panels, direct power is probably the only only way they can provide a decent net energy balance.  The limitation of only working during the day, limits what we can practically use solar power for.  But most peoplewant to sleep at night anyway.  Shifting power demand into daylight hours fits well with most peoples prefered working patterns.  Solar power varies seasonally as well.  This suggests that work patterns will change through the year.

Last edited by Calliban (2023-08-31 02:23:59)

---

"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."

Terraformer

Member

From: The Fortunate Isles

Registered: 2007-08-27

Posts: 3,904

Website

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

Inconsistent workloads are the norm. You have to reach a pretty big size before the law of averages starts to smooth it out, and even then you're going to get peaks and troughs. That's why animals have fat storage

---

Use what is abundant and build to last

Mars_B4_Moon

Member

Registered: 2006-03-23

Posts: 9,776

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

This green city is trying a mini nuclear reactor. Why isn’t Australia?

https://www.afr.com/world/north-america … 809-p5dv01

Mars_B4_Moon

Member

Registered: 2006-03-23

Posts: 9,776

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

Energy transition debate: Taking the nuclear option
https://www.innovationaus.com/energy-tr … ar-option/

Australia Warns Ferries about EVs
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/10/29/ … about-evs/

Mars_B4_Moon

Member

Registered: 2006-03-23

Posts: 9,776

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

Wind and solar average stunning 87 pct of South Australia's electricity demand over month of October

https://reneweconomy.com.au/wind-and-so … f-october/

kbd512

Administrator

Registered: 2015-01-02

Posts: 7,825

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

Mars_B4_Moon,

You know what graph I want to see?

I want to see a running graph of total electrical power demand and total electrical power production from wind and solar, as a percentage of total demand.

Any time the two values diverge by more than 5%, I want the total number of seconds and percentage of each day when that occurs to be duly recorded and a recommended increase in installed electrical power production equipment provided to meet the shortfall.

We know for a fact that 100% of all solar power drops to 0% of total demand, for at least half of every single day.  That means a storage mechanism is required.  I want to know how much that will cost.

The power spikes and drops from wind and solar, as shown on the graph from your article, are measured in HUNDREDS OF GIGAWATTS!  Take note that at no point in time were the gas turbine EVER shut off- not for 1 lousy second of 1 lousy day over an entire month.  The only thing wind and solar seem to have achieved is making absolutely sure that additional gas turbine must always be spinning to prevent the entire grid from crashing when both solar and wind turbine output drop like a rock, ever single day.  3 complete electrical grids worth of power to fail to replace coal and gas.  What a spectacular anti-achievement.

As soon as grid energy storage is factored into the cost mix, total electricity cost to the customer increases exponentially and this entire "we want green money" scheme utterly fails to do anything except spend someone else's money (all the people who buy electricity), making those people poorer (in all cases, as basic physics and economics demands), while failing to provide the promised electricity (baked-in grid instability) and burning even more fuel than strictly necessary (the exact opposite of the stated goal of "green energy"), as people living in California are already acutely aware.  Buy an EV so the government can then immediately tell you that you can't charge your EV at home, defeating all cost and logic arguments for having an EV, on top of the fact that 50% of the power comes from burning coal, so the "Carbon footprint" of a person buying an EV never goes below that of a gasoline powered vehicle during the design life of the EV's battery (10 years or less).  The only people who think this is a good idea (burning excess fuel for no net benefit) are either evil or can't count.

Calliban

Member

From: Northern England, UK

Registered: 2019-08-18

Posts: 3,777

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

Agreed Kbd512.  Both solar and wind power are resource hogs.  The amount of steel, rare metals and concrere needed per TWh of electricity, is 1 - 2 orders of magnitude greater than a comparable fossil or nuclear powerplant.  Most of those metal resources come from China, with coal being used to refine the materials.  When both facts are taken together, wind and solar have substantial carbon footprint.  But neither of these energy sources can really displace a fossil power station, unless people really can live on intermittent energy.  The fossil plants still need to be there in a grid saturated with renewables.  Those plants may burn a little less fuel.  But they must still be built, operated and maintained.  This is why heavy concentrations of RE tend to push up power costs.  The system needs a lot more capital equipment.  And reduced fuel bills don't help very much.

---

"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."

Mars_B4_Moon

Member

Registered: 2006-03-23

Posts: 9,776

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

Despite all the attention we give to batteries, some 99% of the world’s electricity storage capacity is provided by pumped hydro.

https://ntwitter.com/HumanProgress/stat … 7966013555

SpaceNut

Administrator

From: New Hampshire

Registered: 2004-07-22

Posts: 29,428

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

Or in the form of dams that regulate energy creation from water flow.

Mars_B4_Moon

Member

Registered: 2006-03-23

Posts: 9,776

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

Korea's small nuclear reactor program faces major hurdles:Research and development (R&D) budgets for the reactors have been significantly cut

https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/ne … es/1925084

Mars_B4_Moon

Member

Registered: 2006-03-23

Posts: 9,776

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

satirical awards

Climate Action Network,  over 1,300 environmental non-governmental organizations in over 130 countries, an advocacy group has chosen Japan, New Zealand and the United States

New Zealand wins infamous ‘Fossil of the Day’ award at COP28
https://www.forestandbird.org.nz/resour … ward-cop28

The World's Biggest Nuclear Fusion Reactor Just Came Online
https://www.sciencealert.com/the-worlds … ame-online
biggest experimental nuclear fusion reactor in operation was inaugurated in Japan

Mars_B4_Moon

Member

Registered: 2006-03-23

Posts: 9,776

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

future possibility

Helicity Space plants a seed for fusion propulsion technology - can it work?

https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Heli … y_999.html

Helicity Space, a name that's beginning to resonate in the commercial space industry, recently heralded a significant advance in its quest to redefine space propulsion. The company has successfully secured a $5 million seed funding round, a move that not only underscores the industry's confidence in fusion technology but also marks a pivotal moment in space travel innovation.

Mars_B4_Moon

Member

Registered: 2006-03-23

Posts: 9,776

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

On Mars there is a limit on Solar and Geothermal compared with Earth

Reykjavik Energy applies for geothermal research at Meitli, Hverahlíð, Iceland
https://www.thinkgeoenergy.com/reykjavi … d-iceland/

Iceland volcano: Concerns over geothermal power plant
https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/ … /103248614

Iceland's geothermal 799 MWe, making up 25.9% of all power capacity in Iceland

In Japan the country has more population and more power demand, 8.2 GW from  BWR ABW Rreactors but a lot of scandals following Tepco for many years and then a Fukushima disaster

Japan lifts operational ban on world's biggest nuclear plant
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy … 023-12-27/

Mars_B4_Moon

Member

Registered: 2006-03-23

Posts: 9,776

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

NASA plasma propulsion project promises Mars in a flash
https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/02/ … ropulsion/
System would also make it easier to transport much heavier spacecraft

Mars_B4_Moon

Member

Registered: 2006-03-23

Posts: 9,776

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

solar-electric propulsion ion thrusters and gravity assists, they had expected in 2025 orbiters then separate and adjust orbits using chemical thrusters, the mission has been en route since 2018

Glitch on BepiColombo: Work ongoing to restore spacecraft to full thrust

https://phys.org/news/2024-05-glitch-be … -full.html

BepiColombo, the joint ESA/JAXA mission to Mercury, has experienced an issue that is preventing the spacecraft's thrusters from operating at full power.

Mars_B4_Moon

Member

Registered: 2006-03-23

Posts: 9,776

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

Radioisotope Power to go on Tiangong space station (CSS)

Chinese language

https://m.weibo.cn/status/OeRrucMvY

Plutonium-238 dioxide used as fuel for the Cassini, Voyager, Galileo and New Horizons probes as well as in the Curiosity and Perseverance rovers on Mars

a Mengzhou spacecraft or  “Dream Vessel” is in development for something
six astronauts, or three astronauts and 500 kg of cargo
not Mars but Moon?
https://spacenews.com/new-chinese-space … -missions/

Plutonium(IV) oxide Stirling thermoelectric conversion

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2024-05-18 18:36:48)

Calliban

Member

From: Northern England, UK

Registered: 2019-08-18

Posts: 3,777

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

It would be interesting to explore if the concept behind pulsed plasma propulsion could be adapted to a powerplant?
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2020/09/p … ocket.html

This concept uses a fusion reaction to produce neutrons, which fast fission a uranium slug fire through a coil gun.  The slug is heated by fission to 100,000K.  A pea sized lump of thorium could be fired into a spherical chamber and neutron sources produced by fusion reactions would reach a focus at the centre of the chamber.  These woukd fast-fission thorium nuclei heating the pellet to 100,000K.  We could boost the process by putting a lithium deuteride core within the thorium pellet.  The x-ray pressure generated by the thorium as it heats to 100,000K will implode the LiD, causing a fusion reaction.  This will release most of its energy as fast neutrons, which will fission a large fraction of the thorium nuclei.  A sort of pulsed fission reactor.

The neutrons released into the chamber by the microexplosion, would be absorbed in thorium metal plates around the edges of the chamber.  This will breed 233U, which can then be used to make fuel for light water reactors.

Last edited by Calliban (2024-05-19 11:17:37)

---

"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."

Mars_B4_Moon

Member

Registered: 2006-03-23

Posts: 9,776

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

Bill Gates Moves Ahead With Nuclear Project Aimed At Revolutionizing Power Generation

https://apnews.com/article/bill-gates-n … ccf4f2ec3b