Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ToothlessGrandma t1_j5clb09 wrote

Reply to comment by wasp463 in Wind Energy Could Power Human Colonies On Mars, Finds Study by upyoars

Too much maintenance. It's easier to set up turbines and forget about them for awhile. Nuclear Energy requires constant monitoring. It's also infinitely easier to set up.

−5

wasp463 t1_j5d4wh2 wrote

The reason nuclear needs so much monitoring is the worry of another Chernobyl that's not a problem on mars because its already far worse all the time.

Also maintenance? last I checked wind needs that to.

9

Tree-farmer2 t1_j5do0n6 wrote

Another Chernobyl isn't possible except at the few remaining RBMKs

3

mileswilliams t1_j5e2hh7 wrote

By another Chernobyl they mean catastrophic nuclear accident obviously. And they can still happen, we just haven't seen how yet, it's arrogant to think we've made a full proof system using for profit companies that can't ever go wrong. I lt can, and probably will some day, whether it is a tsunami, or a volcano, earthquake, war, meteorite, terrorist attack, it's possible and not worth it when there are wind turbines solar and batteries.

2

Tree-farmer2 t1_j5f9qxx wrote

Nuclear is as safe as wind and solar, even with Chernobyl and Fukushima.

https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

Nuclear just feels more dangerous because that's how it's portrayed in popular culture, but, as always, data gets to the truth.

Old nuclear is extremely safe, and newer designs are even safer.

1

mileswilliams t1_j5e292h wrote

It isn't worse on mars. People have lived in Iran with similar radiation levels to those seen on mars with no issues. In fact they seem to have adapted to gamma radiation somewhat.

2

Legitimate_Plum674 t1_j5e75oy wrote

Fall out is not the problem with nuclear energy. Modern nuclear power plants don't work like the one in Chernobyl, so there's no need to worry about that.

But you do need uranium for the reactor. You can't ship enough uranium from earth to make it worth it. You'd have to find uranium on Mars, and then you need to dig it up. Which means you need to start a mining operation. There's just not enough resources to make it viable.

Nuclear power is not free energy, it's incredibly expensive, and a nuclear power plant on mars would be even more expensive. It's just not worth it. Oh, and you need water to cool the reactor. Not much water on Mars, eh?

0

Carbidereaper t1_j5fyz88 wrote

It would be much easier to just ship raw plutonium than uranium and use it to just make MOX ( mixed oxide fuel ) a single decommissioned nuclear weapons core contains 46 pounds of plutonium. Enough to run a 6 megawatt reactor for nearly a century

1

Legitimate_Plum674 t1_j5gd6nj wrote

I know nothing about that. But it sounds sci-fi enough for me to like the idea.

1

wasp463 t1_j5eadjk wrote

lots of wind though right? its not like mars is famous for its low atmosphere or anything, I'm not saying its easy I'm saying its easier

0

Resident_Bluebird_77 t1_j5dekub wrote

You absolutely don't forget about turbines, they have moving parts and are more susceptible to weather. With a nuclear reactor just deploy it, bury it or put it fat from people and leave it there, nuclear reactors are usually automatic

3

gerkletoss t1_j5csh2h wrote

If the air density wasn't around 1% that of earth I might agree

1