Submitted by upyoars t3_10hyt72 in Futurology
Comments
Resident_Bluebird_77 t1_j5de48a wrote
Let's just say that (sadly) most people oppose to launch fissionable material on top of a huge fuel container. People already get crazy with RTGs, now Imagine full reactors
jbr945 t1_j5dwhux wrote
Space reactors have extensive research. They would use a Stirling engine, not a turbine. Be about the size of a garbage can.
Ponicrat t1_j5eaqzs wrote
Wasn't there a Kurzgezagt vid explaining how fallout can actually be a way bigger problem without an atmosphere to dilute into? Like it could damage equipment all over the moon.
Tree-farmer2 t1_j5do4n5 wrote
We don't even really need to worry much about that here on Earth
Legitimate_Plum674 t1_j5e6i55 wrote
Good luck building a nuclear power plant on mars, it takes like 5-10 years. There are smaller ones of course, but it would still take a very long time since no one's there to build it.
Then you need water to cool the reactor, and there's not much water on Mars. And where do you get all the uranium from? There might be uranium on Mars, but then you need to dig it up. So you need to start a mining facility.
Fall out is not really a problem with modern nuclear energy. It's all the hassle to keep it running which makes it not worth it. Also, it's incredibly expensive. The maintenance would simply be a nightmare.
wasp463 t1_j5ebxuh wrote
Id say the maintenance would even out considering the sheer amount of turbines you would have to build to make up for the weak wind.
This is all long term stuff anyway but you are going to need to ship in everything, a small nuclear reactor with water and uranium is a lot smaller then like 30 turbines
The first mars colony is going to be almost entirely dependent on the earth (moon maybe?) for some time till manufacturing gets up and running, better to go for density because you aren't building shit unless robots get way better.
mileswilliams t1_j5e25x6 wrote
A nuclear disaster would be worse than the cosmic background radiation for nearby humans.
wasp463 t1_j5eai09 wrote
lets be honest the martins are going to live like moles anyway they will be fine.
ToothlessGrandma t1_j5clb09 wrote
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.
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.
Tree-farmer2 t1_j5do0n6 wrote
Another Chernobyl isn't possible except at the few remaining RBMKs
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
Legitimate_Plum674 t1_j5gd6nj wrote
I know nothing about that. But it sounds sci-fi enough for me to like the idea.
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
Legitimate_Plum674 t1_j5ed4m2 wrote
I honestly don't think it is.
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
gerkletoss t1_j5csh2h wrote
If the air density wasn't around 1% that of earth I might agree
politicatessen t1_j5c34ed wrote
Yes, let's go to a planet with no magnetosphere. Brilliant idea.
SeriousPuppet t1_j5cjp74 wrote
We don't need to terraform. In fact it's a far fetched idea.
We can however live underground. Protected from radiation.
We can then do this on the rocky moons of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune. Then on Pluto.
wasp463 t1_j5d5lxt wrote
And if you must live on the surface you can make an artificial magnetosphere with satellites
SeriousPuppet t1_j5dhwal wrote
Interesting. I didn't know that was possible
wasp463 t1_j5ehxcb wrote
Try this guy's videos on Colonizing/terraforming the moon/mars he discuses a lot of stuff like this.
SeriousPuppet t1_j5gwfeo wrote
nice channel.
neglectedselenium t1_j5f4cxy wrote
It's actually feasible to terraform Mars. Humans would need to release very large amounts of sulfur hexafluoride and perfluoroalkanes into the atmosphere. Those inert and harmless gases will heat the planet, increase the atmospheric pressure by melting all ice caps
SeriousPuppet t1_j5gxih0 wrote
ok bud. and what exactly is the "feasible" method of releasing all those gases? and where is your proof that that would turn into an atmosphere the same as earth's (ie about 20% / 80% oxygen to nitrogen), and where is your proof that the atmosphere would stay put (ie not erode or dissolve)?
neglectedselenium t1_j5itcly wrote
I'm just saying that it would heat the atmosphere and melt water. The conditions of the Earth roughly 4 billion years ago
SeriousPuppet t1_j5iwuok wrote
bro our air was formed from the volanic gases and gases from plants.
how will we ensure the same gases are released in the same way on mars.
and if mars' gravity and magnetic field are different then exactly how will it hold the same molecules in place?
neglectedselenium t1_j5ixksm wrote
All reasonable concerns. Our planet sadly loses a lot of hydrogen, too. 3 kg per second. But since we are obsessed with terraforming other worlds, we need to decide which one: Venus or Mars
SeriousPuppet t1_j5iy6vn wrote
we're not gonna terraform anything. you'll find out eventually. as it gets closer.
thisimpetus t1_j5i1y6l wrote
Well the atmosphere staying put bit is easy, mars has 2/3 earth's gravity, it once had a thicker atmosphere, and was lost over millions of years. So at least there's that.
Obviously the getting the right atmospheric mix and density requires us first to have automated mining in space, which we haven't even started yet.
but that's all you actually need to terraform mars. that and a century or two to complete it
SeriousPuppet t1_j5i47m7 wrote
bro you said a century or two.
we can build an underground base in much shorter time span.
in two centuries we'll have underground base on mars, jupiter moon, saturn moon, uranus moon.
thisimpetus t1_j5i4gk5 wrote
oh i well agree. just pointing that terraforming is a doable project
cariocano t1_j5cd37s wrote
Here we go being reasonable again. Don’t tell elon tusk
lusvstrasse t1_j5bt950 wrote
...or we could be sensible and just use nuclear reactors.
UniversalMomentum t1_j5duhn5 wrote
humans can live in 1/3rd gravity long term .. power isn't the problem!
billdietrich1 t1_j5ed4gj wrote
Article says nothing about cost. Amounts to "there's enough wind on Mars to support 6 people living for 500 days". Okay, but at what cost ? How many wind-turbines, what size, how are we going to build them, how much will it all cost ?
FIicker7 t1_j6e3olj wrote
Wind and solar are not practical on Mars.
Even Solar on the moon would be challenging... 7 days of day and 7 days of night.
QVRedit t1_j5e5w4i wrote
I would be surprised if that were the case, considering the low density of the atmosphere there.
JaxJaxon t1_j5divq9 wrote
How much did it cost to make this idiotic study. Its like saying that hydroelectric plants will generate energy on a mostly liquid planet.
upyoars OP t1_j5b8pmj wrote
> Winds on Mars have around 99 percent less force compared to the winds of the same speed on Earth since Mars has a thinner atmosphere. Studies conducted on Martian winds were usually for landing or single assessments of mountainous ridges and they didn’t offer the full picture of the planet’s potential for wind energy, which can be different in different times of the day.
> Researchers made use of a global climate model originally designed for Earth, to look at wind movement on the red planet. They used detailed info about Mars such as precise landscape, heat, energy, dust levels, solar radiation levels etc. which were taken from maps generated by Mars Global Surveyor and Viking missions.
> Based on this info, they created a simulation to show the kind of wind speeds seen across the planet during the day, night and its seasons.
> Researchers saw that the wind energy was not just capable of complementing solar energy, especially during night and dust storms that block out sunlight, but even capable of completely replacing it in some areas. It showed the most potential around the Martian crater rims and the volcanic highlands.
FuturologyBot t1_j5bdb5n wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/upyoars:
> Winds on Mars have around 99 percent less force compared to the winds of the same speed on Earth since Mars has a thinner atmosphere. Studies conducted on Martian winds were usually for landing or single assessments of mountainous ridges and they didn’t offer the full picture of the planet’s potential for wind energy, which can be different in different times of the day.
> Researchers made use of a global climate model originally designed for Earth, to look at wind movement on the red planet. They used detailed info about Mars such as precise landscape, heat, energy, dust levels, solar radiation levels etc. which were taken from maps generated by Mars Global Surveyor and Viking missions.
> Based on this info, they created a simulation to show the kind of wind speeds seen across the planet during the day, night and its seasons.
> Researchers saw that the wind energy was not just capable of complementing solar energy, especially during night and dust storms that block out sunlight, but even capable of completely replacing it in some areas. It showed the most potential around the Martian crater rims and the volcanic highlands.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/10hyt72/wind_energy_could_power_human_colonies_on_mars/j5b8pmj/
[deleted] t1_j5eka21 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j5ep9gz wrote
[removed]
NotAnotherEmpire t1_j5et8hy wrote
So you take a system that is 20-40% efficient, set it to 100% efficient and then say it might work. That's useful.
[deleted] t1_j5f2b7o wrote
[removed]
ReasonableMeeting730 t1_j5fq15l wrote
So, what your saying is that we fuq’d Earth, but we can get it right with Mars.
[deleted] t1_j5i1ei9 wrote
[removed]
Gullible-Row-9821 t1_j5fvgsy wrote
If it works see why u don't use inergey as from the sky are a sun are a power source
wasp463 t1_j5c5dv6 wrote
Why not just use nuclear? you don't need to worry about fallout in a radioactive wasteland.