> 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.

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/

...or we could be sensible and just use nuclear reactors.

Yes, let's go to a planet with no magnetosphere. Brilliant idea.

Why not just use nuclear? you don't need to worry about fallout in a radioactive wasteland.

Here we go being reasonable again. Don’t tell elon tusk

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.

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.

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

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.

And if you must live on the surface you can make an artificial magnetosphere with satellites

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

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

Interesting. I didn't know that was possible

How much did it cost to make this idiotic study. Its like saying that hydroelectric plants will generate energy on a mostly liquid planet.

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

We don't even really need to worry much about that here on Earth

humans can live in 1/3rd gravity long term .. power isn't the problem!

Space reactors have extensive research. They would use a Stirling engine, not a turbine. Be about the size of a garbage can.

A nuclear disaster would be worse than the cosmic background radiation for nearby humans.

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.

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.

I would be surprised if that were the case, considering the low density of the atmosphere there.

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.

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?

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

lets be honest the martins are going to live like moles anyway they will be fine.

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.

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.

Ya this definitely won't be approved unless its launched/manufactured from the moon or something.

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 ?

I honestly don't think it is.

Try this guy's videos on Colonizing/terraforming the moon/mars he discuses a lot of stuff like this.

[removed]

[removed]

So you take a system that is 20-40% efficient, set it to 100% efficient and then say it might work. That's useful.

[removed]

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

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.

So, what your saying is that we fuq’d Earth, but we can get it right with Mars.

If it works see why u don't use inergey as from the sky are a sun are a power source

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

[removed]

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

nice channel.

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)?

[removed]

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

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.

oh i well agree. just pointing that terraforming is a doable project

I'm just saying that it would heat the atmosphere and melt water. The conditions of the Earth roughly 4 billion years ago

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?

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

we're not gonna terraform anything. you'll find out eventually. as it gets closer.

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.