Submitted by upyoars t3_10hyt72 in Futurology
wasp463 t1_j5c5dv6 wrote
Why not just use nuclear? you don't need to worry about fallout in a radioactive wasteland.
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
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments