I've googled it. It has apparently nothing at all to do with solar power, or even wind power with induction generators. It does have a lot to do with Chinese carelessness, though.
I'm wondering what could possibly make you put a solar panel into landfill instead of recycling the glass, silver and silicon. It's still worth money even when it's totally dead. Oh, and that CdTe panel is a red herring anyway. There's only 5% of them, unless the share dropped again. Tellurium mining simply doesn't scale.
An electric car can use something like 0.2 kWh/km. Let's say you drive 20000 km per year. That's around 4000 kWh of electricity per year. At a mediocre 0.15 capacity factor, that's the average output of a 4 kW array or so. Costs around $5000 where I live.
even with tracked arrays, you can collect for a maximum of around 8 hours a day with any efficiency, so you will need 3.5Kw of solar source over your 8 hours. Doesnt sound too bad does it? not figure in practical Solar load factor, around 20%, so you need 17.5 Kw of solar cells.
That's double accounting. The capacity factor already includes the fact that you don't have 24h of maximum output. Your 17.5 kW array with a 0.2 capacity factor generates almost 600 kWh per week on average, which is the of triple your requirement - not surprisingly the factor of three you mistakenly added in "you can collect for a maximum of around 8 hours a day with any efficiency".
It actually is if your intent is aerobraking or oxygen and fuel production. Now that's still long way from being able to breathe it directly, of course, but since on the Moon, you can't do even that, Mars still seems to win on this particular point.
Or you could just build multiple sites in either location, and in that case, emergency resupply or even rescue missions are going to come from a much closer place.
You could use Ceres. It has very meaningful amounts of water probably as close to Mars as you're likely to find it (excepting Earth of course because of its deep gravity well).
We've analyzed the lunar surface, haven't we? It's already oxidized. Maybe there's some amount of exposed metal from meteors but the total surface is likely to be very small.
I hear this all the time, "We can't use nuclear power, it's too expensive." What of solar power? What do people have to say about that? "We have to subsidize solar power so we can develop the technology and make it cheaper than coal." Okay then, why not subsidize nuclear power so we can develop the technology until it is cheaper than coal?
Did you miss the part where nuclear reached 100 GW of installed capacity in 1970s and where solar reached the same in the 2010s? Nuclear had a forty year headstart - and forty more years of subsidies of course. "Why not subsidize nuclear power so we can develop the technology until it is cheaper than coal?" Well, what the hell were they doing those forty years? Apparently they should have already reached that point by now. Oh, but they didn't. Are you going to give them forty more years?
Nuclear power isn't even asking for subsidies anymore, they are merely asking permission to build.
R&D costs, manufacturing costs, dry mass, thrust-to-mass ratio, ISRU mass utilization, impulse density, longevity, and simplicity.
You realise all that fuel had to be lifted at huge cost right?
Not if you start from the Moon. Since both options have the same two legs of flight, there's no difference between them. And we already know that the water reserves in high latitude regions are likely to be substantial.
Nuclear is many many orders of magnitude better...
That's not even mentioning any quantifiable criterion.
Slashdot Mirror
unless its IT dept were total idiots
There's your problem. We already know that they are.
Tulips? ;)
Internal use does not require any modifications to be released.
Well, Falcon 9 runs on Linux, but it's a stretch to pull it into this.
Since it's a direct quotation, you have neither means nor reason to identify that person.
Women can't be queer?
I've googled it. It has apparently nothing at all to do with solar power, or even wind power with induction generators. It does have a lot to do with Chinese carelessness, though.
QED it isn't a solved problem.
That's a very strange usage of the abbreviation.
Did you miss the bit where installed capacity is not the same as generated power?
Given the 30% annual solar growth, considering the average generation only makes it 45 years of headstart instead of 40. Practically the same thing.
a nuclear power plant outputs its nominal power for 95% of the time while solar for 5%.
No, they really don't.
...fool me four times, I still won't get fired for buying Cisco?
I'm wondering what could possibly make you put a solar panel into landfill instead of recycling the glass, silver and silicon. It's still worth money even when it's totally dead. Oh, and that CdTe panel is a red herring anyway. There's only 5% of them, unless the share dropped again. Tellurium mining simply doesn't scale.
even with tracked arrays, you can collect for a maximum of around 8 hours a day with any efficiency, so you will need 3.5Kw of solar source over your 8 hours. Doesnt sound too bad does it? not figure in practical Solar load factor, around 20%, so you need 17.5 Kw of solar cells.
That's double accounting. The capacity factor already includes the fact that you don't have 24h of maximum output. Your 17.5 kW array with a 0.2 capacity factor generates almost 600 kWh per week on average, which is the of triple your requirement - not surprisingly the factor of three you mistakenly added in "you can collect for a maximum of around 8 hours a day with any efficiency".
I feel like space-based solar is useful, but a very far future scenario. Post-Kardashev I. There's a lot of time between now and then.
I've got one:space based solar power. It is the zero carbon solution to climate change.
So is the hypothetical solar shade in Sun-Earth L1.
The atmosphere on Mars isn't particularly helpful
It actually is if your intent is aerobraking or oxygen and fuel production. Now that's still long way from being able to breathe it directly, of course, but since on the Moon, you can't do even that, Mars still seems to win on this particular point.
Or you could just build multiple sites in either location, and in that case, emergency resupply or even rescue missions are going to come from a much closer place.
You could use Ceres. It has very meaningful amounts of water probably as close to Mars as you're likely to find it (excepting Earth of course because of its deep gravity well).
We've analyzed the lunar surface, haven't we? It's already oxidized. Maybe there's some amount of exposed metal from meteors but the total surface is likely to be very small.
Which of the American states is the Solid State?
Maybe it was a group "you"?
Or make methane? Much easier, apparently.
I hear this all the time, "We can't use nuclear power, it's too expensive." What of solar power? What do people have to say about that? "We have to subsidize solar power so we can develop the technology and make it cheaper than coal." Okay then, why not subsidize nuclear power so we can develop the technology until it is cheaper than coal?
Did you miss the part where nuclear reached 100 GW of installed capacity in 1970s and where solar reached the same in the 2010s? Nuclear had a forty year headstart - and forty more years of subsidies of course. "Why not subsidize nuclear power so we can develop the technology until it is cheaper than coal?" Well, what the hell were they doing those forty years? Apparently they should have already reached that point by now. Oh, but they didn't. Are you going to give them forty more years?
Nuclear power isn't even asking for subsidies anymore, they are merely asking permission to build.
Heh. "Hinkley Point subsidy bill quadruples as power price forecasts fall". Yeah, not really asking for subsidies at all...
Better than nuclear? How?
R&D costs, manufacturing costs, dry mass, thrust-to-mass ratio, ISRU mass utilization, impulse density, longevity, and simplicity.
You realise all that fuel had to be lifted at huge cost right?
Not if you start from the Moon. Since both options have the same two legs of flight, there's no difference between them. And we already know that the water reserves in high latitude regions are likely to be substantial.
Nuclear is many many orders of magnitude better...
That's not even mentioning any quantifiable criterion.
There's most likely not enough elemental iron on the Moon's surface to do that.