Posted on 09/09/2018 7:19:16 AM PDT by ETL
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption the total energy production in 2015 was 168,519 Trillion watt hours. Divide that over the entire year and the entire surface of the Earth and you need to harvest 0.15 watts / square meter. Solar energy is about 1000 watts / square meter. We aren't close to needing to pave the Earth with solar panels.
That needs to be adjusted for cloud coverage and conversion efficiency, but there is still a lot of room.
Bad idea. hydrogen tends to go boom. Lots of static electricity on Mars to ignite it. Oxygen storage near by would just fuel the explosion.
Stick with what works (nuclear) and stop trying to reinvent the wheel because being PC is so ‘in’ these days.
Takes energy to split h2o. More than is given back due to inefficiencies (entropy?).
It’s still a lot of space, which has to come from somewhere. It’s basically like turning otherwise useful land into a parking lot, since you can’t grow anything on it.
Better solution than this IMHO. Hydrogen is “plentiful” in space. How about a scoop on the front of the ship? Best of all you don’t have to carry the extra weight.
Lastly, the fusion reaction doesn’t have to be controlled. Just fire off a small scale nuke at the back end of your ship.
Brainstorming here....
Mongo only Pawn in game of life.
Lastly, the fusion reaction doesn’t have to be controlled. Just fire off a small scale nuke at the back end of your ship.
—
That was Project Orion, killed in 1964 mostly due to failure of political will, service infighting, and a treaty with the Soviets. Else, we would have been on Mars by 1965 and Saturn by 1970, but settled for 12 guys to spend 80 some hours on the Moon 45 years ago.
I’m no scientist, but I’d like to learn the definition of the word “reduce” as used in this quote:
“. . . is capable of reducing protons into hydrogen,” Katarzyna Sokól, first author of the study, said in a statement.
Lol. “Scifi” is always overly optimistic. But it does point us in the right direction. :)
For propulsion, it might make sense. Maybe the problem is more misconceptions. Those evil nukes kill people.
Need electrons? Hydrogen is one proton, one electron.
Project Orion was not “Scifi” - it was a real project with some of the finest scientists, engineers, and small nuclear bomb designers we had at the time.
It was not “evil nukes” either - it was just as I said earlier. There are all sorts of documentaries on the Project and a fair number of books.
Later, the NERVA nuclear power plant was killed for much the same reasons.
Drinking some wine, eating some cheese...Woof! Woof!
Makes a lot more sense than the ‘liberal/alGoreEnergyCredit Scam’:
A new analysis by the National Center for Public Policy Research found that Gore’s Tennessee home “guzzles more electricity in one year than the average American family uses in 21 years.”
The electricity used just to heat Gore’s swimming pool would power six homes for a year.
Al Gore defends his extraordinary personal energy usage by telling critics he maintains a “carbon neutral” lifestyle by buying “carbon offsets,” but the company that receives his payments turns out to be partly owned and chaired by the former vice president himself.
Gore has built a “green money-making machine capable of eventually generating billions of dollars for investors, including himself, but he set it up so that the average Joe can’t afford to play on Gore’s terms,”
Reduce means adding electrons. Protons are hydrogen atoms without the electron. Adding the electron gives you hydrogen. The electron comes from oxygen in water being converted to oxygen. Overall it is a redox reaction of water being converted to hydrogen and oxygen by reduction of the hydrogen and oxidation of the oxygen.
Thermodynamically that is going uphill so you need to input energy. That is where the light comes in.
Is that your other dog impression?
That’s funny
Too many good scenes from Kelly’s Heroes
Key ingredient = Unicorn Farts?
fusion reactors do not exist may as well just use zero-point energy.
Fusion reactors do exist. They just don’t work very well, or for very long.
Takes energy to split h2o. More than is given back due to inefficiencies (entropy?)
Yes, but the energy, in this case, comes from the sun. So the difference between 100% efficiency and 90% efficiency due to losses doesn’t really matter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.