Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: BenLurkin

Why not solar? Would that not work, or somehow be inefficient?

Sarcasm aside though, wouldn’t a reactor in such a location be a massive and endeavor in terms of building, running, and maintaining it though?


3 posted on 11/20/2021 8:05:38 AM PST by Antihero101607
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Antihero101607

Wouldn’t wind power be better?🤓


5 posted on 11/20/2021 8:08:32 AM PST by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Antihero101607
Why not solar? Would that not work, or somehow be inefficient?

Except at the poles, on the lunar surface you have 2 weeks of sunlight, followed by 2 weeks of night. So your solar panels would need a heavy set of batteries.

13 posted on 11/20/2021 8:17:38 AM PST by PapaBear3625 (Only the insane have the strength to prosper. Only those who prosper truly judge what is sane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Antihero101607

One side of the Moon is dark half the lunar month as the Moon orbits the Earth. Solar isn’t going to work on the surface. Fission reactors would be more practical. You’re going to need lots of energy to be able to recycle air & water to a higher degree than a nuke submarine currently does.


16 posted on 11/20/2021 8:26:38 AM PST by Tallguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Antihero101607

The biggest expense would be wiring to the grid. ;-D


30 posted on 11/20/2021 4:45:13 PM PST by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson