/tech/ - Technology

Bio fuel?

Drilling for oil and uranium
Farming trees
Dams to name a few

cover as much surface as possible with solar panels
dig up more uranium
burn more nuclear "waste"
dynamic tidal power
dyson sphere

>>10609
Solar panels dont last long though

>>10615
They do outside an atmosphere.

>>10615
panels last 30 years or so. they only take 4-5 years to generate the amount of power necessary to make them
>>10616
the moon has UV, solar wind and sun storms constantly bombarding it. PVs will not last longer there

>>10616
>>10636
the moon has very low gravity, it would be very easy to build extremely tall towers. That means it's easy to build huge solar concentrators, that use mirrors which don't really degrade in output like photovoltaic panels. I'm not sure how easy it is to manufacture this on the moon, but these mirrors wouldn't even need to be made out of glass, just naked aluminum foil would do.

>>10637
>use mirrors which don't really degrade in output like photovoltaic panels
no but they'll be covered in moon dust in relatively short order. maybe it's possible to have a robot go brushie brushie on them on a regular basis
it would of course be neat if we had something like this on the moon, but we're still nowhere near making full use of Earth's available areaa

>>10636
>the moon has UV, solar wind and sun storms constantly bombarding it. PVs will not last longer there
Yes, in fact, they will, that's one reason why it's such an attractive engineering project. You can also make them dramatically simpler outside an atmosphere when you don't have to worry about the kind of weathering you experience on Earth.

>>10637
That's unnecessary because lunar photovoltaics are so much better than Earth photovoltaics because they don't have an atmosphere to contend with.

>>10638
You seem unaware of this but the moon actually has next to no atmosphere. We can still see craters on it that are billions of years old because it takes a really long time to overturn the lunar surface with "moon dust". People far smarter than you have been thinking about this idea for far longer. It's been feasible since the '80s.

>>10639
>Yes, in fact, they will, that's one reason why it's such an attractive engineering project. You can also make them dramatically simpler outside an atmosphere when you don't have to worry about the kind of weathering you experience on Earth.
good point. there's no pesky oxygen

>That's unnecessary because lunar photovoltaics are so much better than Earth photovoltaics because they don't have an atmosphere to contend with.
there's only 30% more sunlight hitting the moon. not super impressive. this and the lack of atmosphere makes the thermal situation difficult. more on this later

>You seem unaware of this but the moon actually has next to no atmosphere
yes, and this is the problem. the moon is surrounded by what's called a dusty plasma. dust gets thrown around by electrostatic effects and there's no atmosphere to stop this. this is worst at the terminator, where the surface charge changes from positive to negative at sunset (and opposite at sunrise), which throws enough dust around that austronauts were able to see light reflecting off it. look up the "streamers" seen during Apollo. t someone who has actually worked with this stuff

what's even worse is the thermal situation. semiconductors degrade exponentially faster the hotter they get. space thermal system rely on coatings with wavelength dependent emissivity. you can't use this on a PV, obviously, at least not on the front, or you'd reflect away the very energy you're trying to absorb. your surroundings are 130°C, and your PV cells will likely be too. it might be possible to cover the entire surface underneath the cells with multi layer insulation (MLI) blankets. if you get the angles right then the temperature drops to around 65°C ((130+273)/2^0.25-273). assuming you can make them in-situ of course. there's aluminium up there at least

>People far smarter than you have been thinking about this idea for far longer. It's been feasible since the '80s.
I've read many of these papers. it's a waste of labour compared to making do with Earth

>>10638
the moon is in a vacuum, you might be able to use an electrostatic charge to deal with dust.
>>10639
of course PV is nicer than a solar thermal concentrator because it's just one solid piece that makes electricity, but STC does have better tolerance for the harsh conditions of space. What's the radiation pressure on the moon, will that harm the longevity of PV ?
>>10640
How much is the temperature difference between sun and shade on the moon? If you are looking at semiconductors, it might also be worth to consider peltiers if the delta T is high enough.

>>10641
>you might be able to use an electrostatic charge to deal with dust
possibly yes. but everything being electrically connected might work against you. you want high voltage to keep current low and efficiency high. but this means you also set up an E-field that will throw dust around. what might work is a thin net over everything that is appropriately charged. you have to be careful though - too positive and you attract the negatively charged dust, too negative and you attract the positively charged dust on the ground

>How much is the temperature difference between sun and shade on the moon?
temperatures fluctuate between -170°C and +130°C (100-400 K) over each month, at the equator. the ground is about as insulating as styrofoam, so it gets cold pretty fast if you say unfurl a sun shade. things get worse if you're in a valley or crater
STC is probably a better bet. on the other hand they use moving parts

>it might also be worth to consider peltiers if the delta T is high enough
and waste all the electricity you just generated?

pdf related is good reading when it comes to space thermal systems. pages 53-56 deal with the Moon

Expand nuclear and oil power plant production