A small reactor like what we use in submarines or our aircraft carriers would probably be the best tool for the job on the moon. They are small and require minimal maintenance (within their fairly long lifespan) and they produce enormous amounts of power.
How much weight in solar panels would it take to produce what a reactor could?
Would a single panel on the moon last more than 20 years?
How do we decommission panels on the moon?
(forgot about batteries)… all of these things IDEALLY will come back down to Earth some day so the fewer things we put on the moon in the first place the better
After thinking about it and reading your comment my thoughts are, don’t nuclear reactors on earth take years to build? This process seems extremely difficult. Solar power makes so much sense.
Let’s be real, burning coal on the moon would actually be less harmful to the environment… as long as you ignore the carbon emissions needed to transport the coal to the moon in the first place.
Sounds like a US rube goldberg machine waiting to happen. Ever increasing infrastructure on the moon to get a coal fired plant up and running, which in turn runs the infrastructure (at a loss) and nothing else.
Solar might only be viable at some polar regions where you can get full sunlight with no day/night cycle. 2 weeks of night time to survive on batteries would be rough.
deleted by creator
A small reactor like what we use in submarines or our aircraft carriers would probably be the best tool for the job on the moon. They are small and require minimal maintenance (within their fairly long lifespan) and they produce enormous amounts of power.
How much weight in solar panels would it take to produce what a reactor could?
Would a single panel on the moon last more than 20 years?
How do we decommission panels on the moon?
(forgot about batteries)… all of these things IDEALLY will come back down to Earth some day so the fewer things we put on the moon in the first place the better
And we can just shoot the spent fuel into the sun!
Having enough batteries to survive two weeks of darkness would weigh a lot more than a nuclear reactor.
My first thought was, that is pretty awesome.
After thinking about it and reading your comment my thoughts are, don’t nuclear reactors on earth take years to build? This process seems extremely difficult. Solar power makes so much sense.
Let’s be real, burning coal on the moon would actually be less harmful to the environment… as long as you ignore the carbon emissions needed to transport the coal to the moon in the first place.
And the oxygen to burn the coal, unless you’re using regolith
Sounds like a US rube goldberg machine waiting to happen. Ever increasing infrastructure on the moon to get a coal fired plant up and running, which in turn runs the infrastructure (at a loss) and nothing else.
Lol. But lunar warming!
Solar might only be viable at some polar regions where you can get full sunlight with no day/night cycle. 2 weeks of night time to survive on batteries would be rough.