Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

BranchLatter4294 t1_jcm5bxe wrote

Isn't there plenty of sunlight for solar panels on the moon? They have about 2 weeks of daylight, then 2 weeks of night. Should be plenty of time to charge batteries for a small base station.

2

tanrgith t1_jcr8eo7 wrote

You're gonna need a whole lot of batteries to support 2 weeks of energy needs

2

BranchLatter4294 t1_jcrbxc7 wrote

About 3 typical EV battery packs. Six for redundancy.

1

ItsAConspiracy t1_jctyfgi wrote

If each of those EV batteries is a 100 kilowatt-hour Tesla battery, and your lunar base uses just one kilowatt like an average American house, then sure, three batteries will last for (almost) two weeks since there are 336 hours in two weeks.

But Rolls-Royce is talking about a reactor that can provide megawatts. If we need a megawatt of power instead of a kilowatt, then we multiply our battery requirement by a factor of a thousand.

1

BranchLatter4294 t1_jcuvm6g wrote

Yes, if you're building a city. Not sure we are at that stage yet. And mirrors in orbit could still direct sunlight to the panels even during the night weeks.

1

ItsAConspiracy t1_jcuzi3u wrote

Depends, if they start mining then they could easily need a megawatt or two. Which is probably why Rolls-Royce is including that size in their designs.

1

PretentiousPickle t1_jcmm6rd wrote

The moon is way smaller and father away so less light. Don't be dumb

−8

Reddragonking4 t1_jcmpsa1 wrote

Not sure what you mean here. I mean sure the surface area of the moon is smaller, but a square meter of solar panels on earth is the same size as a square meter of solar panels on the moon. And it may be further away from us but half the time it’s closer to the sun than we are by a small amount. I somehow doubt the variation in the distance between the moon and the sun is very much or significant for powering but maybe.

If anything maybe the atmosphere (or lack of) would be the biggest difference but I’d imagine that would only help solar panels work better (but I also don’t know). Don’t be rude

6

PretentiousPickle t1_jcmu5sa wrote

Tell me you don't know anything about the moon without telling me you don't know anything about the moon

−3

Reddragonking4 t1_jcmuv2l wrote

Okay assuming your not a troll, what is it that you’re saying? Since the moon is smaller than the earth that solar panels don’t make sense? Nobody is suggesting covering the entirety of the surface of the moon in panels. I was talking about the efficiency of panels that are the same size on the moon vs earth

2

PretentiousPickle t1_jcmvj8l wrote

It's not the panels at all. The panel is the same if it's on earth and the moon. The reason it's dumb is because the moon has significantly less light than earth. It's further away and half the time it's covered by earth. Earth is way bigger as well so less percentage of it is covered by the moon. Yea nuclear reactor makes more sense

Also why the downvotes. You can just move on

−3

Reddragonking4 t1_jcmx3wi wrote

The moon is not necessarily further away from the sun as the earth. Half the time it’s closer half the time it’s further

The earth also spends about half the time without the sun in the sky.

If you built the panels on the far side of the moon, the earth would never interfere with the sun while the panel is facing the sun

If you built the panels on the face of the moon we can see, the earth would only block during a lunar eclipse which is rather rare.

And what is your source for the moon receiving less light than the earth? They receive essentially the same amount

3