Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ShadyRedditInvestor t1_j7iq4tn wrote

Reply to comment by thuanjinkee in Rolls-Royce Nuclear Engine Could Power Quick Trips to the Moon and Mars by darthatheos

Efficiency isn't really the thing...the actual plutonium oxide pellet they use for RTG's only gives off a total of about 40-60 watts. Doesn't matter how good your collection is, they'll only run the equivalent of a single 60w incandescent bulb assuming absolutely perfect conversion.

Even if you had theoretically perfect insulation, you're just going to make the the alpha decay happen faster.

8

thuanjinkee t1_j7j7hjg wrote

One pellet is 60w, but you use more than one pellet.

2

ShadyRedditInvestor t1_j7j7vmj wrote

ah yes, exactly what we want, a proliferation of millions of orphan sources of enriched uranium. Small scale nuclear is probably the way forward, but RTG's in grandma's basement aren't it, chief.

8

Shrike99 t1_j7mj99t wrote

It's still extremely inefficient. 100kg worth of plutonium pellets in some RTGs will produce about 50 kilowatts of thermal power. 100kg of plutonium in an SMR on the other hand could easily provide 500 megawatts of thermal power.

The average US household has an average power draw of about 1.3 kilowatts, so assuming 100% conversion efficiency in the above cases, the RTGs could power about 38 houses while the SMR could power about 38,500 houses.

Given how expensive plutonium is, that thousand-fold difference makes RTGs a complete non-starter. And in practice an SMR would actually use uranium which is much cheaper, making things even worse.

2