A Bridge Over Troubled Waters

Doin' the Neutron Dance

Ok.  I've had a fascination with both nuclear power and relativity going back to high school and community college.  Recently, I've read that nuclear energy is being considered as a power source for when we humans colonize Mars.

Now, given Mars' global dust storms, a Chernobyl style accident on Mars could contaminate that entire planet for decades, if not for centuries or even millennia.

•  Why then claim Mars as another home for humanity only to render it hideously uninhabitable?

Martian dust would be both a personnel and mechanical hazard.  Since both filtration and decontamination would net some minable dust, why not take advantage of it as a resource?  We could extract many useful materials.

What if we harvested Martian dust, and then extracted radioactive material from it.  Then we figure out how to efficiently glean energy from that radioactive material.  That way, any "spills" of the radioactive material wouldn't increase the global amount of background radiation.

Example:

Mix the gleaned radioactive material with a fluorescent material that glows in a color that solar cells can efficiently turn into electricity?  Then concentrate that glow so that we could use fewer solar cells in the powerplant?

Say, use both mirrors and lens to corral the glow, rather like high-end flashlights do.

~•~

All told, nuclear fission powerplants waste most of the energy produced from the nuclear reactions themselves.  My proposed nuclear-powered fluorescence may likewise waste most of the energy produced.  In general terms, let's contemplate how the energy might be wasted.  That way somebody else might figure out how to do it more efficiently.

1)  The efficiency of the phosphors.

Gamma rays and neutrons are highly penetrating.  Therefore, if the radioactive material produces significant amounts of either or both, then that would be a huge factor in designing the powerplant.  Otherwise, much, or even most, of the nuclear energy would be simply wasted.

That is unless the use of phosphors and solar panels is only part of how useable power is captured.

However, there are 2 types of nuclear radiations that are vastly less penetrating: alpha particles and beta particles.  Radioactive materials that produce either or both of these radiations would most efficiently transfer that energy to phosphors.

In any case, some energy is lost during any energy transfer.  Moreover, different phosphors would logically vary in how they respond to radiation.

2)  Light capture.

Once you have your glowing phosphors, you've got to get that light to your solar cells.

If your sandwich a layer of radioactive, glowing paint between 2 panes of glass (or plastic), then you could sandwich that between 2 solar panels.  That way, you'll capture most of your glow.

The problem with this idea is that the solar panels would work better if the glow was much brighter.

Well, one can make flat lenses.  Therefore, you could sandwich your flat light source between 2 flat lenses, and then place your solar panels where the glow is concentrated at.  Of course, no transparent materials are 100% transparent.  Still, this could be a truly minor inefficiency.

If you use any mirrors to help corral the glow, no mirror is 100% efficient either.

3)  The solar cells themselves.

Solar cells work most efficiently at certain wavelengths of light.  Finding a phosphor that glows at a wavelength that optimizes your solar cells would require a careful selection process.  Eventually, there could be ways of designing relatively "high efficiency" solar cells that match a wavelength of your choice.

• Basically: designer solar panels paired with designer, radioactive phosphors.

Note: even when optimized, solar cells aren't 100% efficient.

4)  Electrical power conversion.

Solar cells produce direct current electricity.  I can't guarantee that you'll get a precise voltage.  Hence, if you want alternating current electricity at a specific voltage, then you must convert your DC power to AC power.  Well, expect to lose 20% to 30% of your electrical power in that conversion process.

~•~

Here's what I was taught concerning a generic watercraft: ship or submarine, nuclear or fossil fuel.

70% of the power generated is wasted.  20% goes to propulsion.  The last 10% goes to "auxiliaries": meaning every power need — other than — propulsion.

So...  If you really, and truly want to save power (and hence fuel), then your best bet is to make a watercraft's propulsion more energy efficient.  (Eh.  Working on it...  At least theoretically.  Let's just say that I've got a few good leads.)

**

Now, a standard nuclear reactor is likely to waste 70% of the power that it generates.  Moreover, the powerplant will definitely have auxiliaries.

••  PLUS: Dealing with the radioactive waste is going to require a huge energy outlay.  ••

Methinks that "traditional" approaches to largescale nuclear powerplants will be highly questionable on the Moon ... and this side of "absolutely braindead" on Mars.

If nuclear power is seriously deployed for any off-world colonies, then I 100% guaranty that multiple nuclear "accidents" will happen.

•••  Not "might happen" ... WILL Happen.  •••

Sobering, ain't it?  And on Mars??  What part of "global dust storms":

IS NOT... 

Being understood...

BY ANYONE...

Who's — actually — "hoping" that Mars gets colonized???

****

My point ... and let me be crystal-clear:

Colonizing anywhere else than the planet Earth with a "boomtown attitude" will be horrifically suicidal in the long run.  [Hey.  Doing qualitative analysis is kind of, sort of, maybe my specialty.]

Just keeping it real.

True: I was a bug in the military.  Perhaps I've graduated to being a cockroach as a civilian.

****

Want to aim for colonizing both the Moon and Mars?  Then read me in ... providing that we also consider colonizing the world's oceans.

Look.  In terms of billions (or fractions of billions):

•  How many people might be able to colonize Earth's oceans versus colonizing the Moon and Mars combined ... say, in the next 50 to 150 years?

•  Additionally, technology and strategies for ocean colonization may prove critical to off-world colonization, and vice versa.

•  After all, in all 3 environs (Moon, Mars, & Oceans), what's outside of your habitat can kill you....

Very, very efficiently.  No honor.  No hesitation.  No remorse.  Dead, is dead, as dead.

Accidents -will- happen.  Mistakes -will- be made.  And — likely — there could be deliberate sabotage.

•

••

•••

Applicable axiom: "There ain't no such animal as 'A Free Lunch.'"

Nope.  There ain't: W O R D