HyperKat Support and Tester Forum

Mars Challenger V1.0 => Mars General Discussion => Topic started by: Hyper on August 16, 2010, 10:36:40 PM

Title: Power Systems
Post by: Hyper on August 16, 2010, 10:36:40 PM

I will open a discussion on power systems we will be using.
There will be solar panels. No moving parts and easy to ship and assemble and it's more or less free power.
I also think there will be fuel cells, since the fuel for them will more or less be a byproduct of other things we are doing.
Next is some iteration of a Stirling Cycle generator using some form of Isotope decay for heat. There are various forms of this tech out there and it does have the downside of moving parts to fail so it may or may not be something we can do.
Nuke will be the big thing. I am against it but NASA has spent alot of time and effort on making it safe. A Thorium based mini reactor will probably be the way to go since the waste is less volatile than the uranium/plutonium reactors.
Unless someone can come up with a good alternative this will be our power base.
Give me your thoughts....

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: Marco2001 on August 17, 2010, 12:08:33 AM

I'am gathering more info about the subject. I currently review all I can found about mars-base power technologies. I'll edit the post as soon as I can.  ;)

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: profit004 on August 17, 2010, 02:35:45 AM

Until mankind can harness fusion power safely I kinda think that covers the possibilities for power on mars.

Ultra-long term (300+ years from now) perhaps Geosynchronous Solar power platforms and microwave energy transmission... but their cost and build time with the massive array's required for collection would be impractical for anything but a fully terraformed and completely inhabited mars.   I would think geothermaly  cooled thorium reactors will probably be the pinnacle of martian power production for the next century or so for us simple humans.

side note on the sterling's: while they do have moving parts, they are fully sealed and likely will run for decades.   Same as a refrigerators compressor likely will run for many years before breaking, because it is in a sealed closed system.   *happens to fix coolers sometimes and almost all coolers fail because their freon leaks out or a fan moter dies.  Compressors... 10-20 years of life most of the time.

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: Hyper on August 17, 2010, 11:09:31 AM

I like the sterling and we have a easy heat exchange since it's so cold on the planet all we really need is a good heater. To convert nuke energy to electric, conversion to steam to drive generators seems to have it's mechanicals more critical since the turbines and bearings would be a issue. I kinda lean toward a bank of sterlings so if any one fails it doesn't all fail and the sterling has a good heat to power converson ratio.

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: Utini on August 17, 2010, 12:08:37 PM

Various pros and cons:
Solar: easy to ship, comparatively light, "free" energy, no / few moving parts (stationary vs. sun-tracking), need lots of area to collect sufficient energy
Nuclear: (focusing on pebble beds as they're probably the most reliable for the situation) high energy density, no chance of meltdown due to design, refueling easy due to design, low radioactivity (more solar irradiation walking to the reactor than holding the fuel pebble) HEAVY (shielding, fuel etc.), chance of fire if pyrolytic graphite comes into contact with water, complex machinery (mm tolerances) for conversion of heat to power
Stirling cycle engines have been discussed previously here.

Fuel cells would probably be best used as energy storage devices at the present time.  With the above information, Stirling engines would likely be the best bet for most of what this simulation seems to be trying to cover.

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: Marco2001 on August 17, 2010, 01:41:37 PM

Wind Power will be used on Mars for 100%.
It's a perfect backup-energy plan becouse martian conditions can disable other power sources (even nuclear).
For instance: dust-storms disables PVP energy.
NASA already plans using solar-wind as the basis for energy supply on mars base - this research program is called "NASA Cold Weather Wind Turbine Program" reseached currently on polar bases.

-------------------------------
"Wind power and solar power may complement each other on Mars. When you have a large dust storm blocking the sunlight on Mars, a wind turbine can still generate electricity," said scientist David Bubenheim of NASA's Ames Research Center in California's Silicon Valley.

"Only during dust storms on Mars is there enough wind energy to operate a wind turbine," said Michael Flynn, another NASA Ames scientist. On Earth about 10 meters (33 feet) per second wind speed is needed to make electricity with wind turbines; on Mars about 30 meters (98 feet) is needed because of the extremely thin air, according to Bubenheim.

"What we are proposing is a hybrid wind-solar system," Flynn said. "This system would use solar cells to generate electricity during sunny periods, and a wind turbine to make electricity during dust storms."

"We've looked at wind profiles based on atmospheric computer models of Mars," Bubenheim said. A scheme of complementary wind and solar power appears to be an option, he added.
-------------------------------

Article here: Space Daily - Polar Wind Turbines Could Be Used On Mars  ---> http://www.spacedaily.com/news/mars-base-01e.html (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/mars-base-01e.html)

Another article: Wind Power for a Mars Mission - NASA report ---> https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/mragheb/www/NPRE%20475%20Wind%20Power%20Systems/Wind%20Power%20for%20a%20Mars%20Mission.pdf (https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/mragheb/www/NPRE%20475%20Wind%20Power%20Systems/Wind%20Power%20for%20a%20Mars%20Mission.pdf)

-------------------------------
"David Bubenheim, a scientist at NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif., envisions a Mars space station powered by solar energy during clear weather, with wind-generated power picking up the slack during the dark months. The small wind turbines that Bubenheim and his fellow scientists are considering for such a project are currently used for NASA projects in Antarctica, where the continent's six months of darkness each winter make it impossible to rely on solar power year-round."

"To understand how wind turbines make electricity, think of a wind turbine as rather like a fan, only backward. Instead of using electricity to make wind as a fan does, the turbines use wind to make electricity. The wind turns the blades, which spin a shaft, which connects to a generator that produces electricity. Utility-scale turbines vary in size; they're capable of generating from 50 kilowatts to more than 2 megawatts. The turbines being looked at for the Mars project generate about 100 kW, depending on the location and the thickness of the air. At an Alaska test site, the turbine clocked a maximum of 120 kW in a 36-mph wind. At a test site in Colorado, where air is denser, it averaged closer to the expected 100 kW, said an Alaskan utility company engineer."

"Turbines can generate big returns mainly because they can be easily located in remote regions of the globe—and, of course, potentially on Mars—where access to electricity is limited or non-existent, and where even small amounts of electricity can significantly improve the quality of life, the DOE says."
-------------------------------

Mechanical engineering power (2003) - "Mars Needs Turbines - Scientists look at powering a Mars space station with on-site wind."
Full article here: ---> http://www.memagazine.org/supparch/mepower03/marsneeds/marsneeds.html (http://www.memagazine.org/supparch/mepower03/marsneeds/marsneeds.html)

Here's NASA article about Wind Generators ---> http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20020087640_2002143301.pdf (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20020087640_2002143301.pdf)
-------------------------------

I don't know how exactly that wind turbine on Mars would look like but on the articles I listed scientists say "the turbines tested are basicly the ones that could be send to Mars".
Here are some possible looks:
 
http://landscapearchiteck.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/mariah-power-windspire-wind-turbine-2.jpg?w=600&h=518 (http://landscapearchiteck.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/mariah-power-windspire-wind-turbine-2.jpg?w=600&h=518)

http://inlinethumb60.webshots.com/41915/2138042150104181437S600x600Q85.jpg (http://inlinethumb60.webshots.com/41915/2138042150104181437S600x600Q85.jpg)

http://www.designboom.com/cms/images/-01m/287.jpg (http://www.designboom.com/cms/images/-01m/287.jpg)

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/149600main_1987_05991.jpg (http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/149600main_1987_05991.jpg)

http://www.spacedaily.com/images/polar-windmill-bg.jpg (http://www.spacedaily.com/images/polar-windmill-bg.jpg)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_wOts_TNJPz8/SI1i0JTd3tI/AAAAAAAAABg/MTlFUQP-OKU/s320/loop+wing+wind_turbine.jpg (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_wOts_TNJPz8/SI1i0JTd3tI/AAAAAAAAABg/MTlFUQP-OKU/s320/loop+wing+wind_turbine.jpg)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_wOts_TNJPz8/SI1VZol3PAI/AAAAAAAAABQ/Kj-YRZp6FO8/s320/wind_turbines_Darrieus_windmill.jpg (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_wOts_TNJPz8/SI1VZol3PAI/AAAAAAAAABQ/Kj-YRZp6FO8/s320/wind_turbines_Darrieus_windmill.jpg)


This one I find interesting ---> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_wOts_TNJPz8/SI1pu7k-sGI/AAAAAAAAACQ/9rGbdIZLarU/s1600/mars-wind-turbine.jpg (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_wOts_TNJPz8/SI1pu7k-sGI/AAAAAAAAACQ/9rGbdIZLarU/s1600/mars-wind-turbine.jpg)
It's basically a baloon that's easy to transport and generates much energy. http://www.magenn.com/images/marsIsTheFuture.jpg (http://www.magenn.com/images/marsIsTheFuture.jpg)
Read about it here ---> http://www.magenn.com/ (http://www.magenn.com/)

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: profit004 on August 17, 2010, 03:36:03 PM

Martian atmosphere is so scant wind turbines will have real problems there.  I know they are looking into them, and the 250km/hour winds during some storms might make them possible but once again they have to be exceedingly massive to produce measurable amounts of power.  With a blade surface area roughly 80 times what a wind turbine on earth would need its not simple.   They seemed to forget that part when they were painting their picture that they only needed triple the wind speed not that they would need a massive engineering marvel to capture it.

  The Balloon turbines didn't work well on earth..   They have bad tenancies of folding and keeping them rigid is just barely possible on earth with exotic and expensive materials for weight savings... and they still have only been able to make tiny prototypes that didn't break immediately.  On mars with it's scant atmosphere they would never be able to get off the ground because the buoyancy is so tiny.    They had to specially design balloons just to carry a little air sampler they are sending to mars with them.   Maybe some year those types of floatable wind turbines will be able to produce enough power to you know do something on earth and they are a good idea... but probably not ever on mars.

Maybe after 2k years of terraforming mars might have the atmosphere to support these things.. or if we can make a windmill blade 40 stories high and 35-90 feet wide weighing less than a ton....

*on the assumption mars is even terraformable. I am unsure but I am concerned there is not enough gravity to prevent atmosphere from reaching escape velocity.   also radiation will always be a problem even with a thick atmosphere, because of Mar's lack of a protective strong magnetic layer.

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: profit004 on August 17, 2010, 04:07:33 PM

And just something on the weight issue...

The smallest windmill they could get away with would be about 45,000 lbs Plus another 10,000 for pilings unless they could make them from martian materials *Without electricity =p* for about 60KW electrical.

* this assumes MASSIVE improvements in weight saving materials as the surface area needed of the blades and such was not taken into account with this. this is an earth turbine.

The smallest U-233 Reactor producing 60kw thermal power would be about 140lbs.  (most energy on mars will need to be thermal to keep habitats warm and plants growing.)

Cost to ship windmill at 10,000$US approximately per pound is... 550 Million dollars per windmill.

Cost to ship a reactor... About 1.4 million or 1400K dollars.

Cost to ship 100 reactors for 100 colonies... less than the cost of shipping a single windmill.

Cost to ship 200 reactors so every one of those 100 colonies can have a backup... Less than the cost of shipping a single windmill...

Cost to ship 300 reactors so every one of those 100 colonies can have a backup of their backup.. LEss than the cost of shipping a windmill..

Cost to ship 900 reactors so every one of those 100 colonies can have a backup of their backup of their backup of their backup and have 3 on a truck in case they want to start another colony with backups of backups... Less than the cost of 3 windmills.

Sources:

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/766566-ITPxxo/webviewable/766566.pdf

http://www.memagazine.org/supparch/mepower03/marsneeds/marsneeds.html

*edit calculator failed me!

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: Hyper on August 17, 2010, 04:37:01 PM

Have to agree on the windmills, I looked at those same articles and the only upside is the dust storms will cause the atmo to be dense enough to spin them. One of the primary reasons I took them out of the game. I think the weight could be mitigated with the air foil type of spinner rather than the blades but still I would rather take something more power per pound per dollar shipping.
It looks like the thorium unit from Toshiba may be heading in the right direction for compact safe use.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Toshiba's_Home_Nuclear_Fusion_Reactor

NASA has great interest in small safe units.

http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/FissionSurfacePowerSystem.pdf

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: profit004 on August 17, 2010, 04:51:19 PM

10 megawatts should cover it =)

* edit:  I like the NASA units, they actually look like they could do what they are designed for.  

Edit: on further thought I REALLY like the NASA designs, they have no readily apparent flaws... something that is a rarity for NASA anymore.  And even a couple ingenious things.

I an getting my further reading from the bottom of this article if anyone wants to read a little more.

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/TECB/fsp.htm

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: Marco2001 on August 17, 2010, 05:54:53 PM

Tho' I don't exactly agree with you profit004 I understand your arguments becouse they'r logic. I think that in the future such obstacles like windmill sizes and efficiency will be dealth with. Since NASA conducts test on them for future Mars colonization it's safe to say that despite the obstacles you mentioned, some peeple still hopes to use wind as a good-emergency power suply. I would like to emphasis "EMERGENCY". In the worst-case scenario, the martian base is inside 6-month Mega Dust-Storm. In these 6 month they'r only source of energy would be the Nuclear Reactor(s), which MAY be broken (by a solar flare for instance) and repairing it may be impossible (or take many days). Without the energy from the reactor and PVPannels, the base would be without the energy to survive. Therefore as a precousion it would be wise to have a SMALL windmill (not as big as you mentioned) that would only generate enough energy to power Minimal Life Support so that in the meantime the astronauts can repair the reactor or wait for the storm to calm down. Windmill energy is immune to any form of Radiation/Dust storm becouse of it simplified construction, and even tho' it can only be used during Dust Storms, it's the only time we would actually like to use them. If enything goes OK the base would relly on standars power sources. The windmill could be about 5 times bigger that the one from the demo - it would only give enough energy to activate the HUB computer and keep one module warm with fresh air. It could start to give energy only when the wind speed is beyond certain point.
But I admit that using only reactors is temptiong becouse of the price. For the sake of the discussion I admit that using Thorium reactors would be better.


Other thing - we should reely consider using Nuclear Reactors not only for producing Electrical energy, but also Heat for the base.
It would mean that the reactor is connected with electrical cables to the base for energy, and water pipes that transport hot watter that would keep the base warm.
The reactor creates lots of additional heat that could be consumed instead of wasted. Using the reactor to only produce energy that would be send to base to produce heat from it is a huge waste of power. Even today the some heating plants are being replaced by the heat merely from the nuclear plants. It's safe, It's cheaper, It's economical - It's better.

*IDEA* Heat exchanger is the part that receives the heat given to the base by the reactor, and redistibutes it. If the heat exchanger would broke, you would only be able to heat the base using electrical power. Player would need to repair it to save power.

Yet another thing - reactor's placement. I think that the reactor should be a special module (like ERV from the demo), that would be about 100 m away from the base.
The reactor module would be descend from the orbit separately from the base.
Player would be able to enter the interior of the reactor, and even find shelter there.
It could look like this (the purple sphere on the bottom):

(http://salotti.pagesperso-orange.fr/jeudestinationmars1.jpg)


One last thing - what actions would be permited at the reactor? Would it simply be a static item that "magicly" makes power for the base? or maybe you can set some of it's parameters for better/worse function? Could it broke? If so would you be able to repair it? Would you need to maintain it just like PVPannels? or is it self-sufficient?

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: profit004 on August 17, 2010, 09:36:39 PM

Yeah a smaller emergency wind turbine is not beyond imagination.. but I would like to point out *I think* they are far more vulnerable to something like a solar flare than a reactor.    Reactors already have shielding and grounding for most designs I have seen from NASA(because they are designed to be buried), and they have redundancy in banks of small stirlings and linear alternators so a single failure could be easily isolated. They would also be electromagnetically shielded by the radiators if they were to use them above them.

I am a little concerned with the windmills that their being on a long pole with massive exposed wires acting as antenna's would be highly susceptible to EM interference and possibly electrostatic discharge.  Perhaps even susceptible to massive ESD from buildup on the blades unless they were coated with a grounded layer of aluminum or something because the martian atmosphere has nearly no water to help prevent static they would be like giant Van de Graaff generators.  I have not thought the physics entirely through but I think as an emergency power source they would likely be one of the first things to be destroyed in any of those situations.

* any wires exposed on mars will get EM interference and would have to be buried or shielded with metal.

You are right about the problem though is from a game standpoint.. In real life a reactor will likely be a magic box that produces power year in and year out with basically no maintenance as they have done on the voyager probe for the past 32 years(RTG's but still).. It does kinda lack in the fun department...

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: profit004 on August 17, 2010, 09:55:48 PM

* from a personal artistic standpoint I have to say a 40 story tall windmill with shimmering Mylar blades that looked like some form of futuristic pinwheel spinning like crazy above my head would be cool. (Thinner atmosphere on mars means they would likely operate at a higher RPM than earthbound ones.)

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: Kumado on August 17, 2010, 10:56:13 PM

If wind generation where to work, it would probably have to be more like the low wind speed designs,

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Gual_Industrie_StatoEolien_Vertical-Axis_Wind_Turbine

This is not the image / site I want, I will have to look more for it. I made a model from it. they used 4" PVC cut in half for the inside cups and a stationary set of 4" PVC cut in 1/4's as directional blades, increased the speed of collection by approx 3 times.
The PVC was mounted between 26" bicycle wheels for the demo.

Another power source that shows promise for low power apps is thermal couples. In an isolated panel the sun's radiation on one side with exposer to the atmo on the other. Thermal couples also can be lined around a reactor core to convert heat into power.
The Amish have a really neat fan that runs off the heat of the stove:

http://a1stoves.com/ecofan-for-gas-stoves-p-508.html

Also, a store dedicated one front window for a thermal heater. They boxed in the window, insulated it, painted the sunny side black. They used a small muffin fan powered by a solar cell panel to start air circulating, convection took over later but they heated a remote office with this method. If there is no sunlight, the fan does not push air. Again not the site I saw before, guess I need to book mark more.

http://www.arenergysys.com/solar_air_heating.htm

Another power storage device is a flywheel. I was working on a model of this with a friend and found China is already using them,. You spin a flywheel ( or many of them ) up with whatever you have to generate power, wing, solar, water ( pedaling a bike :) etc, and then those flywheels in-turn drive alternators when there is a demand for power. The base / bulk material for the weight can be gleamed from Mar's surface. If you use filed coils instead of permanent magnets, the only drag on the system is the bearings, hydraulic bearing systems are very good here.   

http://www.dg.history.vt.edu/ch2/storage.html

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: profit004 on August 18, 2010, 04:41:07 AM

I think we have covered all those things to death in another thread.. Except storage..

As for flywheels... I just do not see enough high precision equipment to make a perfectly balanced to the gram 20 metric ton flywheel on mars.

 However.. your links did remind me of one thing which MIGHT work.  There could be a superconductive ring battery flown as part of the hab module.  the high flux would be dangerous if any metal were to be inside the module, but crew members could probably use it for shielding from radiation on the journey to mars.  when it gets to mars it might make a pretty darn good battery if it separated from the hab and dropped a ways away.   Could use a reverse Stirling cycle to keep it cool at cryogenic temperatures and being as mars has basically freezing cold temperatures anyhow it might be decent.

http://www.stirlingcryogenics.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMES
a small Superconductive bat might be able to store a couple hundred KW of energy. Enough to last a couple nights or so.

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: Marco2001 on August 18, 2010, 01:15:00 PM

The best way to store energy is pressurized air :)
The energy input/output efficiency is low (50-70%) but thats beside the point. Normal batteries or other means of energy-storage can gather-up energies for couple hours/days of usage. Compressed air has practicly no limitation on how much energy could be stored, or for how long.

Links ---> http://www.livescience.com/technology/080604-pf-caes.html (http://www.livescience.com/technology/080604-pf-caes.html)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_energy_storage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_energy_storage)
http://www.techbriefs.com/content/view/332/34/ (http://www.techbriefs.com/content/view/332/34/)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977iece.conf..591G (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977iece.conf..591G)

List of links of releated articles (ADS Database): http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-abs_connect?bibcode=1977iece.conf..591G&return_req=no_params&selfeedback=1&use_title=YES&use_kwds=YES&return_req=feedback (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-abs_connect?bibcode=1977iece.conf..591G&return_req=no_params&selfeedback=1&use_title=YES&use_kwds=YES&return_req=feedback)

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Minebw.jpg/789px-Minebw.jpg)


When player mines resources using augar he makes a hole inside the ground. When the resource is depleated the drilling hole remains. Player would be able to insert air compressor/generator on top of the drilling hole, just like he did with water pumps in the Demo. The compressor would insert air inside the drilled hole from the resources when you make more electrical power then you need, and use the stored air to power the generator when you need more power (like during the night or Dust storm).

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: profit004 on August 18, 2010, 09:42:21 PM

I do have to admit, besides the dismal efficiency I really like the system.   I can see this being used on earth in major ways if solar and wind took off.


   I wonder if it would work on mars to any degree though.. With 1/100th the atmosphere to compress I am a little concerned it's efficiency would suffer massively. I already know air compressors and the like have to be specially designed for jet aircraft use and that is only like 1/5th of the atmosphere where most of them fly and they have a 600kph wind to scoop up.  *101 Kpa at sea level, 21 kPa at 40K feet, mars only has about 1.1 kPa in its deepest trench.

However if that was solved you are right, even 30% storage efficiency if it was practically unlimited would be good for a several week backup power supply to a reactor or a massive solar array.

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: thedubman on August 19, 2010, 05:23:32 PM

I would like to see all of those power systems in place... I love the compressed air version..

To note for the sim, if any or alll of those systems are in place, they need to also be there to add an element of need or use. In other words to enable a 'fun'/exiting experince all of those systems would need a failure/repair/maintence- not neccerally all the time but to add an element of danger and/or failure of player input...

...can you imagine doing a emergency shutdown on a reactor (with robonaut????) and/or getting the core transported away fromm site incase of leakage etc.. opposed to switching it on and never having to worry.. just as an example   ;)

How are these systems gained? all at once or when needed? if the sim had an expand as you progress playstyle it would make for an addictive game indeed..

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: Marco2001 on August 19, 2010, 06:43:45 PM

Quote from: thedubman on August 19, 2010, 05:23:32 PM

How are these systems gained? all at once or when needed? if the sim had an expand as you progress playstyle it would make for an addictive game indeed..

When it comes to compressed air the answer is simple.
The air-compressed energy can be only done when you actually depleted completely an ore spot.
By mining resources you make small hollows in the ground. Those are the hollows filled with compressed air.
That's how it usualy get's done on Earth. The caves where the air/water is pumped are usually made by nearby mines (like coal-mines).
It is possible to find a nattural hollow in the martian ground but it's not likely.
Also - the air-compressed energy supply should be as near the base as possible. Thus - only artificial holes are good enough.

Proposed compressed-air storage creation scheme:
1. The game starts. No mining in progress. No air-compressed energy. Players have to conserve erergy as possible for a few days (like we do now in MCO).
2. Players starts to look for nearby resources using GPR. They start from the base and move further each day.
3. When players spot the nearest resource ore to the base (red dot :)) they place the Augar ontop.
4. Players start to mine that ore until it's completely hollow (Augar can't drill any more resources). It doesn't matter what kind of resource it is as long as it's close to the base.
5. When the ore is completely mined, players remove the Augar.
6. On top of the Drilling point where the Augar was standing players place the Air compressor/generator. The Air compressor/generator is placed just like the water pump.
Since the martian atmosphere is thicker it's possibe that the compressor would be as small as the Power Generator http://ai.pricegrabber.com/pi/0/18/21/1821010_640.jpg (http://ai.pricegrabber.com/pi/0/18/21/1821010_640.jpg)
(it would be of course - properly secured to the ground).
It's also possible that the Air compressor/generator is an equipement of the size of an Augar like this (and is placed with rover like Augar too). http://cdn2.ioffer.com/img/item/141/138/415/Z0Yh.jpg (http://cdn2.ioffer.com/img/item/141/138/415/Z0Yh.jpg)
7. In order to send/receive energy from it, you need to connect it to the base. On the back/front of the base there could be a unwindable electrical wire with max. lenght of 50 m.. Player would need to step close to the electric-wire box and click on it to start dragging it behind him. When he reaches the Air compressor/generator he clicks "Plug electric wire" and simply starts the machine. If the compressor if further than 50 m the player could plug it to the amplifier device to gain another 50 m.
8. The compressor starts to pump air into the hollow. It measures the Psi (preasure) level. When it reaches a certain level (for Mars let's say....1 Psi) the compressor finally starts to pump power inside, when it's aviable. The compressor will stop charging when the preasure reaches critical level (for instance: 10 Psi). If base needs power the compressor stopes charging preasure and changes into generator which gives electric power until the preasure reaches below 1 Psi. The larger the hollow the more time it needs to preasure-up the cave to 1 Psi, but it will also take more time to depreasurize to 1 Psi aswell. In other words - bigger hollows have the capability to hold more air-power.
9. Air compressor/generator will charge every day when it has excess power from the PVP and discharge at night or when needed. At first players still will have to conserve power, but after every day, the situation would improve.
10. Players search the map for bigger, better located resources to change the air-compressor location.
11. In order to switch the compressor to a better location you would first need to safely dispose all of the air inside the hollow. Simply walk to the machine and press "release air" button. It will take a couple of hours/days until the psi will drop to a save level to take the machine off the augar-hole.

*NOTE* If someone were to take the compressor off the hole when it still has air, it would explode killing everyone in tens of meters away.

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: Hyper on August 19, 2010, 07:25:32 PM

The compressed air is a fair idea but you wont be able to contain air in a hollowed out mine the air would just go into the dirt, regolith. You might keep 1 or 2 psi in a enclosed space but to have 100 + psi you need a pressure vessel that is air tight.

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: Marco2001 on August 19, 2010, 08:11:27 PM

Quote from: Hyper on August 19, 2010, 07:25:32 PM

The compressed air is a fair idea but you wont be able to contain air in a hollowed out mine the air would just go into the dirt, regolith.

Regolith goes 1-2 m deep on mars (max 40 m). We are mining the resources from permfrost area which are way deeper and solid. It shouldn't be a problem since it's done on earth too. Water at certain deep doesn't boil, sublimate or disperse as a gas to the surrounding rocks becouse of the preasure. Rocks from deeper parts of the martian soil have many air particles trapped inside - only the ones at the top have less air. Morover - we aren't hollowing just anywhere - we make a hole inside the dense raw ore. Some resources (like calcium) are made of big material block. They don't have the potential to disperse the air. 

(http://www.affs.org/assets/images/chart2.jpg)

(http://jesse.usra.edu/archive/jesse03-400-05/images/figure5.jpg)

Quote from: Hyper on August 19, 2010, 07:25:32 PM

You might keep 1 or 2 psi in a enclosed space but to have 100 + psi you need a pressure vessel that is air tight.

100 psi is propably to big for Mars conditions and technical capabilities. Even 1 Psi is enough to generate energy for base.

BTW:You just made a big point - we shouldn't make the air condensors at shallow hollows. Minimum 50 m of deep. Deeper = better. Deep = more air preasure we can make inside the hollow.

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: thedubman on August 20, 2010, 04:33:54 PM

Maybe not compressed 'air' but a gas that is gained from procceses from mining/o2 creation ie carbon dioxide? or simular but would'nt go for breathable air..

BTW- as I pointed out before, is MCO+ (thats what I call MCS,MCdemo,MCOetc) going to be pure simulation or simulation/game??? Can we not bend the rules to allow something to 'work' and get away with it by explaining how it does instead in game-- is there a need to simulate the actual system...??

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: Marco2001 on August 20, 2010, 04:47:49 PM

Quote from: thedubman on August 20, 2010, 04:33:54 PM

Maybe not compressed 'air' but a gas that is gained from procceses from mining/o2 creation ie carbon dioxide? or simular but would'nt go for breathable air..

No one suggested that. The compressor preasurizes the martian air which is 95% CO2. Using residual gas after mining is not desired.

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: Hyper on August 20, 2010, 05:32:55 PM

@Marco This will be a game with as much reality as I can make it. Having said that, there is a point at which I have to make things work with the code/art so there will be some question marks in places. For instance someone brought up the subject of going outside without the eva, yeah you will boil out rather fast like 2 min but I extended that for game sake so the noobs could have a chance to get back inside.
Gas storage for power I dont think will be used. Talked to a couple people today about that and they dont think I can hold pressure even in ice or solid granite for very long. The media is too porous for anything to last. They suggested the inside could be filled with a sealer gas first like flat fix for tires and that may work but natural ground would leak pressure.

I think we have enough to get us going, Solar, Nuke and Fuel Cells seem to be the easiest to implement and the most generally accepted methods. The Nuke would be fitted with sterling engines for power gen I belive that would be the way to go. As for maintenance on the Nuke, the stirling generators will need looked after and there may be a time when the thing needs shut down, checked, restart. Also as a job I think we could build a backup nuke over time. The fuel cells seem to have the most interaction with refueling and the requirements of moving them around. Alternate fuels for them may be another way to get some user interaction. Like we can grow some algae and make alcohol for fuel.
Thanks to all for your input.

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: Marco2001 on August 20, 2010, 06:00:42 PM

What about "Radioisotope thermoelectric generator", RTG?
They are used by NASA and on Earth where you need secured/stable energy supply for 10-20 years.
They don't make a lot of power compared to nuclear, but are easy to use and need no attention.
RTG as a power source are as effective as a power generator of the same size, but does not require fuel.

(http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/7531/fcell.png)

(http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/aircraft-pictures/assets_c/2010/02/Radioisotope%20Thermo%20Electric%20Generator-thumb-450x442-64854.jpg)

Radioisotope thermoelectric generator, RTG can be placed anywhere and is safe (becouse the radiation doesn't get out of the casing).
You could pick it up, like a Power Generator, and plug it where you need more power.

NASA has developed a special verison of RTG for colonizing Mars called MMRTG - Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator
---> http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/38246/1/04-0191.pdf (http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/38246/1/04-0191.pdf)

Quote

"The MMRTG is designed to operate on planetary bodies as
well as in the vacuum of space. At beginning of mission, the
MMRTG is designed to generate a minimum of 110 watts of
power at 28 volts DC, and to have a design life of at least 14
years. The power level was selected to afford the capabilities
of meeting the potential needs of a wider variety of planetary
lander and deep space missions. Potential mission concepts
that could benefit from use of the MMRTG include a Titan
Biological Explorer - with both a balloon mission and a
rover mission, the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL), with a
follow-on Astrobiology Field Laboratory mission and finally
a Neptune / Triton Orbiter mission."

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: thedubman on August 20, 2010, 06:42:35 PM

I think you will find some of the equipment (planned and/or useable ie auger) allready are fitted with RTG's :)

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: profit004 on August 20, 2010, 07:20:25 PM

I would like to point out a major downside of an RTG compared to a reactor.. Not saying they will not be used and actually I am certain they will be for everything from heating and emergency power in a hab to running communications and the like... however.. they are always on.. Producing heat.

The heat might not seem like a big deal on a planet, but during launch when everything goes up in a nose cone of a rocket, the RTG has to be cooled.  This is not a problem for a small one like less than 100 watts, but when you get to a colony sized 5KW RTG, the heat because it is only 8% efficient is over 50KW's of thermal waste.  ALWAYS ON with no way of turning it off.

Maybe they could launch them inside the fuel tanks somehow with liquid hydrogen to keep it cool...  but it will be a pain to deal with no matter what.

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: Hyper on August 20, 2010, 07:23:20 PM

Yeah thats another one of them game things. I put in portable RTG which is kinda there already which requires no refueling/maintenance then I have to find something else for people to do. Games kinda need things for players to do so.... I may add some for things like the augers or more permanent equipment. Remember if everything is auto magic then it's not a game it's a movie....

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: profit004 on August 20, 2010, 07:26:35 PM

Worse then a movie because you cannot live vicariously through a passive piece of equipment.  =)

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: profit004 on August 20, 2010, 07:31:02 PM

RTG's would be good things to allow us to purchase though with in game funds =)

They could probably not power a hab, but they could offset the heating and generate a tiny bit of power if mounted inside on the wall or something.. Maybe design 4 spots specially for mounting of RTG's and players can buy them with personal funds.

Those RTG's could offset heating requirements, maybe with all 4 they could maintain about 18 degree's or something without power.. and they could produce a small amount of power.. maybe keep the lights on or something... Not enough to run the pumps though =)

*That would be balanced AND realistic in my mind =)

* IE like 4x50watt RTG's with a waste heat of around 4x500 watts would be enough to heat a small hab. Most small heaters people use draw about 1500 watts... so 2000 would be just a smidge more than one of the heaters you buy at walmart.... but an RTG does not require a power grid to produce heat =)

* By my current estimates, the batteries hold enough for about 12 hours of habitation heating, and the habs heater should draw about 1700 watts if everything was super perfectly insulated so the batteries by my calcs store about...  20KWh of power.  So from there you can see 200 watts extra power from 4 RTG's would be minimal it is the waste heat that would be more valuable, the extra power would be great for emergency use though.

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: Marco2001 on August 20, 2010, 08:16:15 PM

MMRTG has one big advantage - it produces electricyty no mater what happens. It has been tested on Pionier 10 & 11....they are still operating ofter 30 years :-)
As little electric power it may seem to give, the mass/energy ratio is higher then in normal power generator. Apollo missions have proven that RTG can be very usefoul.

MMRTG can generate the power at night.  When the base has no power left, emergency red lights starts to glow. Ever wandered from where those red lights had power? :D

Some systems simply cannot stop working even for a brief moment, becouse of the lack of power (eg.--> HUB Computer). The MMRTG ensures that they will have minimum power for operation, even when other equipement doesn't.

There is one more thing we need to consider. MMRTG gives only 110 W....but that's the small one. The bigger version that would be used on Mars, not only would produce more power, but would also converse more heat into power. In the future the technology will improve. On Mars colony the MMRTG has more flexibility - for instance - the excess heat can power another generator.

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: profit004 on August 20, 2010, 11:17:54 PM

Hey Marco... I am well aware of those advantages and I think they will be used in real mars missions..  I did mention a kinda important thing a few messages ago which is they  are not able to be shut down.

Quote from: profit004 on August 20, 2010, 07:20:25 PM

I would like to point out a major downside of an RTG compared to a reactor.. Not saying they will not be used and actually I am certain they will be for everything from heating and emergency power in a hab to running communications and the like... however.. they are always on. Producing heat.

The heat might not seem like a big deal on a planet, but during launch when everything goes up in a nose cone of a rocket, the RTG has to be cooled.  This is not a problem for a small one like less than 100 watts, but when you get to a colony sized 5KW RTG, the heat because it is only 8% efficient is over 50KW's of thermal waste.  ALWAYS ON with no way of turning it off.

Maybe they could launch them inside the fuel tanks somehow with liquid hydrogen to keep it cool...  but it will be a pain to deal with no matter what.

Your reasons for them are valid, your uses are as well, and I do not disagree with them..  Just they cant be much bigger without causing real trouble for launches.

You will note I mentioned in another post this "waste" heat could be put to good use and be far more useful in some respects than the energy produced.

However because reactors can be launched "cool" I think they will probably win out for martian main power generation.

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: thedubman on August 21, 2010, 08:36:36 AM

All very true, for a real mission- but keep in mind the sim needs not to have to worry about too much of the fine detail, becouse its a sim :) and also the sim is based on an undisclosed future.. which raises the question- what date is the sim based on? 25yrs 50 -100yrs in the future,.. I bet in a hundred years time our time will be like the victorian times to us...

MARS COLONY SIMULATOR 2075 :)

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: profit004 on August 22, 2010, 03:13:36 PM

Or like the people in the dark ages looking back on the roman times...

Depending on which way the world swings.

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: thedubman on August 22, 2010, 03:30:05 PM

Agree yes, but the human race (OK there is the advanced civilization that allready existed and have destroyed themselves or flew off to settle on Mars (!) etc theory.. Chariots of the gods stuff etc)...

But in reality the last 50 years the human race has advanced faster than any other time period (talking technology) if human race continues at this rate (and dont do anything stupid) I can see Mars being well visited and at a stage simular to the sim in 50 years.

There are some most exellent ideas being thrown around, and I love how the feasabilty of the ideas are disccused/re-worked/resovled etc by the fourum members...  I wonder what NASA would think..

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: Marco2001 on October 10, 2010, 09:20:39 PM

And what about Regenerative Fuel Cell (RFC)?
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/Electrochemistry/doc/trailer_fc.html (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/Electrochemistry/doc/trailer_fc.html)

http://technology.grc.nasa.gov/SS-space-power-pallet.shtm (http://technology.grc.nasa.gov/SS-space-power-pallet.shtm)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VPB-4J558GV-1C&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1492380968&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ab040df615d882093e849f7e587caa3c&searchtype=a (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VPB-4J558GV-1C&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1492380968&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ab040df615d882093e849f7e587caa3c&searchtype=a)

http://papers.sae.org/2008-01-2901/ (http://papers.sae.org/2008-01-2901/)

http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2009/TM-2009-215502.pdf (http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2009/TM-2009-215502.pdf)

(http://technology.grc.nasa.gov/assets/images/RFC-image-2.jpg)

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: profit004 on October 10, 2010, 11:05:06 PM

Regenerative Fuel cells are a storage technology.   Nothing wrong with them but they are a battery, a super-inefficient battery and can be considered identical to a inefficient battery in most cases unless you want to store massive amounts of power and release it very slowly.

That said the ability to store massive amounts of power even with the atrocious inefficiencies makes them attractive...   Just make sure you have a semi-sized group of hydrogen, oxygen and water tanks to store the fuel for them and they could power a laptop for a year. 

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: Marco2001 on October 12, 2010, 03:47:54 PM

Inefficient? Semi-sized group of tanks? Powering a laptop?  
Your wrong.
This is THE most advanced chemical energy storage methode up-to-date. Cars and entire Planes run on this.
 

Quote

"The system is very similar to a rechargeable battery, but it can store four to six times more energy than a battery of the same weight." - NASA Glenn's David Bents.

Quote

The PEM hydrogen-oxygen regenerative fuel cell system is potentially the highest storage capacity and lowest weight non-nuclear energy storage system for extra-terrestrial applications. A solar array equipped unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) with a regenerative fuel cell energy storage system, for example, could provide a high altitude platform with theoretically unlimited endurance. This potential led NASA to undertake the practical development of a hydrogen-oxygen regenerative fuel cell, initially as solar energy storage for a high altitude, UAV science platform. At present, the RFC system is programmatically part of the NASA Vehicle Systems Program’s Low Emissions Alternative Power (LEAP) Project to further the development of aerospace regenerative fuel cells for high altitude and space missions.

https://www.fuelcelltoday.com/media/pdf/archive/Article_1011_H2-O2%20PEM%20Reg%20Fuel%20Cell%20Energy%20Storage%20System.pdf (https://www.fuelcelltoday.com/media/pdf/archive/Article_1011_H2-O2%20PEM%20Reg%20Fuel%20Cell%20Energy%20Storage%20System.pdf)

Quote

"What makes our regenerative fuel cell unique is that it's closed loop and completely sealed," Bents said. "Nothing goes in and nothing comes out, other than electrical power and waste heat. The hydrogen, oxygen and product water inside are simply recycled over and over again."

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/home/lunar_fuel_cell.html (http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/home/lunar_fuel_cell.html)

Quote

The RFC system was designed to be a completely closed loop test bed for the cyclic operation of fuel cell systems up to 60 kWh (5 kWe X 12 hr). Closed loop means the system with its electrochemical reactants and products is completely sealed; nothing goes into the system other than electrical power and there are no discharges or emissions from the system other than electrical power and waste heat. The RFC system can accomodate a fuel cell stack up to 5.25 kW (100 A at 52.5 V) capacity. The system has a maximum operating pressure of 400 psig. The electrolyzer operates at the system pressure while the fuel cell reactant feeds are regulated down to 50 psig. A 15 kW (150 A at 100 V) electrolyzer is used to charge the reactant tanks to full pressure while running under a current profile that simulates the output of a solar array during the 12-hr daylight cycle. During the nighttime phase of the solar cycle, the fuel cell runs at constant power for most of the cycle.

- https://www.fuelcelltoday.com/media/pdf/archive/Article_1011_H2-O2%20PEM%20Reg%20Fuel%20Cell%20Energy%20Storage%20System.pdf (https://www.fuelcelltoday.com/media/pdf/archive/Article_1011_H2-O2%20PEM%20Reg%20Fuel%20Cell%20Energy%20Storage%20System.pdf)

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: profit004 on October 13, 2010, 07:33:23 PM

Nothing you have quoted there is false, but you have to understand what I have said is not false either.

They are terribly inefficient power wise with maybe a 30% efficiency tops 10-15% more likely after pumping the gases into tanks.

For an extended run time they require a large fuel tank, about 3x as large as a similar gasoline tank for similar energy.

With O2 tanks they require MUCH more storage capacity in their tanks.

Even the NASA solution is only 60KWH of power, which is only 12 hours of generator run time on fuel here on earth. 

I am not saying they are bad but please re-read what I have written and you will see it is in fact the case, and the good and bad points were listed correctly.   I did not realize they had such a weight savings though so that will be a significant factor... but still I consider them a rechargeable battery that loses 70+% of the power you put into it.

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: Marco2001 on October 14, 2010, 05:25:44 PM

Actually they have an efficiency of 34% (in theory) and 33% (in practical). The idea is that RFC stores not only power but converts heat from the water synthesis.
But - Agreed that they are inferior when it comes to efficiency.

Size doesn't matter - it's the mass that counts. You can use for instance folded tanks, that you unfold on Mars. In the term of mass to weight - Regenerative Fuel Cells are superior.
Besides - they aren't that big. On this photo you can see RFC that holds power for 12 h: http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/2865/rfcw.jpg (http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/2865/rfcw.jpg)

The way I see it - it's a dilemma:
Use normal Batteries that stores power for 2 h with 80% efficiency or equal-massed Regenerative Fuel Cells that stores power for 12 h but with 33% efficiency.

Which ones better? Hard to say.
In certain situations one is better than the other.
For instance.....we have just started the base and we have no power whatsoever. It's more efficient to use batteries, that will help you live threw the night only becouse they store every bit of it that you produce....but...even when you turn OFF everything and run PG at night, you will always live in fear that you might make a mistake once, and drain all the power out.
On the other hand - if you know that your PV Pannels make lot's of energy, it would be a waste to store all that power in batteries that can only hold it for like 2 hours of full consumption. In that case I would prefer to store the power in RFC. That way I won't have to bother with power on night. But what if a dust-storm comes? PVP won't make enough power at day so that RFC won't charge fully. You would need to use PG to power-up main systems, and using RFC in that moment would be a waste of 77% electric power.

So why not make player (base commander) decide how to store his base power suplies by using the POWER STORAGE CONTROL PANEL?
It's basicly the same as Power distibution panel.

It might look a little bit like this:
http://www.sintef.no/upload/Energiforskning/Energylab/Fig2.gif (http://www.sintef.no/upload/Energiforskning/Energylab/Fig2.gif)
http://www.zdomain.com/stuff/sandstorm/SM_Trailer_electrical.png (http://www.zdomain.com/stuff/sandstorm/SM_Trailer_electrical.png)
http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/9402/rfc2.jpg (http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/9402/rfc2.jpg)

On this panel player would have:
-BATTERY 1 PACK
-BATTERY 2 PACK
-BATTERY 3 PACK
-Backup power
-RFC 1
-RFC 2
-RFC 3
-SOME OTHER POWER STORGE METHODE

Backup power would obviously be a power-storage source that would hold power for several hours of use in case of an emergencies only.

Player would have the ability not only to determine where to store the incoming power from different sources (from PG, PVP, Reactor, other) but would also have the ability to transfer power from one storage to another. Imagine the possibilities that that would enable!
Personaly as a base commander - I would designate one RFC (for instance RFC 3) to be fully charged and then, disable charging/discharging of it. That way I would have 12 h of power as I need it. I would also select Battery pack 1 to be charged primary before charging RFC 1.

IDEA: On start the base could be equiped only with 1 battery pack, 1 Backup power and 1 RFC.
As the base evolve the base commander would buy additional Battery packs or RFC and when they are delivered by a shoutle to Mars, he would go get them and place them in proper storing spots - just like putting PG on platform.
You could see how it gives the players the ability to expand and enjoy the game in the proces. :)

IDEA 2: ...not only that. I also propose that on the start of the base, there would be no PVP outside. Players would find them on start inside the garage, and use Rovers to deliver them in they'r desired place. ---> http://www.archithings.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Mobile-Solar-Power-System-On-Job-Site-588x470.jpg (http://www.archithings.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Mobile-Solar-Power-System-On-Job-Site-588x470.jpg)

IDEA 3: Thorium reactor in order to start/stop working needs 3-5 days for cooling/heating up. On start of the new base, players  would need to start it as soon as possible, and manage somehow to live threw the first 3-5 days without nuclear power. If the reactor would need some sort of maintance - you would need to turn it off and wait for it 3-5 days for it to cool down. That make's you plan more doesn't it? :-)

REAL FACT: Apollo 13 had an explosion becouse they transfered half of the oxygen and hydrogen to other containers. That was infact a proces of redistributing storaged power.
REAL FACT: RFC will be used in the next lunar mission (propably) in 2018.

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: profit004 on October 14, 2010, 06:27:04 PM

I had no idea they reached that high of efficiency. That is actually fairly amazing.

But yeah our current solar panels do produce a lot of energy, actually way more than they should I think, mars does not receive that much sun even though there is no atmosphere.

But yes, I certainly agree our current batteries are quite limited.   Also makes me concerned as the batteries seem to be about 20kw's of usable storage capacity (I wish I could get closer but sadly I just do not have a good way to estimate power density for a lithium ion large cell battery in the game) if they are lithium ion and our solar panels should only produce maybe 200 watts at peak sun.  I have not been able to test in the past few times so I am using version 4's solar panels but still should take over 10 days at 10 hours of sun per day to charge the battery to 100%   So there is a lot of gameyness already built into the power systems.

also do you mean PV not PG?  I know Photovoltaics but not PG.

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: Marco2001 on October 14, 2010, 06:30:17 PM

PG = Power Generator.

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: thedubman on October 15, 2010, 04:22:31 PM

I am allways impressed with the level of research and effort  and the questions and debates 'MCO crews' (testers) put in to help create a better MCO..

I did hear once that a 'levels' type of play was considered ie game difficulty 'easy/medium/hard etc'.

Maybe if the sim was created so the difficulty could be ramped,.. so the complexity of the power systems could be increased or dumbed down... I know easy said than done..

Keep up the great debate guys..

Note: If you google Mars Colony - MCO is in top 2-3 searches! news is growing of the project...

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: Utini on October 15, 2010, 08:05:43 PM

Li-ion batteries run ~150 - 200 Whrs / kg, theoretical Li-ion nanowire batteries are 4 -5 times as high capacity / kg. And large Li-ion batteries are HEAVY. Not quite as bad as lead-acid, but not light at all. However, these batteries do have the problem of capacitance loss if kept charged without deep discharging them regularly, ~15-20% / year. Also, if the internal charging regulator malfunctions and excess energy is added to them, they tend to react .... violently. And since the Li-ion batteries run ~.5 MJ / kg, there's a LOT of energy to be catastrophically released. Which might be an interesting emergency to run through. Also, just as a note, nuclear reactors can be brought up from cold to base load in 6-8 hrs if there are no delays, and can be scrammed literally in a matter of seconds. The residual heat is usually dissipated through the turbines as under normal load. Granted, the power output does describe interesting power curves.

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: profit004 on October 16, 2010, 01:21:01 PM

LOL yeah scramming a reactor usually has some other minor consequences but they do shut down fast.  I always understood it though that in a SCRAM the turbines were automatically disengaged and the steam from the primary loop steam generator system went into a bypass mode, with a lot of the time the ECCS coming online as well and the primary core coolant system automatically going into standby mode.

However depending on the method used for control of the space type reactors I can imagine they may take longer to come up to temperature.  They may be a long way under critical or something.

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: Utini on October 17, 2010, 11:57:19 PM

You may very well be right with civilian reactors; most of my experience has been with naval reactors, where the idea is to not make the vessel with a SCRAM'ed reactor a target as much as possible. Hence the partial SCRAM capability, among other things. And, yes, the whole idea of a reactor is to make it difficult for it to go to K>>1. In those instances, the reactor becomes a "physics package", and the retail value and the desirability of the neighborhood experience ... downward trends, shall we say?

As a side note to SCRAM'ing a reactor, if it's been running under load for a while (4+ days), you will have ~7% total output still being generated by beta decay. This energy must be dissipated somehow until the fission byproducts have beta decayed into non-fissile materials. That process can take a day or two, depending on what baseline you set as "safe".

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: profit004 on October 18, 2010, 11:57:05 AM

Yeah, my knowledge of choice was on the civilian side since I have always been interested in power.  Naval vessels it makes perfect sense that they would only want to shutdown their main power source in the most dire of circumstances.

Yeah I knew about the beta decay energy, did not realize it was as high as 7% though.   Always kinda envisioned it only a problem if for some reason all the coolant was lost or something.

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: Ivanpet on December 01, 2010, 03:30:34 PM

agreed

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: Byter10 on January 02, 2011, 09:43:05 PM

I'm not too scientifically trained but I remember reading a few articles about how we're getting quite close to fusion and that the most efficient fusion plants are expected to be the smallest, although the exact sizes I can't remember. I just wanted to add this considering we're talking about a game set say 50 years in the future... 50 years ago, we were amazed by a fuzzy black and white photograph whereas now we have cameras that have a billion pixels. Huge increase. If that continues, we could possibly have fusion on Mars. I know transporting the fusion plant or its components would be difficult but if it were the size of an average satellite, it would not take up too much room and would provide a steady stream of power unlike solar or wind and would not produce any radioactive contaminants (I think). Even though the reactor would be a closed system, the question is what happens if that system breaks down and the radiation escapes? I don't know if the different scenarios that could cause such an event to occur, but surely there is the chance a flaw or an external stimuli could cause the reactor to release radiation? Fusion would therefore have the safety factor... (The chance of radiation exposure could be a plausible scenario, although I assume the actual reactor would be placed inside a protective room incase such an event occured?)

Feel free to pick over my ideas.  ;D

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: profit004 on January 03, 2011, 04:10:18 PM

Unless I invent it, or someone comes up with a really novel approach to fusion, there will be no fusion power on mars in our lifetime.

Fusion reactions are great sources of neutrons but they are not safer and they produce as much if not more radioactive waste than fission.

of course we can fairly safely collect fusion byproducts here on earth from the central reactor 93 million miles away, but I really do not foresee us developing a decent fusion reactor any time in the future.  The physics just do not scale down well, and the things that make fusion possible just are not conducive to control.

My fiancee had a novel idea though about it,  I asked her and she said I should put some deuterium in a cup and put a plate on top of it and set it in the microwave.   Probably has about the same chance of success for being a cheap energy source as the other methods we are trying.

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: Snowpig on January 04, 2011, 03:50:16 PM

And how do you want to power the microwave?  ::)

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: profit004 on January 04, 2011, 07:28:25 PM

Plug it into the wall obviously....
 ::)

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: Utini on January 05, 2011, 02:14:49 AM

The current MAJOR problems with fusion boil down to two current show-stoppers: converting the energy generated to electricity and maintaining the reaction. The current primary method of energy conversion, heat to steam, is painfully inefficient and relies on absolutely massive, extremely precisely balanced chunks of metal moving at extremely high speeds. Other methods, such as those exhibited by solar panels, require some rather exotic and esoteric materials that don't take very well to being bathed in plasma, even magnetically contained plasma.  Further, you have to have some way of maintaining the deuterium flow to the reactor.  Too much deuterium in the reactor and you either get flares, with rather .... catastrophic results or the reaction is poisoned and never goes off. Neither are beneficial.  And since we are required to contain the reaction to obtain the necessary heat and pressure required to initiate fusion, a magnetic bottle is required. Thus, the deuterium must either be passed through this magnetic bottle, with random and/or chaotic deflections to the particle stream, which would result in the deuterium not reaching the location required for the z-pinch or laser pinch, or the bottle must have a hole opened in it for brief periods and the deuterium pellet fired at extremely high rates of speed through said opening to minimize heat and pressure loss and damage to the containment vessel proper. Remember, we are talking about heat greater than that found in the envelopes of stars to make up for the lower pressure.  You also have to remove the resultant helium, to prevent it from poisoning future reactions.  Another long-term problem faced by fusion is that hydrogen fusion, even deuterium and tritium, is a rather energetic source of beta and gamma radiation.  These emissions, along with the helium particles (alpha particles) will interact with the walls of the containment vessel, causing them to transmutate into their radioactive isotopes. Unfortunately, these isotopes tend to be the ones with short half-lives and thus high radiation levels.  Further, the neutron bombardment inherent in any nuclear reaction tends to damage the walls on a molecular level.

Thus, while current experiments have nearly reached energy parity (same energy out as in), these are for single deuterium-tritium pellets that are precisely placed before the experiment.  We've got a LONG way to go before fusion goes viable. There's a reason it's been 50 years away for the last 50 years...

P.s. Just to give you an idea of the power required to START a fusion reaction, recent experiemnts have required a pulse of 25 MW, for a total fusion reaction of ~.5 seconds and a power output of 16.1 MW.

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: profit004 on January 05, 2011, 08:08:20 PM

Yeah, I applaud humanity for creating a star for a second or two on the earth, but I really don't see us getting control of this for quite a while.

And even if/when we do, I am thinking it is currently going to be a power plant that powers a small country and not something that can be taken to mars.

But I still believe there is something we as humans are overlooking with fusion.. LOL that's why I asked my fiancee... She see's things scientists overlook all the time, even though she probably couldn't even tell you what hydrogen was much less how fusion worked.   

So with that in mind... Keep thinking, Maybe there is a way to use a metaphorical hammer and an anvil to smash atoms together.  Just lets not consider it for the game until we do find that way =p

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: thedubman on January 06, 2011, 07:58:38 PM

Its back to the wind up torches then..... ;)

Nice work guys- I learned a lot from that.
This thread has been running a while,  for the benifit of the sim what are the favorite choices for power and how we use it?

Title: Re: Power Systems
Post by: profit004 on January 06, 2011, 09:47:26 PM

Except wind up torches currently use a significant amount of oil and energy in their manufacturing =p

Currently inside the sim the power favorite is nuclear fission. 

It has : Lower weight by far per watt produced, is compact, is realatively lightweight, is reliable, and is safe, is well understood and researched.

The runner up is RTG(Radio Isotopic thermal generator) (Nuclear Decay)

It has: Fairly Low weight per watt, EXTREAMLY compact, super reliable, and fairly safe. *not being able to shut them down knocks a point or two off safety.

Also Stirling cycle Radio Isotopic linear alternators are a fair idea.

They have: Better weight per watt than RTG. Fairly compact, Fairly Reliable and fairly safe.

Current fails are:

Solar - Way too heavy per watt. Possibly unreliable.
Wind- Ditto
Orbital - Too involved.
Fusion - Might not even be possible ever
Algae alcohol - Too much space, way too much water.

We have discussed power storage some as well. 

That there is not such a clear winner in.    Most have tradeoffs and pro's and cons.

Currently topping the list are Li-ion batteries and storage fuel cells. Batteries for efficiency, fuel cells for raw long term capacity.