Power Choice for Offworld Refinery: Solar Thermal vs Nuclear

In summary, when considering a solar thermal or nuclear power source for an offworld mining colony, the size of the solar thermal plant would depend on the desired power output, with a 1 MW plant requiring an area of 1000 m2 or a disk of 35.7 m in diameter. For a nuclear reactor, the size of the radiators needed to cool it properly would be determined by the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and the trade off between thermal efficiency and radiator temperature.
  • #1
aquitaine
30
9
So let's say we have an offworld mining colony somewhere in the solar system and we want to build an orbital refinary and fabrication plant to process the ore, for such an application which choice for power would be more practical, solar thermal or nuclear? How large would they need to be?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #2
Solar thermal. No need for shielding. The solar flux is on the order of 2 kW/m2 in Earth's orbit, and one could do a combination of PV and concentrated solar power. Out by Mars, the flux would drop by a factor of ~4.
 
  • #3
So how large would the solar thermal stuff be?
 
  • #4
aquitaine said:
So how large would the solar thermal stuff be?
Refer to this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant#Sunlight_intensity_in_the_Solar_System

Let's pick 1 kW/m2 as the usable amount of sunlight. Then if one wished to have a 1 MW plant, then one needs an area 1000 kW/(1 kW/m2) or 1000 m2 or 31.6 m x 31.6 m or a disk of 35.7 m dia.

A 100 MW plant would increase those dimensions by a factor of 10.

This assumes full use of the energy supplied. When considering thermodynamic cycles, one must look at the difference between energy in and energy out, i.e., Tin and Tout. In space, there is no medium for conduction or convection, so any unused thermal energy must be radiated to space.
 
  • #5
I see, so if we decided to use a nuke reactor in space, how large would the radiators need to be in order to cool it properly?
 
  • #6
Collection of insolation in a thermal solar plant is half the equation. The other half has to radiate into space somewhere (given no atmosphere for conduction). But what if there's a surface in the way. Back radiation reduces efficiency, complicating the problem.

There are other factors. Is the plateform spinning? Is it feasably to power-up and power-down at the rotation frequency?
 
  • #7
aquitaine said:
I see, so if we decided to use a nuke reactor in space, how large would the radiators need to be in order to cool it properly?
That would be a function of temperature where the heat flux is determined by the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html

One may assume the background temperature to be ~4K, if one is sufficiently distant from a planet or sun. The radiators plane should be perpendicular to the axis to the peak thermal source, e.g., sun. For a large solar collector, the radiator would be on the backside of the collector.

One has to do a trade off between thermal efficiency of the thermodynamic side and the radiator temperature, Trad. The Carnot effiency would be proportional to Thot - Trad, and the radiated power would be proportional to Trad4 - 196 K4.
 

Related to Power Choice for Offworld Refinery: Solar Thermal vs Nuclear

1. What is the main difference between solar thermal and nuclear power for an offworld refinery?

The main difference between solar thermal and nuclear power is the source of energy. Solar thermal power relies on the sun's energy, while nuclear power utilizes nuclear reactions to generate heat.

2. Which power option is more cost-effective for an offworld refinery?

It depends on several factors such as location, availability of resources, and initial investment costs. Generally, solar thermal power tends to be more cost-effective in the long run due to its lower maintenance and fuel costs.

3. How do these power options impact the environment?

Solar thermal power has much lower carbon emissions compared to nuclear power, making it a more environmentally friendly option. However, both options have their own set of potential environmental impacts, such as land use for solar thermal power and nuclear waste disposal for nuclear power.

4. Which power option is more reliable for an offworld refinery?

Again, it depends on various factors. Solar thermal power can be more reliable in areas with consistent sunlight, but it may have issues during cloudy or nighttime conditions. On the other hand, nuclear power can provide a more stable and continuous source of energy, but it is also susceptible to technical failures and downtime.

5. What are the potential safety concerns associated with using nuclear power for an offworld refinery?

The main safety concern with nuclear power is the risk of accidents or malfunctions that could lead to radiation leaks or explosions. Additionally, the disposal of nuclear waste is a major safety concern and requires proper handling and storage to prevent environmental and health hazards.

Similar threads

Replies
32
Views
936
Replies
52
Views
7K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Aerospace Engineering
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • General Engineering
2
Replies
67
Views
4K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
7
Views
2K
Back
Top