Can Wind Turbines Really Work On Mars?

[@DevinWxChase]

As wind turbine technician, I'd be more concerned with the dust than anything. When I was assisting at a wind farm in the Mojave Desert in socal, they had a pretty bad problem with dust getting into cabinets/electronics along with some nasty electric charges being built up in such a dry environment. It'd be one hell of an engineering feat to design a turbine immune to dust problems.

[@Awarenesspm]

Well, a quick search on scholar and ieee.org already gave me some articles into contactless piezoelectric bimorph generators. So there might be some what to split the components in such a way that dust doesnt utterly destroy all the components. I have a feeling that mars based standards on engineering will end up vastly different compared to earth ones, because of how electrical charges build and the issues with dust.

[@Awarenesspm]

Actually, thinking about it you could probably create a magnetic floating fan in mars levels of gravity without too much energy loss, combine that with a friction less generator and you might just get more juice out of it then that you use to sustain the process. It might not be efficient enough however, but the idea of a turbine that does not require maintenance is quite appealing

[@stinkyfungus]

DevinWxChase I'm the plant manager for two of the hawaii windfarms, we run 34 GE 1.5s Agree, iron rich fine dust will wreck havoc on wind turbines of similar design to what we have currently. Have issues with this very thing (iron rich red volcanic soils here) I'd also have some concerns on just how maintenace intensive utility scale wind power actually is... unless you increase reliability and simplify design over current earth bound designs - you'll need a crew of guys just to maintain the plant, And all the additional life support, and infastructre that that crew would need. Here on earth its pretty sustainable, all you need is some hard working guys, a little elbow grease, and some spare parts and you keep them turning. Not so simple on an other celestial body.

[@suyashsingh9865]

@@stinkyfungus Maybe some way to make an airtight wind turbine

[@illuminate4622]

@@suyashsingh9865 But it needs to a spinning seal and it got to have a bit more leeway when it's big, there's gusts and thermal expansion... Maybe multiple nested seals and then a system to vacuum the dust away from between?

[@ThZuao]

Only thing that bothered me in that video was when the O2 system failed and the game warned you to fix it or the colonists would suffocate. I Think Scott adressed this misconception in one of his videos. The problem isn't O2 being depleted. It's CO2 building up. CO2 is a trace gas in our breatable atmosphere, something around 0.04% by volume, whereas O2 is about 20%. Whereas you can still breathe with 11% oxygen left (some adaptation required), as in high altitude locations, when CO2 buildup reaches 1%, you'll already experience some lethargy. 5% is mental confusion. 8% is unconsciousness. This is even though O2 levels remain nominal. Point is, if your O2 machine fails and the CO2 scrubber malfunctions, you should be much more concerned with the scrubber. Also, a 100% oxygen atmosphere is poisonous and an incredible fire hazard. You need N2 in it, which is about 79% of our atmosphere. Poor N2. Nobody remembers N2 =(

[@MushVPeets]

100% oxygen is poisonous? Um, weren't the Apollo capsules filled with 100% oxygen?

[@Zamolxes77]

Nicely explained. Yes, poor N, nobody remembers the Nitrogen. Well you can blame it on the americans, they decided to run pure O2 into their crafts, while the russians went for air. Anyway, I think it got fixed on ISS, where they have air and not pure O2. I don't think a pure O2 enviroment is desirable for long term habitation.

[@JHNielson4851]

Apollo 1 had a 100% O2 in the capsule, after the fire and the investigation all future missions had normal atmosphere.

[@RobertThz]

In space they had 100% oxygen at reduced pressure. (One third atm i think, but I could be wrong). The Apollo 1 fire was because they tested with 100% oxygen at above atmospheric (to get the same pressure differential as they would get in space). This was a bad idea.

[@thundercactus]

They ran them at hypobaric pressures in order to avoid oxygen toxicity. Although space CRAFT are now filled with air, space SUITS still use 100% oxygen. Again, running at a hypobaric pressure of 0.3 bar to prevent toxicity. Oxygen toxicity becomes a hazard above this pressure.

[@Lexyvil]

Content like this is why I'm subscribed to you~ I love how you address all of these questions.

[@JeffreyBue_imtxsmoke]

me too

[@ERRORhappens]

Ever watched Isaac Arthur?

It's simple! Just put these wind turbines on some rovers and drive around real quick. Instant wind speed, bro! :D

[@thepolacopeter]

Use some of this energy to feed the rover and boom... you have infinite energy. TrollPhysics wins.

[@Ballacha]

i have a better idea. lets use light bulbs to charge solar panels.

[@Xeno_Bardock]

They already have interstellar technologies they can't disclose built from your missing 6.5 trillion dollars taxes so they don't have to rely on limited power sources. Lookup black projects.

[@S3rial85]

i can never tell when the fun ends and the troll or conspiracy starts.

[@Tuning3434]

yeah, that is always hard. Lets just keep rolling and check when it really becomes unbelievable. Martian dust devils are not real, they are the real race of Slender man. EPA funded mars return mission in the 1959 captured a Martian slender and set it loose in the human population to observe the effects. Wake up, sheeple, wake up!

[@leerman22]

The question isn't could we, but should we? Batteries are still very heavy, as well as PV panels and turbines. Partial duty means lots more weight from excess (compensating) capacity. (10-30% capacity factors on earth) Batteries are also hard to make like PV cells. Small reactors can stand on their own with decades of fuel assuming it's a breeder reactor. You can bury them in the martian soil to write off radiation shielding weight. Full duty operation is a huge weight saver. (90% CF on earth) Going the breeder route means you don't need centrifugal enrichment to use mars' natural uranium resources when it's time to refuel them, or you can use thorium if that's available. Molten salt reactors for Megawatt/Gigawatt scale needs will have reprocessing built in, and safer to refuel. Less labour farming energy means more colonists spending their time farming actual food. H2O cracking uses less electricity at higher temperatures. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-temperature_electrolysis Red hot radiators also look badass. i.imgur.com/GnP2v0m.png But it would make the game way too easy. NASA has also been working on a multi-Kilowatt sterling nuclear system and I'd imagine supercritical CO2 turbines for multi-Megawatt/Gigawatt power levels.

[@Marconius6]

Also y'know, solar panels don't work at night. Wind turbines do.

[@whykhr]

Wind turbines only work when there is strong wind, which there usually isn't.

[@TaurionMartell]

Nuclear bbi plz

[@azmanabdula]

whykhr Have you seen the new wind turbines? The ones that run on low wind speed

[@KinreeveNaku]

whykhr have you seen the turbines currently in development? They don’t require any wind!

[@wierdalien1]

whykhr wind power kept humanity alive for centuries.

[@dwavenminer]

Its simultansuly amusing and scary to see the amount of armchair scientists/engineers in the comments section that have no idea what they are talking about and have obviously done no research...

[@miitch99]

dwavenminer You obviously use a laptop, correct? ;)

[@DysnomiaFilms]

Calm down, they're not trying to start an anti-wind-turbine-on-mars movement or attacking anyone, they're just wrong lol.

[@b-bunnygaming9493]

DysnomiaFilms Being wrong is still bad though because a lot of people who are wrong do it in a very poor and distasteful manner where they've spread their misinformation and behave very smugly. And even when you do prove them wrong they more often than not double down on their idiocy.

[@yaldabaoth2]

Except that Scott made a terrible mistake (equating CO2's higher density *at Earth pressure* to being beneficial for Mars wind turbines where pressure is 0.6%) and is super wrong in his conclusion. So all the armchair scientists are right. Mars's atmosphere just does not have the energy content needed to generate significant amounts of electricity from it. Certainly does not warrant the needed maintenance. Unless perfectly engineered for those conditions, the "wind" there might not even be enough to overcome the inertia of the turbine blade.

[@AngelLestat2]

+Yaldabaoth he just point out that even taking into account that pressure is low, it does not mean that density is equally low. Pressure on mars is 160 times less than earth atmosphere, but density (which is what it matters instead pressure) is 60 times less than earth, due co2 extra weight and temperature. Still, you might think, that 60 times less dense atmosphere equal to 60 times less power.. well not. Because power in the wind is equal to: 1/2 * coeficient of performance * air density * frontal area * (wind speed)^3 This mean that the most important factor in wind energy is wind speed because is ^3. Also the coefficient of performance is calculated using reynold number, which in mars is super low, which guarantees laminar flow in the point of the blade tips which increase a lot the efficiency of the wind turbine. Also dust storms carry dust in the air.. which increase the density of the atmosphere. BTW.. NASA already study this in deep and found out that wind turbines are a good backup option for PV, very complementary, because in the moments you have less sun, you will have more wind.

[@KevTheImpaler]

Also, you don't get local protest groups complaining about the noise and their visual amenity being impacted. No doubt they will still complain; gravity waves keeping them up at night or something. I wondered how wind power could be an option on Mars when I read about it in IET magazine. Still, why would they use vertical axis wind turbines when horizontal axis wind turbines are so much more efficient?

[@eRe4s3r]

You can mount the generators for vertical axis turbines underground, right next to the batteries that they supply. Saves you a ton of cables and resources, and also means you can service all moving parts without a space suit. (Still a helmet and O2 obviously, but no radiation shielded suit). Well, that's at least how I would build a colony power supply. No idea if that is feasible or realistic.

[@illuminate4622]

I don't get the noise. Maybe it's only less than a kilometer away, cause I stood a long time 1km downwind from a 3MW Vestas and heard nothing but the wind rustling the tree leaves. Tried to listen really hard, it was a very windy day and the turbine was working at full power.

[@nighthawk043]

Well, if it helps, I did some math. Taking density data from the mars atmospheric model here (www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/atmosmrm.html) we get ρ≈0.015 kg/m³ at an altitude of about 50m. Using P=½ρAv³Cp, where A is the sweep area of the blades, v is the velocity of the wind, and Cp is the power coefficient of the turbine, we can determine the following. A single turbine with a shaft 50m high, and blades 25m long (A=π*25²), with an average wind velocity of 10m/s, and a coefficient of 20% will produce an average of just under 3kW power. For a base to be solely wind-powered, if we assume an initial power demand of around 35kW, and also assume that there is the necessary battery storage to last windless days, then with a 20% safety margin, you would require no less than 15 of these turbines. That's 750m of shafts, and 1125m worth of blades (assuming 3 blades per turbine). If we assume instead that we're using solar power most of the time, and only relying solely on the wind during the dust storms, then we can assume a higher wind-speed, but will still require the full power requirements of the base to be produced by wind alone, as the batteries could surely not hold enough power to last multiple months. Using the max windspeed on the graph you provided of 23.2m/s, the results change thusly: A single turbine could theoretically produce 36.6kW at those windspeeds. Now, we probably can't assume speeds to be that maximum consistently, but if we assume a variance between 10 and 23, with an average around 15m/s, we can then produce just shy of 10kW with a single turbine. 4 Turbines manages about a 15% safety margin, and nasa prefers safety, so you'd probably look at 5 turbines for redundancy. So this means shipping or building from in-situ resources 250m worth of shafts and 375m worth of blades. Now it's true that with the lower gravity and pressures involved, they could be built far more lightly than earth based ones, but that's still a lot of volume on rockets to be sent over. I'm an electrical engineer, not mechanical or civil, so I'll leave someone else to calculate the approximate mass and or volume of these if they're flat packed. If you want my reference material, just ask, but this post is getting pretty long already. Personally, I think they're maybe viable as a supplementary power source, but I also think you'd need to build them from in-situ resources, which means powering manufacturing facilities in the meantime. They'd be pretty viable for an already established long term colony, but you'd probably want to use a shipped nuclear reactor for reliable initial base-load power. Either that or hope you don't get a dust storm while you use solar power to build the required parts.

[@johnwhitesell6809]

This video is such a gem. It's not just educational, it also corrects a lot of misconceptions that serious space enthusiasts had about the subject. I for one completely failed to connect the dots between the lower temperature and the different ratio of air-pressure to air-density.

[@uncleelias]

Scott's NASA article was about the viability of wind turbines in extreme cold temperature. It took strong winds to barely budge the parachute material. The air density is still the merest fraction of Earth's. nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/marsfact.html

[@mimas3346]

Earth's atmosphere at sea level is almost 61 times denser than Mars' atmosphere at the surface. On Earth, a windmill of a given size will generate almost 61 times more power at any given wind speed than it will on Mars. That stuff Scott was saying about molecular mass and cold giving the wind turbine some kind of efficiency boost is just him being confused and talking a bunch of bollocks. Scott is also wrong about the average wind speed on Mars. The Viking 2 Lander recorded an average wind speed over the course of a Martian year of 4.3 m/s (which is roughly 10 mph), not 10 m/s. The median wind speed the lander recorded was 3.3 m/s. You can forget about producing any meaningful quantities of power even with a gigantic windmill at those wind speeds in Mars' low density atmosphere.

[@EwingTaiwan]

Thinking of designing a wind turbine that works in fine sand situation....... those NASA engineers must be pulling their hair off.

[@TheOneWhoMightBe]

Keeping the crankcase at positive pressure would probably help a lot.

[@vsikifi]

@@TheOneWhoMightBe But you need to obtain the gas for pressurization from somewhere. Preferably without any dust in it. This can turn the wind turbine maintenance problem into a filter maintenance problem.

[@markdaywaltjr.5707]

Ever since reading about the mini-windmills in Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars, I have always wondered about this. Thanks Scott!

[@Bradley_UA]

Martian dust storms were used so many times in science fiction, that i would definetly expect turbines there. Also, we have turbines on ships, but we totally can't have propellers in the air because look how lighter air is!

[@naibakie8519]

Yeah, actual math and science is pointless when we can use a cheap allegory. Now I’m going to jump off a building to prove all those scientists wrong. I can swim in water so swimming in air should be easy too.

[@naibakie8519]

Oh, apparently not. Don't do that. Also ow.

[@angelainamarie9656]

Martian dust storms sabotaged a NASA mission (one of the Mariners). So, they had a definite impact in the real world.

[@avecas]

Well the mariner mission if I remember suffered because it couldn't see the surface through a global dust storm. Not quite a wind turbine problem, but you're not wrong.

[@ScientistDog]

The parachutes failed with the dust storms in the Russian's missions.

[@The1Helleri]

Maybe we could also build wind channels? Like these large surface area walls (lightweight, thin, and well anchored of course) that run towards each other on an inward curve. The two furthest ends might be hundreds of meters apart. the two closest ends only a few meters. and in the small gap is where the wind turbines could be. A fluid flowing through a constricted space tends to want to flow faster. This would increase the density and speed of air flow on the turbines.

[@BeCurieUs]

My buddies have done a lot of work on the new kilopower reactor that has hopes for mars! But interesting to see wind so as nonviable as I would have imaged

[@tinldw]

Actually, dust storms don't absorb all that much sunlight, they just scatter it. So you can't use concentrated solar and you may need to clean your solar panels sometimes (at least if they're horizontal), but it's not like a 10-fold drop in generation.

[@KaDaJxClonE]

I was skeptical as well, and I'm sure the game designers didn't care to research it, but I'm glad you did.

[@paultrappiel9943]

Thanks for clearing that up Scott.

[@adamdapatsfan]

Thanks for teaching me something interesting today!

[@totallynot0something047]

*Offworld Trading Company intensifies*

[@sphinx2k210]

People always forget about nuclear. Modern molten salt thorium GenIV reactors would be very highly efficient, very small in size vs what they output, work day or night with very low fuel usage and very little waste. They would work really well in spacecraft or planetary colony situations without a doubt, especially if you can gather thorium locally such as Mars.

[@AlRoderick]

Now here's the follow up question, would flying kite based generators also work? I know that aircraft on Mars have been covered before, but could a tethered glider be used to generate useful work in the Martian environment? I've seen people using kites as flying wind generators on Earth before.

[@scottmanley]

Coincidently, there’s a kite style generator named by the acronym MARS,

[@AngelLestat2]

for earth is a great technology in development, but for mars.. more high you are less dense is the atmosphere, and I dont guess you will get much more wind speed. Lower gravity is a bonus.

[@whykhr]

Whether on Earth or Mars flying kites is another crazy renewable energy scam.

[@AngelLestat2]

wind turbines is not a scam, in fact today are the cheapest energy, around 40 USD the megawatt hour, vs 70 USD any fossil option. Nuclear is on 140 USD the mwh. www.lazard.com/media/450337/lazard-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-110.pdf Kite energy, promise to be way cheaper, because the fundation would be 100 times less massive, constant and strong winds (wind energy depends on v^3 and its capacity factor). www.bluetradingworld.co.uk/media/kgv.pdf

[@AngelLestat2]

+Scott Manley Nasa and Kitegen started at similar time studying kite energy, in fact, both exchanged data between them.

[@muninrob]

With less air density wouldn't wind turbines made for earth atmosphere have the same issues as trying to run a water turbine with air? The wind speed is there, but is the air thick enough to spin a standard wind turbine? (I'd think that they would need a MUCH larger surface area to compensate for the thinner air)

[@ExtraSteps]

I watched some science show years ago that described what it would be like to visit each of the planets. They said that the atmosphere on Venus is so much denser than Earth's, walking through it would be like walking through a river. Years later, I learned that the viscosity of gases do not increase with air pressure, so I think they were mistaken.

[@perigeedynamics5941]

I actually did not think these would be viable. Really cool to find out just how wrong I was about them!

[@ehuttie]

I think the major fallacy here is that this is a "A , B, or C" situation. The Delta V requirements of transporting mass to Mars guarantees that the first power source that you take with you is going to be nuclear (read up on SNAP-10, Kilopower, and radio isotopic thermal generators) supplemented by Solar for non-essential systems. Wind will become viable when you have established yourself, and need to expand energy production with In Situ resources. My gut feeling is that the main problem for wind isn't going to be the performance penalties of the atmosphere, but sourcing the batteries.

[@Jixijenga]

Encaustic honestly I wouldn't be surprised if both solar _and_ nuclear show up. Though we do need a design that can fly there basically as-is and work as soon as it lands. I don't know what would be the ideal working fluid, but I imagine semi-flexible hoses laid out by hand and buried would work great. If needed they could be connected to an exchanger that could heat the dwellings as well.

[@scottmanley]

The fallacy is in people's interpretation, I merely identified reasons why Martian wind power wasn't ridiculous and why it has potential to fit into any long term mars plans alongside other options. Cue a tiny subset of nuclear fanboys going nuclear (ahem) on anyone disagreeing.

[@Jixijenga]

Scott Manley I'd hate to see anyone waste valuable go-go juice throwing unnecessary wind turbine parts at Mars when an entire reactor can and should be flown as a complete package for power needs. I think a parts kit featuring only components difficult to source or manufacture on Mars would be the best solution for diversification of electrical energy production into wind. With the situation being so very "do or die" I'd say relying on _just_ nuclear reactors would be abso-fucking-lutely foolish, hell, I'd be disappointed if the sewage treatment facility wasn't running a bioreactor to produce gaseous fuel to burn. (in addition to collecting other gases for industrial processes) Take a look into what's actually in sewer gas, some of that could be a ready supply of sulphuric acid which could be used for PCB etching.

[@seraphina985]

+Jixijenga Indeed if nothing else you could at least seal off a lava tube or something and use that to store the gas to run a CCNG turbine as an emergency backup if nothing else.

[@Jixijenga]

Seraphina S of course, but I think a different fuel option would be necessary for any long-term use. Gas turbines can be designed to use a wide range of fuels, hell, recycling stored methane is a possibility since that's a big part of sewer gas anyway and a bioreactor would be making a lot of it. There's a whole chain of stuff that could be possible from a clever waste treatment facility, obvious stuff like fertile soil and gas fuel is just a portion of it.

[@NovemberOrWhatever]

codyslab vacuum chamber test?

[@jort93z]

Well, i don't think his wind speed was fast enough. With a fan in such a thin atmosphere he did probably not have windspeeds of 10kmh as you find them on mars.

[@AsbestosMuffins]

the one thing is that nuclear fuel would make sense to ship over the vast distances of space, its very energy dense, very compact, and from a commercial prospective it might actually be something that could be profited from, assuming it can be shipped intact

[@alexwright7317]

fun fact houston may not have wind turbines but it does produce them.. its great seeing the massive trucks with wind turbine blades drive by

[@TheLinkr]

Wow Scott, kickass thumbnail.

[@scottmanley]

Talented artist I hear

[@ericlestick7325]

If initial results fail to impress, build bigger turbine blades. All the same, I'd like to arrive on Mars with a nuclear power plant starter kit...I got security issues.

[@imcmart6037]

Martian freakin wind turbines!

[@JohnnyShagbot]

They're wind turbines that work on FRICKIN' MARS.

[@Ilamarea]

Mars isn't going to be self-sustaining for decades. By that time the colonists will be able to produce what ever advanced technology will exist then from local resources. Any talk about any source of power for a martian colony other than nuclear is ludicrous at this stage.

[@princeding2114]

Glad you mention it. Wind speed is what brings it viable. However, I am more concern about the erosion. High wind blows up dust and they can erode the turbines quite quickly. Will there be soft materials used as the blades?

[@allmycircuits8850]

When comparing wind speeds on Earth and on Mars for wind turbines, we should not take average value. Better take mean-cubic value, that is, average the cube of wind speed and take cubic root. Difference may be HUGE. Let's say: half of time we have no wind, while another half time it is 10 kph. Average value is 5 kph, we take cube of that when calculating wind power and get 125 'units'. But when we calculate power at no wind (0) and power at 10 kph (1000 'units') and average this power, we get: 500 'units'!

[@Anvilshock]

Great follow-up, thank you very much!

[@PigletCNC]

Scott, I know this is making me look crazy because of how much I spam your comment section with it, but I am just gonna do it again. There are two articles on this issue from NASA, the one I already quoted below and will quote here again: "A difficulty is that data from the NASA viking and Pathfinder probes showed that the planet's ordinary surface winds do not blow strongly enough to drive wind turbines. But those missions did not visit the planet during a dust storm. Computer models and wind tunnel tests show that dust storms are accompanied by extremely high winds that would be strong enough to drive wind turbines, even at the speed needed in the thin Mars atmosphere." From Magreb, search for wind power for a mars mission. And the other, your article in the video, says the following: "While the turbine has not yet made its way to Mars, Bubenheim says the partnership between NPS and other government entities has produced data and knowledge that NASA is building on for future Mars missions. Plus, thanks to more recent NASA missions to generate new information about the surface of Mars, Bubenheim says, “Now we have much better data and we can map the wind resources better than ever before. This way, we can get a very good idea as to how useful and applicable the wind technology will be.”" Both indicating that for a normal day to day use the wind turbines are as of yet unproven. Your article also states that the wind speed needed on Earth is 6 mph, to convert that into meters per second means that the speed needed is 2.7 m/s on earth and that'd be about 10.4 m/s on Mars if you assume that the 2.7 on Earth is the amount of energy needed and both windmills are of the same size. And neither article, nor NASA anywhere, has said that wind-power is viable and a good option for use on Mars and only half as efficient as on Earth. That is just your calculation (and mine, earlier later) that's highly optimistic and unachievable with current technologies. Of course you'll be able to build bigger windmills and maybe a lot bigger on Mars than on Earth, but there are all sorts of issues like ablation from the dust (it's much more coarse and corrosive than on Earth) and overall just low wind-speeds. You say that the biggest factor is the wind-speed and it is, sort of. But you forget that Mars's atmosphere will always have about 1/60th the energy at the same wind speed on Earth. So to compensate that you'll often need a factor of ~3 in wind speed or surface area of a windmill as you have already stated, to achieve the same gain in Energy. But these wind speeds are only there during the dust-storm season and then still only in gusts and not constant enough to provide a constant supply of power. At best it's useful to charge batteries/supplement solar panels or mitigate the speed the batteries drain when solar panels are blocked by dust. So, wind-power is not a viable means for getting power for your martian base with the technologies we have now. At best to supplement solar panels during nights or mitigate the effects of Dust Storms so that you'll be able to ride out the storms hopefully long enough for your solar panels to be useful again.

[@jannepeltonen7493]

One problem with martian wind turbines would be the wind speed. Compared to earth, the gas density is much lower, and the energy content on the wind is more from the wind speed. The problem is that with wind speeds going up either the rotor speed needs to go up (proportionally to wind speed) or a slower design with more or wider turbine blades is required. Both options makes building an efficient martian wind turbine much more expensive than the already high costs on earth.

[@MrAwawe]

3:20 you know it's an American using metric when they give the wind speed in km/h instead of m/s, and then write it as "KPH"

[@billrichards1965]

How long would the turbine last with the dust storms blowing sand/dirt/grit into the moving parts while at the same time abrading the blades? On the up side, with such a tenuous atmosphere means they would be unlikely to catch fire. I won't even touch on the subject of just how much energy and time would by required to get enough wind turbines to Mars to provide the energy needs for the colony.

[@andrasbiro3007]

Actually nuclear is viable too. It's really cheap, if you don't have to deal with the insane red tape they have to on Earth. And since radiation is already harmful on Mars, radiation leaks are far less concerning. And while making fuel isn't easy, it's cheap to ship in, because you need only very little. And the additional bonus is that you can have all the power you need all the time very reliably. And while solar and wind must be left outside unprotected to work, a nuclear reactor can be deep underground where nothing can touch it, and thanks to the very low temps cooling is not an issue. What's more, you can use the waste heat to keep your buildings warm.

[@PangolinMontanari]

The issue is actually transporting the fissible material to Mars in the first place, not to mention that nuclear reactors are more complex and require water so that they don't melt themselves. Add onto that the potential hazard in the event of a mission failure in Earth's atmosphere and radioactive materials being scattered, it's not quite as great as it sounds.

[@Mosern1977]

Pretty sure they'll go nuclear with any settlement in Mars.

[@donbionicle]

There's plenty of water on Mars! ...if you're willing to melt a glacier or two.

[@liamholland7824]

There's another option that could also work: supercritical CO2 in the Brayton cycle. GE's been working on a turbine that can run a supercritical CO2 cycle that can beat the best supercritical steam Rankine cycles. 10 MW out of a housing the size of a car. CO2 would also be easy to get out of the Martian atmosphere. The problem then becomes purifying and containing the fluid. It's still an early development here, but the size and mass reduction would make it great for Mars. Or if you want to keep the Rankine steam cycle they've found plenty of water on Mars now: www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/01/ice-cliffs-spotted-mars

[@parajacks4]

Brutakalaka Nuclear is expensive on earth. On Mars without a plentiful supply of liquid water things will be much harder, not impossible but much harder.

[@csfelfoldi]

Wind turbines also use large rotating parts that generally don't like fine dust. I don't want to be the guy that has to do maintenance on a stuck turbine in the middle of a Martian storm. Solar panels can use air tight joints to follow the Sun on the sky. Although I do think that currently only nuclear is the way to go, nothing beats its mass to energy ratio on Mars mission timescales. We would need decade long permanent bases there first before renewable energy can come into play.

[@hobgoblinuk5100]

Great news. Keep looking at this game. May just wait for a sale or a mod that reduces some of the micromanagement. It does look good though.

[@sammbo250]

The lower gravity should mean that there is a bit less friction between parts because there is not as much weight pressing against other parts. Also, the lower atmospheric Pressure should man that there is less drag for the turbine to resist, hence it should be able to spin for longer.

[@buckstarchaser2376]

It seems like wind turbines would be an ideal platform for atmospheric moisture harvesting, since they are in contact with more air than a solar panel, tend to be off the ground (less dusty), and can combine heat exchange and power availability in one unit. The low temperatures lead me to believe that some of the higher hydration states of, say, calcium chloride can be obtained. If attached to the turbine blades so that liquid H2O+CaCL is centrifugally pulled to the blade tips, it could be collected for drying before the dried desiccant is re-added to the blade root. Where's my ISRU recognition?

[@arjunyg4655]

every time he gives speeds in like 3 different units I want to tear my hair out.

[@kairon156]

What about putting solar panels in orbit around mars? and beaming the energy down during clear skies?

[@braceharvey]

I think long term nuclear is pretty viable too. Use a design like the CANDU reactors which use natural (unenriched) uranium. Sure you'd need to refuel more often (and get heavy water presumably from Earth), but you wouldn't need enrichment systems which are energy intensive, complex, expensive, etc. By comparison uranium is pretty easy to refine from ore so long as you're not enriching it.

[@m1k3droid]

What type of wind turbine design do you think would be optimal for mars? I see in the game they have the helical design instead of the propeller style.... I'm building a VR Mars Base so your input would be appreciated and credited.

[@100colinrr]

Hi Scott! Would you mind doing the math to support your conclusion? The original question wasn't specific whether they meant to compare efficiency or comparable wattage generated by the same size and type of wind turbine. I believe they meant the latter though. It would not make sense to bring along or construct 40 ton wind turbine to generate 2 watts of power if other methods are cheaper in terms of mass and complexity. Enjoy your videos especially when you do the math.

[@StrankyPlays]

Off topic, but you're the smartest space guy on KZbin, so i was watching Elysium and there's a bit when a shuttle is approaching the space station, and they say, 'entering Elysium airspace' isn't airspace just something on earth?

[@charleslambert3368]

Fluid engineers: How different would you expect martian turbines to look? I'm guessing the aerodynamics of airfoils looks different in the Martian atmosphere.

[@namefinder]

Agree with the above, same overall shape, see no reason why one would change that.

[@charleslambert3368]

Different dimensionless numbers going on would be the reason to make them different. Things like Mach and Reynolds. Maybe even Knudsen.

[@scottjampa6374]

The 'fan on a tower' design works well on Earth, but on Mars you'd have to scale it up to something gargantuan that wouldn't even start, or would collapse, or would take as much material to build as an aircraft carrier. Aerodynamics are funky on Mars, so I would think that something akin to the 'eggbeater' vertical design in the clip would be decent, or something shorter and closer to the ground, like a merry go round made out of sails. But maybe someone with a better grasp of the math involved can suggest something...

[@scottjampa6374]

The point here, I think, is that an airfoil near the Martian surface behaves sort of like a scaled-down version of itself flying at transonic speeds in Earth's stratosphere. I think there have been wind tunnel tests that did something similar, but I might have remembered some of the details wrong.

[@Sundara229]

maybe thinner and wider blades.

[@LemonadeMouthSomebod]

Clicking on a Scott Manley video being like: "Knowledge is about to be dropped on my face"

[@Kriech]

Great video, very informative!

[@FPVREVIEWS]

just calculate the wind speed and density altitude to get the reynolds numbers of the turbine blades. should not be hard to do a feasibility of the martian atmosphere. the hardest part is getting reliable wind speed data from anywhere near the surface.

[@thundercactus]

So there's a ton of people arguing for and against (well really just ONE guy against against) nuclear FISSION reactors on Mars. But lots of people are thinking MSR, or traditional reactors. Well you're not wrong, but I suspect you might be thinking on too large a scale. Kilopower is a project of 1-10KW nuclear reactors, essentially a single core of U-235 with a sodium coolant, which is transferring heat to several stirling engines. The reactor will largely be self-regulating except for startup, shutdown, and major power changes. But the really interesting part is that instead of a control rod, they're moving the radial neutron reflector up and down.

[@PigletCNC]

They are moving the deflector up and down? Like a control rod?

[@thundercactus]

PigletCNC according to what I've read, yes

[@h.plovecat4307]

If there's wind strong enough to create any kind of cyclone, and we can make it out of the right material, the answer is simply yes.

[@deep_dive6699]

The big issue with using nuclear on Mars is the heat sink. The atmosphere is very thin so you end up using a radiator which is not that much smaller than a solar panel. NASA's weight estimation for an energy source for an atmosphere to fuel plant were only 20% lower for a kilopower reactor than for a solar plant.

[@rubenayla]

hmm could the solar panels be on the blade of the wind turbine? for the dust not accumulating...

[@PettyClips]

Hey Scott, love your videos as always. I'm curious how the energy density compares between solar and wind? Namely, on a per pound basis (for the purpose of getting the equipment to Mars in the first place) which produces more kilowatt hours?

[@whykhr]

Solar PV requires 84X more mined material per twh generated in one year than conventional nuclear. Wind requires 11X more mined material per twh generated in one year. Nuclear lasts 60-100yrs. Wind 8-20yrs. Solar 15-25yrs.

[@tarnvedra9952]

Wind turbines on Earth actually cut off during strong winds so they don´t fly apart. Not sure if this applies also on Mars.

[@awordabout...3061]

Perhaps I'm missing the point or something obvious, but wouldn't the blades of a wind turbine rapidly be abraded by the particulate matter in the martian atmosphere? I know the wind speeds are lower, but still, throwing lots of dust and dirt at a turbine must do some damage over time?

[@trendhouse6799]

If there was a colony on Mars, I doubt anyone would even consider using any other energy source than nuclear. Solar and wind has such hype right now, that people don't know how problematic these energy sources are.

[@ashsilverwizard3275]

The bigger issue would be how long it takes to pay off the initial energy needed to produce them, relative to the lifespan.

[@bazzmond]

I think a good wind turbine blade on mars would be sails, like sailing boat sails, made of the thin parachute material so its very low mass

[@proved5356]

A bit of topic but what's your thoughts on the SS-520−5 launch on 3rd of February?

[@an_on5252]

I suppose that why we use solar power instead of wind on mars may partially be due to that requiring more batteries, as you're making power primarily when you're not working rather than making while you are

[@DavidNagy03ER]

You are one of my favorite ksp youtubersBut I need to askAre you going to continue Galileo conquest?If so, OhioBob on the forums has created an expansion to the Ciro system that adds planets around the star grannusThe mod is in full gpp style so I highly recommend it for Galileo conquest

[@evelynx4374]

I do love it when someone is wrong about someone else being wrong.

[@CheffBryan]

So if you're building a base on the surface of Mars, would you bring the turbine blades with you, or would you manufacture those, first?

[@qqq1701]

Are the vertical wind turbines for Mars use accurate? I've seen them in at least a couple other games set on Mars. Do they just look different and neat or are they better suited for the Martian environment?

[@p0tat098]

What a martian wind turbine really needs is to be light weight and large surface area.

[@richardtowers6948]

I wouldn't want to rely on a big glass dome for my survival, surrounded by a near vacuum and exposed to all the incoming dangers of the Martian surface. How about building underground instead, perhaps in existing cave systems? Secure them with some kind of expanding structural foam then use large cheap reflectors (maybe a space blanket like material) to condense and pipe natural light in, perhaps through quartz windows. That naturally filters out UV and other unsafe radiation and illuminates an environment that is insulated from the cold, dust storms, radiation, meteor strikes and all the other surface hazards. You could collect enough light to match earth levels for the crop area and direct natural light on the fly with mirrors to where it's needed. It can be tuned to warm the space as well with very little additional active heating or cooling then required. With only the cheap, stowable, low tech collectors exposed to the hazardous Martian exterior, more valuable photo-voltaic assets can be used from within the safety of the protected habitable area and light can also be condensed to get the maximum benefit from them.

[@joldsaway3489]

Interesting. I never even considered this as a possibility. When you really think about it, it’s possible that wind power could actually be cheaper than solar panels given the lower complexity of the design. I imagine the materials could be lighter as well.

[@re11wind]

as others have said, the real problem with wind turbines is keeping the dust out of the electric generator and electronics. If the environment proves to be too hostile and too difficult for traditional wind turbines, then airborne or kite wind turbines are an alternative.

[@TacticalBacon1235]

Scott have you ever thought about writing a sci-fi novel?

[@mmmcake44]

Hey Scott, quick unrelated question, I did some searching but came up empty. There is such an immense ammount of mass/energy being thrown onto a launch pad during a rocket launch, has anyone ever tried to utilize any of that energy? I know the rockets themselves can process some of it into electricity, but what about the station itself? If such an immense amout of thrust is required to get a payload into space(and so much of it is used during inital ascent), could some of that be fed into an engine, turbine, or capture of the gasses themselves? I know it wouldn't be massive amounts of energy, but with space X reusing rockets to decrease the cost, I would think that the energy released during launch could at least lower the bottom line a bit. Maybe even a short range tether of some sort to caputre the energy for a decent amount of distance. Just curious on the feasibility of this, if it's been attempted, and if the cost to create sucha mechanism would even be offset by the energy production it caused. Thanks Scott. And thanks to the other KZbin commenters if you can provide any insight!

[@Ilamarea]

My guess is rocket launches are too infrequent to even consider it. Even with daily launches it might not be worth it.

[@Knightfang1]

The launch pad is only exposed to the rockets exhaust pressures for around 3 to 5 seconds at liftoff so i doubt you could get very much out of a system like that

[@jasa_m7990]

You are essentially proposing a rocket fuel powered generator and not a very efficient one. The energy consumed for electricity gen would be taken away from the launch making it worse. Thermodynamics

[@seraphina985]

+jasa_m Exactly if you had rocket fuel going spare to do that you would be far better off building yourself a simple CCNG plant to make use of it instead.

[@PigletCNC]

From the paper on the wind turbines on mars: "A difficulty is that data from the NASA viking and Pathfinder probes showed that the planet's ordinary surface winds do not blow strongly enough to drive wind turbines. But those missions did not visit the planet during a dust storm. Computer models and wind tunnel tests show that dust storms are accompanied by extremely high winds that would be strong enough to drive wind turbines, even at the speed needed in the thin Mars atmosphere." Therefore, wind turbines are only really viable during the dust storms, which happen on average once every three solar years.

[@PigletCNC]

Earth years of course, lol... Once every three orbits around the milky way would be beyond crazy.

[@RL112871]

The problem of gravity needs to be addressed and solved before any human leaves this planet and never return. There is no way around it.

[@AAntichrisTT]

It's interesting you saying that the materials used to build say a wind turbine on Mars wouldn't have to be as strong and durable as those used on Earth. Would this mean some strong plastics could be used in place of say steel or titanium? And therefor a possibliity of using 3d printers as fabricators for small structures making construction relatively easy and low cost?

[@HankusSpankus]

Super conductors could be used to lift a counterweight in an electromagnetic gravity/wind turbine , by taking advantage of the Martian cold . Taken further in space the cold could be used in a propulsion system with levitated magnetic counter weights adding a kinetic kick to a repulsive magnetic field all powered by Thermistors and nuclear fuel for heat for the electro magnetic control .

[@ericcsuf]

Anybody know where I can find out more info on the cylindrical wind turbines shown in the animation in this video. Many years ago NASA was experimenting with a loop shaped wind turbine blade, but I can't find anything with google yet.

[@chrismusix5669]

They're sending a mini-helicopter drone to Mars I read.

[@DamianReloaded]

I wonder if somehow hanging a metal cable all the way from the top of a mountain to "sea" level on mars could produce electricity by some mechanism (static, atmospheric charge, etc)? EDIT: Like a triboelectric effect from dust storms or a sort of electrostatic induction of some kind...

[@iaago1520]

normal martian winds don't even have enough power to push a feather

[@warren286]

Wind and solar is way too inefficient. Nuclear would be better. Though cooling the reactors may be problematic with no bodies of water or such a thin atmosphere. I imagine they would require huge radiators.

[@gusbisbal9803]

So while it "works" your making out that getting 1kWh out of it a month can be called works. You never worked out how big the blades would have to be to equal what size solar panels. This a vital element of this discussion.

[@zurviver_3747]

Or a mass comparison for first gen missions

[@coastersplus]

To be fair, you can put solar panels on roofs. Even on Earth, those don't generally power buildings fully (although they're not made to, and could probably still be expanded) but it's a slightly more efficient use of space.

[@geoff7936]

Yeah, I'm with you. Even though wind speeds may be comparable to earth's, and even though the molecular weight of CO2 is double that of air's, the martian atmospheric density just isn't enough. There are too few particles impacting the blades to make it viable in any way.

[@Basement-Science]

Mars has plenty of iron ore, so making the steel parts for wind turbines should be comparably easy.

[@Anvilshock]

Also: you're*

[@didotb01]

scott why does rockets spew out white smoke during fueling? I always think that's evaporated fuel and I think about all the loss...

[@scottmanley]

It is evaporated fuel and oxidizer, it's hard to keep it cold and it'll generate vapour which needs to be released.

[@chrrmin1979]

I didn't know there were dust Devils on Mars! That's awesome

[@BenPearson_kd7uiy]

Remember that there are ways to generate solar power that isn't photovoltaics. Using mirrors to heat a pipe and run a turbine is entirely possible.

[@allamasadi7970]

I think RTG generators would be good for Mars.

[@Teekles]

So when Space-X launched the most recent Falcon 9, with Govsat-1...why did the speed decrease after the stage two shutoff occurred (before the satellite was separated)? I don't think it would be drag at 60,000km but it also doesn't make sense to me why they would reach a high speed then slowdown before separation...anyone?

[@77gravity]

If you want to use a wind turbine, forget the VAWT version (Vertical Axis). Not efficient. The more common 3-bladed propellor type are far more efficient.

[@MarcoRoepers]

Cody imitated in his vacuum chamber in his lab the Marsian air pressure. A fan could not move a feather in those condition (How strong is the wind on Mars is video called on Cody'slab). That makes it hard to believe windturbines could be of any use on Mars, despite all calculations.

[@mimas3346]

Scott didn't do the calculations correctly. The windmill formula is P = (1/2) x A x D x V^3 x Cp, where P = power in watts, A = swept area of the windmill blades, D = density of the air in kg per m^3, V = velocity of the wind in m/s and Cp is an efficiency coefficient (typically .30-.45. Earth's atmospheric density at sea level is 1.217 kg/m^3, and Mars' atmospheric density is ~0.020 kg/m^3. Hold everything else aside from density constant, and you'll see that a windmill will produce 1.217/0.020 =~60.8 times more power on Earth than it will on Mars. Scott also got the Martian average wind speed wrong. The Viking 2 lander recorded an average Martian annual wind speed of 4.3 m/s, not 10 m/s. The median annual wind speed it recorded was 3.3 m/s. If the largest windmill built so far here on Earth, whose diameter is 180 meters and whose swept area is ~25,500 m^2, were placed where Viking 2 recorded its data, for ~70% of the Martian year it would generate 10 kW or less, and for 50% of the year, it would produce ~4.4 kW or less. 4.4 kW is about enough power to run two hair dryers. That's not a lot of power to generate from a windmill as big as a skyscraper.

[@shappo]

Don't think so. For equivalent wind speeds and working areas the only variable is density. Mars: .02 kg/m3 Earth: 1.225 kg/m3 So roughly 1/60th the energy in martian wind. Maybe you could design a turbine with a huge surface area but then the high variability (dust storms) would become a real issue. nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/marsfact.html

[@chemicaldruid4591]

how about the durability of such devices during martian sandstorms? even with lower atmosphere pressure, the sand itself is still likely to worn out those wind turbines, innit?

[@Frrk]

Mars bars had an advertising campaign with the slogan "Mars, geeft je energie!" (Mars, gives you energy) so I had an idea for a nice joke but apparently it was never a thing in the English world.

[@VS24AT]

Is the wind chill factored in ?

[@Feiora]

I'd take the nuclear option, it beats having the heavy maintenance of solar power and wind turbines and can run 24/7 if you dont fuck around with the reactors, and unlike Chernobyl there will be no need to worry about environmental damage or fallout effects if you do fuck around too much and the reactor explodes! ^.^ TBH though, I think a Fusion reactor would be the safer bet, though its got a high fuel consumption...

[@chabis]

Pioneers always have to be good at low-tech-solutions. No matter where they go. And wind power is one of the oldest energy harvesting methods used on earth, after all.

[@Marmocet]

In case you like numbers, here are some back of the envelope figures that should give you a feel for why Mars colonies won't be relying on wind power: Martian atmosphere surface density: ~0.020 kg/m3 Wind speeds: 2-7 m/s (summer), 5-10 m/s (fall), 17-30 m/s (dust storm) (Viking Lander sites) Assume a very large windmill with a rotor diameter of 150 meters and a very generous power coefficient of .35. What will typical power output ranges for our windmill on mars be? Power(Watts) = .5 * air density (kg/m^3) * Area * velocity^3 * power coefficient Plugging in the numbers: .5*.02*17671*[2^3, 7^3, 5^3, 10^3, 17^3, 30^3]*.35 That yields the following typical power output values: Summer: ~.49kW-~21kW Autumn: ~7.7kW-~62kW Dust Storm: ~304kW-~1.67MW These figures are likely to be overestimates; the power coefficient varies with wind speed and drops off quickly above and below an optimal wind speed. Windmills also tend not to operate at low (e.g., 25 m/s) wind speeds (in the other direction, wind speeds will be higher hundreds of meters from the surface). Windmills with rotor diameters of 150m are massive installations. I don't know exactly how much one this large would weigh (one built for Mars could probably be designed lighter than its Earth-bound counterparts) but a GE windmill half this size clocks in at 164 tons (56 tons for the nacelle, 36 tons for the blade assembly and 71 tons for the tower). Hauling windmills to Mars would entail transporting tremendous mass in order to install an electric power generation technology that typically produces modest levels of power and sometimes produces none at all. Mars is not the kind of place where routine power outages are desireable. A Mars colony will depend on nuclear power. NASA is pretty clear about this. There already exist designs for nuclear reactors weighing 1-2 tonnes (including the mass of several decades' worth of fuel) that would steadily produce power in the megawatt range. Ones that can be set up quickly have existed since the 1960s (see Operation Iceworm, for example).

[@beamboy14526]

Windmills could be constructed in-situ. No need to haul them all the way from earth.

[@Marmocet]

Ok, then all you need to bring with you from Earth is the industrial infrastructure needed mine and refine all the raw materials (like iron and rare earths) windmills are made out of, as well as all the equipment you'll need to turn those raw materials into windmills. Don't forget, all that mining and refining is massively energy intensive, so you're going to have to find that energy - although presumably, once you solve that problem, you could just dispense with the windmills.

[@uncleelias]

That's a lot of metal being refined wound into coils

[@uncleelias]

I wonder why Scott chose to show NASA research on windmills operating in extreme cold rather than research of windmills operating in low density atmosphere.

[@Marmocet]

Uncle Elias - I don't know why he fixated on the cold, but the low density atmosphere greatly reduces windmills' power output. Earth's atmospheric density at sea level at the planet's mean temperature of 15 c is ~1.23 kg/m^3. On Mars (according to NASA) the mean atmospheric density is 0.02 kg/m^3. For any given wind velocity, a windmill on Earth would generate 61.5 times more power than it would on Mars.

[@billtreusch]

Wow..surprising results