Apr 22, 17 / Gem 00, 01 22:10 UTC

#### Energy?   ¶

How will us asgardians, get the energy that we use on a daily basis. (after we have settled in space) and how will/ what will make/get our energy from? For example, Wind, Solar, or water power?

Apr 23, 17 / Gem 01, 01 04:23 UTC

Hey @bobtheslob...personally, I think we'll be getting a lot of energy from solar panel systems. There's some great topics I keep watching on EM drive power, and possible fusion power. We'll have to see where that goes.

[MOD] question, though...I'm curious how this topic fits into the 'Ministry of Justice -- Constitution' category? Let me know if we could move it to an area in the sciences? There's quite a few topics already there regarding energy, power, propulsion.

Thanks, Leo

Apr 23, 17 / Gem 01, 01 11:56 UTC

There's no wind in space, well, not the kind you are used to on Earth. And water either freezes in the depths of space, or evaporate in the Sun.

Solar power is the most intuitive source of energy, since the base could be made to have an orbit free from Earth's shadow (such as a Lagrangian point), and there's no clouds in space so sunlight there is constant.

May 23, 17 / Can 03, 01 17:50 UTC

From physical vacuum. The physical vacuum exists in all points of the University and can be used for generation of energy. The density of vacuum energy exceeds the energy of Sun billion of billions times. And mechanical traction could be also generated with the help of vacuum.

Jun 12, 17 / Can 23, 01 00:48 UTC

My question is if the fuel cell reaction is possible at high temperature 800+ degrees C? If yes we could use temperature(that is a problem in space) to generate energy. The second question if electrolisis is higher efficient with with water at high temperature 200-300 degrees C? If i'm right at high temperature the effeciency of electrolisis can be higher than 1(for electricity)? let's say 2H2O + e + t1 = 4 H + 2 O  than we will have a tempreture to power pump.

Last edited by:  Victor Kuryshev (Asgardian, Candidate)  on Jun 12, 17 / Can 23, 01 00:48 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Jul 24, 17 / Vir 09, 01 03:37 UTC

Our energy can come from any number of things. All ranging from solar power to every move we make such as stepping. It may only create a small amount of power but if that power was stored up along with solar, bio, and even nuclear forms of power, the stations power would rise over time and eventually generate enough power to run everything. Never think of just one way to do something when there are many ways to do so.

Nov 14, 17 / Sag 10, 01 16:55 UTC

Solar energy at the earth sun distance in space is some 1400 watts per square meter. We currently can harvest only a fraction of this with current technology (some 20% or so). Even so, large arrays and concentrators can be made to intensify this light, and prism like lensing can move more of the light to a useful frequency to solar cells. Concentrators can also be used to heat a liquid (water and some low melting point metals and other liquids like ammonia) and this can be used for running turbines. There are a lot of choices in design, and many should be tested and shaken out for viability.

Nov 24, 17 / Sag 20, 01 22:49 UTC

• Whilst solar power is arguably the cleanest source in space, powering large stations wouldn't be feasible without having solar farms twice as large.

I think a more viable option would be nuclear fission, it is a clean source of power that produces heat; which is something we need on a space station.
It is not dependent on uncontrollable conditions (such as the wind or the time of day).

Cons:
- Costly
- Non-renewable
- Needs to be large to be efficient
Might be renewable due to the by product of plutonium, which itself is also fissionable
Pros:
- Creates a great amount of power
- Generates heat, (heat is good in the coldness of space)

In conclusion. The technology is young and controversial, but to lift our feet off the ground, nuclear fission, might be the way forward.

Nov 25, 17 / Sag 21, 01 17:23 UTC

I guess a steam-engine could work in space.

Grtz, Dirk.

Nov 25, 17 / Sag 21, 01 17:50 UTC

Using a steam engine wouldn't be a good idea.

A steam engine is used by inputting high pressured steam into a piston and generating kinetic energy, I feel your proposal to use a steam engine would be based on the idea of then having that kinetic energy be converted into electrical via turbine.
By the time you have the high pressured steam you would be better off just using the heat source for the steam as a power source itself. There is also the problem of the plenum exhaust, lubrication requirements, doing all of this in space and other reasons why we no longer use this technology.

Dec 3, 17 / Cap 01, 01 04:43 UTC

Cosmic energy. Neutrino is the closest candidate.

Dec 8, 17 / Cap 06, 01 17:54 UTC

J'ai une idée d'une centrale électrique à vide

Dec 8, 17 / Cap 06, 01 18:43 UTC

Welcome lionel45,

I was wondering something in that way. Would an electric motor work in space?
If so there could be build plain factory's in space and the workers could be robots.

Grtz, Dirk.

Dec 12, 17 / Cap 10, 01 18:54 UTC

Земля имеет мощные радиационные пояса, в которых, вероятно, не стоит размещать пилотируемой станции.Но может использовать энергию этих рек элементарных частиц  концентрируя их  с помощью  огромных зеряженых сетей (электростатические линзы) .Еще это может быть сделано с солнечным ветром.И с радиационными поясами юпитера-а то и солнца.В дополнение, особенно возле солнца-число атомов в возбужденном состоянии очень велико отсюда идея солнечного лазера с  короной солнца в качестве рабочего тела и отражателя --- что-то вроде  нескольких зеркал из металлизированной пленки.

Earth has a powerful radiation belts, in which, probably, do not place a manned station.But can use the energy of these rivers elementary particles and concentrating them with a huge ceragenix networks (electrostatic lens) .Even this can be done with the solar wind.And radiation belts of Jupiter and the sun.In addition, especially near the sun number of atoms in the excited state is very large hence the idea of solar laser solar corona as a working body and reflector --- like several mirrors from metallic film.

Last edited by:  Rem Krivonos (Asgardian)  on Dec 14, 17 / Cap 12, 01 15:53 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Jan 20, 18 / Aqu 20, 02 11:56 UTC

I am in favor of energy issues. This is also a matter that puzzles us for so long. If a civilization wants to enter the interstellar space for energy use, it must also reach the corresponding level. I personally think that is more optimistic about nuclear energy. Although we may talk about nuclear discoloration, it is undeniable that he is the most likely and most efficient energy source of this era. The second is to solve the motive force problem. Although we can use nuclear energy, it is indeed very backward in terms of power. The efficiency of launching into space through rocket launches is very low and highly successful. With an efficient means of transportation, the time we enter the Star Trek era will be greatly reduced. Key 1 How to Solve the Stability of Nuclear Energy in Space Key 2 How to Solve the Efficient Way of Transportation Key 3 How to Solve the Ecosystem Simulation Problem in Space

[mod edit]

This post has been translated using *Google Translate*.  Please keep this in mind that this forum uses *English* as a base language at this moment, however you are able to use your native language in the *Regional Forums* that applies to you.

Last edited by:  Cpt Lorca (Asgardian)  on Jan 28, 18 / Pis 00, 02 01:29 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time